-
Website
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Dick Larsen
Theologically, while claiming to be saved by grace, many former Adventists have adopted the word-inspired, inerrant view of scripture that is more restrictive and legalistic than that believed by Adventists.
And as you note, despite their claim to having been saved by grace, their attitudes belie their assertions.
Although some Adventists have produced some good scholarship, much of the basis for their continued "outreach" consists of nit-picking fault-finding and name calling.
Glenn
You've made some good points, but you've also painted former Adventists with a broad brush. Furthermore, I think you've minimized the problems with the investigative judgment and you've overstated the level of change taking place within the church.
I have blogged a more extensive response to your post here.
Thanks for your thought-provoking post.
Greg
www.forthegospel.org
Postmodernism and desconstruction provide today's accepted framework for anaysis and belief—but no matter how much we try to say that we can embrace what's meaningful and dismiss what's not, there is still absolute truth. God IS—and salvation IS—and we are not at liberty to decide whether or not we agree with what IS. Oh, we can certainly create compelling arguments, but arguments based on straw-man assumptions never wear well.
The point I believe that you have missed is that we left not for ideological or even primarily for theological reasons. We left for a Person—we came to know Jesus. We cannot be true to the One we love and know—the One Who has been found in appearance as a man and humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross—and stay in a religious system which Paul clearly identifies as "another gospel" in Galatians.
Hebrews, Galatians, Colossians, Romans—the New Testament is so clear that all the foundational assumptions of Adventism are just slightly off-center. At first they seem almost like all Christianity, but when you study the doctrines and examine them with Scripture, when you follow them to their logical conclusions, you arrive at a destination very different from the place apostolic Christianity leads.
Said another way, "grace" is not the antithesis of "legalism". Jesus Himself is the end of the law for all who believe. "Grace" is a word which can be interpreted as variously as there are postmodern theologians. I have heard it used to mean everything from "Jesus died for everyone, so EVERYONE will be saved," to "Jesus died to demonstrate God's grace by showing how far He would go to save us if necessary," to "Jesus gives us grace to be able to keep the law."
The Bible, however, is clear that grace is only IN Christ. The grace we receive from God is our totally finished salvation when we accept the sacrifice of Jesus' death for our inherent sin (see Epehsians 2:3) and are born again by the indwelling Holy Spirit. True grace is my being declared totally righteous, covered with Jesus' own righteousness. God sees me through Jesus' perfection. It comes at a price. Someone besides me had to pay for my sin. Grace is not grace where there is no transfer of consequences. And I cannot experience grace unless I humble myself to admit my helpless brokenness and accept the cleansing blood of Jesus for my sin.
Knowing Jesus is the reason we left. We could no longer stay in the spiritual and theological confusion of an extra-biblical prophet, a denial of Jesus total fulfillment of the law, a deconstructionist culture where almost any belief is tolerated—as long as one doesn't actually leave.
Adventism does not recognize the word of God as the absolute ground of spiritual truth. It honors the human mind and will over the sovereign God Who makes us one with Him through the blood of Jesus and by indwelling us Himself. Being born again is not a metaphor for cognitive understanding or enlightenment. It is literally becoming a new person, a true child of God, because of His transformation of us by His Spirit (see Romans 8:13-18).
Jesus is worth all the loss we have experienced. Make no mistake—a great many of us loved being Adventist; we loved the Sabbath, and we were never mistreated. We did not leave to escape wounds.
We left for Jesus. He Himself is our very great reward.
Lynric
"Black and White" thinking....also "me right you wrong"...."I know what you believe better than you do"....such thinking is the worst of what we find among us, but often those who leave citing these reasons continue to use the same kinds of thinking...
Often the Theology has changed...but the Meta-Theology (How one comes to the theological position) often has not...
However, I feel they may be prematurely revelling in the beauty of their liberation. It may not be as complete or as satisfying as they at this moment perceive.
I'm an occasional backpacker. When out with a group, it's not uncommon for us to switch packs at some point in the journey. Without exception, the new pack feels better. The straps make contact with my aching body at a different point. The load hangs a little differently. The relief is immediate and immense. But a few miles down the track, I find the new load just as onerous as the one I traded for it.
The sad fact is, religion, whether Christian or non-Christian, whether Seventh-day Adventist or non-Adventist, doesn't live up to its highest principles. Discovering this sad fact may take some time. But the more we see religion in action, the more we realize how frail and inadequate it is. (A now-deceased friend of mine used to say, "If you like religion, politics or sausage, never watch it being made.)
In summary, I'm sorry for the pain former Adventists have felt at the hands of the church. And I'm happy that they feel they've found something better that is satisfying their deepest soul needs. I only hope that down the track deja vu doesn't set in.
James Coffin
Just curious, which parts of Scripture do you have confidence in, and which parts do you disregard as "incongruous?"
Isn't it more consistent to agree with the apostle Paul, that it is all "God-breathed?" (2 Timothy 3:16)
Greg
www.forthegospel.org
How about the bible's treatment of slavery? Exodus 21.
How about Leviticus 12? Do you think god decreed that women who gave birth to male babies would be "unclean" for 33 days but if they gave birth to female babies, they would be unclean for 66 days?
And what was created on the first day of creation? Light. From what source? The sun wasn't created until the fourth day, although the evening-morning designation is applied to the days of creation prior to the creation of the sun, which is responsible for our "evenings and mornings".
"Isn't it more consistent to agree with the apostle Paul, that it is all "God-breathed?" (2 Timothy 3:16)"
If there is a verse in the Koran that says the Koran is god-breathed, would we blindly accept that as confirmation for the book's authenticity, inerrancy and inspiration?
Glenn
I'm a "former Adventist." My pedigree: I went three years to the Rockford SDA church school, a year at BVA, graduated from AUC, and did a year of graduate study at LLU, where I worked for Paul Landa and was his teaching assistant and worked on ADVENTIST HERITAGE; I had a book review in SPECTRUM; I was a research assistant for Charles Teel.
I'm frankly befuddled by the letter. So you all are proud of your disagreement with Adventist theology and of your ability to stay within while disagreeing with or reinterpreting its historic teachings. Are you honest with yourself and others?
If your approach is right, stay within rather than run away, then this would also have been true for the SDA Pioneers, who should have stayed Methodists and Baptists. It would have been true for Wesley and Bunyan, who should have stayed Anglican. It would have been true for Henry VIII, who should have stayed Catholic.
I guess you're speaking to a particular variety of former Adventist, because I certainly don't recognize myself or many other former Adventists in your caricature. I'm a happy Catholic who still doesn't wear a wedding ring and who still eats Vejalinks and SDA relatives and friends--and wife for nearly 25 years. That's grace. :-)
Thanks for your comment. Postmodern Adventists don't cling to one set of beliefs and many don't even identify with the institutional church or its endorsement of the investigative judgment doctrine. It's really a non-issue as other values and expressions of Christian faith and lifestyle preferences are at the forefront and a way of life. I hope I eased your befuddlement and keep in mind that part of the letter's intent was to point to one sector of former Adventists (the ones you most likely don't identify with) who are motivated by anti-SDA campaigns. Whether it be ultra right wing Adventism or ultra left-wing former Adventism, the unfortunate thing is that their rhetorical rants (manifested in legalism or grace lagalism) often overshadow the group's beliefs, namely uplifting Christ and His teachings. And that's the shame of it all.
And if not, why be Adventist? Why not attend any other Christian church?
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I understand that postmodernism is relative and tolerant, focusing on similiarities instead of differences and seeking to "get along" without walls. But do you ever have moments of wondering whether your unique beliefs matter—or whether your public endorsements matter? Do you ever feel dissonance between your personal preferences and the expectations, beliefs, and stated "demands" of your particular denomination?
