Critics towards Ellen White (2)

PAGES:

1, 3;

Please, read 'page 1' before this page!

ANTI-BIBLICAL:

I wouldn't add in this section what i already added on other parts of this article (PAGE 1).

For example, she said:

"God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. Everything had been destroyed upon which man could subsist, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark. But animal food was not the most healthful article of food for man."

However, Genesis 4 proves her wrong. And, also, animal food is the most healthful article of food for man. But i addressed that in the "PAGE 1" on the topic about her [un]healthy reform.

I'm going to address things i see as anti-biblical from her, but also things that is from my belief. So, maybe not everything here is anti-biblical, but considering things here as true, it would also render as anti-biblical if she is wrong and consider it a revelation from God (since i'm not saying my beliefs are a revelation from God).

When i first had contact with Adventists concept, i noticed they have a very "dry" view of spirituality, it even look as "dry" as the view atheists have of reality. It is like they have eyes and can't see, because, there are lot of spiritual phenomenon that happens daily in front of us, but they have to disregard all that for their concepts made by men.

Can't they perceive the spirit inside them? That this spirit is not their body? How can't they see this from mere experience?

And on this, i also noticed how they are strangely attached to the wordily things.

Let's start with Colossians 2:

Verse 16:

"Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a feast, a New Moon, or a Sabbath".

Verses 20-23:

"If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh".

"Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain. I beg you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong".

- Galatians 4:8-12

In these verses we can see that all restrictions Ellen gave to us, like, vegetarianism, is a false-appearance of wisdom, especially with all the SCIENTIFIC sources i gave that in fact, humans are essentially carnivores, they are more carnivores than omnivores.

The same for her stupid Dress Reform.

Slaving people to those weak and worthless principles like the pagans of the past.

Caring about the rigidity of the creation, like pagans, instead of the creator.

I also think these points are valid: criticism of the Investigative Judgement, and if right, then Ellen would be anti-biblical for considering her revelations from God (and not mere belief):

Different view of the Atonement

Protestant Christianity has traditionally taught that Jesus Christ performed his work of atonement on the Cross, and that his sacrificial death brought to fulfillment the entire Old Testament sacrificial system, including the Day of Atonement. The idea that the Day of Atonement does not meet its antitype until 18 centuries after Jesus' crucifixion is a deviation from historic Christian theology.

Although i believe in "faith without work is dead", i also see as valid this criticism:

Faith vs. works

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment seems to give works an undue place in salvation. On a strict reading of Ellen G. White, a Christian might be disqualified from salvation by failing to repent of every single sin. This seems to contradict the Reformation understanding of "salvation by grace through faith alone".

"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life".

- Ephesians 2:8-10

"When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross!"

- Colossians 2:13-14

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life".

- John 3:16

"Calling for lights, the jailer rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and all his household were baptized. Then he brought them into his home and set a meal before them. So he and all his household rejoiced that they had come to believe in God".

- Acts 16:29-34

But what i truly believe is that Ellen (subconsciously or not) made this concept from this:

Questionable origins

Critics have drawn attention to the fact that the sanctuary doctrine did not initially arise from biblical exegesis, but as a response to William Miller’s 1844 mistake. Donald Barnhouse denounced the doctrine as "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history". Likewise, religion scholar Anthony Hoekema stated that the doctrine was "simply a way out of an embarrassing predicament" and therefore "a doctrine built on a mistake". It has been pointed out that the doctrine was rejected by Miller himself.

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high".

- Hebrews 1:3

"We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek".

- Hebrews 6:19-20

Which, in reference to Melchizedek, means, it is the veil the SDA said he didn't went until 1844.

By having "sat down", that means the work as done, it is a reference of "resting".

The work is DONE! and she is wrong! There is no Investigative Judgement.

"He did not enter by the blood of goats and calves, but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, thus securing eternal redemption".

- Hebrews 9:12

Come on!

"Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God".

- Hebrews 10:11-12

Here we can see that sitting is referenced as "work done" and it was done "for all time".

