| Author | Message | ||
     Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 987 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
If you haven't seen the DVDs and weren't at the conference (Ellen White Summit 2005) you may want to check out what the four speakers (George R. Knight, Craig Newborn, Jud Lake, and Jon Paulien) had to say November 11-12, 2005 in Gladstone, OR. http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com I have listened to most all of these and it is interesting. My impression so far is that these leaders want to keep calling Ellen White a prophet but want people to use her in a pastoral way. Many times they will say you have to understand the context of what was happening around her when she wrote something. Of course to do that you have to depend upon the White Estate but of course they don't say that last part. They are very much against the use of the idea of verbal inspiration of Ellen White and point out the folks from her time like A.T. Jones who taught that she was verbally inspired and through pretty much 1890's to 1950's the idea of verbal inspiration of Ellen white was the main church leaderships opinion. And that this time period is now used as the formation of the historic SDA's standard for what the SDA church should believe. The worst presentation is the one on Ellen White and her critics. He tried to point out the logical fallacies of the critics but really mainly points out his own fallacies. A big one he uses is the A priori fallacy he says that the critics use because they begin with the assumption that she is not a prophet. Yet for some reason his own fallacy and that of all the presentors that EGW is a prophet are not considered to be A priori fallacies. A Priori:- More fancy Latin words, literally meaning, "from that which comes before." In argument it is where a person, in an effort to prove a further point assumes the validity of some other point. This other point, it is asked, should be accepted as one that may yet be proven, or which the propounder advances as axiomatic. In other words, one is asked to accept something as knowledge without the benefit of any prior experience (empirical evidence), this knowledge, it is said, comes about a priori. This approach is often the only way to begin any argument, but should not be resorted to during the course of argument; further, one should always bear in mind, that the resolution to any argument, must, of necessity, be dependent on the "beginning assumptions." While there are some things in this world that simply must be accepted without proof as being axiomatic, an assumption or assumptions always weaken one's argument and should be eschewed as a bad practice. http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Argument.htm#Priori ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 994 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
The Ellen White Summit indeed has some interesting material. But there is a good deal of false information in there also. As time allows I will deal with some of the problems that come up. At least on my blog if not here http://cafesda.blogspot.com/ The first is from one of the lesser presenters at the summit. Here is what Jud says at about 34 minutes into his presentation on Ellen White and Inspiration (part 4): “Ellen White experienced numerous times the Prophetic model, dreams and visions. But some have taken this to an extreme, a number of the people in her day took this to an extreme and this is where the critics have made a big mistake. They’ve taken.. pushed this envelope I should say of this model. And gotten into what we discussed already, verbal dictation. Listen to Canright, remember who Canright is famed critic he wrote in his critical book on Ellen White I shared with you in my last presentation. Listen, every line she wrote he believed whether in articles letters testimonies or books she claimed and this is my bold she claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost and hence must be infallible. This I think contributed to his great fall or some say he more took the position when he turned against the Adventist church but either way this is what he is saying here, he saying she claimed this well I think it is already very clear she did not claim this. Dr. Newborn touched on this…” -- Jud Lake Professor of Preaching and Adventist Studies at he School of Religion, Southern Adventist University. “Ellen White and Inspiration” 2005 Ellen White Summit Gladstone Oregon Compare what Canright actually wrote as found in chapter 3 at: http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm “Her Writings All Inspired by the Holy Ghost Now read what Mrs. White claims for her writings. Defining her position, she says: "In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit" (Testimonies, Vol. IV., p. 148; Vol. V., p. 661). Here she places herself on a level with all the Bible writers, both prophets and apostles. (See Heb. 1:1,2.) Any one who rejects or opposes her writings is branded as a rebel fighting against God. Thus she says: "If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abirum" ("Testimonies," Vol. V., p. 66). Here she classes herself in authority with Moses. From this it will be seen that her followers have made no greater claims for her than she made for herself. She claims that every line she writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God - "the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (same book, p. 67). Of her own words she says: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has spoken" (Testimonies, Vol. III., p. 257). She states over and over that those who doubt or oppose her are fighting against God, sinning against the Holy Ghost. Thus: "fighting the Spirit of God. Those. . . who would break down our testimony, I saw, are not fighting against us, but against God" (p. 260). Again she says: When I went to Colorado, I wrote many pages to be read at your camp meeting. . . God was speaking through clay. You might say this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, . . . I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (Testimonies, Vol. V., pp. 63-67). Notice that she claims to be simply the mouthpiece for God. They are not her words, but God's words, the same as the Bible - God speaking through clay. All through her writings designed especially for her own people may be found expressions of this kind. In her books prepared for the public, however, all these expressions are carefully omitted. It is not Canright who said that Ellen White’s words must be infallible it was his response to the followers of Ellen White who saw here as infallible and he gives examples: Canright writes also in chapter 3: Now read this from G.A. Irwin, many years president of their General Conference. On page 1 of a tract entitled "The Mark of the Beast", he says: "It is from the standpoint of the light that has come through the Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White's writings] that the question will be considered, believing as we do that the Spirit of Prophecy is the only infallible interpreter of Bible principles, since it is Christ through this agency giving the real meaning of his words." It is possible that by the term “Spirit of Prophecy” Irwin means the Holy Spirit in which case his statement would be accurate but considering the common SDA usage of the term Spirit of Prophecy to refer to Ellen White’s writings we are left to take it whatever way we may prefer. In all this however we know that Canright did not have some wooden literal view of Ellen White being verbally inspired. As he wrote in chapter 9: continued next post ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 995 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mrs. White's visions ceased about the time of the change of life common to women. While she still had visions, she claimed that much that she "saw" went entirely from her mind at the time. Months, even years later, when she met a brother or a church that needed a "testimony," the part relating to these all came vividly to her mind, she said. She would then write out this portion of the forgotten "vision." This worked very well till years after her visions ceased. Finally this could not be stretched further. Then her revelations had to come in a different way; by a voice, by dreams, by "impressions," by some one on "authority" speaking, and the like. The following expressions, taken from the last volume of her "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. IX., published in 1909, are examples of this. Page 13: "I was instructed." Page 82: "Instruction has been given me." Page 65: "In the night of March 2, 1907, many things were revealed to me." The room, she said, was very light. Page 66: "Then a voice spoke to me." Page 95: "The angel stood by my side." But she had no vision as formerly. Page 98: "Instruction has been given me." Page 101: "In the night season I was awakened from a deep sleep and given a view." Page 137: "In the night season matters have been presented to me." Page 195: "At one time I seemed to be in a council meeting." The expression, "I have been instructed," occurs over and over in these later alleged revelations, just as the expression, "I saw," does in her earlier writings ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2121 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
What's wrong with this picture? - Ellen White from above quote: In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit. (Testimonies Vol IV., p148; Vol V., pl 661) Hebrews 1:1-2: God, who at various times and in diferednt ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son ... | ||
| ArthurKlym (Artklym) member Username: Artklym Post Number: 386 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
I was reading today a website where someone quoted from a couple of letters that EGW wrote to her children. While I recognize that some of it may be a different style of speaking, it almost made me nauseous to read them. In the letters she basically states that God will not, cannot, love you if you sin. I suspected that these could be misquotes. These were written to her six year old son, Willie. "God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest. . . . When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong." (An Appeal to the Youth, pp. 42,62. This seemed to me a form of child abuse, the product of a sick mind, or both. I searched for these letters on the White Estate website. They are legitimate and real. I read several more letters which seem to say that if he behaves well, his parents will love him. No unconditional love here and no "god loves the sinner, but hates the sin." | ||
| Charles Parker (Chuck) member Username: Chuck Post Number: 186 Registered: 2-2005 Rating: N/A |
Based on the lack of "I was shown" or "I was instructed" maybe she was just having a bad vision. History is all in the mind of the teller; Truth is in the telling. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 996 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Actually I was going to be looking up that quote for one of my blog responses. Because that was mentioned in one of the presentations. If I recall the presentation indicated that the context of letters my change the meaning of the statement. In that for instance the quote above was that of an exasperated mother. And we should give them less authority then say something that she published. But of course your quote was from a book she published. At least I don't think that was a compilation, will have to check. Anyway she has another quote where she says that you are not to tell children that God does not love them when they do wrong. I need to find that quote I think it is actually from a letter. In which case using the presentations concept the published hold precedence over private letters, the God does not love those nasty children should have more authority. Of course if they both got published in her books I guess we just go with what we like most. Some of the presentations are very persuasive, but I tend to think that they use some very subtle distortions to affect the presentation, even more subtle then Jud's misquotation of Canright. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 2673 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
When the same writer makes totally contradictory statements, just pick the one you like best. What other alternative is there? Except to recognize schizophrenia (of the writer or the one who believes it). | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 997 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Well you could always allow that a person could be wrong with at least one of the comments. That would be my first choice. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 757 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Ron thanks for starting this excellent thread. So far I have only had time to listen to Jud Lake's presentation about "Ellen White & Her Critics." Here is my response; I was very disappointed in this weak, ineffective, and less then honorable presentation that seemed more like self-serving cheerleading for the White Estate's views than an honest attempt to rebut the critics and set the record straight. In fact, I found his presentation hypercritical, lacking the necessary spirit of humility and candidness that the White Estate needs to exhibit if they expect to have any success with their attempt to rehabilitate Ellen White, much less her theology about the Three Angels Messages. It was very sad to see that at no time did the White Estate take any blame for anything that has gone wrong with Ellen White's writings or the Adventist Movement. The apologist didn't mention Arthur White, the 1888 fiasco, or even Glacier View, much less the fact that the White Estate was caught hiding thousands of documents about 1888 for generations. And unless these issues are honestly addressed and openly dealt with, there is no chance to turn things around and convince the growing number of critics that the White Estate is credible. So this presentation, like most everything that the hierarchy undertakes, failed miserably to deal with the issues, and thus it was ineffective and worthless. The critics should actually be encouraged because not only are their ranks growing tremendously, as the lecturer admitted, but the White Estate is pursuing non-effective and counter-productive tactics that only strengthens their cause and gives them more reasons to carry on their fight for truth and justice against the SDA church. Another major flaw with this presentation is that all the problems were always the fault of the critics, never anything that Arthur White, AG Daniels, Froom, or even Ellen White did. To believe their story, the church has made no mistakes whatsoever. Thus they blamed everyone else for their present troubles but themselves. But such a delusional defense in not realistic nor honest because they are the ones that have created this Public Relations disaster about Ellen White and they have no one to blame but themselves. But they sure tried. First, this apologist for the White Estate makes a remarkable observation that speaks volumes. He correctly notes that the present legion of critics were all former SDA's. They did not come from the outside world, but from within the church. While this observation is a sure sign that something is wrong with the church, this myopic apologist overlooks this obvious point and starts bashing the critics for their past loyalty to Ellen White and even claims that their problems began because they were too obsessed with her and believed in her too much. This is a very strange and disingenuous response that is just a self-serving attempt to avoid the issues about how such a widespread phenomenon could have materialized. For example, he chides the critics because at one time many of them were "faithfully preaching from the writings of Ellen White," and he cites this as the reason for their downfall. But yet he fails to explain that they were just following the instruction and encouragement of the White Estate that promoted such obsessive behavior. All these scores of former EGW supporters did not become obsessed with Ellen White without the encouragement and support of the White Estate. In fact, the White Estate promoted Ellen White so much, and published so many of her books and study materials that they are the guilty party that produced these fanatical EGW followers. They are the ones that made her out to be the greatest modern prophet of all time and they are the ones that turned generations of SDA's into fanatical and obsessive EGW believers. But now the modern White Estate conveniently forgets all this as they call these former supporters of Ellen White "dysfunctional." Talk about hypercritical? Talk about dishonest? Such a spin on history is despicable and I found it revolting. Thus the White Estate refuses to admit that they are the ones that promoted Ellen White in such a dysfunctional manner, choosing instead to lambaste those that were gullible enough to buy into Arthur White's obsession and deceit. I was very disappointed to hear this unfair and incorrect analysis by this amateur apologist who does not know what he is talking about. At this point the critics would have all turned away in disgust at this typical misinformation and obvious lack of candor from the White Estate apologists. But if anyone were still listening, they would have heard even more nonsense about how the critics, ignore the context, repeat fallacies, and use the straw man argument as well as pursue personal attacks against Ellen White. All time honored strategies that the White Estate has turned into an art form over the years. So while the critics may well be guilty of using these less than honorable tactics, the White Estate did it first and still does it today. Therefore, the White Estate does not have clean hands in this debate. They have done more character assassination, on D. M. Canright for example, and promoted more false issues, like Glacier View, even as they have ignored the real points at issue, like Ellen White's theology of 1888. They have even committed a massive criminal fraud by hiding thousands of documents from the church for generations, in direct violation of the instructions of Ellen White's will and in violation a their corporate charter. At this point the White Estate has no room or right to criticize others, because they are even guiltier of the same sins, and even greater ones. And thus the teachings of Jesus and the fundamentals of the Christian Faith do not support their criticism whatsoever. Matt. 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Matt. 7:4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? Matt. 7:5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. As this ridiculous and hypocritical presentation continues, it is full of sarcasm, complete with the response of cheap laughter from the friendly audience, which I also found disturbing and phony. And it was clear to me that such a worthless presentation will only make matters worse, giving the critics more ammunition to make their case to the world. Continued (Message edited by tom norris on February 21, 2006) | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 758 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