I ask this because Jesus was consistent in asking His followers to leave all they cherished to follow Him. He asked them to leave even the good things in their lives: parents, the family business (fishing), their reputations among their fellow Jews, "getting along" with either the Jews or the Romans, etc. Jesus Himself said that He came not to bring peace but a sword. Belief in and submission to Jesus would bring offense and misunderstanding, and it would bring division even to family members.
Both Jesus and the apostles (especially Paul whose writings are the dominant source of explanation of the administration of the gospel) insisted that following Jesus was an exclusive calling that requires willingness to leave behind every attachment that obscures Him.
I see the doctrines and "distinctives" of Adventism as things that obscure Jesus and His finished work. I also see Jesus calling us to integrity in our loyalty to Him. We really can't represent Him clearly when we hang onto a system we no longer believe. Such dichotomy is compromise, and it is not truthful at the deepest level.
Lynric
Sorry for a belated response. Glenn has responded for me with good examples, which I appreciate. I could add a number others such as: discrepancies between gospel accounts, discrepancies in numbers and genealogies, hateful prayers in Psalms, and issues of slavery, place of women, genocide, etc. In the way I approach Scripture, the book being God-breathed doesn't make it free from incongruities and problems---historical or scientific. I have confidence in nature which reveals God, in Scripture which God inspired, and in the ongoing experience of God's people both in tradition and contemporary world. At the same time, I find plenty of imperfections in all.
Bill,
Thanks for your testimony. I hope you'd be able to see that Adventism has always be a place of multiple voices and contentious streams---that there has always been more than one way of being Adventist. And this is more true today than ever, because any movement or community changes, grows, and diversifies as it matures. This is certainly true of Catholicism, isn't it? Let me count the ways of being Catholic? There are too many. It is in the spirit of the pioneers of Adventism that we must re-envision and re-interpret. That's what they teach us through the principle of present truth---even if it means to disagree with the conclusions that they arrived at. It is a fluid, living, dynamic journey; it's always been. So, if I may be so bold as to say this, the seat you and others left empty remains open for you to reclaim. I dare say that Adventism needs people like you who have uncommon courage to follow your convictions out of a community that's meant so much. Adventism needs you to remain Adventist in its most original sense.
Excellent question and great points!
Short of writing a thesis on the issue, I think Julius beat me to the punch and did a great job answering Bill while addressing you.
But if you must, let me put it to you another way.
As you see the "distinctives" of Adventism as things that obscure Jesus and His finished work (on a theological level), I don't see them period! They are not on my radar screen. So why stay, you ask? Well, let me ask, why leave?
When Jesus walked in the flesh he came to recontextualize. Everything changed and early Christian life was told through new meanings and expressions (Sabbath law was restored to creation rest again. You could walk and pick grain and not be stoned!). Grace abounded. The first advent freed people from spiritual bondage.
Now, Adventism also is going through a period of recontextualization. It lost its original meaning and we're trying to recapture it. "Distinctives?" Leave it to the legalists. I'm more interested in exploring ways to affirm my Christian beliefs through social action. If we fail to exemplify Jesus in blessing and healing the poor, the peacemakers and the persecuted - than, yes, I'll be throwing in the towel and looking for a Sunday church to come worship with you.
If I may quote theologian Karl Barth: "grace must find expression in life. Otherwise, it is not grace."
So it is with my form of Adventism. Does this help, or are you confused moreso?
Finally, I would love to see more former SDA's and missional SDA's engaging in the spirit of love and Christian brotherhood to proclaim the (simple) Gospel together and transform communities of faith. Wouldn't you?
Do you remember the Ford controversy and the ‘White Lie' by Walter Ray? I was working for the church at that time in Cape Town, South Africa. I shall never forget how the writings of EGW figured so large in all those controversies. I well remember how the church went to great pains (telexes passed back and forth to my dear friend and colleague, the late Pastor Don Thomas, about the Glacier View meetings etc). Anyway those at the GC and elsewhere wrote a multitude of articles at that time on inspiration, the Bible and the writings of Ellen G White.
And that is what interested me most of all - the Bible and other literary sources regarding Jesus - including EGW. I gave up quickly on EGW simply because the literature about her bored me. I had read so many of her books and was sympathetic to some of her views but not others - however that did not cause me to tremble as a member of the church - and a church worker. I was soon deeply into Albert Schweitzer's ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus' and so many other works which soon began to enlighten me on just how nebulous a cloud doctrinal certainty lies. I went through a period of deep soul-searching regarding ‘intellectual honesty' etc. And over the years Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, Meier, NT Wright and and many others have become my fellow travelers on the road to discovering who Jesus was, rather than whether the Sabbath was the correct day of worship or the Investigative Judgement was valid. Jesus was the one who fascinated me, and He still does.
I eventually managed a publishing house beyond the Limpopo River and was able to spend four fruitful years setting the house firmly on its feet, while at the same time studying further about the historical Jesus. Sadly my marriage broke up and I decided to leave the church rather than cause a scandal there in Africa.
I continue to enjoy reading about that which most disturbed me in the first place - Jesus seems to never leave us alone and the story of His remarkable life and teachings found in the gospels continually speak to me. The fourth gospel still mystifies me, however I see it as a reflection of the faith of many who have asked the same question as I and many others have asked - who is He?
I am a Christian because I seek to follow Him and to love Him for whom He was. And it is that which causes me to never forget the Seventh-day Adventist Church. There at Malamulo I met and conversed with the finest doctors one could ever want to meet. They were completely committed to the task to which Jesus had set them to. In my visits to the Division offices in Harare I continued to meet men and women either resident there in flying in from the GC, people who were committed to serving Him. I fellowshipped with so many ‘ordinary' men and women in the churches I attended over those thirty-two years and found many to be true Christian people, full of love and a desire to serve Him better.
And I met many who knew Him - quite contrary to what one of the above comments suggest. I miss the Sabbath rest as well as the many friends who I traveled with along the Adventist path.
Not every SDA grew up in a healthy, well balanced spiritual environment of friends, family or authority figures. Please allow them a private safe place to release their anger and work out their issues. Many transitioning out of Adventism are totally alone, shunned and have absolutely no where else to go. Hopefully the moderators of those forums will eventually help them begin to spiritually heal and mature, and will not allow them to dwell in their heart break and sorrow indefinitely.
Maybe you just never bought into the SDA belief system as deeply as some of us formers. Not all of us grew up in families that helped us recognize what areas of Adventism were misguided from what areas are on target. Those of us born into Adventism who deeply bought into the traditional, historical version of Adventism will have a stronger reaction to discovering where we have been deceived. You will see some righteous indignation in us reacting to that discovery for awhile.
Most of you who remain in Adventism are criticizing us for rejecting the very things you also have rejected about Adventism and speak out against yourselves. I just ask that in all fairness please note that there is not much difference between us, we just physically left, what you have already mentally left.
I'm thrilled for those of you who have found a way to remain in and reinvent Adventism for yourselves. I hope you eventually break through the system and make a difference. Evidently that is why God has not called you out of it. Some stay in Adventism because they have found nothing better or more Biblically accurate. But some of us have left because we have ... and because we believe we were called out. But lets just quit judging each other based on whether we stay or whether we go and instead celebrate that each has found a meaningful place to worship and grow spiritually in our Lord Jesus Christ. Lets celebrate all who are discovering the true Gospel who otherwise would've just quit Christianity all together. God's church isn't a specific denomination. God's church is ALL those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. Truth does not come through a denomination, truth comes through our focus on Christ, John 1:17.