Ellen also believes it is possible to be sinless:

http://advindicate.com/articles/2021/9/2/justification-and-perfection-aembc-l9bng-h3pls-8wb32-te4k3-6epdj-ms96e-kzs7l-s6mja-bjpej-3e5bx-ff8gk-cyj2a-hcgpw-etr9x-kapgl

https://www.gotquestions.org/sinless-perfection.html

I think everybody is constantly sinning by our human nature, there is no way to be sinless, even the ones that stop major sins, like, sexual immorality, are still going to sin from arrogance, sense of perfection, stubbornness, lack of proper control of aggressiveness, lack of emotional control, illogical mistakes from the impossible complexity of being right in everything (like God, and so, lying and being wrong).

Ellen that professed such thing about "sinlessness" still sinned by her violent attack on meat eaters, and she got wrong, she had no science and knowledge at her time, and time passed and now we know that meat-eating is the right diet for humans, i doubt very much someone can debunk all the scientific facts i posted and all the numerous studies that proves it. She lied in saying that only after the flood people could eat meat, when in Genesis 4 we see that Abel messed up with livestock and killed from his flock and butchered the animal to get his fat to offer to God, that supposedly hates it (from Ellen's mouth).

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us".

- 1 John 1:8

The way Adventists try to defend themselves from that verse is by comparing the word "say" to Job 9:20-21:

"Even if I were righteous, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would declare me guilty. Though I am blameless, I have no concern for myself;I despise my own life".

Again, don't i keep telling that Adventists needs to cherry-pick and have their "gotcha moment" after ignoring thousands of messages and then looking up for a comma or single word?

Let me break down this, if i'm a kid and i do a bad thing and i get to my brother and say "if you say something to our mom, i'm going to slap you", and then my brother shows to my mom and say "ha, i have not said, i have showed", i would still slap him, it is very obvious what i meant... That is the mentality of the Adventist.

The Adventists can't understand that you can say internally that you have no sin, and the truth is not in you. It is not far from the concept "i have not committed adultery", and then Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:27-28.

Why wouldn't be different? "You have heard that it was said, 'if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves'. But I tell you that anyone who thinks that they have no sin, has already said that they have not committed sin in their thoughts".

They can't notice how arrogant it is to go around the world thinking "i have no sin, i just wont tell, i'm saint and sinless". Then comes near a sinful person and thinks himself, "it is good that i have no sin, at least i'm not like this person, i'm going to be saved", knowing God have no favoritism.

The ones that says to himself that he have no sin, deceives himself and the truth is not on him. The ones that says to himself that he have no sin, thinks the job is done, and by not having the perfect eyes of God, lot of his sins will be hidden under this one arrogant assumption.

Lot of times i though i was not sinning (not that i'm sinless; take that in mind, as Adventists also confuse not sinning with sinless), until i got emotional by the forces of the Holy Spirit, and God showed i was being arrogant, violent, bad to people, that i failed something. If i had said to myself "i have no sin", i wouldn't have perceived this. And the Adventists that are humble enough to perceive this, get in a loop of paranoia and worry, thinking they aren't going to be saved. Like God is a robot, even if they were their own fathers themselves, they would save themselves.

Also, Adventists fails on their own example, they cherry-picked the "my mouth would condemn me", and have totally ignored the "even if I were righteous", take note the word "if", because, even if they try to use the verse 21, they ignore the context of this chapter, because in verse 2 is written: "Yes, I know that it is so, but how can a mortal be righteous before God?". So if i cherry-pick like they do, they would be wrong in their own example.

However, considering that Job is about a permission of God to Satan to annoy him (chapter 1). We can see here that Job is not talking about being right or the possibility of that, but, that this doesn't matter, because, if God wants to test him, he will, regardless of his righteousness. And so, Adventists takes these verses by cherry-picking and totally out of context.

And it says about "blameless" and not "sinless", which are two different words.

This is explained here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Job-blameless-upright.html

For example, a baby can defecate on his pants, and a kid knows that defecating on his pants is bad, but did anyway.

Let's say that the act of defecating on the pants is a sin.

The baby, even by committing such sin, is still "blameless", since the baby is innocent and knows nothing. No parent will be mad that his baby is defecating on his diaper!

However, when the kid defecates on his pants, the parent will be "for real?! Have i not taught you to use the bathroom? Aren't you too old to do that?", and then, the kid is not "blameless" like the baby, even if both committed the "sin" of defecating in their pants.