This pathetic presentation concluded by warning the faithful to avoid confronting the critics, because they were too powerful and would not listen. They were actually told never to e-mail Ratzlaff because he has such a "dysfunctional" view of Ellen White that no one can help him. In fact, they were instructed not to tell any critic that "they are being deceived about Ellen White" because this (once standard and approved White Estate line) only makes matters worse. So the conclusion of the lecture urged the faithful to "study the works of the critics," and especially "the answers given by the approved church apologists." These included the older books by Daniels and the others as well as the latest one from Clifford Goldstein (that was laughed at on this site for his absurd attempt to claim that the church had misunderstood the church's teaching about the IJ.) Of course, all the faithful were instructed to read lots of Ellen Whites writings, preferably a "book at a time, from start to finish." As the presentation ended, an emotional and anecdotal appeal was made to essentially trust the White Estate's version about Ellen White. Why? Because the former GC President and colleague of Ellen White, A.G. Daniels, had endorsed her way back in 1935. He claimed that her life "transcended any life he ever knew." And that she was "always pleasant and serious, never flippant or boastful" about her prophetic status, even as she gave "God all the glory." Too bad the White Estate failed to explain that Daniels was the architect of a massive cover-up in the White Estate that kept thousands of Ellen White's documents about 1888 hidden from the church for generations? Too bad this apologist didn't condemn Daniels for helping the White Estate set up a system of deception and deliberate fraud whereby her unpublished writings would be carefully and systematically hidden by the White Estate and the General Conference, with only certain writings being cleared for publication? Too bad that Daniels, Froom, and Arthur White were not all censured for misinforming and misleading the church about Ellen White's theology for generations? A fraud that is still taking place today! If Ellen White's life was so wonderful, why the need to hide her most important theological writings from the church? And after Daniels passed from the scene, why did the White Estate continue to hide thousands of her documents all during the RBF debates and even during the Glacier View trial of Dr. Ford? They even denied that this is what they were doing, even as they dishonestly claimed that certain documents did not exist at all, when the documents in question were sitting in the White Estate files all along? Wow! Is this is the fault of the critics? Is this an honest way to represent Ellen White and the Three Angels Messages? Too bad that the White Estate is till playing games with Ellen White's writings and church history. Too bad that they are still refusing to tell the truth and come clean about their many sins and errors, confessing to the church for misrepresenting Ellen White's theology without her knowledge or permission. Too bad that they are wasting everyone's time with absurd attacks on the critics when they are the problem and they are the ones that have done the most damage, not only to Ellen White, but to the Adventist Movement. Only when the church leaders find the courage to tell the truth and confess their many sins and errors in humble repentance, will any critic be convinced to give Ellen White, or Seventh-day Adventist theology a second look. Until that time, no one should waste his or her time reading Ellen White or trying to figure out SDA theology. Nor should anyone take the White Estate seriously or think that they are being honest or truthful with the facts of Adventist history or theology, because this is obviously not the case. So the critics have little choice but to continue on with their mission to warn the world about the deceptions of the White Estate and the dishonesty of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. And perhaps one day, the church leaders will take the Pre-Advent Message, which is the Laodicean Message, to heart and zealously repent instead of blaming everyone else for their own sins and mistakes. But until that day, the Adventist Movement that Ellen White loved so much, will continue to self-destruct, thanks in large part to the corruption and incompetence of those in charge. Tom Norris, for Adventist Reform (Message edited by tom norris on February 21, 2006) | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1001 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Tom Wrote: First, this apologist for the White Estate makes a remarkable observation that speaks volumes. He correctly notes that the present legion of critics were all former SDA's. They did not come from the outside world, but from within the church. While this observation is a sure sign that something is wrong with the church, this myopic apologist overlooks this obvious point and starts bashing the critics for their past loyalty to Ellen White and even claims that their problems began because they were too obsessed with her and believed in her too much. This is a very strange and disingenuous response that is just a self-serving attempt to avoid the issues about how such a widespread phenomenon could have materialized. What I found to be a common thread throughout the presentations was that Ellen White is not to be taken as Verbally inspired. Interesting some of them noted that the idea she was verbally inspired was held by the leadership from the 1890's to the 1950's and that idea makes up what many think of as Historic Adventism. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1002 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Here is a response to Lake's presentation from SDAnet: The Ellen White Summit in Oregon was great. I downloaded all eight presentations and converted them to wave and burned them. After listening to them, I contected professor Lake at Southern via email and let him know how appreciative we are to have this level of apoloetic work going on. We don't hear this kind of stuff too often from our college and university teachers and its encouraging. I shared with him my work in EGW apologetic and how it brought me back to the church after 22 years of running away from God. Its good stuff!!  and I'd like to encourage everybody to give them a listen. Blessings, Interesting huh? ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1003 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Of all the presentations this one everyone involved with the SDA church should listen too. Unlike Lake who ignores the role of the church leadership this presentation lays out just how much the SDA church came to put Ellen White as equal or above the Bible: A Path to Disengagement By Craig Newborn Oakwood College This presentation explores some of the factors that contributed to the ever-increasing disengagement of many Seventh-day Adventists from Ellen White. Particular attention is given to how belief in verbal inspiration by many Seventh-day Adventists negatively impacted Ellen White’s image as a messenger of the Lord and contributed to misunderstanding and misuse of her writings. http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com/Part2%2832Kbps%29.mp3 It's one problem is that it does not hold Ellen White herself accountable for statements she made which caused people to hold her in such an unhealthy way. (Message edited by ron on February 22, 2006) ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1010 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
More from the Ellen White Summit presentations Moderator’s question: “How do you respond to people who use Deut. 18:21 to disqualify Ellen White in the light of her vision where an angel told her that some present at Battle Creek would not die before Christ returned?” George Knight response: “That’s one I want to take. We’re finding a lot of people are finally realize that Ellen White had a lot of prophecies that never come.. came true. And we used to teach …Deuteronomy that when a prophets prophecy did come true then you know they were a true prophet. What these people fail recognize is the Bible is full of unfulfilled prophecies. You take a look at the old testament woooph most of the prophecies in the huh prophets are unfulfilled. Why? Ellen White gives the answer in Manuscript 4 1883. That all of God’s prophecies are conditional. If Israel would have behaved itself and done God’s will then those old testament prophecies would have been fulfilled. And I personally believe if God’s Church would have done God’s will we wouldn’t be here. But all prophecy and this is Ellen White herself, all prophecy is conditional prophecy and maybe the best article in all the articles of the 7 volumes of the SDA Bible Commentaries in volume 4 on conditional prophecy. Read it. That is a jewel.” --Question and answer period (part 8) 2005 Ellen White Summit beginning at 24 minutes into session. When you hear this statement of George Knight you realize why elsewhere he said that he did not hold to any old tests for a prophet. ““You know why I believe Ellen White’s a prophet I don’t go for any of the old tests number one she points me to Jesus number two she points me to the Bible. That’s it! She never points to herself…I can’t get off on that.” --From Using and Interpreting Ellen White by George Knight {Part2} 2005 Ellen White Summit 33 minutes in George Knight’s position is not much different from the White Estate’s position. First let us refresh our memory about what Ellen White actually said: “But we were yet to pass through another severe trial. At the conference a very solemn vision was given me. I saw that some of those present would be food for worms, some subjects for the seven last plagues, and some would be translated to heaven at the second coming of Christ, without seeing death. Sr. Bonfoey remarked to a sister as we left the meeting-house, “I feel impressed that I am one that will soon be food for worms.” The conference closed Monday. Thursday Sr. B. sat at the table with us apparently well. She then went to the Office as usual, to help get off the paper. In about two hours I was sent for. Sr. B. had been suddenly taken very ill. My health had been very poor, yet I hastened to suffering Clara. In a few hours she seemed some better. The next morning we had her brought home in a large chair, and she was laid upon her own bed from which she was never to rise. Her symptoms became alarming, and we had fears that a tumor, which had troubled her for nearly ten years, had broken inwardly. It was so, and mortification was doing its work.” Vol. 2 Spiritual Gifts p. 208 I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: “Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.” Vol. 1Testimonies p. 131 When EGW saw her prophecies fail she created the idea of all prophecy as conditional: Selected Messages Book 1, page 67, paragraph 8 Chapter Title: An Explanation of Early Statements “The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional.” Now the White Estate has published a response to those who bring up this quote. They say that if people had truly repented and followed God, He would have come and fulfilled the prophecy, but since they didn’t God in mercy extended time. However where do we get the information that if they had followed God, He would have come? We get it from Ellen White, thus she is allowed to explain why her false prophecy was not correct. This is complete circular reasoning. If you allow a so called prophet to explain away why their predictions do not come to pass, there will never be anyway to test any predictive prophecies. In fact we will be forced to hold to scores of today’s so called prophets because we have no way to test a prophet anymore. We will be reduced to saying that person must be a prophet because he or she points to the Bible and points to Jesus. Yet it is questionable with Ellen Whites presentation that all prophecy is conditional that she is pointing to the Bible at all since she is actually refuting such verses as Deuteronomy 18:20-22. continued ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1011 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Concluded: Is it wise to put the Biblical principles against those of Ellen White. If God had ever truly meant for all prophecy to be conditional why would the statement in Deuteronomy even have needed to be recorded. The Bible record would have to be held responsible for the rejection of prophets who were merely giving conditional prophecies. “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”(Deu 18:20-22 NIV) Yet the Bible instead of treating all prophecy as conditional gives the principles that create some prophecy as conditional. A useful illustration is found in Jeremiah: “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.” (Jer 18:7-10 NIV) Another is found very early in the Biblical record when Israel was offered the choice between blessing and curses. “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse-- the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known.” (Deuteronomy 11:26-28 NIV) Jeremiah who had his own struggle with false prophets does not produce the idea that all prophecy is conditional but he notes that since bad things happen all the time someone predicting bad things will be right quite often but it is only God’s prophets who are able to predict the good things also. Ellen White’s prediction of being translated would in most anyone’s estimation be considered a good future prediction. Jeremiah 28:8-9 says: “From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms. But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the LORD only if his prediction comes true.” (NIV) There is not any better prophecy of peace than to be with Jesus at His coming. Determining the accuracy of a professed prophet is part of the Biblical tests of a prophet. Unfortunately many SDA’s don’t want people to use that test. Many will quote Ellen White saying that Christ would have come ere this if only the people had done their work. So using the ever present circular reasoning they completely destroy the Biblical test by saying if what the supposed prophet says does not come to pass, then the supposed prophet is allowed to give an explanation as to why the prophecy did not come to pass. If you allowed the supposed prophet this ability there is not ever going to be a prophet anywhere or any time with a false of presumptive prophecy because they will simply explain it away. However the Bible does not offer up that option, so we can be objective about testing a prophet. Finally if all prophecy is conditional maybe God is not preparing a place for us, maybe Jesus is not going to return. Maybe even the condition of God’s love and acceptance will not be met and the whole Gospel is meaningless because we have not met some unlisted conditions. ProgressiveAdventist.com is now found at Http://NewProtestants.com/sda.htm | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1282 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Jud lake presented a response to my comments on his presentation, you can read them and my response at http://cafesda.blogspot.com New Protestants.com | ||
| Geoffrey Marshall (Geoffrey) member Username: Geoffrey Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2006 Rating: N/A |
As long as Jonah is considered to be a true prophet, one cannot discount the existence of conditional prophecies. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1284 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Clearly there are conditional prophecies that is not even part of the debate. The difference is that Ellen White says that all prophecies are conditional. so when Jesus says He will come again...well that now has to be a conditional prophecy. Does that fit with what the New Testament says? New Protestants.com | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 3232 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
A prophet has practiced CYA when all are called "conditional." | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 420 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
"God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest I find I must apply the same patterns to Ellen White's writings that I do to Jeremiah, for example. Jeremiah 18:19-23 Listen to me, O LORD; hear what my accusers are saying! 20 Should good be repaid with evil? Yet they have dug a pit for me. Remember that I stood before you and spoke in their behalf to turn your wrath away from them. 21 So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle. 22 Let a cry be heard from their houses when you suddenly bring invaders against them, for they have dug a pit to capture me and have hidden snares for my feet. 23 But you know, O LORD, all their plots to kill me. Do not forgive their crimes or blot out their sins from your sight. Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger. Jeremiah shows some pretty mean-spirited thinking here, yet he is a highly regarded prophet, now. The prophet is not God. They are weak frail humans with blind spots and wrong thinking. When we read the "Prophet" we do not throw out our own safeguards against wrong thinking. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1285 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