I’ve discovered that being an SDA is not for the faint at heart. Unless you dig deep into study, you will be swept away by these fantastic conspiracy theories being splashed around the blogosphere about how Adventists have been deceived by the lies of the pioneers and others. Or how the SDA “administration” acts like BIG BROTHER controlling every move and clamping down on dissent.
There’s a tendency in these kinds of forums, progressive or “former adventists” to blissfully shrug off decades of theological study for a watered down, shallow version of biblical “truth”, or modern adventism or trinitarian faith, especially in regards to some of our central beliefs, Righteousness by Faith, the Spirit of Prophecy and the Sanctuary. If God wanted to reveal Himself this way, does it make sense to call those who are interested in these revelation "legalists"?
The truth is that much of what’s being thrown around as “new revelations” and better, progressive ways or recontextualizations are nothing more than personal opinions coated with post-modernist jargons and “new light” underpinnings. As such, they’re just as good as the next.
And then there’s "wacky” Ellen White… This pandering to those who throw stones at us will do little to “deconstruct and reconstruct” the faith of those who stayed, much less bring people back. We might as well just keep Sunday or no day at all, and start preaching “once saved, always saved”. We have no shtick.
This wispy revision of SDA church history lacks both depth and academic honesty. Unless you revisionists and reconstructors have studied the best and brightest of current SDA theological thinking on these matters, please don’t even bother about venting your trite arguments, which have been refuted repeatedly in the past.
There’s just so much that can be done for people who refuse to do their homework as “berean Christians”. They will be “bored out of their minds” with deep biblical truth and will miss out on deeper revelations of God.
It’s the “one Bible verse Christianity” that threatens to permeate Adventism.
Hello,
I have recently decided to leave the SDA Church. I made the commitment about 2 month ago after 1.5 years of study. I don't want to come off as critical or harsh or use scare tactics, but the SDA theological picture is severely tainted with error.
Let me tell you it was a complete surprise to me to find these things. I just wanted to shore up my understanding of SDA history, so I started to read SDA sanctioned church history it was while reading the biography's of some of the leading figure I started to see the problems. I read books about AT Jones and WW Prescott. It was while reading Prescott that I came across a statement that made me stand up and take notice.
Prescott commented about the 1888 conference in Minneapolis that the fight was not so much over the message of Righteousness by faith as it was what Ellen white had said in vision 32 years earlier.
Uriah Smith and George Butler were at a Bible conference in 1856 and and the subject of the law in Galatians came up, this is central to understanding righteousness by faith (RBF). Well both Smith and Butler remember a vision from God in the form of testimony being produced by Ellen White to support the view that Smith and Butler had preached and endorsed for 32 years. The EGW vision Settled the matter. Now 32 years later she changes her position and goes back on her statement leaving Smith and Butler and the entire denomination out in the cold.
Lest you thing for a moment That Smith is just some side character to EGW you would be mistaken. Uriah Smith was Ellen Whites Chief apologists and Her primary defender. George Butler was also a primary supporter and it was largely on the statement made in vision that he held to the view he did. Both Smith and butler discerned correctly that if EGW changed her view then that would invalidate her claim to be a prophet.
After understanding what the issue was I want back and tried to understand what the issues were in 1856. J.H. Waggoner had written a book "The law of god: and examination of the testimony of the two testements" in this book he went on to show that that law was in effect all the way though the scriptures and that the law has always been the medium to bring a person to Christ who was the means of righteousness, the law was never a means of righteousness. This position was theologically correct, but it was voted out because of the vision EGW had. Then later EGW Changed her mind when E.J Waggoner the Son Of J.H. Waggoner came along saying the same thing. That is a problem. The prophet cannot have a vision endorsing a position that is theologically wrong. NEVER not acceptable. Lets you try to minimize this issue. This is the central pillar of All of Christianity, it is what separates Christianity from all other religions how to get to heaven, by your own actions or by faith in Christs Actions. The prophet should know this. That is what got me started. I began to dig and scratch and found that EGW had made numerous false predictions and had vision about theological positions which she later went back on.
The most blatant of these was in February 1845 it is found in Manuscript Releases vol 5 around page 93. It is a letter to Joseph Bates and it was written in EGW's own handwriting. Joseph Bates had asked EGW to explain some doubts that he had about EGW prophetic ministry and to clarify questions that had been circulating. The letter is only partially intact, but what is in tact is damaging enough to discredit EGW As a prophet.
After Oct 22 1844 there was much confusion in the Millerite ranks. The Millerite movement began to splinter into many factions. there were the Life and Death Adventist, the Age to come Adventist, the Evangelical Adventist, the Sabbatarian
Adventist, The Shut Door Adventist, there were at least 16 different groups that I am aware of that emerged. This gave rise to the Need for a conference held in April of 1845 Called the "The Mutual Conference of Adventist" it was located in Albany New York. It was there that the Millerite Body formally unified it's fractured body and accepted agreed upon points. One of the points agreed upon was that nothing of Salvation importance happened in 1844 and that the 2300 days had been misinterepted. Also stated was, that Since nothing happened, The claim that some had made that the William Miller had given the final Warning to the world and the Door of salvation was shut for any one who did not accept his message were lost, was retracted.
This gave a rise to a problem for some of the Millerites because some still believed that something of salvation importance happened in 1844 and that William Miller had given the final warning to the world and the door of mercy was shut to everyone accept the Milleritates. Among those groups were the Sabbatarian and the Shut-Door Adventists, which Ellen G.Harmon(White) was a part of.
After the initial disappointment Ellen believed Miller to be wrong and that Salvation was open to all, but as she began to have vision she began to change her mind. she eventually came to believe that that door of mercy was Shut and salvation lost to all who had not accepted Miller message. She also came to believe and to endorse time setting 46,47,49 51 for the return of Christ. It is here that the problems of her claim of inspiration and the letter from Joseph Bates comes into play. In the letter Ellen is asked to explain a vision she had. The the description of the vision is very damming to Ellen. In it there is a Sister in the faith who is having such a hard time believing that the door of salvation and mercy is shut to all but the shut door group, but when Ellen goes off into vision she has a message from God stating that the Door of Mercy was shut and this changed the sisters mind. Ellen would later abandon the Shut door movement and that salvation was still open to all, but what you see is Ellen leading people the wrong way, Hum?
That brings into question her claim to prophetic ministry. Can God accurately deliver a message to his people. Yes he did it through the child Samuel, but cannot get it right through Ellen. That is one of the problems and the tip of the iceberg. Other Doctirens such as The Investigative Judgement, and the 2300 day ending in 1844 are not valid. Jesus entering the Most Holy Place in 1844 is clearly contracted by Hebrews 8-10 and specificly in Chapter 9.
I hope you don't take offense to this but that is why I cannot accept EGW. You said that "formers" sound like a broken record and are subject to "group think" well let me tell you I never talked to anyone about this until I had seen the problems. As far as "group think" the reason we sound alike is that the issues are the same. It is amazing to me that some in Europe, Africa, Asia, North Dakota, California and Nebraska could come to the exact same conclusions and that people a 100 years apart could come to the same conclusions. I am not angry at the Church just cannot agree with it.
You say that we are abandoning ship let me address that. The Adventist Ship is predicated on the believe that it is the true Church and the "Remnant Church of bible prophecy" Just open up Adventist Review or Adventist World or turn on 3ABNor Loma Linda Broadcasting Network or Hope TV and you will see it over and over again. This belief is linked directly to the 2300 days, break the link you break the claim and identity of the SDA Church, it is just that simple. As far as Daniel and Revelation Go they are absolutely important to SDA theology, thinking and identity. With out them there is no SDA Movement, the Sunday law the 3 Angels message, Ellen white, investigative judgment, 1000 year reign, yada yada yada. These things are absolutely central to Adventist thinking. You cannot be an SDA with out them for no matter what your worldview it has been filter through and SDA lenses.