I can support this with this verse:

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin." - John 15:22

If the baby does not know that is bad to defecate on his pant, he is blameless. However, the kid knows that, so he is guilty.

When God sees Job as blameless, it doesn't mean that he is sinless. But, that, by what Job does, he is blameless, there is no reason for God to be mad at him, regardless of his sins. Job seems to be a humble man, happy with his life and kids, doing the God's wills and bla bla. God wouldn't be angry to Job because he commits small sins from ignorance and innocence one moment or another. Since God knows that if Job makes a mistake, a sin, he is blameless, he have not made it to defy God or something, it is a honest mistake.

If someone says "get me a cup of water", and i drop the cup and it breaks, people aren't going to be like "oh nooo, don't you know that people that drops a cup of water are punished?", people are going to be like "oh, that is unfortunate, but, accident happens, right?! It is not like you are throwing cups at the floor for the sake of it!"

And that is how i see the idea of "blameless", Job very likely sinned one moment or another, but he was innocent and devoted to God, his sins were ignored by God because it was not done with the intention to sin, he was blameless.

This is one of my critics towards certain Christians and also pagans, they treat God like a robot.

"Oh no, you committed sin number 6 - beep bop - no salvation for you!"

If God is conscious, merciful and intelligent, he can understand your heart and intentions, and even if you sin, he can spare you. That is not an excuse to sin, as it was not made WILLINGLY! I believe that because God knows us and our heart, he can see that we felt bad about sinning, that we felt that what we did was wrong, we regretted.

Ellen seems to fail in that too, she have a restrictive norm of conduct that makes me think she treats God like an automaton.

And lastly, may God forgive me if i'm wrong, but the book of Job was written by an anonymous person and the entire book looks like a parable.

It is disputed if Job was a real person:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(biblical_figure)#Job_in_Judaism

NOTE: In my position of naivety of the study and the terms of that, i wont declare any stance in such matter.

There is even a biblical confirmation that blameless is not sinless:

"The righteous lead blameless lives; blessed are their children after them."

- Proverbs 20:7

Here we can see that in Proverbs it talks about people that are righteous and blameless.

And in the SAME chapter:

"Who can say, “I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin”?"

- Proverbs 20:9

So, in one verse we can see that someone can be righteous and blameless, and two verses later a rhetorical question that shows nobody can say "I'm clean and without sin".

The link i showed says:

"The Bible, by contrast, is clear that while sinless obedience is most assuredly achievable through heaven’s power on this earth".

I love that some Adventists i talked with said that other denominations and people always takes bits of verses and takes it all of context, but this link proves it is otherwise.

And uses as example:

• "Be angry, yet do not sin; on your bed, search your heart and be still. Selah" - Psalm 4:4

This does not mean you are sinless, but asks you to avoid sinning when under a emotional pressure (anger). Another Adventist cherry-picking, "omg, i saw the word 'not' and the word 'sin', see how correct Ellen is?"

• I don't need to address what i explained about "blameless" when they cite Psalm 119:1.
• Zeph. 3:13 also does not means "sinless", but it is more about how God punished the faithlessness and defilement. That is the "wrong" that they would not do anymore, and since their priests were faithless and profane, they were very likely lying too. It even says "no longer", because in the context, it is talking about certain wrongs the people were doing, and not about all wrongs.

Let me give an example. A stupid kid saw a candy over a table, a candy that he very well know he shouldn't steal, but he does anyway. His father sees it and slaps his hand and says "how dare you?! Ask forgiveness to the person you stole and don't do what is wrong anymore!". If you consider the context that the kid stole the candy, you know that when the father says "don't do what is wrong anymore" does not mean that the kid wont do anything that is wrong, but that he is not going to steal candy anymore.