So Don you think that Ellen's letter to her son is equavalent to the poetic language of Jeremiah? You assert that the plots to kill Jeremiah are equivalent to Edson White acting up and influence upon Willie. Do you believe that Ellen White learned nothing from the New Testament about love? A little on the background of Jeremiah 18 from the Expositor's Bible Commentary: c. The plot against Jeremiah (18:18-23) 18-20 Unable to tolerate Jeremiah's drastic preaching, the leaders of Judah decided to hound him to death. Their opposition is spelled out: (1) slandering him and turning a deaf ear to his words (v. 18), (2) digging a pit for his soul (vv. 20, 22), (3) setting snares for his feet (v. 22), and (4) planning to slay him (v. 23). The very three groups he had to condemn were in the forefront of the plot against him (cf. 11:18-23; 12:6; 15:10-11, 15-21 for other conspiracies against him). They boasted that because they had priests to instruct them in the law, wise elders to counsel them in the affairs of daily living, and (false) prophets to give them the word (supposedly from God), they had no need for Jeremiah. They could not conceive of a time when such ungodly leaders would be unable to fulfill their functions. So their aim now was to silence Jeremiah after they had rejected his message (v. 12). They were certain that his words would not be fulfilled. Why should they listen to him and thereby reject the advice of all their other leaders? By a charge of treason, the leaders of Judah hoped to effect Jeremiah's downfall. His messages against Judah's policies provide ample basis for accusing him of treason. So he pleads with the Lord to pay attention to him and to hear his enemies' plots (v. 19). In so doing, he was using the same words as his foes but now in the affirmative sense (v. 20). He wanted his prayers answered. Verses 19-23 give Jeremiah's reaction to his enemies' conspiracies against him. Some scholars labeled this passage Jeremiah's harshest and bitterest prayer for vengeance (so Hyatt et al.). With transparent honesty, he bares his heart. These imprecations are best understood in the light of the following: (1) Jeremiah's enemies were not merely personal ones but enemies of God and his truth (so the imprecatory psalms), and his was not a vindictive cry for personal revenge; (2) life after death and retribution in the afterlife were not clearly revealed in OT times; and (3) Jeremiah delivers the people judicially to the course they have chosen for themselves (v. 15; cf. Matt 23; Gal 5:12). What cut the prophet to the quick was the manner in which his countrymen repaid good with evil. He had only sought their good and had even interceded for them when the Lord forbade him to do so (cf. 14:7-9, 21). Their response is described by the metaphor of digging a pit to trap wild beasts. And finally most all Christians and practicing Jews accept Jeremiah as a prophet yet pretty much SDA (and offshoots)and Bahai's (pretty much accept anybody who says their a prophet) accept Ellen White as a prophet. So do you really think it is a fair comparision? New Protestants.com | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 422 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Comparing Ellen to Jeremiah So do you really think it is a fair comparision? No. My point was more limited than that. There is a problem in putting the prophet on a pedastal. I understand that Church leaders have done that with Ellen White. I do see Jeremiah's reaction to his enemies as unbecoming the ideal reaction, but I don't expect Jeremiah to be perfect. From my perch, I see that Ellen White served the Church, bringing messages of comfort, rebuke, and vision. Her views were not perfect, her words were not well-chosen at first, and often had to be reworked to better represent things. She had a third-grade education, I think? I think her lack of education shows in many ways, but that does not discount for me my high regard for her prophetic role for the church and in service to me in particular. I face difficulties in her writings much the same way I face difficulties in the Scriptures. Neal and John are quick to list the problems they see in Scripture. I consider their lists to be a blessing because they enliven my mind, take me back into Scripture, and force me to come to terms with the nature of Biblical inspiration. Some Adventists have quite a refined understanding of inspiration because they believe Ellen White to be inspired and her life is evident to all, warts and all. It is the struggle with reality that sharpens the mind. Much of the opposition to Ellen White is really in opposition to her iconic status and not to the Victorian woman herself. Walter Martin read and read her writings in his desire to assess Adventism and he concluded that, though he did not always agree with her, he had to admit that she was a Christian. My mother, a staunch supporter of Ellen White, would ask, "Why are you attacking a dead woman?" I think it was the Greeks who made it against the law to speak against the dead. There are real, serious problems. Ellen White said some things which the literalists apply to their lives to the detriment of their health, and sometimes to their very lives. Ellen White is dead and buried. Her accountability is now with God alone. But the church must educate its people on how to use her writings to avoid problems of misuse and abuse. I see the Ellen White Summit as fulfilling that role within the Church. I have my own stories to tell about misapplying Ellen White's writings in the life of a believer. http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/8/8315.html#POST55841 Just the same, I do believe that courtesy and Christian charity should even be accorded Ellen White, as well as her detractors. | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2293 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Just the same, I do believe that courtesy and Christian charity should even be accorded Ellen White, as well as her detractors. That's fine on a personal level, however, when Jesus told the disciples that he would send the "Comforter" who would "lead into all truth" I believe he was talking to every Christian. Each individual has the responsibility to interact with this Comforter and is lead, individually, into truth. When a body of people adopt one person as the conduit of truth, they are limiting the work of the Holy Spirit to the individual. As you said, Don, Ellen White had problems - and her writings have problems, but if the church presents her as God's messenger, the personal guidence that Jesus promised, from the Spirit, is negated in the name of "special revelation" and unity. The beauty of the Christian message is that, even though it speaks to individuals, together, they form a body of believers, the church invisible, where there is unity - but this unity is not forced by baptismal vowes or anything else, but grows out of individual, personal committments. The book of Revelation describes God's people as not having relations with women. Woman in Revelation stands for CHURCH. The passage goes on to say that these people, "follow the lamb whersoever he leads". An honest reading of this passage, if one is to stay true to the agreed symbolism of the book, says that in the end, allegiance has to be to a personal Christ and not to a church as an organization. Churches have creeds and doctrines and traditions that stilt any honest enquiry (as demonstrated by Glacier View and a host of other such inquisitions. The individual is crowded out and if they wish to follow their concsience and personal committments, they have to leave the group, or get booted out in the name of unity. It is a dangerous situation when the individual has to turn over his brains and his will to another person who is deemed by a group to be innerent. (ie: Hitler, Jim Jones, David Korash etc. etc. etc.) If the scenario is as the church proclaims, each individual answers individually to his life and beliefs, and no one can say, "...but Ellen White said..) If she doens't make sense to the honest seeker, then she doesn't make sense. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 423 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Comforter for All That's fine on a personal level, however, when Jesus told the disciples that he would send the "Comforter" who would "lead into all truth" I believe he was talking to every Christian. Each individual has the responsibility to interact with this Comforter and is lead, individually, into truth. Sirje, I agree with your post. One further thought. Imagine that we all are "prophets". Now, put us all under scrutiny like Ellen White has been. How would we hold up? | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2294 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Don, Nobody has the right to scrutinize any individual's belief system, except when that system is adopted by an organization that makes it mandatory to believe in a particular person's beliefs. Please don't tell me that the church doesn't expect that homage when it's right in the baptismal vowes. I have no right to crticise Ellen White's beliefs, as long as I am not made to pay homage to them as well. Then I am duty bound to scrutinize Ellen White, as she is held up as the "messenger" from God for me. If I have to raise my hand and swear agreement with Ellen White in order to be baptized in accordane with my show of faith, as the Bible directs, I had better scrutinize Ellen White. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1286 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Sirje wrote: The book of Revelation describes God's people as not having relations with women. Woman in Revelation stands for CHURCH. The passage goes on to say that these people, "follow the lamb whersoever he leads". An honest reading of this passage, if one is to stay true to the agreed symbolism of the book, says that in the end, allegiance has to be to a personal Christ and not to a church as an organization. While the idea of woman being the church is common among SDA's that is really an iterpretation from the Reformation age and not likely the intent of the author of Revelation. But you statement would work if you stuck church and just left an organization. Don wrote: Sirje, I agree with your post. One further thought. Imagine that we all are "prophets". Now, put us all under scrutiny like Ellen White has been. Prophet is an office in the church or as in the Old testament the Hebrew Theocracy. There is no reason to think that all should or would ever be prophets. Remember the gift of prophecy is not the office of prophet. Even enemies of God have been given prophecy from God. We would not want to place them in the role of Prophet however. EGW on the other hand places herself as a Prophet by saying she is more then a prophet and referring to herself as a messenger of the Lord, which is simply the meaning of a Prophet. I may have given prophecies from the Lord but I do not claim to be a messenger of the Lord or a prophet, teacher's and pastor etc also give messages that originated from the Lord but again that does not make them prophets. Since EGW has by her own words expressed that she is more then a prophet she must at least be a prophet so she is inviting the test given by God on how to test a prophet. On top of that the SDA church has placed her as an authority of truth within their fundamental statements. So we are not being overly critical of EGW, rather we are carring out the examination as per the Bible of testing a prophet. New Protestants.com | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2295 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Ron, I guess the point is that the SDA interpretaion of Revelation teaches that WOMAN stands for CHURCH in every verse except the one. Whether the symbolism was or was not the original intent isn't the issue. What matters is that the church interprets it this way but doesn't stay true to the symbolism when it doesn't like the implications. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1287 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
What matters is that the church interprets it this way but doesn't stay true to the symbolism when it doesn't like the implications. LOL; well that is probably true for any of the groups that think they have Revelation figured out. However symbolism is so useful because it is so often contextually related. I think the writer of Revelation knew that also, he did seem to take from a host of traditions to create what he wanted to say. So to say that the SDA interpretation is inconsistent is almost like saying the sky is blue. I am getting ready with my first blog post on the IJ lessons by Cliff. My first one is an introduction based on the introduction from Kenneth Hart's class. I will try to post it on http://cafesda.blogspot.com/ It will focus on simply the many presuppostion that the SDA has to have to even use the concept of the Investigative Judgment, and I am not even talking about the date part yet. by the way if you go to my blog click on the " Call of the Wild: The Sounds of the Lyrebird" video it is amazing. New Protestants.com | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 427 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Testing the Claim I agree that Ellen White taught that her ministry was for the Adventist Church. Compare Ellen White's claim with the woman I mentioned earlier who told me that the Lord had given her a message for me. Even though Ellen White's claim reaches to a whole denomination there are certain principles that can be applied to all claims. But one claim that cannot be correctly applied, IMO, is the idea that the person with the message cannot err or be mistaken. I refer you to the Bible example of David. David, an inspired writer of the Bible, committed adultery, deceived, got angry with God, and plotted some deathbed vengeance on his enemies. I dare say that if Ellen White had done these kind of things we would have open rebellion in the ranks. Examining Ellen White's writings is similar to examining the Bible, though I intentionally do not rank the two on equal footing. If a person accepts the Biblical writings as inspired, based on reasons, then when difficulties arise the problem is explanation not denial. So too, if a person accepts the prophetic ministry of Ellen White, based on reasons, then when difficulties arise the problem is explanation not denial. I suggest that most people on this forum discuss Ellen White's role from a denial stance, as some do, a lesser number, regarding the Biblical writings. It is one's stance that determines one's choice of argument. There is a cross-over of thought where the accepter and the denier can learn from each other's arguments. An example is my argument above regarding the infallibility of the writer. And Ron's courteous reply to my earlier post. Much can be learned from another person's perspective. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 428 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
A Test of Fellowship? If I have to raise my hand and swear agreement with Ellen White in order to be baptized in accordane with my show of faith, as the Bible directs, I had better scrutinize Ellen White. I agree that a scrutiny of Ellen White is in order for all who seek to become Adventists. However, believing in Ellen White is not part of the Baptismal Vow, nor is it to be made a Test of Fellowship in the Adventist Church. Here is the relevant section of the Vow. "8. Do you accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?" Church Manual page 33. Here is Ellen White's counsel regarding those who don't believe in her ministry. "There should be no trial or labour with those who have never seen the individual having visions, and who have had no personal knowledge of the influence of the visions. Such should not be deprived of the benefits and privileges of the church, if their Christian course is otherwise correct, and they have formed a good Christian character." Testimonies Volume 1, page 328. | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2296 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Don, Isn't that followed by a part that says something like - "and do you believe the SDA church has the gift of prophesy" or some such wording? In any case, whatever the manual says, can you honestly say that a SDA minister will baptize someone who doesn't believe Ellen White is a prophet and whose writings should be followed? | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 589 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
However, believing in Ellen White is not part of the Baptismal Vow, nor is it to be made a Test of Fellowship in the Adventist Church. Sorry, but that is a false statement (from a denier to an explainer). Do you... believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church? EGW is the only person who fits #8. You know it. The church knows it. EVERYBODY knows it. It matters not one little bit that they leave her name out then claim that people don't have to swear allegiance to her. They do. Don, your statement is ridiculous. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 3243 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
SDA Fundamental belief No. 17: "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. white. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction...." I think it was the Greeks who made it against the law to speak against the dead. The sad truth we have not allowed her to die, and RIP, and her "testimonies" continue to confuse or instruct the church, depending on one' view. Don, whose statement is this: God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest" There was a whole generation of children who were taught this: that God couldn't love naughty children, or child were bad or misbehaved. Do you believe this, and who said it? What about King David? | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 590 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
SDA Church Manual (2005) pg 15
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 591 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
Elaine What we both quoted used to be #17 but with the additional belief now it got bumped to the current #18. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 3244 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
So, is it not one of the affirmations that the baptismal candidate must agree to? | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 592 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
So, putting the 2 statements together: Baptismal vow: "Do you accept ... that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?" and "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White." How much clearer could it be. They don't want to put her NAME in the vow, but they put her definition in the vow. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 593 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
Sirje is right. A baptismal candidate must affirm belief in EGW. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1288 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don wrote: I refer you to the Bible example of David. David, an inspired writer of the Bible, committed adultery, deceived, got angry with God, and plotted some deathbed vengeance on his enemies. You are mixing incidents, David never said that his writings were not his own opinions but God's instructions. David wrote a whole lot of stuff that was merely his opinion. It is still useful but it is not all prophecy in fact very little is prophecy. Further it was others who wrote about David actions not David. Even those Psalms which dealt with David's bad actions are not totally divine inspired. For instance when Psalms (Psa 51:4 NIV) Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. I really think Bethsheba and her husband who David caused to be killed would disagree with that statement. But it stills speaks of inspiration because the inspiration is not in the words but from the writer of the words, it is useful even if it is not 100% accurate. You have to remember Ellen White made claims which far exceed any Biblical Prophet. Jesus is the one who identified John the Baptist as the greatest prophet and he was referred to as more then a prophet. The same phrase that Ellen White applies to herself. As for the Baptismal vow it does not explicitly talk about Ellen White but it is by default included in this section of the vow: 11. Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles? http://tinyurl.com/kcqqd And of course one of the principles: 18. Gift of Prophecy One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.) New Protestants.com | ||
| ArthurKlym (Artklym) member Username: Artklym Post Number: 606 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
If EGW was only for the SDA Church why is the Great Controversy used as an evangelistic tool by Adventists? When I was a colporteur we were pushing Desire of Ages to non-Adventists. That is strange behavior if SDA's really believe that EGW is only for Adventists. It appears to me that SDAs trot out statements of EGW for whatever proposition they want to prove at the time. Fortunately (for them) there are plenty of quotations that can be used on either side of quite a few issues. | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2298 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