The reason people are leaving The SDA Church is because the lens is wrong and and to view life through this lens is deception. Sorry no 2 way about it.
My SDA training has taught me, BTW I have a degree in SDA theology, that error obscures the truth and destroys the picture of Christ and hurts people in some way. Well if the SDA church is in Error then it is obscuring the picture of Christ. Why should I stay in it. it hurts me in someway. Do you see that. The Ideas that some how there is going to be a change is a fantasy. Are you telling me you can stop Doug Batchlor from going around and say that 1844 is true? or that Sunday is the mark of the Beast? or that Ellen white is a prophet? No for the SDA Church to do that is to deny it's very identity. So do you see the problem? the SDA Church will not change it's beliefs why would I stay and support it?
Well any way. you guys seem nice and some of you I actually know in real life. it will be interesting to see the response. If you will be nice in return
Well thanks for letting me express my Self,. Oh please forgive any spelling errors and grammer errors
God bless you
Sincerely
Marshall
Could it be that many former Adventists are still bound by the thing that pushed them to leave us in the first place?
"Black and White" thinking....also "me right you wrong"...."I know what you believe better than you do"....such thinking is the worst of what we find among us, but often those who leave citing these reasons continue to use the same kinds of thinking...
Often the Theology has changed...but the Meta-Theology (How one comes to the theological position) often has not...
12/29/2006 07:07:00 AM
You make some VERY good points here.
You called EG White "wacky" but she's still your prophet? I don't think I can accept a wacky prophet.
I have seen in quite a few comments a sometime-arrogant superiority complex from your discovery of grace, while presupposing that the Adventists you left behind aren't capable of finding it on their own.
I've reread your piece several times and I must admit, current Adventist, I find it quite arrogant with a lot of superiority complex thrown in.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
Go to your church website, current Adventist, and read belief no. 18.
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.)
One of the Adventist core beliefs is that Ellen G. White is the Lords messenger. How then, current Adventist, do you reconcile that with calling her teachings "wacky"? That seems a bit hypocritical. It seems to me that you are a bit guilty of "groupthink", e.g., the church buys it so I'll buy it even if I think she's a whack job.
E.G. White is the fundamental foundation of the church. In my case, once I could no longer accept her writings as coming from God, I could no longer accept the Adventist religion. It is that simple. The Bible is my Gospel, not White's writings.
I agree with your contention that some of the posts on this blog could be labeled as pandering, i.e., trying to be part of a certain groupthink while secretly loathing what it stands for.
Labeling Ellen White as wacky is a wild and irresponsible claim in my opinion. It blissfully ignores decades of deep study into her writings, her visions and her messages. She undeniably received special revelations from God.
If she was wacky because of conditional prophecies, why couldn't some of the discrepancies in the Bible be labeled as wacky as well? The biblical record is not free of peripheral errors and contradictions. That doesn't mean it's not the Word of God in what it is intended to be: a record of God's love and his plan for human beings, not a dictation by God.
As George Knight has rightly proven, the progressive SDAs rejection of Ellen White is due to a belief in the VERBAL INSPIRATION of the Bible which is then transferred to her writings as a messenger of the Lord. As a Church we DO NOT BELIEVE that she was VERBALLY INSPIRED: She was inspired just as Paul was when he got confused as to many people he had baptized in one of his churches. In this case, the quality of the inspiration is the same.
You are also mistaken to think that Ellen White is the foundation of the church. Show me a credible SDA source for that statement.
Ellen White is a tremendous advantage to the SDA Church in all kinds of spiritual matters, the biggest of all being her total support of the Sola Scriptura principle: The Bible as a sufficient norm for the Christian.
And something tells me that if she were alive today, she would be an assiduous blogger, firing off posts rejecting our arrogant and superior Adventist attitudes today, in both sides of the aisle and pointing us to our only safety, Jesus.
I was not the one that called E.G. White "wacky". The original post on this blog from Marcel, titled "Dear Former Adventist" states (and I quote) Hey, even I admit she's wacky with some of those historical teachings that really mean squat to my current faith. . .
If you want to call someone "wild and irresponsible for calling her wacky, go back to Marcel. I was simply commenting that if Marcel thinks she is wacky, why is he still following her?
You state: She undeniably received special revelations from God.
Really? Undeniably?
Mrs. White claims that her prophecies are infallible and do not contradict the Word of God.
Mrs. White said: The tower of Babel was built before the Flood
The Bible Says: The tower of Babel was built after the Flood
Mrs. White said: God sent an angel to converse with Cain
The Bible Says: "Then the Lord said to Cain" Genesis 4:6
Mrs. White said: We should never say we are saved
The Bible Says: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved . . . " Acts 16:31
Mrs. White said: The atonement was not finished at the cross
The Bible Says: " . . . but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time . . . " Hebrews 10:12
Mrs. White said: Satan bears our sins
The Bible Says: " . . . and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross . . . " 1 Peter 2:24
Mrs. White said: We are saved through grace plus works
The Bible Says: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourself, it is a gift of God, not of works, that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
I think it has been pretty well established that Mrs. White plagiarized an awful lot of her writings. Even the Adventist church finally admitted to that although there is still debate as to how much of others works she stole. Calling stealing other writers works "special revelations from God" is an interesting way of describing her "prophecy".
As to your claim that E.G. White is NOT the foundation of the church, you might want to check that out with your own denomination. I grew up an SDA in the 50's and 60's. White's writings were crammed down our throats every single day at church school and every Saturday at Sabbath School. She was the final authority on everything. The church has toned that down a bit in the last 20 years or so. However, go to the General Conference website and read belief no. 18. She is still the foundation of the church. Without her and her writings, there would be no reason to believe the "investigative judgment" since she's the one that came up with it and there is no reference for it anywhere in the Bible. The Adventists are unique in all of religion is believing that particular belief. It is a foundation of the church and it definitely is E.G. White. She invented it. That, by the way, is belief No 24 on the official Adventist Fundamental Belief list. It seems to me that if Mrs. White invented "investigative judgment" and it is still a fundamental belief of the SDA church, that makes Mrs. White a foundation of the church.
I rest my case.
One evidence of that is that you have taken things out of context and have not provided quotations or direct sources so all these become your mere opinion or hearsay; e.g., the tower of Babel diatribe.
Those sources choose to ignore the hundreds of evidences that she received supernatural revelations and pick whatever may be construed as "wacky" and thrive on that. It's academically dishonest and I can't imagine anyone serious about learning about a certain group spending time on those websites.
About the "investigative judgment" [which is more properly named "pre-Advent judgment"] it's screaming at you in the book of Hebrews, it's sad you haven't read it there.
The most authoritative source on that is Frank B. Holbrook's The Atoning Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Any exposition on this subject couldn't get any more Biblical than this one.
And unless you have coupled your reading of the book of Hebrews with ALL of the theological arguments presented by reputable theologians in favor of this Biblical concept, your "opinion" on this subject is just that, an opinion.
I'm sorry you seem to have had problems with the wrong SDA way of living and witnessing, but throwing the Baby with the bathwater won't help you; trying to justify your current rejection of SDA with faulty theology won't help you find the truth.
Until last week, I didn't even know there WERE websites out there that were anti-E.G. White so you are wrong in your assumption. I left the Adventist church in 1967 and had left E.G. White far behind me. It wasn't until last week, when my cousin, also Adventist educated (Loma Linda Academy, PUC & Andrews University) told me of Mrs. White's plagiarism, that I started looking into it.