• Romans 8:4, the word is "righteous" and also, it doesn't refer to "sinlessness", but that they ask for them to be righteous and walk according to the spirit. That doesn't mean they can't have a constancy in righteousness and in their walk. However, as i explained in my explanation about Job and blamelessness, i don't think you need to be sinless to be righteous and walk in accord to the spirit.
• 1 Corinthians 15:34, same explanation i gave to Psalm 4:4. It is for you to try to stop sinning, that doesn't mean you are going to fully stop. The same for 2 Corinthians 7:11,
• 1 Peter 2:22, following someone step doesn't mean you are going to follow it perfectly without stumbling. Just like an martial art teacher is going to ask you to "do this crazy kick just like i do", however, you very likely wont do perfectly as your teacher did.
• 1 Peter 4:1, i see in this verse two things. 1) if you suffer because someone persecutes you, you are done with your sin, not forever, not sinless, but a sin (or maybe sins) in specific. 2) In fact that is dangerous for Ellen's view of the Investigative Judgement, since what implies here is not that someone is sinless, but that Christ did nailed our sins to the cross, because it implies that the suffering in our body cleans the sins (and not that it will make us sinless; Christ doesn't count, since he was sinless to begin with, so he died for our sins).
• II Peter 3:10-14, a verse says: "You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness as you anticipate and hasten the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be destroyed by fire and the elements will melt in the heat", and not about being sinless, but that you should seek holiness and godliness, which i agree. Even if we sin, we should try not to sin and to be the best we can.
• 1 John 1:7,9, this does not mean being sinless, but about walking in the right path.

I can use my life as example of that, since i walked with bad people and in bad environments and i ended up using harsh drugs. Even if i still sin, i'm now walking in the path of life, i don't want to get back in such places.

This is empathized by the context, since a verse before says: "if we say we have fellowship with Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth", here we can see, that the words walk in can be connected to do not practice, that means it is not about being sinless, but that, if i kept walking with thugs and drugged people, i would not be practicing the truth.

The "walk", "path" and things like that that are said in the bible is not about being sinless, but about a path your take to godliness. And you may stumble in this path, but you know in your heart and mind, that, you don't want to keep on the path of drugs and thugs.

It remembers me this verse too: "Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them" - Ephesians 5:11. This is not about being sinless, but about not partaking with the acts of such kind. When i think about "darkness" i think about very specific people or acts. I think that should even be intuitive.

Verse 9 shows that we can clean our sins, not be sinless.

• 1 John 3:2, i have nothing to say about that in terms of what will happen when Jesus comes again. It does not means anything about being sinless until then.
• Jude 1:24, there is a lot to unpack here, yes Jesus can keep us from stumbling, and present us unblemished. But it also says "in his glorious presence", so i assume it is about how, even if we are not sinless, Jesus can make us unblemished with his glorious presence. About stumbling, i don't think it is about being sinless, but, let's say, i drink alcohol, i trust that Jesus can make me stop drinking (keep me from stumbling). I would have to elaborate more what i think about this verse, but summarizing, i think that is good enough.
• Revelation 3:21 and 14:5, the verse 14:5, i already talked about, the other one is also about submission to God, in my opinion. If we are to consider as overcoming the sins, this is the book of Revelation, and so, what i said about 1 John 3:2 applies here.

Ellen said:

"In choosing man's food in Eden, the Lord showed what was the best diet; in the choice made for Israel, He taught the same lesson. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and undertook their training, that they might be a people for His own possession. Through them He desired to bless and teach the world. He provided them with the food best adapted for this purpose, not flesh, but manna".

However, the Passover, by killing a lamb over and over again for years until Christ, was proclaimed by God and happened before the "manna event":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_sacrifice

It doesn't seem that God cared about it...

"And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it".

- Exodus 12:8

So not only it was a sacrifice, they also ate it...

And to prove further that this was the case and not mere Jewish tradition, even JESUS ate it:

"On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for YOU to eat the Passover?""

- Mark 14:12

Here we can see that they were eating it together:

"While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me”".

- Mark 14:18

People can claim the words "when it was customary", but there is two problems here:

1) Yes, it is not a custom anymore, that means nothing;

2) Jesus was with his disciples and had no reason to accept this custom, especially for the sake of men, and especially that Jesus had audacity to challenge Jewish traditions that made Jews themselves to attempt to stone him.

It is funny how she assumes things: "God gave manna, that proves he dislike meat, haha, take that meat eaters".

Also, nobody knows what is "manna"... So it is hard to define what this means. It seems to be a bread or oily-sweet-bread from heaven. But if you read Exodus and Numbers, you can see the problem is not meat, but the ungratefulness, manna was a God's test, and Israelite people craved not only meat, but also other foods (check the section "RADICALISM" where i elaborate this better).