I came out of the heathen and worldly high school in Babylon, NY (of all places) and was baptized at age sixteen. Imagine my surprise, while attending AUC, when I read some publication of Ellen White's where she states that "if the people of God read the Bible as they should, there would be no need for here writings" (not a direct quote). At that point, my sigh of relief could be heard all the way back to Babylon, and I decided to leave Ellen alone and concentrate on the Bible. Works for me. (Sort of - until I stumbled on this forum and got introduced to all the infadels . | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 431 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Test of Fellowship In any case, whatever the manual says, can you honestly say that a SDA minister will baptize someone who doesn't believe Ellen White is a prophet and whose writings should be followed? Yes. Anyone who has been trained properly will follow this. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 432 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Church Manual, Church Policy There are some interesting "fine lines" which the Adventist Church follows regarding membership. I certainly can't offer the final say on anything, but I can tell you what I have come to understand after 25+ years of church work in both teaching and pastoring. 1) The Church believes strongly in the Biblical practice of tithing, yet the manual makes it clear that "the returning of tithe is not held as a test of fellowship." Church Manual p. 165 2) The Church believes strongly in the Prophetic ministry of Ellen White. Belief in the doctrine of the Gift of Prophecy in the last days church is in the Baptismal Vow. Specific interpretation of that gift in the ministry of Ellen White is not in the Baptismal Vow. This was not an oversight. Ellen White's counsel, as given in an earlier post, limits the church's behavior on this matter. Some people oppose the Church of their own construction. The Adventist Church is not perfect but the policies of the Church have been carefully and thoughtfully crafted. http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 433 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Jesus Loves Me This I Know Jesus loves me when I'm bad Even though it makes him sad. "There was a whole generation of children who were taught this: that God couldn't love naughty children, or child were bad or misbehaved. Do you believe this, and who said it?" I don't deny that people have taught that, though I am unsure how prevalent the teaching was. I do know that I wasn't taught it. I was raised in a very conservative Adventist environment. My mother, who was a staunch follower of Ellen White's counsel never believed or taught her children such. In fact, when people would tell her that they were taught otherwise she couldn't understand that in the light of the "Jesus Loves Me this I know" song. We can examine the history of the teaching of God's love within Adventism but the question remains, "What about this statement clearly made by Ellen White?" I tend to agree with George Knight on this that Ellen White was exasperated with this wayward child of hers and she resorted to spiritual instinct trying to affect a change. It does not bother me to see Ellen White with less than perfect theology. In fact, it is kind of refreshing. As a church, we have erred in the past by holding her way too high on an iconic pedastal. The recent and enlightening information about her quite common Victorian views serves to deconstruct that pedastal the church has created. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1289 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don Wrote: I tend to agree with George Knight on this that Ellen White was exasperated with this wayward child of hers and she resorted to spiritual instinct trying to affect a change. I would tend to agree except why did she publish that stupid thing. That is the problem, not that she said it because people all say stupid things but that it got passed along, that it got put into a book marketed for youth. Not as an example of an exasperated mother but as instructions from God on how youth should behave. New Protestants.com | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 437 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
An Appeal to the Youth "why did she publish that stupid thing" Consider the date of these letters: 1857-1863 She was still rather young when she wrote these. It probably represented her best thinking of the time. If we examine her later work, it seems that she grew to understand the Love of God in Christ. http://www.nisbett.com/reference/ay/default.htm I believe that the 1888 experiences and her seeking to portray Christ in Desire of Ages affected her greatly. I recall reading an account of her working on the Desire of Ages. She expressed such simple child-like joy in being able to do this work of love for her LORD. Many of us have come to love Jesus far more profoundly in middle age than we ever could in our youth. Alden Thompson gives two quotes to illustrate the contrast here: "A. GOD’S LOVE FOR BAD CHILDREN. The "early" quote (1860) is found in a letter from Ellen White to her son Willie, published at the time of the funeral of another of her sons, Henry (1864). The contrasting "late" quote was published in 1892 in an Adventist periodical, Signs of the Times: 1860: "The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and He has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does not love.... When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong" (An Appeal to the Youth, 1864, 62). 1892: "Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach them that He loves them so that it grieves His tender Spirit to see them in transgression" (Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1892). " http://people.wwc.edu/staff/thomal/writings/burdensome.htm Can we allow for Ellen White to progress in how she publishes about God? If Jeremiah had lived as a disciple in Jesus' day, would he have published different messages? When we discuss with Jeremiah in heaven will he still be pleased that his opponents met such aweful deaths? Because I have been personally blessed by Ellen White's insights, I have decided to seek to understand how her Victorian worldview influenced her prophetic ministry. I suppose that if I had decided to not accept her ministry, then these contradictory statements would be fodder for my ridicule of her. If I set my mind against anyone the inconsistencies of their lives will confirm why I am against them. However, if I have decided to relate positively, the inconsistencies of their lives inspire me to ask questions and to wonder. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1290 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don wrote: Alden Thompson gives two quotes to illustrate the contrast here: "A. GOD’S LOVE FOR BAD CHILDREN. The "early" quote (1860) is found in a letter from Ellen White to her son Willie, published at the time of the funeral of another of her sons, Henry (1864). The contrasting "late" quote was published in 1892 in an Adventist periodical, Signs of the Times: Thing is that is not where we find that quote, not in a letter but in a book called An Appeal to the Youth, 1864, p-62. Who published this book? Was it published by critics of Ellen White? Why was it published. Why did Ellen wait 30 years after publishing such statements to tell people not to tell their children what she had told them. Jeremiah was told his words were to destroy not anything like Ellen White's situation. (Jer 1:7-10 NIV) But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. (Jer 1:8 NIV) Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD. (Jer 1:9 NIV) Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. (Jer 1:10 NIV) See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant." Why I wonder does the supporters of Ellen White so constantly want to reduce the import of the Bible? New Protestants.com | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 3252 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
One must carefuly check the date of any of her books or else the earlier ones will possibly contradict the later ones. There is no dearth of excellent books on child rearing that are much more up-to-date, and scientifically tested. Why must we return to 150 years ago to get such information? Is it not solely because she has "prophetic insight"? Is everyone who uses her quotations careful to follow that rule? Have you checked the dates on her writings? Should we also check the probable date of the biblical writings? Would that not also be important? | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 448 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
No One has the Corner on Good Ideas I doubt that Ellen White would want us to use her as the final say on Child-rearing. From my view, I see her trying to be of help to the Church and getting kind of concerned when people became overly dependant on her counsel. "Study the Bible and Nature, think for yourself. Use your common sense," I hear her saying. "Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and to do. The men in whom this power is developed are the men who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen. "Instead of educated weaklings, institutions of learning may send forth men strong to think and to act, men who are masters and not slaves of circumstances, men who possess breadth of mind, clearness of thought, and the courage of their convictions." Education, page 17 Of course, thinking can be distressing. One has to consider contrary evidence. But the message from this Victorian woman is clear. "Think for yourselves." | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 449 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Be Sure You Have Evidence for What You Assert Don, your statement is ridiculous. Sirje is right. A baptismal candidate must affirm belief in EGW. However, believing in Ellen White is not part of the Baptismal Vow, nor is it to be made a Test of Fellowship in the Adventist Church. Sorry, but that is a false statement (from a denier to an explainer). Neal, there are many things for which I offer tentative opinions but on this one, I am sure I represent the Adventist view. The Adventist Church carefully draws a line. The Baptismal Vow is intentionally worded to allow for those who are not convicted regarding the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. The Church teaches that the Gift of Prophecy is an identifying attribute of the last day church, taught by Scripture. It asks that those who get Baptized accept that, but, let me repeat, "It is not an Adventist test of fellowship to believe in the ministry of Ellen White." The church depends on her own guidance on this matter. | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 604 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
Be Sure You Have Evidence for What You Assert 1. "Do you accept ... that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?" 2. "This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White." They don't say it MAY have been manifested in her ministry, they say it WAS. Therefore this is a logically true statement: "Do you accept ... that the gift of prophecy, manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White, is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?" Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1291 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Well not believing in Ellen White is not a test for fellowship, it is however a test for leadership in the Church. And Ellen White has told us that those who reject her are "not right". Certainly SDA pastors can an do baptize people who do not believe in Ellen White it is up to the Pastor. Though I don't see how any Pastor could allow a denomination to dictate what they have to do to follow the prinicples of Bible baptizim, though I am sure there are some who want the SDA denomination to do their thinking for them. New Protestants.com | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1039 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Neal Walls said: "Sirje is right. A baptismal candidate must affirm belief in EGW." Of course this is the case for the 20th century SDA church. It was not the case however for the 19th century denomination. This veneration of Ellen White and the embellishment of her as an OT prophet or NT apostle that had doctrinal authority was a creation of the Takoma Park apologists. The White Estate was especially guilty of promoting this heresy that none of the primary Pioneers, including Ellen White, would have ever supported. The attitude of the pioneers towards the writings of Ellen White was vastly different of that held by the 20th century conservative Adventists. Anyone in the 19th century claiming that her writings represented an ”inspired commentary” on the Bible, or that they were doctrinal would have received a strong rebuke from Ellen White herself as well as from Uriah Smith or James White. None of them would have ever put up with such a position that became standard in the 20th century. The Pioneers made it clear that only the Bible is the correct source for doctrinal truth. In fact, they prohibited Ellen White's writings from being viewed as an authoritative source of "truth." The exact opposite of how the White Estate promoted Ellen White. "Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. "(James White, Review & Herald, October 3, 1854) But guess what? There was always a "class of persons" that wanted to skip the Bible and use Ellen White as a shortcut to truth. There was always a cultic group that became so enamored with Ellen White's spiritual gifts that they wanted to make her an authoritative source for doctrine and a "test" of church fellowship. Especially towards the end of the 19th century and forward. But James White repudiated this great error in no uncertain terms. Thus he would have never approved of how a number of people in Battle Creek, after his death, viewed Ellen White (like Irwin, Haskell, and others.) Nor would he have approved of how the 20th century leaders promoted Ellen White and made her into an infallible source of doctrinal authority. He would have hotly condemned the White Estate because for the way they promoted Ellen White and he would have demanded that they repent and set the record straight. Listen to James White on this point: "There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors make the view of Mrs. White a Test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. What has the Review to do with Mrs. W.’s views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been, "The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty'"… "It should be here understood that all these views as held by the body of Sabbath-keepers, were brought out from the Scriptures before Mrs. W. had any view in regard to them. These sentiments are founded upon the Scriptures as their only basis. (James White, Review and Herald, Oct. 16 1855) Here is how the great SDA Pioneer and founder James White viewed his wife's gifts. They were NOT doctrinal in nature. They were NOT to be used in place of the Bible. They were NOT the basis for any SDA doctrine or belief. And he invited anyone to correct him if he ever abandoned the Bible as the sole rule of faith and doctrine and looked to "some new revelation" instead. "Now we shall go right along believing and teaching the word of the Lord. This is our business. And if we choose to believe Mrs. W.'s views, which harmonize with the Word, this is our business, and nobody else’s. But if we should leave the word, and look for a rule of faith and duty by some new revelation, then it would be the business of the Church to silence me as a religious teacher." (James White, Gifts of the Gospel Church, p.14) In fact, while the 20th century church incorrectly promoted Ellen White as an authority for doctrine, and even made belief in her a part of their written fundamental creed after Glacier View, the Battle Creek SDA's did not do this. Ellen White was not a test of fellowship, nor was she promoted as such. Listen to James White on this "test point" in 1871: "They (SDA's) believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. They believe that the spirit of prophecy has rested upon Mrs. White, and that she is called to do a special work at this time, among this people. They do not, however, make belief in this work a test of fellowship. (Review and Herald, June 13, 1871) Could this be any clearer? It is a great mistake to think that what the White Estate taught generations of SDA's is correct, or that Glacier View would have any Pioneer support. It was not correct. The SDA leaders have promoted so many lies, myths, and half-truths about Ellen White and the Pioneers, including an incorrect version of the Three Angels Messages, that they have confused and deceived millions of people. And yet, they will not confess or repent. Rather, they continue on with their double-talk and cover up about this massive fraud that has decimated the Adventist Movement. They have so bungled Adventist history and doctrine that what most people think is normative SDA history is not. This is the problem. And it is time that the White Estate stands up and repudiates most of what they have been teaching for generations. And this includes this outrageous nonsense that Ellen White supports Glacier View theology. She does not. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1040 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Ron Corson said: "why did she publish that stupid thing. That is the problem, not that she said it because people all say stupid things but that it got passed along, that it got put into a book marketed for youth. Not as an example of an exasperated mother but as instructions from God on how youth should behave." Because of their focus and obsession with the SABBATH, the SDA's in Battle Creek slowly but surely became legalists. So this legalistic remark about children was no exasperated slip of the tongue. Ellen White and all the others are on the record making the most Roman Catholic and legalistic remarks about behavior for years. So this one under discussion was hardly an anomaly. Rather it represented the fact that the whole denomination, including Ellen White, were becoming like the Pharisees because of their obsession with the law and character perfection. This is why when the 1888 debate exploded onto the scene, Uriah Smith and all the others were stunned that Ellen White sided with Waggoner. She had become almost as legalistic as they had and thus they were shocked to see her change course and support Waggoner's view that was essentially that of Luther. So Elaine is correct to say that the dates of Ellen White's statements must be carefully considered. Why? Because Ellen White changed her view about the Gospel after 1888. THIS explains why she would write so differently about little children after 1888. And when her pre- 1888 statements are compared with her post 1888 statements there is an obvious and shocking difference. One that the White Estate has hidden from the Adventist Community and refuses to explain. But this is the real key to understanding the two very opposite statements from the pre and post Ellen White. 1860: "The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and He has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does not love.... When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong" (An Appeal to the Youth, 1864, 62). 