I have not believed she was a prophet for a long time, any more than I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Interestingly, she apparently even stole from Joseph Smith. However, I did think she wrote her own works until I was shown that she did not.
I have no interest in trying to convince you (or any other Adventist) that Mrs. White's version of the investigative judgment is not founded in Biblical writings. You are going to see what you want to see and go along with the groupthink mentality. I've read Hebrews many times without Mrs. White's interpretation of it. Fortunately, it stands on its own and does not need her strange interpretation. So does the rest of the Bible.
We can agree to disagree. I find no Biblical basis for Mrs. White's version of investigative judgment no matter what chapter of the Bible I read, and am glad that I don't. I prefer to KNOW that Jesus died for my sins and I am saved by Gods Grace. I find it interesting that the Adventists did not add that as a fundamental belief (no. 11 in the now "28 Fundamental Beliefs) until 2005.
The Bible is very certain that the moment God forgives our sins they are forever removed, blotted out, canceled and forgotten. First John 1:9 tells us the instant we confess our sins we receive God's forgiveness through his grace. By contradicting these Scriptures EGW turns God's overwhelming mercy into a sham. God is recreated into a lying, malevolent, heavenly bookkeeper who manipulates Divine records to make it only appear that we are forgiven. For EGW, our forgiveness does not depend upon God's grace, but upon our "works."
"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement. ... In the great day of final award, the dead are to be 'judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works' Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357).
And unless you have coupled your reading of the book of Hebrews with ALL of the theological arguments presented by reputable theologians in favor of this Biblical concept, your "opinion" on this subject is just that, an opinion.
What you are saying is that unless I read ALL the theological arguments presented by Adventist theologians, my "opinion" is just an "opinion?" What about the Bible? Doesn't it count in my readings?
Please give me the name of one reputable theologian that is not an Adventist, that is in favor of this "Biblical" concept. I don't believe that there are any. Frank Holbrook is an Adventist so of course, he has no choice but to defend White's writings. There are many more reputable theologians, even including some reputable Adventists, that don't. However, you apparently are not going to allow me to think for myself. I have to read more Adventist doctrine. You really have no idea how much Adventist doctrine I have already read. I spent years reading it. I prefer thinking for myself with the Bible as my guide. I only wish Adventists could do the same.
You say all of this is just my opinion but you don't even bother to look it up in the Bible? What if I'm right? Wouldn't you at least like to know if EGW revised the Bible or not or would you rather walk around with blinders on, never knowing if your "divine inspiration" came from a woman that copied stuff from others then claimed it as her own?
Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
You're also misguided to think that the Pre-Advent Judgment concept was added to our fundamental beliefs in 2005. The additional tenet was the New Earth doctrine, NOT the Pre-advent Judgement. That doesn't mean we didn't believe in the New Earth before 2005.
Plagiarism.You would probably be outraged to find out that the Gospel writers "plagiarized" from one another and yet we don't see their versions of the Gospel as plagiarism. Moses also "plagiarized" some his laws from the Hamurabi Code but we hear nothing of that! So by your standards, even some verses or entire books of the Bible need to be thrown out as not "original" and not-believable plagiarisms.
On the other hand, if we believe that Bible writers and modern messengers of God borrowed peripheral concepts from true and reliable historical sources to make a greater, deeper spiritual point, than plagiarism is far from being the correct identification of the practice. Moses did it, Paul did it, Jesus did it and the Gospel writers did it.
Anyway, whatever you accuse EGWhite of, it's been extensively and exhaustively explored in Ellen White and Her Critics by F. Nichols , a book that has yet to be outdone.
Correction:SDAs believe that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was complete and sufficient for the salvation. However we differ in that we believe the BENEFITS of that sacrifice are still being applied today, and that's what makes up the Priesthood of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary as Paul unfolds it in Hebrews.
If this is not the case, I would have to be living at the time of Christ's death on the Cross to receive the pardon for my sins, which is absurd. In sum, Jesus Christ is applying the blood of his sacrifice to my life today every time I ask for it so, although his sacrifice was perfect and sufficient once and for all at the Cross, the aftereffects of that day are being applied to my life today in the Heavenly Sanctuary by Christ.
Rev. 20:12: And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. I'd be curious to see your interpretation of this crystal clear verse.
You ask for one theologian outside the SDA church that accepts this doctrine. Well let me ask how many non-SDA theologians accept the Seventh-day Sabbath? A handful. How many actually believe the Ten Commandments are applicable today? A handful. How many theologians are strictly Creationists? A handful. Still that does not change the biblical record.
Faye, I don't believe anyone is going to be saved or lost for believing or not in the Pre-advent judgement doctrine. We are saved by faith in Christ, period. However, God has been so gracious to reveal his end-time plans that I find new meaning in the verse "God is love", every day of my 21st century life. He has revealed that He is very much involved in the history of this world today and in me personally. That's what prophecy and the Pre-advent Judgment are all about.
Finally, neither Ellen White nor SDAs believe in works for salvation. That belongs to Catholic doctrine. We believe in salvation by faith and grace alone. Our lives of righteous works are a result of our being saved, not a prerequisite for salvation.
Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Amen and amen!!
One more suggested piece of reading for you. The Adventist Church commissioned Fred Veltman, a noted SDA scholar, to research EGW's writings to determine if she had plagiarized her writings as had been charged by non or former Adventists. This report was done in 1990 and is available on several SDA websites. It's not well publicized by the Adventists but it is available. I suggest you read it. Veltman concluded that 31% of the Desire of Ages was copied from other works. Since Veltman was an Adventist and likely biased in favor of Mrs. White, my guess is the percentage is probably even higher than he concluded.
My question is since the Adventists have always portrayed her as a Prophet, how did God give her these works? In one of her "visions?" Did God tell her to go read Milton's Paradise Lost (yes, she even copied from Milton) or what? Did he tell her to go read Joseph Smith?
Specifically, Desire of Ages, much of it is copied directly from “Night Scenes in the Bible” by Rev. Daniel March written in 1880.
Here is a direct quote from Veltman's conclusion.
It is of first importance that Ellen White herself, not her literary assistants, composed the basic content of The Desire of Ages text. In doing so she was the one who took literary expressions [copied] from the works of other authors without giving them credit as her sources [plagiarism]. Second, it should be recognized that Ellen White used the writings of others consciously and intentionally -- implicitly or explicitly Ellen White did not admit to and even denied dependency (copying) on her part.
-- The Desire of Ages Project -- p 11
The content of Ellen White's commentary on the life and ministry of Christ, The Desire of Ages, is for the most part derived [copied] rather than original... In practical terms, one is not able to recognize in Ellen White's writings on the life of Christ any general category of content or catalog of ideas that is unique to her.
-- Ibid. p. 12.
The church now tries to defend her stealing by making absurd statements like, this was standard operating procedure during this period of history and generally accepted. [no, it was not. It was gotten away with more only because information was not readily available in the 1800's as it is today.]
You accused me of "gathering the information you posted here from the various sites on the net today that pour vitriol on Ellen White."
I gathered all of the information I have just given to you directly from SDA websites and a report that was commissioned by the SDA Church in an attempt to defend Mrs. Whites writings from charges that she had copied much of her works from other writers. Even the Adventists could not refute that charge, although, I must say, I have had difficulty finding a lot of these reports. The Adventists don't make it impossible, just difficult, to access them. I guess that way, they can state that their own research is available on line.
I'll leave you with another quote, this one directly from Mrs. White when she was accused of plagiarizing.