1 Timothy 4:3 have translations where it says: "and commanding to abstain from meats". You can argue about the validity of the translation tough.

"Let me tell you that children are born to evil. Satan seems to have control of them. He takes possession of their young minds, and they are corrupted." - Ellen

"Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me".

- Matthew 18:2-5

When said "like little children", it is about children in general, even if he was using one child in specific as example. My belief is otherwise, i think children are amazing! That in fact, they are closer to God than most humans, merely by their innocence, they lack the regulations of humans and have spontaneity and a natural desire for seeking wisdom and knowledge. We can't use exceptions, like, psychopath kids, because, that is a pathology, and a direct brain problem, psychopathy is something you can observe with a MRI, and so, it is not a good example.

RADICALISM:

For someone that advocated for the cute animals and anti-violence, i noticed certain violent and radical aspects of Ellen. If i don't consider her visions the visions of God, i think there are transparencies of Ellen's personality that got mixed in her mystical experiences. I talk about that in these article:

https://telegra.ph/Voice-of-God-11-02

https://telegra.ph/Wisdom-Logic-and-Knowledge-as-a-must-for-sanity-check-of-spiritual-experiences-11-03

Ellen seems to treat God like a robot, i talked about that in the "anti-biblical" topic.

Even if i understand Ephesians 5:3-5, Ellen goes as far as saying:

"In speaking foolish words, you have dishonored the name of Christ".

Which seems pretty radical.

The link i sent talking about how Ellen believe on the "sinless" idea, there is lot of her radical approaches:

"He who has not sufficient faith in Christ to believe that He can keep him from sinning, has not the faith that will give him an entrance into the kingdom of God". - Ellen

It is funny how Ellen talks like Christ can make us sinless, however, she talks like Christ wouldn't be able to give us the required faith when we are to enter the kingdom of God. It is not like God is merciless and would punish us for something so silly like that: "oh, so you thought you couldn't be sinless? HELL TO YOU!". In my belief it is the opposite, i think Jesus will present an opportunity for everybody to recognize him as the savior and repent and then if even then they deny Christ and the repentance, they won't enter the Kingdom of God.

She truly reminds me my early spiritual experiences, in 2015 i wrote a document about "The Laws of God", and i could SWEAR it was from God, and it reminds me A LOT of how Ellen acts and talks. I ripped and burned these documents, but for a reason i forgot that i had scanned two pages (for sharing, but i never did), i still have it, i thought about deleting, but i think i'm going to show later (even if i said to myself that i wouldn't ever share it).

I said very harsh things, like, that because some sins some people deserved to die in horrible ways and things like that. And in fact, i never thought with such violence at that time about such sins, but i could swear these were "revelations of God", and "who am i to deny what God is saying to me right now?"

Since Ellen died and she sinned with her erroneous diet and erroneous attribution of it to the bible and she believes the "soul sleep" idea, i guess she was not saved and she is going to hell then, hahahaha! Oh no, Ellen! Do you really think you wouldn't be saved because of that? No no no, Ellen, i'm not like you, i believe Jesus can pardon our sins and that if we sin, even on the end of times, he is going to spare us... But your radicalism says otherwise. I heard Adventists that were in deep concern that they couldn't stop sinning and thinking they would die before stopping and wouldn't be saved, see how much worry you gave to those poor people? For real? Do you really treat God like a robot?

You said:

"Not one of those ten precepts can be broken without disloyalty to the God of heaven. The least deviation from its requirements, by neglect or willful transgression, is sin."

For real, so, when i prayed and made vows of loyalty to God, and then, i, don't know, lied, which is a sin, then, "oh no! I broke my loyalty!"

I feel in my heart that even God is laughing with me while i type this, hahaha!

For real, Ellen, i know exactly how you felt, i had mystical experiences alike yours... That is why i wont be violent to you like some brothers in Christ, i don't think they should be angry or mad at you.

But, dear Ellen, GOD IS NOT A ROBOT, we were made in his image! When we are not sinning, we aren't so far from God, both in body and in attitude!

Do you think that in the last second for salvation, my resurrected body being midway to heaven, and i do a small sin by mistake, and Jesus is like "ha, gotcha! No heaven for you, muahahah! You broke your loyalty!", for real?! Is that how you think God is?