1892: "Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach them that He loves them so that it grieves His tender Spirit to see them in transgression" (Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1892). " A large chart could be set up to show how the pre and post 1888 Ellen White represent opposing views of the Gospel. Why has the White Estate failed to do this? This shocking example about children can be replicated for adults as well. In fact, anyone can do this by comparing the early Ellen White with the post 1888 Ellen White from the published sources. Don Sands said: "Neal, there are many things for which I offer tentative opinions but on this one, I am sure I represent the Adventist view." While the church today is backpedaling as fast as possible on this point, that does not change the facts of 20th century history. The "SDA view" was that one had to believe in Ellen White to be a good Adventist. And no amount of double-talk can change this fact. Don said: "The Adventist Church carefully draws a line. The Baptismal Vow is intentionally worded to allow for those who are not convicted regarding the prophetic ministry of Ellen White." Again, do not confuse the present double-talk with the historical facts. What is the point of this? Today the SDA church openly promotes "pluralism" and that is why it is true today that one does not have to be an Ellen White believer to be baptized. But that would not have been the case during much of the 20th century in North America. Don said: "The Church teaches that the Gift of Prophecy is an identifying attribute of the last day church, taught by Scripture. It asks that those who get Baptized accept that," Ha! Any honest SDA knows what this means. It is code for accepting Ellen White. Or do you think that SDA's are now promoting Pentecostalism? Come on, be honest? Can you do that? Why do SDA's feel the need to be so dishonest about the facts? The fact of the matter is that the SDA's still want to promote Ellen White as a special prophet like Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy. It's just that there is so much opposition and problems that they dare not do it. So they try to do it subliminally and by the use of code and double-talk. Not only is this very dishonest, it is wrong. The White Estate should be ashamed for what they have done. Ellen White cannot be a part of the Adventist Hermeneutic. She does not have doctrinal authority and she never did have. So it is pointless and dishonest to pretend otherwise. And the White Estate needs to stand up and confess the fact that they have been WRONG all these years and censor the late Arthur White. At some point the SDA's are going to have to deal with the real history of Battle Creek and Takoma Park and stop playing games. The SDA church is so dishonest and full of double-talk about Ellen White and theology that it is disgusting. No wonder the Laodicean Message, which is the true Pre-Advent Judgment of the church, demands repentance and reform. It does not exclude SDA's, nor does it call for double-talk and deception. But that is all the SDA's care to do at this point. Pity. It is time for the White Estate to come clean and confess that they have incorrectly promoted Ellen White, even as they have deceived the church about her theology on the Gospel and about the Three Angels Messages. This is the only option to save the SDA Church from their present course of confusion and self-destruction. If they refuse to repent and set the record straight they are doomed. It's just this simple. Tom Norris, for Adventist Reform | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 453 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Therefore this is a logically true statement It may be logically true, but it is not true in practice. The balance of life's issues is a bit more complex than can be served by simple logic. Maybe part of my concern for literalism is also a concern for not recognizing the complexity of life. Logic has its short comings. I have posted a poem entitled, "The Owl Critic" http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/8/8315.html?1150647623#POST56494 The Owl Critic had good logic but he was wrong about the Owl. It illustrates the need we all share to be careful what we assert. | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 605 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
Tom wrote
Exactly. Well said. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 606 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
It may be logically true, but it is not true in practice. This is defined in the Church Manual. My statements are from the manual. Yet you say it is not true in 'practice'. The only way it could not be true in practice is if a different baptismal vow is used than the one in the manual. (Message edited by NWalls on June 18, 2006) Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 607 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
The Owl Critic had good logic but he was wrong about the Owl. I have been an owl. You are an owl. If I had never been an SDA your analogy would make sense. I have had this discussion before with pastors who do not believe in EGW as a true prophet. I ask why they tell a lie by carrying the SDA ministerial credentials while not believing the Church stand on EGW. They say because the SDA church is the closest to what they believe even though they can't believe in her. I have been a believer. I have been SDA. I have lots of SDA family. If we had somebody on this board who had never been an SDA your owl poem would make total sense in their case. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 454 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Test of Fellowship The only way it could not be true in practice is if a different baptismal vow is used than the one in the manual. 1) It has been effectively pointed out that in the pioneer days, as evidenced by James White's assertion, belief in the prophetic role of Ellen White was not a test of fellowship. 2) In the name of "pluralism" it has been stated that the church, today, does not make belief in the prophetic role of Ellen White a test of fellowship. 3) Ellen White's writings themselves have been brought forward to show that she did not want her prophetic ministry made a test of fellowship. It has been asserted that somewhere in the Twentieth Century her prophetic role was made a test of fellowship. Where is the evidence? The early twentieth century was a very strict time for Adventists. The generation of my grandmother seemed to have a simple, legalistic approach. I am willing to admit that it would fit the times of those early 1900's but where is the evidence? The assertion that Neal has made of the Church Manual is incorrect. I have pastored, I have been trained as a pastor, and I can tell you that the Baptismal Vow has intentionally not included Ellen White's name. This is not double-talk as has been suggested by another post. It may be hard for someone who has such strong bias against the church to admit that the church does things carefully and thoughtfully but at times, it does. James White began the distinction. He believed strongly in his wife's ministry. He developed an understanding of the Biblical teaching of Spiritual Gifts. This Biblical teaching is foundational. Certainly the teaching has been applied to Ellen White, but, I think this insistence on something that cannot be proven, that a person must agree that Ellen White is a prophet as a test of fellowship, no evidence has been offered, just assertions. Logic is not evidence. I do not say this because of any personal stand on Ellen White, I say it because it is a carefully held line by Adventist practice. It has been pointed out that the Church takes a different approach toward its pastors. I agree with that assertion. The same thing is true for tithing. The practice of tithing is not made a test of fellowship though it is expected of each pastor to be a tithe-payer. (Message edited by Don on June 18, 2006) | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 608 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
I have pastored, I have been trained as a pastor, and I can tell you that the Baptismal Vow has intentionally not included Ellen White's name. It does not need to include her name when the church says ""This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White." There is only one person in the history of the SDA church that the baptismal vow could be talking about. "8. Do you accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?" Church Manual page 33. If the church did not have EGW this vow would not be in the list. I have one dog. When I talk to my neighbor and ask them if they believe I have a dog they will say yes. I did not use my dog's name but everybody would know I was talking about my dog Tulip. Everybody knows the church is talking about EGW in vow #8. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2303 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Don, From the SDA Church Manual - on line - page 33: Do you accept the biblical teaching of the spiritual gifts and believe the gift of prophesy on one of the identifying marks of the remnant church. Do you think someone could say yes to that without thinking of Ellen White and say, "Yes I do, and my aunt Gertrude has that gift."? You are playing word games. However, it is true there's an alternative vow which has only three or four points and leaves out this part. I also know of a pastor who baptized someone without her joinint the SDA church, but this pastor was transferred somewhere. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 455 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
James White about Ellen White Tom, your quotes from James White are helpful. For the record, they can be found online at: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/1844/12.html | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 609 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
The practice of tithing is not made a test of fellowship though it is expected of each pastor to be a tithe-payer. Whether tithing or belief in EGW as prophet are tests of fellowship has no bearing on whether they are in the baptismal vow. So vow #8 does not contain the Prophetess.  And tithe in #9 is not a test of faith. So even though #10 is the anti-alcohol, anti-drug, anti-smoking vow I guess everybody can pour a stiff one and light up after the service now without worrying about getting called before the church board. NOT. I understand now. Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 456 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Sigh... I have tried to enlighten you. The distinction between Bible Teaching, Interpretation, and Church Practice is how I describe it to you. The question should be "Why does the Church draw such a line?" not "Does it?" It may seem a word game, it isn't. It may seem illogical. Logic is based on certain premises. Change the premise, the logic changes. Any pastor I know, understands how to deal with the issue. There are, within Adventism, Pastors who understand this better than some. I believe that the teaching of the prophetic gift in the last days stands whether Ellen White fulfills that gift or not. Many in the Church are determined to stand alone on Scripture. James White's stand taught me how to look at it on two levels: The Biblical teaching of Spiritual Gifts and the interpretation of that teaching to include Ellen White in particular. To miss this point is to not understand James White's thinking, or mine. | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2304 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Don, Sigh! How ever one gets around the wording to appologize for church practice, the fact remains that to be in "good standing" in the SDA church and expect to be a functioning member and even an employee, one has to acknowledge Ellen White as the SDA prophet(ess). The baptizmal vow is worded "carefully" as you say, but the meaning is not lost on anybody. It's about the careful wording - that's what happened with Walter Martin. The wording got the church by without being labelled a cult, but everybody that mattered, knew better. That is, knew that the wording was "careful" and the reality was something different. So are we to weigh each word and act so as to be careful, while the actions are what they are? This might make some cultural sense to a second, third, fourth generation SDA, but when you come out of the great big wide world, where words are meant to communicate (except in politcs and lawyers' offices) this kind of word game is upsetting, and looks dishonest. | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 610 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
I believe that the teaching of the prophetic gift in the last days stands whether Ellen White fulfills that gift or not. So, Don, please fill in the blank: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested ____________" Fill in the blank with a logical alternative (one that would make sense to any SDA). Venturesome Scholar... Sounds good to me Bob2 | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 1901 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Been thinking about E.G.White . . . . She got hit by a stone in childhood. Caused brain damage and epilepsy. During seizures she had visions that helped and led the SDA church. • Wonder if I could find out just where that brain damage was. Maybe I could do more with my life if I could get that too? She copied much of what she wrote. • I guess I need all those books she copied from. Then maybe I could write books that would help people as have hers. Her secretaries did much of the writing that comes under her name. • Did those secretaries pass on any of their talents to their offspring? We need some good writers for the Review, etc. James White manipulated her to do what he wanted in order to bolster his position. • My wife manipulates me. Maybe I need to give her free rein, so that people will listen to me more. Ho hummm . . . . I'm thinking! I'm thinking! I know there is more . . . . | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 459 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
This kind of word game is upsetting, and looks dishonest. Just as there are many different people on a bulletin board forum, so the big wide world has many different people. Some will rush to judgment. Some will consider careful thinking dishonest. Others will not. If we think that careful thinking is limited to Adventism, we are naive. Anyone who stands for something will eventually be in a position to have to explain their stand to the unsympathetic. I figure explaining things here to this unsympathetic crowd is good practice, sigh. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1293 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Hub speculates: Been thinking about E.G.White . . . . She got hit by a stone in childhood. Caused brain damage and epilepsy. During seizures she had visions that helped and led the SDA church. • Wonder if I could find out just where that brain damage was. Maybe I could do more with my life if I could get that too? Perhaps you could have the trauma of Joseph Smith's childhood also as it enabled him to "help" so many and start an inportant religious denomination. You may be thinking Hubb but are you thinking critically? Anderson sees Smith's personality structure arising out of his dysfunctional family unit. His mother appears to have suffered episodic depression, and his weak, alcoholic father's obsession with magic kept him from productive support of his family. The added deprivation of rootless poverty in the important early childhood years made young Smith woefully vulnerable to the psychological devastation of his horrible surgical experience at age seven. This event, says Anderson, propelled Smith backward in his development to the permanent immaturity of a four-year-old, viewing himself and others through the egocentric eyes of a child. From a review of Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/inside.htm New Protestants.com | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2305 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Hubert, That's cute - but a great number of lives have been messed up because they had questions about what Ellen White, or her secretary, or her library or her son have left us as a legacy, and which, the SDA church maintains comes directly from God through a "spiritual gift". When I questioned what one can do when private Bible study revealed errors in Ellen White's message, I was told to "pray again", meaning, "until my reading agreed with Ellen White's." For someone who had never heard her name until the church said that she sets the standard for Bible study, this sounded dangerous. Believe me, it sounds wierd unless you teethed on one of her books. For me, it was one of the lowest points in my life and is not a trivial matter. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1294 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
I had to find out about this surgery of Joseph Smith's childhood and it is not pretty you can read his mother's account at: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no99.htm New Protestants.com | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2306 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Don, Could you explain "unsympathetic"? Unsympathetic to what? Most of us here (myself for sure) have struggled with these issues for a long time. In my case for over thirty years. I don't think you can accuse me of "rushing to jugment". For me it all started to unravel when I tackled the Bible on my own and found some glaring problems with SDA theology. When digging deeper it became obvious that no one was going to look at the issues with an open mind. The bias of Ellen White was always there and if there were no answers, the answer was "someday we'll understand". It's almost as if Ellen White is the absolute and all else must submit to her, instead of her ideas being judged by the Bible. | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1043 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don Sands said: "1) It has been effectively pointed out that in the pioneer days, as evidenced by James White's assertion, belief in the prophetic role of Ellen White was not a test of fellowship." This is a fact of the record. But once Ellen White was dead, (and even before) the Takoma Park leaders made loyalty to her writings a essential test of being an SDA, even if it was not written down as part of the official beliefs of the church at that time. However, this doctrine was made very clear at Glacier View and was the primary reason why Dr. Ford was exiled in 1980. Which is why at that time the leaders decided to write down this point and many others in an official creed so that all would clearly understand SDA doctrine. This creed was called the 27 Fundamentals. In fact, this new creed contained a specific section that claimed Ellen White was a "CONTINUING AND AUTHORTIVE SOURCE OF TRUTH…" Such words cannot be misunderstood. The church leaders were giving her official doctrinal authority, and that is exactly what the Conservatives and the White Estate had been doing long before it was put in writing. So here is all the proof that anyone needs to see that the SDA church OFFICIALLY promotes Ellen White in a manner that is against the Protestant Hermeneutic and even against the teachings of the Pioneers. How can any SDA today try and refute such self-evident facts? Read it for yourself: 18. The Gift of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.) Until this "fundamental heresy" is repudiated, as well as many others, the SDA church stands in open and defiant rebellion against the Protestant Faith as well as against the teachings of the Pioneers. It is just this simple. Stop the double-talk and admit this point. Don said: " 2) In the name of "pluralism" it has been stated that the church, today, does not make belief in the prophetic role of Ellen White a test of fellowship." The age of pluralism came AFTER Glacier View. It was a dishonest way of trying to mitigate the horrible damage that was done by the Conservatives. The leaders knew that if they continued to promote legalism and perfection that the pews would be empty. So they backtracked without coming out and admitting that they were wrong about Glacier View theology and that they should not have exiled Dr. Ford or repudiated the Gospel. Now the leaders were going to permit most of Dr. Ford's theology to be taught, even though a few years earlier they took the opposite position. So the policy about pluralism means that the church will now sanction mutually exclusive positions about the Gospel, Ellen White, and the IJ. In other words if one wants to be a right wing legalist and support perfection and the IJ and think that Ellen White writes scripture, that is fine. But if one wants to believe the opposite, like Dr. Ford and the evangelical minded SDA's, and repudiate the IJ and not give any doctrinal authority to Ellen White that is also acceptable. Adventist truth is no longer objective or Protestant. It is now in the eye of the believer. This is an outrageous policy. Like the Roman Catholics, the SDA's will also try and become as accommodating as possible in order to build a religious Empire. Such is the new version of "Present Truth." Ha! The Pioneers would never stand for this nonsense and neither should any SDA today. The present leaders have lost their minds, and so too anyone that supports such confusion and cognitive dissonance. But this dishonest fraud will not work. There are not two Gospels or two versions of the Three Angels Messages. There are not two different views of Protestant Hermeneutics and this "lukewarm" policy is outrageous and wrong. It is against the teaching of the NT as well as against common sense. Mark 3:24 “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:25 “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. If a Denomination is divided against itself and against the Gospel, it cannot stand. This is why the SDA church is self-destructing. They have chosen a deliberate policy that is divided, dishonest, and against the Pioneers and the fundamentals of the Protestant Faith. No wonder the Adventist Movement is in chaos and confusion? No wonder no one can figure anything out with so much official double-talk and deceit being promoted? This is utter nonsense and there is no excuse for it. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1044 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don said: "3) Ellen White's writings themselves have been brought forward to show that she did not want her prophetic ministry made a test of fellowship." So what? While this is a true point, I can show you that Ellen White also refused to allow her writings to be quoted from the pulpit. That was her policy and that of the Pioneers in the 19th century. But how many sermons have you heard that contain quotes from Ellen White? How many have you given? This practice of quoting from Ellen White was so common and routine in the 20th century that people are stunned to find out that Ellen White prohibited such a practice in her day. They can hardly believe it when they find out the Ellen White was not promoted as a doctrinal authority in Battle Creek the way the White Estate promoted her in Takoma Park. But the record is clear, and yet the leaders have all ignored Ellen White on this point and many others. "Many from among our own people are writing to me, asking with earnest determination the privilege of using my writings to give force to certain subjects that they wish to present to the people in such a way as to leave a deep impression upon them. It is true that there is a reason why some of their matters should be presented; but I would not venture to give my approval in using the Testimonies in this way, or to sanction the placing of matter which is good in itself in the way which they propose." (Ellen White to Brother Littlejohn, Aug. 3, 1894) Ellen White refused to give any Pastor, evangelist, church worker, or member permission to use her writings to promote or support church doctrine. James White would not do it, and neither did Ellen White or Uriah Smith. The White Estate has deceived the Adventist Community on this important point and they need to repent for this great sin. "Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what "Sister White said"-- "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that," and "Sister White said the other thing." But say, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says." (Spalding and Magan Collection, page 167, paragraph 2) "In public labor do not make prominent, and quote that which Sister White has written as authority to sustain your positions. To do this will not increase faith in the testimonies. Bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God. " (Letter 11, 1894.) The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed. (Selected Messages Vol. 1, p. 416) See more at the Ellen White Writings and Sola Scriptura link below: http://www.bibleonly.org/SSRI/SSRI-1.htm In addition, I can also show you conclusively that Ellen White never placed the IJ in the 1st Angels Message. But that is what the church has taught for over 50 years. That is what Glacier View affirmed and what the White Estate and the church teaches to this very day. So who cares what Ellen White said, wrote, and taught? Not the church leaders. Not the White Estate. Not the Review. They do with her writings whatever they want to do. Which is why they were hiding so many of them. The White Estate is a corrupt and wicked institution that stands under the judgment of heaven. They had better stop playing games and so too should all SDA's. Shame on anyone who tries to defend such dishonest and outrageous conduct! The fact that Ellen White would not let her writing be used as a test of fellowship or to be the basis for doctrine, or to even be used in a sermon proves nothing. Why? Because the SDA church ignored her words on this point and did the opposite. So stop trying to defend the White Estate or the church. They do not deserve it. Rather, they need to be condemned by all SDA's for incorrectly promoting Ellen White all these years and then trying to pretend that they have done nothing wrong and that they have no need to repent or set the record straight. This is the same attitude that destroyed the rebellious Jews and the SDA's are following in their same wicked footsteps. Don said: "It has been asserted that somewhere in the Twentieth Century her prophetic role was made a test of fellowship. Where is the evidence?" The Denomination's official creed of "fundamental doctrines" is the written proof about what the church expects all SDA to believe and practice. That is why it was written and that is what the Church Manuel clearly states. That is why this creed exits. The church leaders expect that document to be the test of fellowship. This is what officially defines SDA doctrine and belief today. Moreover, the church also promotes certain views about theology and doctrine through an endless stream of books that they publish on their own printing presses. And thus they are able to manipulate and indoctrinate their propaganda non-stop. My library is full of such church sanctioned books that promote Ellen White as if she wrote scripture. They come from the White Estate and the Review and the Pacific Press, and this is what really sets the tone and promotes what the church leaders want to get promoted. Here is a modern sample from Morris Venden that was widely promoted and sanctioned by the church. It clearly teaches that Ellen has doctrinal authority and reinforces the official creed on this point: "There is hope for every remnant believer today who sometimes feels confused at all the differing views taken by different scholars and commentaries. We have that was given for the purpose of settling the disagreements among the uninspired commentaries. What do you do when the scholars disagree? Do you have to become a better scholar than the best in order to settle the disagreement in your own mind? No, let me repeat. God has given to our church an inspired commentary to settle the disagreements among the uninspired commentaries. And we can still be thankful for that today." (Morris Venden, The Pillars, p. 30.) Continued | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 461 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Unsympathetic Sirje, when I put a beside my work, usually it means that I am being playful rather than logical. I have actually been surprised at how tolerant everyone has been, on this forum, of my apparent orthodoxy. I realize that there is long history of thinking over matters and of being given the brush off by Church leaders. I have the opposite experience. Because, in my family, we were raised to view Adventist leadership in a critical, "set them straight" fashion, we learned to think for ourselves. Also, my upbringing did not teach me that Ellen White was the absolute and that submission to her was the goal to be reached. Ellen White's writings were considered a very precious resource but never as a replacement of, or an equivalent to, the Bible. | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1045 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
There can be no avoiding the fact that the SDA church has promoted Ellen White in a manner that is against the Protestant Hermeneutic and against the position of the Pioneers. What is the point of trying to deny this self-evident fact? When the denomination repents and changes this portion of their fundamental creed, THEN and only then can SDA's stand up with a straight face and say that the church is in compliance with the fundamentals of the Protestant Faith and in support of the Pioneer position. But right now this is an absurd and ludicrous position to try and take. Don said: "The early twentieth century was a very strict time for Adventists. The generation of my grandmother seemed to have a simple, legalistic approach. I am willing to admit that it would fit the times of those early 1900's but where is the evidence?" The evidence is contained in hundreds of books and articles sanctioned by the church all during the 20th century. It is also contained in the hidden 1919 Bible Conference minutes that spoke specifically about how Ellen White was being incorrectly promoted as having doctrinal authority when the Pioneers never sanctioned this position. That document shows how early this error crept into the Takoma Park denomination. And also how impossible it was to stop. Moreover, this awful error was finally given official sanction in the post Glacier View creed called the 27 Fundamentals. So what had been practiced for generations became official doctrine in 1980. Only a blind person could deny all this "evidence" and pretend that it does not exist. Do you want to see or not? Or are you one of the many SDA's that are blind to whatever it is that they don't want to see? Don said: "The assertion that Neal has made of the Church Manual is incorrect. I have pastored, I have been trained as a pastor, and I can tell you that the Baptismal Vow has intentionally not included Ellen White's name." I have been an SDA for almost 60 years. I grew up in Takoma Park, and studied SDA theology and was trained for the ministry. I too personally know scores and scores of Pastors. And I can assure you that regardless whether Ellen White's name was kept off the Baptismal Vows or not, everyone knew that she was part of the fundamental theology of the SDA church. And every pastor made sure to make this point perfectly clear to any and every candidate for Baptism. In fact, that is what the Church Manuel requires. So while her name was purposefully, dishonestly, and deceptively kept off the vows, it was there in spirit and in code, and I dare you to deny this fact. The SDA church in the 20th century promoted Ellen White as a doctrinal authority that equaled the Bible writers and thus she became a part of the SDA hermeneutic that all SDA's were taught. Which is why her NAME is now clearly spelled out in the SDA creed. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1046 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don said: "This is not double-talk as has been suggested by another post." Ha! The SDA's are the world's greatest double-talkers. If there were a religious award for double-talk and deception--it would have to go to the SDA's. How can any Protestant church that claims to follow the teachings of Jesus be so dishonest and full of double-talk? It is an amazing and embarrassing situation to behold. The SDA's repudiate the Apostles, but pretend that they follow and honor them. They also repudiate their Pioneers and also pretend that they follow them, but they obviously don't. They also claim to be the heirs of the Reformers, and yet they repudiate their Gospel, embrace another hermeneutic, and pretend that they follow them as well, even as they promote pluralism, embrace a Roman Catholic Gospel and organizational system, and play all manner of tricks to cover up their inability to articulate a unified and credible theology. The SDA's today are nothing but dishonest double-talkers. So much so that while they claim the "Bible is our only creed" they immediately go on to say in the next sentence that their 27 Fundamentals are the "expression" of what the Bible teaches--as if this is not a creed. Ha! They claim the Bible is their "only creed" even as they point to their written creed that refutes the teachings of the Bible. Hello? Is anyone home? Is anyone paying attention? Wow! This is nothing but flagrant deceit and incompetent double-talk for the brain dead. This is such obvious nonsense that no wonder so many have thrown up their hands in disgust and walked out the door. Who can blame them? The Adventist Community should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such outrageous gibberish and hot air to represent the Adventist Movement. The SDA leaders are corrupt, incompetent, and useless. All they can do is double-talk. It makes me sick and embarrassed to be associated with such a group. Don said: "It may be hard for someone who has such strong bias against the church to admit that the church does things carefully and thoughtfully but at times, it does." The SDA church has "carefully and thoughtfully" deceived the Adventist Community about Ellen White's doctrinal authority as well as her position on the Gospel and her views on eschatology and the IJ for generations. They have systematically hidden and suppressed thousands of her documents so that they could promote a false view of her theology and misrepresent her views on the Gospel, hermeneutics, and the Three Angels Messages to the church. So I fail to understand why you are defending the church? Those that work for the church have been blinded by their paychecks, and thus they are the ones that are full of bias and bewitched with greed. It is always amazing to me that as soon as an SDA Pastor, Professor, or theologian retires from the church; they all of a sudden see things in a much different light. The love of money creates a very large bias with all SDA's. Those that are paid by the denomination are not able to see the facts clearly or correctly. This is shameful. Don said: "James White began the distinction. He believed strongly in his wife's ministry. He developed an understanding of the Biblical teaching of Spiritual Gifts." While this is true, the point here is to understand that the White Estate and the modern day Review repudiated the Pioneers on this point. And the White Estate especially needs to be held accountable for this huge error. More than that, the record needs to be set straight and the Glacier View sanctioned position about Ellen White having doctrinal authority needs to be repudiated and CHANGED. And until this takes place, the SDA's are not Protestant. They are not even following their own Pioneers, much less the Apostles. So why are you defending the church when it is clearly wrong? What are you trying to prove? That you are worthy of being promoted? That you are loyal to a corrupt denomination? You should be ashamed of yourself. How do you sleep at night? Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1047 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don said: "This Biblical teaching (about spiritual gifts) is foundational. Certainly the teaching has been applied to Ellen White, but, I think this insistence on something that cannot be proven, that a person must agree that Ellen White is a prophet as a test of fellowship, no evidence has been offered, just assertions. Logic is not evidence." The 27 Fundamentals are plenty of "evidence." They are not logic or "assertions." They represent what the SDA church officially teaches, and they teach that Ellen White has doctrinal authority. And this is what all members are expected to believe and accept when they become baptized. So you need to stop the Pharisaical double-talk and admit the facts. This is exactly the kind of games that the Jews played and Jesus called them on their double-talk and false doctrine. Mark 7:6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. Mark 7:7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ Mark 7:8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” Mark 7:9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. Mark 7:10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH BE PUT TO DEATH’; Mark 7:11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ Mark 7:12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; Mark 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” So too do the SDA's "do many such things" to invalidate the Word of God in favor of their corrupt and self-serving tradition. In fact, the church Manuel says that no one should be baptized until the "candidate" has been "thoroughly instructed" in all the doctrines of the church. They must be "familiar with and committed to all the fundamental beliefs and related practices of the church and are prepared to assume the responsibilities of church membership." So this wipes out all this nonsense about what is contained on the Baptismal Vows. It stops your double-talk and proves that you have no case. The rules of the church state that the "Churches should insist on the application" of the fundamentals "as a guiding principle in the reception of new members." The CM goes on to talk about the need to examine the candidates for baptism to make sure they know the teachings of the church. Thus the Baptismal Vows are only a "summary of doctrinal beliefs" and a short "covenant" that in no way is meant to ignore or omit any of the 27, err, now 28 fundamentals. In fact, the CM states that all candidates are expected to follow and accept "all doctrines taught by the SDA's …" (See CM, pages 31-34.) If any SDA Pastor is omitting to instruct a baptismal candidate about the doctrine of Ellen White being an authoritative "Prophet," then they are in violation of the rules of the church. They are in open rebellion against the authority of their employers. Of course many of those that understand this point (and other points) have left the church rather then be obligated to promote false doctrine. This is why I refused to become an Adventist minister. I would rather be a free and honest person in another profession then spend my life deceiving people for a living in the name of God. I see that this is not a position that you have taken. So be it. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1048 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don said: "I do not say this because of any personal stand on Ellen White, I say it because it is a carefully held line by Adventist practice." You should have said that it is a "carefully held deception" by the double-talking SDA's." The SDA church officially teaches that Ellen White has doctrinal authority. This doctrine is in writing and has been sanctioned by the GC in session and is part of their creed. It is also proudly posted on the denominations web site. So it is what it is. Why try and pretend otherwise? To do so is to give false testimony about what the SDA's teach and believe. This is a sin. Stop it. Everyone that joins the SDA church is bound to believe and accept every point of the SDA creed. This is what the church teaches in the CM. Don said: "The same thing is true for tithing. The practice of tithing is not made a test of fellowship though it is expected of each pastor to be a tithe-payer." More dishonest double-talk. Every MEMBER is expected to follow all the doctrines of the SDA church. And this means tithing. Which is why there is a whole chapter in the CM, #12 called "Gospel Finance." So stop with this game that says otherwise. The Church Manuel is clear that every member is to follow every doctrine. The fact that some are enforced more than others is beside the point. They are all to be enforced according to the CM. And besides, tithe is claimed to be one of the most "sacred" of all SDA doctrines. Moreover, no SDA is allowed to hold any church office unless they pay tithe. Thus the SDA's have developed a two-tier membership that has no parallel in the Apostolic Church. But such inequality is against the NT, even as it is against the doctrine of spiritual gifts, which is what really determines and qualifies a person for church office. Thus for SDA's, tithe paying is more determinative of church office than is the Holy Sprit. What an arrogant insult to heaven. What heresy the SDA's teach and practice. They do not correctly understand the Gospel at all if they think that tithe was in any way used to support the Gospel in the Apostolic Church. It was never used in the NT church at any time as they dishonestly claim. The SDA's today are just fabricating, promoting, and practicing false doctrine to say otherwise, when they know that this is not the case. So who cares if the Baptismal Vows do not specifically make tithing a test of fellowship? It is one of the most important and well promoted of all the SDA doctrines. But regardless, it is false doctrine that is against the Gospel and needs to also be repudiated along with so many other absurd and false SDA doctrines that are written in their creed and expected to be believed by all that join the church. The fact of the matter is that the SDA's would enforce everything on the books if they could get away with it. But they have no such power in this modern age. But if they did, they would burn all at the stake that failed to bow down to their man made doctrines--just like the RCC once did. If the SDA's ruled the world all would be forced to bow down to their false and arrogant doctrines. Dr. Ford would have been tortured to death instead of exiled. Such is the real spirit of the modern SDA's. They would enforce all to give them this illegal tax of tithe, just like they force all the Pastors and church workers under their control. The only reason they do not try and enforce such compliance with others is because they know it would be counter-productive and that it is in fact illegal, so they don't do it. So they use guilt and endless propaganda about this false doctrine that was NEVER practiced or endorsed by the Apostolic Church as they teach. Thus they say, "Although the returning of tithe is not held as a test of fellowship, it is recognized as a scriptural obligation that every believer owes to God and as one of the spiritual exercises in which the giver should have a part in claiming by faith the fullness of blessing in Christian life and experience." (CM, page 165.) But there is no such teaching or practice in the NT as the SDA's claim. It is not a "scriptural obligation" for any New Covenant Christian, and thus following such false and Old Covenant doctrine cannot bring any "blessing" as they promise. Rather, to follow false doctrine can only bring the curse of God. And so it has. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1049 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
The SDA's are promoting an outrageous and self-serving scam about church finance and church orginization, and it is time that they are confrontedf about this outrageously false doctrine of NT Tithe, which is the source of all their power and hierarchical control. But the SDA's don't care about what the Apostles teach any more than does the Mormons, Roman Catholics, or the Scientologists. They think like all the other deluded religious cults and frauds that they are an authority unto themselves. And whatever they say is binding in heaven as well as on earth. They are arrogant religious Pharisees that know not the Gospel. They are wolves disguised as sheep. And it is time to expose them for what they really are. The Pioneers would be furious at their corruption and would not support any of this Adventist blasphemy. In fact, the Church Manuel is based more on Ellen White than on scripture. Every chapter is loaded with quotes from Ellen White to support every imaginable position, doctrine, and rule. But how can this be if Ellen White would not allow her writings to even be used from the Pulpit as doctrinal authority? How did her words become the basis for every minute rule and every major doctrine that the modern SDA church teaches? This is absurd. The CM is against the Pioneers, as well as the fundamental teachings of the Reformers and the Apostles. It is an abomination and a travesty to anyone that is Protestant or Adventist. Neal Walls said: "It does not need to include her name when the church says ""This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White." There is only one person in the history of the SDA church that the baptismal vow could be talking about." This is obviously correct. But as pointed out above, the CM clearly teaches that any candidate for baptism must be thoroughly instructed on "all" the SDA fundamentals. And this means that Ellen White's name will be clearly seen within the SDA creed. So this Baptismal Vow is being used as a smoke screen for those that love to double-talk and deceive. Sirje Walkowiak said: "Do you think someone could say yes to that without thinking of Ellen White and say, "Yes I do, and my aunt Gertrude has that gift."? Ha! That made me laugh out loud! Just to think about the Gertrude P. Smith Estate sounds so silly, strange, and bizarre. While the Ellen G. White Estate is a naturally processed term by all SDA's that easily rolls off the tongue with meaning, purpose, and great religious authority, all other names fall flat. Which proves that SDA's are more like Pavlov's trained dogs than knowledgeable Protestants. All SDA's have been brainwashed and conditioned by generations of dishonest and false PROPAGANDA FROM THE CHURCH about Gertrude, err, I mean Ellen White. And it is time to break this evil spell. Paul they are not so sure about. But Ellen White they understand and embrace more than they do all the Apostles. Such is the evil work of the White Estate. And unless this is repudiated and the record set straight, the SDA church will remain a self-destructing cult until they are totally destroyed in the Judgment Day. But the leaders have no intention of repenting any more than did the Jews in Jesus day or the Vatican in the time of Luther. Even though the White Estate has been caught hiding and suppressing thousands of documents, and deceiving the church about the authority, theology, and writings of Ellen White, they refuse to admit that there is anything wrong, or that they need to repudiate Arthur White and repent. What is the problem they say? All is well. The White Estate has betrayed the Pioneers and turned the Adventist Apocalyptic into cultic nonsense. And yet they go on as if they are innocent as lambs and act as if the General Conference is not a cesspool of corruption and false doctrine. This is power gone corrupt. This is such a "wretched" display of arrogance by the SDA leaders that the Adventist Community should no longer tolerate the endless double-talk from their Pastors, and denominational leaders that tirelessly try to defend what is indefensible. Anyone that defends the present corruption is an enemy of the Pioneers. They stand under the judgment of heaven and only await their just reward of doom. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1050 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Sirje said: "You (Don) are playing word games. However, it is true there's an alternative vow, which has only three or four points and leaves out this part. Anyone who tries to defend the present corruption will have to resort to playing word games. It is so sad. But like I said, the CM clearly says that no one should be baptized until the "candidate" has been "thoroughly instructed" in all SDA doctrine. Thus the CM states that all members must be "familiar with and committed to all the fundamental beliefs and related practices of the church..." So there is no use in trying to hide behind any version of the baptismal vows. Every SDA member is expected to embrace ALL the doctrines, and be committed to each and every one of them, including the written one in the church creed that claims Ellen White has doctrinal authority. Therefore, these ridiculous and dishonest word games need to stop. There is no defense or excuse for the massive amount of false doctrine that is sanctioned and promoted by the SDA church. This is the point. The present teachings are so confused and convoluted that the Apostles, Reformers and the Pioneers sanction few, if any of them. The vast majority of what SDA's teach is against the Gospel and needs to be repudiated. This is the point. The CM is a wicked and dishonest document that represents legions of false doctrine. Where in the NT is one baptized into the SDA church and made to follow the 28 Fundamentals? Where is the NT instruction that says the SDA church is a holy institution that has any religious authority? Where does the NT teach that this hierarchical body represents the Temple Storehouse and is therefore authorized to take tithe from anyone, claiming that they do so in the name of God? All such arrogant blasphemy is against the Gospel. The SDA Church Manuel is nothing more than "the commandments of men." It is Pharisaical and self-serving double-talk that needs to be thrown in the trash. There is hardly a page of it that is worthwhile or true. It depends on the false doctrine of Ellen White's authority for much of what it teaches, even as it takes her words out of context and also twists the Words of the Bible in order to pretend that these religious instructions are valid and credible. They are not. This is "wretched" trash that will be consumed in the Day of Judgment along with all that promote and follow such religious fraud. Don Sands said: "I have tried to enlighten you." I have tried to enlighten you. But those that place their hands over their eyes cannot see clearly. Take you hands away from your eyes and try to look at the issues honestly and assume that the outcome of these issues will determine your eternal life. See if that makes any difference? Don said: "The distinction between Bible Teaching, Interpretation, and Church Practice is how I describe it to you." There is not much "distinction" between false doctrine and double-talk. Which is why the SDA's are not excluded from the harsh PAJ, which is the LM. The SDA's are called to REPENT for their "wretched" doctrines or else. They are not called to make any more "distinctions" or double-talk. Heaven has seen more than enough from SDA's. And so too have I. The SDA games are over. Their double talk will no longer have any effect on the Adventist Community, much less on the public. They need to talk straight or not at all. Don said: "The question should be "Why does the Church draw such a line?" not "Does it?" No. The question should be why do SDA's think that their false doctrines, deceit, and corruption does not stink to high heaven? Why do they think that their awful record of dishonest and rebellious behavior will not consume them on the Judgment Day? Why do they think that they can get away with so much false doctrine and fabricated church history? These are more relevant questions. Don said: "It may seem a word game, it isn't." Try that line in the Judgment Day and see how far it gets you? I can see it now: Many SDA's will say on the judgment Day: "Lord, Lord, please understand there is a distinction between our Bible Teaching, Interpretation, and Church Practice. It is a very complicated situation. But understand that we are special. We keep the law. We keep the Sabbath. We pay tithe. We have a prophet. We have unique doctrines that no one else has. So please understand our "distinctions and interpretations" and let us into the Kingdom?" Ha! What do you think the Judge will say on that Day to these double-talking SDA's that have repudiated the Gospel and replaced it with legions of false doctrines? Matt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Matt. 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ Matt. 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ The SDA's are doomed if they do not stop the double-talk and repent! It is just this simple. Don said: "It may seem illogical. Logic is based on certain premises. Change the premise, the logic changes. Any pastor I know, understands how to deal with the issue. There are, within Adventism, Pastors who understand this better than some." Protestant theology is based on the authority of the Apostles. Not on "certain self-serving premises" that can be manipulated by the hired Shepard's to fleece and control the flock. The SDA Pastors are religious frauds that practice and promote false doctrine 24 / 7. They are bound by monetary chains to follow the bidding of their hierarchical masters. Thus they have sold their souls cheap and forfeited heaven in exchange for a pitiful career. By giving their loyalty to a false hierarchical authority, they have embraced much false doctrine, even as they have repudiated the authority of the Apostles and despised the Holy Spirit that is given to guide the church and help it understand and follow the Word. Continued | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1051 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
No amount of double-talk will allow them into the Kingdom of God. Heaven has already judged the SDA church as "wretched", "blind", and "naked." And so it is. Unless they accept this "pre-Advent Judgment" and REPENT AS DIRECTED, they are doomed. This is a pretty simple concept that is not up for debate or double-talk. They either confess their many sins and embrace Gospel Reform or they don't. Double talk and apologetics are irrelevant. Don said: "I believe that the teaching of the prophetic gift in the last days stands whether Ellen White fulfills that gift or not." Which teaching are you speaking about? The one in the NT as articulated by the Apostles? Or the one that comes from the White Estate? They are two very different and mutually opposing positions. So this is just more SDA double-talk from someone that is on the church payroll. It is tiresome and useless. You can't have it both ways. Either the Apostles and the Pioneers had it correct or the White Estate did? Which is it? And if it is the former, than where is the outrage and condemnation of the White Estate? Those SDA's that support the correct Pioneer position about Ellen White are duty bound to condemn the White Estate and demand that they confess, repent, and set the record straight. The era of SDA double-talk is over. Let all choose between truth and error and stop the double-talk. Don said: "Many in the Church are determined to stand alone on Scripture." Ha! Is this a joke? Name me one modern church leader or scholar that has taken such an honest Protestant position? Dr. Ford has taken such a position, but he was exiled for it. So who today within Adventism is so bold? Those that were honest have left the church, refusing to be used by a corrupt and anti-Gospel system. So where are the honest church leaders or pastors who will deal with the issues in an open, forthright and Protestant manner? There is not one man or woman that can do this. Even those that would like to do so realize that they are not allowed to freely enter into such discussions. This is why Goldstein could never enter into these online discussions. And why Bill Johnsson refused to give an interview or answer any questions. They are all so compromised and enslaved by the system that there is not an honest person to be found. All those that were honest have long since left the denomination. I am sorry to be so blunt, but there is no other way to deal with this awful situation that screams for REFORM. Those that take the correct position to "stand alone on the Bible" must repudiate the IJ as well as this fictional doctrine called NT Tithe. And they must also stand up to this corrupt hierarchy that the false doctrine of tithe has spawned. They must also stop following the Koran by embracing this absurd doctrine of abstinence that is nothing more than a pious sounding scam that adulterates the Lords Supper. There is a long list of doctrinal changes that will have to be made in the SDA church if this denomination seriously tried to follow the Bible. And so far, I have seen no evidence that this is taking place. Neither the doctrine of pluralism, (that is analogous to polytheism) nor the false and confused Gospel of the SDA's is supported by the Bible. The whole system is rotten to the core and must be overturned and reformed. So again, stop with the religious double-talk. It is not working any more. This is not the gullible 20th century. Those that continue to play games are only making fools of themselves, even as they are becoming the enemies of heaven and the Pioneers. Don said: "James White's stand taught me how to look at it on two levels: The Biblical teaching of Spiritual Gifts and the interpretation of that teaching to include Ellen White in particular." If James and Ellen White were alive today, they would overturn the White Estate and force it to confess and repent. They would do the same for the GC and the Review, even as they re-organized this corrupt and self-destructing church. They would be furious at the sad and corrupt state of the Adventist church and so too should every SDA. But for some reason you seem fine with things? So again, stop with the double-talk. To follow the Adventist Pioneers is to speak boldly, bluntly, and honestly about all the issues, refusing to defend any false doctrine or to turn a blind eye at the rampant corruption and doctrinal chaos that is so prevalent. Don't pretend that you are following the Pioneers when all you are doing is trying to defend the present corruption. They would be highly insulted at such a ploy. I know that I am. "To miss this point is to not understand James White's thinking." To miss this point is to repudiate the true spirit of the Apostles, Reformer's, and Adventist Pioneers It is time for all SDA's to stop playing games. It is time for a revolution and reformation to take place within Adventism. And a good place to start is with the White Estate. There is no defense for what they have done, and for what they still refuse to do. It is a corrupt and wicked institution that has betrayed the Pioneers and deceived the Adventist Community about Ellen White and the fundamentals. There is no excuse for what they have done. They need to confess, repent, and set the record straight. Anything less is nothing but dishonest and self-serving double-talk that falls far short of what heaven demands and earth deserves. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Tom Norris, for Adventist Reform | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 462 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Don said: "The same thing is true for tithing. The practice of tithing is not made a test of fellowship." More dishonest double-talk. Every MEMBER is expected to follow all the doctrines of the SDA church. And this means tithing. Which is why there is a whole chapter in the CM, #12 called "Gospel Finance." So stop with this game that says otherwise. Tom, Tom, you accuse me falsely.  The practice of tithing is not a test of fellowship. I understand this approach is taken because of the mess the church would be in if they meddled in members' personal finance. This is not to reduce the doctrine, but rather to just wisely administer it. Here is the actual wording found in the Church manual: "Although the returning of tithe is not held as a test of fellowship, it is recognized as a scriptural obligation that every believer owes to God..." page 165 http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 463 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Original Context Tom brings forward some excellent quotes from the pioneer days of the Adventist Church. Often, I will take what he presents and then seek out the context of the statement. Here is an example: "Many from among our own people are writing to me, asking with earnest determination the privilege of using my writings to give force to certain subjects that they wish to present to the people in such a way as to leave a deep impression upon them. It is true that there is a reason why some of their matters should be presented; but I would not venture to give my approval in using the Testimonies in this way, or to sanction the placing of matter which is good in itself in the way which they propose." (Ellen White to Brother Littlejohn, Aug. 3, 1894) This can be found at: http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/published-writings.html Apparently, it is in the The Paulson Collection of Ellen G. White Letters at pages 9-10. Here is the full section: I will put my observations in purple between the paragraphs. Regarding the Testimonies Regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered. Nothing must be done untimely. Some matters must be withheld because some persons would make an improper use of the light given. Every jot and tittle is essential and must appear at an opportune time. In the past, the testimonies were carefully prepared before they were sent out for publication. And all matter is still carefully studied after the first writing. This gives some insight into the process she followed. First writing them out, then examining them before publishing, then publishing them. Accusations Tell them to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God. Place His Word before them. There will be those who will misinterpret and misrepresent. Their eyes have been blinded, and they will set forth the figures and interpretations that Satan has worked out for them, and entirely wrong meaning will be placed upon the words that Sister White has spoken. Satan is just as verily claiming to be Christ's child as did Judas, who was on the accusing side. They have educated themselves in Satan's school of misstating. A description of them is given in the third chapter of Zechariah. Nothing in the world is so dear to God as His church. Satan was worked upon human minds, and will continue to betray sacred trust in a spurious way. ... I can see plainly that should every one who thinks he is qualified to write books, follow his imagination and have his productions published, insisting that they be recommended by our publishing houses, there would be plenty of tares sown broadcast in our world. Many from among our own people are writing to me, asking with earnest determination the privilege of using my writings to give force to certain subjects which they wish to present to the people in such a way as to leave a deep impression upon them. Note this is in the context of people wanting to write books defending their views by using quotes from Ellen White's writings. This is a very common practice today. Hmmmm. It is true that there is a reason why some of these matters should be presented; but I would not venture to give my approval in using the testimonies in this way, or to sanction the placing of matter which is good in itself in the way which they propose. The persons who make these propositions, for aught I know, may be able to conduct the enterprise of which they write in a wise manner; but nevertheless I dare not give the least license for using my writings in the manner which they propose. In taking account of such an enterprise, there are many things that must come into consideration; for in using the testimonies to bolster up some subject which may impress the mind of the author, the extracts may give a different impression than that which they would were they read in their original connections.... I think her caution here is well-founded. I am not prepared to advise that we make the matter of meat eating a test question with our people. There are some things on this subject that I can write out to be read before the churches, which it is essential for believers to understand; but when it comes to making this a test question, I dare not place it before the people in that positive way. There are those who would stumble over such a presentation, and there are others who would make of it a stone of stumbling. Apparently, the writers wanted to use her writings to advocate that meat-eating be a test of fellowship. Let us give this matter due consideration. I am prepared to stand for some things; but not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue. There should be first a fair representation of the subject, and it should be considered in all its bearings. Read carefully the record of Genesis 18:6-8. These verses speak of the three visitors, one of who was the LORD, eating meat. The Lord has given us much instruction on the subject of meat-eating; and from the light He has given we should not prepare meat and place it on our tables for our families. If meat is not placed before them the temptation to eat it is removed. signed) Ellen G. White | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1052 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don Sands said: "Tom, Tom, you accuse me falsely. The practice of tithing is not a test of fellowship." I never said it was. You must have read my posts too fast. But it is a test of fellowship for every Pastor and church worker. And if you doubt this, just stand up and say that you will no longer pay tithe and see how fast you are terminated and removed from the church. So it is a test of fellowship for the privileged class that controls the church. Their failure to comply with this false doctrine will cost them their church positions and careers without a doubt. Don't take my word for it, try it and see? Moreover, the point I was making is that this so called "sacred doctrine" is false. It cannot be defended by you are anyone else. This is the real point. Don said: "I understand this approach is taken because of the mess the church would be in if they meddled in members' personal finance. This is not to reduce the doctrine, but rather to just wisely administer it." The church does "meddle" in the personal finances of the Pastors and other denominational employees in order to make sure that they are paying tithe. Besides, how does one "wisely administer" false doctrine? Just how does that work? The doctrine of NT tithe is a farce. It is theological fiction and fraud that cannot be defended by anyone that understands the New Testament and the Gospel. Sorry. Don said: "Here is the actual wording found in the Church manual;" I understand this point and even quoted the same passage from the CM in the 9:43 post --at the bottom. So I understand and said that this false doctrine is not a "test of fellowship" --but only because it is impossible to enforce. My accusation against you is that you defend and follow false doctrine, even as I acknowledged that tithing is not an actual "test of fellowship." Here is what I said on this point: "So who cares if the Baptismal Vows do not specifically make tithing a test of fellowship? It is one of the most important and well promoted of all the SDA doctrines. But regardless, it is false doctrine that is against the Gospel and needs to also be repudiated along with so many other absurd and false SDA doctrines that are written in their creed and expected to be believed by all that join the church." "The fact of the matter is that the SDA's would enforce everything on the books if they could get away with it. But they have no such power in this modern age. But if they did, they would burn all at the stake that failed to bow down to their man made doctrines--just like the RCC once did." "If the SDA's ruled the world all would be forced to bow down to their false and arrogant doctrines. Dr. Ford would have been tortured to death instead of exiled. Such is the real spirit of the modern SDA's." "They would enforce all to give them this illegal tax of tithe, just like they force all the Pastors and church workers under their control. The only reason they do not try and enforce such compliance with others is because they know it would be counter-productive and that it is in fact illegal, so they don't do it. So they use guilt and endless propaganda about this false doctrine that was NEVER practiced or endorsed by the Apostolic Church as they teach." "Thus they say, "Although the returning of tithe is not held as a test of fellowship, it is recognized as a scriptural obligation that every believer owes to God and as one of the spiritual exercises in which the giver should have a part in claiming by faith the fullness of blessing in Christian life and experience."" (CM, page 165.) "But there is no such teaching or practice in the NT as the SDA's claim. It is not a "scriptural obligation" for any New Covenant Christian, and thus following such false and Old Covenant doctrine cannot bring any "blessing" as they promise. Rather, to follow false doctrine can only bring the curse of God. And so it has." ------------------------------------------------- I hope this clears up this little misunderstanding. Perhaps now you can focus on the actual points that were made? Tom | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 464 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Uncharitable Opinions  "The fact of the matter is that the SDA's would enforce everything on the books if they could get away with it. But they have no such power in this modern age. But if they did, they would burn all at the stake that failed to bow down to their man made doctrines--just like the RCC once did." The fact of the matter is...??? "They would burn all at the stake"??? Human nature is pretty brutal, including yours and mine. | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2307 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
While we're at it (talking about baptism, that is) - how does the church justify baptizing 10/12/15/even some 20 year olds, or folk who just hiked it accross 100 miles arid dessert and don't know how to read the 27/28 Fundamental Doctrines of the SDA Church? ...and how long did it take for the GC to come up with "belief #28"? Can a 10/12 year old understand belief #28 or the distinction that was made when they finally voted it in? Either, infant baptism is valid on the basis of baptism having taken the place of circumcision which was performed on an 8-day old infant; or, baptism is for adults who have made an adult decision as Jesus demonstrated at the age of 30. Surely if the Son of God wasn't ready to commit to his destiny before age 30, what makes us think a kid, whose only sin is fighting with his brother or putting gum in Susy's hair, is capable of wading through a college-level book to determine what all the complexeties of church membership via baptism mean. The church is qualified to ask just one qustion - "Do you wish to be baptized?" and and needs to leave the repenting and the dedicating and the fruits and the qualifications up to God. Church membership is an other matter, entirely. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 465 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Baptism While we're at it (talking about baptism, that is) - how does the church justify baptizing 10/12/15/even some 20 year olds, or folk who just hiked it accross 100 miles arid dessert and don't know how to read the 27/28 Fundamental Doctrines of the SDA Church? From my perch, I believe the church should follow the Biblical record regarding Baptism: Baptism was based on personal awareness of Jesus' claim on the soul. Knowledge of, and belief in, Jesus, accompanied by repentance of sin, seem to be the criteria expressed by the apostles. The Book of Acts also links baptism with membership in the group. There was no democratic vote like we have today. I believe that to separate baptism from membership in the church is to step further away from the practice of the early church. It is actually quite easy to teach #28 compared to a few of the others. | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) member Username: Sirje Post Number: 2308 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Yes Don, I mentioned #28 because it caused such an upheval and took such a long time to find the correct wording. I'm afraid the subtletese of that wording would not register with little kids. To be a church member one has to be aware of the commitment that's being made and it has nothing to do with accepting the atonement and submitting to Christ. The church that the early Christians joined was the "church invisible" which doesn't have a chart of last day events, beginning with 457BC and ending with 1844 AD. Don't you think someone who joins the SDA church needs to understand that chart? Did you when you were baptized? Do you now? . Don't answer that. We've been around and around on that one on another few threads. My point is, in case you're missing it, that church membership entails a lot of nitty gritty that has nothing to do with accepting Christ, and for sure, has nothing to do with salvation. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 472 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Church Membership The church that the early Christians joined was the "church invisible" which doesn't have a chart of last day events, beginning with 457BC and ending with 1844 AD. I don't think the record in Acts supports the Church Invisible assertion you make. Certainly, the Ethiopian returning to Africa did not have the trappings we have now. The African church probably developed much differently because of its isolation. The Acts church collected funds, solved doctrinal disputes, sent out missionaries. It describes an entity with leaders, with basic doctrines, and with differences, with disciplinary concerns, etc. The structure and strictures were different. My point is, in case you're missing it, that church membership entails a lot of nitty gritty that has nothing to do with accepting Christ, and for sure, has nothing to do with salvation. I agree that the Adventist denomination is a complicated advocate of Christ. I see one of my personal tasks is to simplify, simplify, simplify. Our goal should be to be as Biblically-based as possible without restricting the Spirit of God. | ||
| Thomas A Norris (Tom_norris) member Username: Tom_norris Post Number: 1053 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don Sands said: "Tom brings forward some excellent quotes from the pioneer days of the Adventist Church. Often, I will take what he presents and then seek out the context of the statement." I am glad you like my sources and even more pleased that you take the time to check out their context. However, there can be no doubt that the Pioneers and the White Estate have very different positions about the doctrinal authority and use of Ellen White. The difference is night and day. This is the point that needs to be addressed. When will you deal with the primary issue under discussion? Or will you conveniently continue to avoid it? Don said: " Human nature is pretty brutal, including yours and mine." I agree. That is why we all need the Gospel. It refines and controls us, taming the savage beast within. Without this chief and Protestant version of the Christian Faith, no one is safe in heaven or on earth. Don said: " From my perch, I believe the church should follow the Biblical record regarding Baptism." That is always the best position. But this thread is not about Baptism, but about the authority and use of Ellen White in the church. When will you address this main point and face up to the fact that the White Estate has promoted a false and dangerous position about the doctrine of Spiritual Gifts? And when will you and many others have the courage to demand that the White Estate confess, repent, and set the record straight? When will you also face up to the fact that the SDA church does not follow the NT when it comes to tithe and church organization, the Gospel and the Lord's Supper, the IJ and many such doctrines that they teach and promote? In fact, the present version of the Three Angels Messages is nothing like what the Pioneers taught? So where is the outrage? Where is the cry for Reform? Why does no one care to speak up for the Pioneers and protest this travesty and fraud? As for Baptism, SDA's do not follow the Bible about Baptism because they have tied this rite to numerous false doctrines. This is the problem. When will you deal with these real issues? So far, I have never met any church worker, Pastor, or theologian that was willing to openly and honestly deal with the issues. They all play games and double talk, and then run away from the real issues as fast as possible. This is what Clifford Goldstein is famous for around here. Are you going to follow his cowardly example? Or are you going to deal with the issues in an honest, responsible, and forthright manner? Because you have already admitted that the Pioneers had the correct position about Ellen White's spiritual gifts, and because you also know that the White Estate and the Fundamental teaching of the church represents the OPPOSITE position, what do you think should happen? Should the Adventist Community continue to ignore and repudiate the Pioneers? Should we all pretend that the White Estate is correct when we know they are not? Or should we demand that the White Estate make things right and tell the truth? What should be done? You need to stop the double-talk and diversions and deal with the real issues. Can you do this? Or are you so compromised and enslaved to an umbilical religious system that you fear to speak your mind if you actually have one? One day, all SDA's will have to choose between truth and error. One day, all the double-talk will stop and the Pioneer positions will be given the respect that they merit and deserve. And when that happens the White Estate, the Review, and the General Conference will be censored and reformed. But that day will never come so long as |