It is just as wrong to appropriate to one's self credit for productions written by another as to steal a horse. One who signs his name to another's words, and allows it to appear in print as his own, is a thief of the darkest hue. Taking another's knowledge and parading it as one's own is a despicable thing to do. The student who copies an examination is dishonest, but plagiarism is an even meaner kind of thievery... It is as much of a disgrace, to say nothing of the sin, as to break into a neighbor's house and steal his goods. E.G. White; Youth Instructor Editorial
In my opinion, Mrs. White was dishonest. She rarely, if ever, credited the writers she was copying from. I cannot call her "divinely inspired" or "prophetic". How can I then take her unique in all of Christianity explanation of the investigative judgment? You stated yesterday that it was right there in Hebrews screaming at me. I re-read Hebrews last night and could find nothing that came close to Mrs. Whites description.
It is apparent that you read what you want to read and see what you want to see.
I DID NOT say that the Adventists added investigative judgment to their beliefs in 2005. I said they added belief # 11 in 2005. I was delighted to see it there.
Investigative judgment has been there as long as I can remember, i.e., Mrs. Whites version. If you want to change the name of it to pre-advent judgment, great. You need to look at the history of your church, however. You also need to read your EGW. Mrs. White clearly states "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement. ... In the great day of final award, the dead are to be 'judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works' Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357).
That is being saved by works.
As for Mrs. White's plagiarism, I don't have a problem with Biblical writers that copied. None of them claimed that they didn't. Mrs. White CLAIMED that all her works were her own. Also, no Biblical writers copied from copyrighted works without giving credit to the writers. Mrs. White did.
I find it interesting that you want me to read another book written by another Adventist in defense of EGW but you don't seem to have any interest in reading any of the books written by former adventists pointing out line by line where she is wrong.
Surprisingly, I've actually read some of the Adventist take on the critics. There is plenty of it on the White Estate website. I have to tell you, some of their explanations are laughable.
There is no question that EGW was a great inspiration to early Adventists. My problem with her and the Adventists is now that you know she copied the works of others, why does the church still claim she was a prophet? Now that you know some of the stuff she wrote was just flat out wrong, did God make a mistake? She and the church both claim she was given her writings in visions from God so did God get it wrong or did Ellen?
I'm glad to see the progress the Adventist church has made in the last 40 years. My problem is the same now as it was 40 years ago when I left. EGW. I cannot reconcile my beliefs with her writings and as long as the Adventists continue to believe that she was a prophet, as long as they continue to peddle her books as divine inspiration coming from God, I have a problem with them.
As for the 7th day sabbath, I suggest you go back to your New Testament and read the New Covenant laws. Specifically, Acts 20:7; I Corin. 16:1-2; Hebrews 8:13 clearly teaches us that the old covenant (the 10 commandments) are all abolished. However, for those under the new covenant we are to hear Jesus and not Moses.
When my Grandfather died in 1966, we found boxes of old pamphlets, letters, Review and Harolds, some of them dating back to the late 1800's. Since my Grandfather was born in 1888 in Michigan, most of these papers clearly had to have belonged to his mother, who was an Adventist convert in Battle Creek somewhere around 1880. I will guarantee you, Adventists today would be horrified to read some of the stuff both EGW and her husband James were pontificating on in the 1880's. She was so clearly wrong, both scientifically and theologically. I had always thought we didn't eat things like pepper and other spices (those used to be a huge no-no in the Adventist church. I have no idea if they still are) because there was some health benefit to not eating them. Little did I know that EGW wrote against eating spices, not for health reasons but because she believed they caused abnormal sexual activity, i.e., self-gratification. The one I remember reading back in 1966 that caused the halo to quite literally fall off of EGW's head was her description of animals mating with humans which caused some of the races we see today. I'm still not sure what races she was talking about that were a cross between humans and animals but since it is scientifically impossible, EGW became a farce to me.
Go do some research in the White Estate. Some of this stuff is actually still around. Some of it, the Estate still won't release, with good reason, I'm sure.
Go read what EGW has to say about debt and read what she says about who you should leave your money to in your will. Then go read HER will. Go read how the General Conference paid off her debt when she died and took over her estate as she didn't even have enough money in her estate to pay off those she owed money to.
EGW wrote what she believed in those times. I think she was a good Christian woman. I just don't think she was a prophet nor do I think her writings came in visions from God.
You asked for some actual quotations on EGW's contradictions of the Bible so here they are:
WHO SPOKE TO CAIN?
EGW: ANGEL "Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed: 'If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?'" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 74).
BIBLE: LORD "Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right will you not be accepted?' ... So Cain went out from the Lord's presence" (Genesis 4:6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16).
WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT BEFORE THE FLOOD?
EGW: YES "This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 301).
BIBLE: NO "After the Flood ... they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 9:28 and 11:4).
NOTE: This was one of the first EGW contradictions that SDAs found and corrected. They claimed it was just a typographical error, forgetting that EGW claimed the "very word" she wrote came from God. "When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 51,52). 1907.
CAN WE SAY WE ARE SAVED RIGHT NOW BY CHRIST'S GRACE?
EGW: NO "Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. ... Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 155).
BIBLE: YES "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).
WHO BEARS OUR SINS?
EGW: SATAN "It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. ... Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, ... so Satan, ... will at last suffer the full penalty of sin" (Great Controversy, p. 422, 485, 486).
BIBLE: JESUS "He himself (Jesus Christ) bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed" (1 Peter 2:24).
ARE CONFESSED SINS TRANSFERRED TO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST?
EGW: Yes "As the sins of the people were anciently transferred in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ." (Great Controversy p. 266 1886 Edition).
" As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred in figure to the earthly sanctuary so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary." (Great Controversy p. 421 1911 Edition).
Bible: No "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." (1 John 1:7 NIV) "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace" (Ephesians 1:7 NIV)
Note: There is no Scripture to support E. G. White’s teaching that confessed sins are transferred to the heavenly sanctuary "by the blood of Christ" in 1886 and she changed it to read, "by faith placed upon Christ" and transferred to the heavenly sanctuary to be dealt with at a later date in an Investigative Judgment. The Bible teaches our confessed sins are completely covered by the blood of the Lamb.
WAS THE ATONEMENT FOR SIN COMPLETED AT THE CR0SS?
EGW: NO "Instead of ... Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming" (Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 58).
EGW: NO "Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly (sanctuary), at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation" (Early Writings, p. 253).
EGW: YES "He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is complete."--The Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901.
BIBLE: YES "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (John 19:30).
BIBLE: YES "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:21-25).
BIBLE: YES "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" (Romans 5:9 11).
Bible: Yes "Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Romans 5:11 NIV)
NOTE: The Bible totally rejects EGW's idea of the 2300 days and an investigative judgment in the heavenly sanctuary beginning in 1844. Notice how the Bible texts quoted above were all written less than thirty years after Jesus' resurrection, and all clearly state that Christians living then were already fully justified, redeemed, sanctified and reconciled to God through Christ's death on the cross. As cult-watchers, Martin and Barnhouse stated: "The (SDA sanctuary doctrine) is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history! We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position. And we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable."
The White Estate is still, today, making corrections in EGW's writings almost 100 years after her death. I'll guarantee you that my copy of The Great Controversy printed back in the 30's is different than what is being printed by the church today. It has been revised and corrected.
My problem with that is if EGW's writings were given to her by God, they shouldn't need correcting otherwise you are saying God made a mistake. Thus my problem with EGW. Some of her writings were and still are wonderful. I just do not believe they came from God.
Wow! Very interesting discussion going on between you two. Faye, I really appreciated your courage and thoroughness in providing quotational support for a number of your EGW bullet points. Andre, I look forward to your responses. Digging for support in this area is a tedious endeavor as there is quite a bit of misinformation out there on both sides of the argument, as that is really what it is in the light of eternity.