"This is God's command, and no one should say, I can not do it".

Well, you couldn't, i guess you are in hell now then, as you have no other chance, since your are in a "soul sleep" state, lol... Seems like Mrs. Ellen have the authority to say what is God's command...

If God is our father, i can imagine how Ellen imagine a father to be like:

"Ewww, my daughter, you have not reached sanctification, GET OUT OF MY HOUSE! You don't love me!"

As you said:

"True sanctification is nothing more or less than to love God with all the heart". However, when i was kid and disobeyed my mom, that doesn't made me love her less.

I know we should SEEK sanctification and perfection, but if we fail on that, i believe God will perceive our good intention and won't be like "oh no! You failed, no heaven for you! You were a very very very good person all your life, but not perfect, i guess hell is your place now!" And sorry to say that Ellen, if that is the case, you are in hell!

"I saw that none could share the ‘refreshing’ (latter rain) unless they obtain the victory over every besetment, over pride, selfishness, love of the world, and over every wrong word and action."

Well, Ellen, you said lot of wrong words, and that shows how prideful and selfish you were, thinking you are some sort of "enlightened" person or whatever, what a shame, in your own words, and inside your "soul sleep" concept, you are done, God doesn't want you. Right?!

"Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin".

"Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of works? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law".

- Romans 3:20, 27-28

Once again, i do believe faith without work is dead, but Ellen seems radical at a point that she thinks that imperfection of work would condemn you. While even if you fail on your work, you can be saved by faith. I believe that even if you could not reach sanctification, "perfection" and etc... God would still save you, because "at least you tried", and because you had faith in God, you believe his existence and you did the things you have done for him, you tried it for him, you regretted your sins for him, you felt shame of your bad acts for him, you wanted to be like him for him!

It is up to debate when Adventists say that i'm saying that she says like she is being radical, however, i think hard to interpret her texts in another way, i just quoted part of the text, if you read the full text, is hard to think differently. And by judging the practice of some Adventists, especially the early Adventists, it seems like this lessening of her radicalism is something modern. And then, once again, seems like Adventists from time to time drifts more and more away from Ellen. Basically, Adventists are "eating themselves", the further Adventists have to avoid the mistakes of Ellen and early Adventists, the further away Adventists get from Adventists itself.

Now about her [un]healthy reform:

"The people who lived before the flood ate animal food and gratified their lusts until their cup of iniquity was full, and God cleansed the earth of its moral pollution by a flood." - Ellen

I doubt that God that delighted with the fat from a dead animal butchered by Abel in Genesis 4 would do that to people that ate food. Considering Sodom and Gomorrah, as i stated in "PAGE 1", it was very likely for sexual immorality and worse sins.

She really want to hate with violence (that supposedly meat eaters have) over meat eaters at a point to bend the bible and claim it is a message from God.

It seems very radical that God hated people so much for eating meat that this was the purpose of the flood.

"Those who had been most guilty in their murmurings were slain as soon as they tasted the meat for which they had lusted. If they had submitted to have the Lord select their food for them, and had been thankful and satisfied for food which they could eat freely of without injury, they would not have lost the favor of God, and then been punished for their rebellious murmurings by great numbers of them being slain." - Ellen

I can only laugh at that, she looks like those annoying vegan if vegans had to tell a story: "and then the evil trucker that was leading the pigs to the butcher suddenly lost his breaks and exploded and was burned alive and all the pigs were happy and began to sing". That is how i hear she talking.

"When God led the children of Israel out of Egypt, it was His purpose to establish them in the land of Canaan a pure, happy, healthy people." - Ellen

Hmm... You know what is healthy? MEAT!

And out of nowhere she drops Corinthians 10:6, very biblical of her, hahaha.

"Mimimimimi, me hate meat eaters, mimimimi, Corinthians 10:6!"

This entire Counsel of Diet from her is totally out of her mind, nothing biblical... SHE IS A NUT VEGETARIAN! Just like the blue-haired vegans we see on modern times! Nothing is new under the sun and she is a proof of that!

PAGE 3:

https://telegra.ph/Critics-towards-Ellen-White-3-11-05