Being that I am still an SDA, a practicing one that is, I find this whole debate to be rather pointless (though VERY interesting). Where does it really lead? What is the purpose? Hmmmm. Faye and Andre, I am an SDA - but could really care less about the EGW debate, by and large. She has absolutely NO affect on my life and provides NO lighthouse beacon to my journey, other than an occasional reference for interest only. Anyhow, that beacon honor belongs entirely to Jesus Christ and his book, the Holy Bible. He is all I need. His book is enough. The other stuff out there often tends to get in the way, whether it is EGW, C.S Lewis, or this blog (not that it is wrong or nourishing to read any of those!) Whether or not one does or does not read or believe is between that person and God. You know, "Work out your own salvation..."
Back to business, I am an SDA. Why? Because I feel compelled by Jesus to be so. My reading of scripture compels me to stay within this church, even if there are some things (doctrines, people) that cause concern or frustrate. I believe SDA's understanding of truth is in flux and is maturing. The Refiner's Fire is continuing to purify the gold. If one day Jesus informs me to get out, I will get out. I just don't see that happenin!
So what's the point of all of this blathering on my part? Well, name me a denomination out there, protestant specifically, that does not have some flawed theology.
Name one.
You can't! Cause each denomination was created by flawed human beings! It behooves us as followers of Christ to sift through the stuff, the dross, and get to the Gold. Once we get there, all the dross really doesn't matter, even though it is still there. Eventually, the dross gets skimmed away, usually at just the right time.
So, does it matter that the SDA church still believes in EGW? Not really. Or the Investigative Judgement? Nope. Why? Because the Bible is the Word of God and is much bigger than our interpretations or misinterpretations. The Word of God will stand the test of time - against all or any church's doctrine.
The key is, and I think it has been lost in this debate, do I believe in the person of Jesus Christ as the Son of the Most High God? Is Jesus, the Sacrificial Lamb, my personal savior? Is Yeshua of Nazareth, Messiah, Immanuel, God with us, the Word made flesh, King of Kings, Adonai, Jehovah, El Olam, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace - is HE living in my heart? Is HE at the core of who I am?
After all, believe what you will for or against EGW, only HE can save ya.
AMEN!
Who Spoke to Hagar in the Desert?
Bible: Angel: “And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress… (Gen 16:9)
Bible: Lord "And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her,…(Gen 16:13)
Who then spoke to Hagar???
No Spin Zone: The Bible uses “Lord” and “Angel of the Lord” interchangeably. The important point is God’s direct communication, not exactly who does it. Ellen White is vindicated in her use of angel of the Lord since the Bible does it too.
BIBLE: Lord "Then the Lord said to Cain … (Genesis 4:6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16).
EGW: ANGEL "Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed…” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 74).
Was the Tower of Babel built before the flood?
EGW: NO. "This system was corrupted before the flood, AND by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 301). [NOTICE THE CORRECT PLACEMENT OF // , AND // WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT VERSION BY ELLEN WHITE. Typographical errors were created by copyists and typists, not by the author. The original handwritten manuscript is available for anyone to peruse at the Ellen White Estate.]
BIBLE: "After the Flood ... they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city..." (Genesis 9:28 and 11:4).
Can we say we are saved now by Christ’s grace?
EGW: YES: “We are to serve Him in the nature we have, that has been redeemed by the Son of God; through the righteousness of Christ we shall stand before God pardoned, and as though we had never sinned. (Selected Messages Book 3 (1980), page 140, paragraph 5).
BIBLE: YES "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).
Ellen White on once saved always saved:
"Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 155).
No Spin Zone: Until we are glorified in the kingdom of God, there will always be a possibility that we may turn away from God and lose salvation while in this world. In that sense, Ellen White is spot on! I cannot boast that I’m forever saved when there are chances that I may lose my status as saved saved at every turn in this life. It’s not a done-deal until I enter the kingdom of heaven.
That it is possible to fall from grace we read in Ezek 18:24 / Heb 6:4-6 / 2 Pet 2:20,21.
Who bears our sins?
BIBLE: Christ "He himself (Jesus Christ) bore our sins in his body on the tree..." (1 Peter 2:24).
EGW: Christ: “As man's substitute and surety, the iniquity of men was laid upon Christ. ... He, the Sin-Bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity. ” [The Faith I Live By, p. 104].
Ellen White uses the term sin-bearer hundreds of times when referring to Christ so that's a non-starter.
Who is ALSO punished for our sins?
Bible: Azazel, a type of Satan: “But the goat for Azazel is to be placed living before the Lord, for the taking away of sin, that it may be sent away for Azazel into the waste land.” Lev. 16:10
Rev. 20:1-3: “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. …And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
EGW: SATAN as the scapegoat Azazel: "It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. ... Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, ... so Satan, ... will at last suffer the full penalty of sin" (Great Controversy, p. 422, 485, 486).
Are sins transferred to the Heavenly Sanctuary by the blood of Christ?
Faye: There is no Scripture to support E. G. White’s teaching that confessed sins are transferred to the heavenly sanctuary "by the blood of Christ."
Bible: YES: “Heb. 9:20-25: “He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep. In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.
EGW: Yes "As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred in figure to the earthly sanctuary so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary." (Great Controversy p. 421 1911 Edition).
Was the atonement for sins completed at the Cross?
BIBLE: YES "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (John 19:30).
EGW: YES "He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is complete."--The Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901.
The other quotations presented have nothing to do with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross being insufficient as you seem to imply. They refer to the work Jesus is doing now, purifying the Sanctuary of the sins, presenting his blood as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of all people, in all generations. Read Hebrews 9 for full development of this concept.
Faye: The Bible totally rejects EGW's idea of the 2300 days …
Bible: Daniel 8:14: “For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."
Faye said: “My problem with that is if EGW's writings were given to her by God, they shouldn't need correcting otherwise you are saying God made a mistake.”
Well, if you’re looking for an interesting research, study these discrepancies in the Bible:
There died of the plague twenty-four thousand [Num 25:9]
There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand [1 Cor 10:8]
There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they were standing up [Luke 24:4]
There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down [Matt 28:2,5]
David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel [2 Sam 24:1]
David was tempted by Satan to number the people [1 Chron 21:1]
Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless [Acts 9:7]
Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate [Acts 26:14]
There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre [John 20:1]
There were two women who came to the sepulchre [Matt 28:1]
Christ was crucified at the third hour [Mark 15:25]
Christ was crucified at the sixth hour [John 19:14,15]
All the cattle and horses in Egypt died [Ex 9:3,6]
All the horses of Egypt did not die [Ex 14:9]
And the list goes on and on...
I think it’s clear that the “conspiracy theory” underpinnings of all the attacks made on Ellen White, whether here or elsewhere fall flat when we look closely both at the Biblical record as well as at her writings.
I believe that much of the vitriol on Adventism's message, from within and without would lose its impact should we adopt a more fluid view of inspiration.
Bottom line, inspiration IS not VERBAL, neither in the Bible nor for any other messengers of God. Writers were moved to write their versions, whether quoting God's exact words or adding their own words to the narrative.
Progressive adventists and non-adventists need to see Ellen White not as a VERBALLY inspired messenger, rather as a fallible instrument, with a core, God-given message.
I agree with Bulworth above when he says:
"Theologically, while claiming to be saved by grace, many former Adventists have adopted the word-inspired, inerrant view of Scriptures that is more restrictive and legalistic than that believed by Adventists."
Hey, even I admit she's wacky with some of those historical teachings that really mean squat to my current faith as a Christian living in a Trinitarian relationship.
My question to him was if you think she is wacky, why are you still following her? I was then attacked by Andre for calling her wacky, which I did not. Andre then challenged me to prove that EGW is a foundation of the church. She is. Read the Adventists 28 Fundamental Beliefs and there she is.
There is also the President of the SDA church who stated in 2002:
The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this.
Source: Perspectives on Issues Facing the World Seventh-day Adventist Church by Jan Paulsen, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Adventist Review, from comments made at the May, 2002 SDA General Conference.
My entire point is and has been that I personally do not believe that EGW was or is a prophet but the Adventist Church still does.
Andre, Marcel or anyone else on this blog, if you want to believe that EGW is or was a prophet, great. I don't. My original comment was to Marcel and his comment about her being wacky and me asking why he goes to a church that still has her as a foundation of the church.
You can call yourself a progressive Adventist or whatever you want to but your church is still relying on EGW for doctrine.
Andre, you are starting to sound like the Elders of the church that ex-communicated me back in 1967 when I was 17 years old for stating that I no longer believe EGW was a prophet. The old "we're right and every other religion is wrong" mentality is creeping into your writings. If you now tell me that I have the mark of the beast as they did, you'll have about as much credibility as they did.
I find myself in the position of defending not my original statement that I do not believe EGW is a prophet but trying to defend the Bible now. The Bible stands on its own. I do not need to nor will I attempt to defend it. You are giving me the same old apologists explanations of EGW. I've seen them all before and they don't hold water. EGW's interpretation of Daniel 8:14 makes no sense. Neither does yours.
EGW "I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was his design to arouse the people, and bring them to a testing point where they should decide. ... Thousands were led to embrace the truth preached by Wm. Miller, and servants of God were raised up in the spirit and power of Elijah to proclaim the message. ... Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming; but they objected to the definite time. ... These false shepherds stood in the way of the work of God. The truth spoken in its convincing power to the people aroused them. ... But these (false) shepherds stepped between the truth and the people, and preached smooth things to lead them from the truth. Many ministers would not accept this saving message themselves, and those who would receive it, they hindered. ... I saw the people of God, joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove (i.e. "test") them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Those who were looking for their Lord did not discover it. ... God designed that his people should meet with a disappointment." — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 133-137, written in 1858.
Did you notice Ellen White blamed God for the disappointment of 1843? And did you also notice that even though she stated there had been a mistake made in the figures, and that the 1843 prediction was wrong, she called it "the truth" and a "saving message?" Would a Divinely-inspired prophet call false messages and false predictions "the truth?" How could a genuine prophet ever call a false message a "saving message?"
EGW "The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and that the same evidence they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844. ... Again they had a point of time." — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 138.
If the "same evidence" that produced the mistake and disappointment of 1843 was used again to set dates in 1844, wouldn't it be logical to expect that the results would also be the same — wouldn't they be disappointed again? Does God play games with His people by covering their errors so they cannot discern them only to later remove His hand? Is that the way the God of the Bible works to reveal truth? No. Titus 1:2 tells us that God "cannot lie!" How could any Christian ever have any confidence in God or the Bible if God lies to His people or deliberately leads us astray from truth just so He can test us? But that is only the beginning of the issues raised by these doctrines. The emphasis on setting a specific time for Christ to return created other problems. Ministers whom Ellen White called "false shepherds" and whom she accused of leading people away from the "truth" were not objecting to the preaching of Christ's second coming — they were objecting to Adventists setting a specific date for Christ's second coming. By objecting to the false prophecies of 1843 and 1844 those ministers were remembering the words of Jesus: "Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." — Matthew 25:13
Ellen White called those Bible-believing Christian ministers "hypocritical ministers," "bold scoffers" and "false shepherds." Why? Because they held to Scripture instead of accepting her errors. Does a true prophet of God condemn Christians for believing the Bible? No.
Ellen White was wrong when she called the false predictions of Christ's coming in 1843 and 1844 "the truth" for Jesus tells us in 1 John 2:21 that "no lie comes from the truth." But she went deeper into error by calling those false predictions a "saving message." A false message cannot possibly be a "saving message!"
Worse, over the next six decades Ellen White never retracted her error of setting a time for Christ to return in 1843 and 1844, and even went on to "firmly believe" Christ would come in 1845 (see Word to the 'Little Flock,' p. 22). However, she taught that others who set specific dates for Christ's coming "suit the purposes of Satan".
"The preaching of a definite time for the judgment, in the giving of the first message (1843 and 1844), was ordered of God. ... The repeated efforts to find new dates for the beginning and close of the prophetic periods, and the unsound reasoning necessary to sustain these positions, not only lead minds away from the present truth, but throw contempt upon all efforts to explain the prophecies. The more frequently a definite time is set for the second advent, and the more widely it is taught, the better it suits the purposes of Satan." — The Great Controversy, p. 457, written in 1888.
Finally, Ellen White tried to smooth over the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844 by assuring the faithful that they had really been right all along:
"True, there had been a failure as to the expected event ... The mistake had not been in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, but in the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days." — The Great Controversy, pp. 406, written in 1888.
The day after October 22, 1844, in the midst of dark depression, a solution was proposed in order to salvage the Advent movement. By admitting that the expected event was wrong Adventists were able to maintain they had been correct as to the date of October 22, 1844 — they said instead of Jesus returning to earth on the Day of Atonement, He went into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the Investigative Judgment. This important doctrinal shift resulted from a "vision" received by Hiram Edson which was sanctioned by three of Ellen White's own subsequent "visions!" Here is how Seventh-day Adventists explain this crucial doctrinal switch to their high school students even though later Hiram Edson categorically denied he ever had a "vision":
"While passing a large field I (Hiram Edson) was stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly, and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to earth ..., that He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of the sanctuary."
So simple — yet it rates among the most dramatic moments in religious history. ... In December ... Ellen received her first vision. ... Here was the answer to their prayer. It was the very thing the Adventists needed. God was telling them as plainly as He could that the October 22 movement ... was true light!" — Moving Out, Department of Education, General Conference of SDAs, pp. 27, 29, revised in 1980.
After the fact, Ellen White claimed God told her in vision the doctrinal switch was "true light," and that the Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844 (the 10th of Tishri) occurred on October 22.
"The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord's coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn ... the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment." — The Great Controversy, pp. 400, 457.
Where did the date of October 22, 1844 come from? Miller taught 457 B.C. marked the beginning of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, but gave no specific month or day.
After being disappointed in 1843 and again in the spring of 1844, Ellen White and her friends settled on the event and date of the Jewish Day of Atonement (the 10th of Tishri) as marking the end of the 2300 days. They believed God had revealed to S. S. Snow that the 10th of Tishri would occur on October 22 in 1844. The fact is, that in 1844, the Jewish Day of Atonement began at sunset on September 23 — not October 22! (See The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, © 1939, volume 2, pages 636 and 637).
If you do not have access to a public library that has the The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, you can easily access a Jewish web site with a calendar program that will calculate the Gregorian date for the 10th of Tishri (the Day of Atonement) in 1844 by clicking on the link at the end of this note. When you arrive at the Jewish calendar page go to the data fields for the Civil (Gregorian) dates and enter 23 September 1844. Then click on the "Compute Dates" button and you will see the result: 10 Tishri 5605. According to the Bible, the 10th of Tishri is the day and month for the Day of Atonement. The number 5605 is the Jewish calendar's year for 1844 on our Gregorian calendar. If you wish to double-check this information, click the "Another Calculation" button, and this time enter 10 Tishri 5605 in the Jewish date data fields and click the "Compute Dates" button. This time the result will be: Monday, 23 September, 1844. http://www.jewishgen.org/jos/josdates.htm
<... this proof that the Day of Atonement in 1844 occurred on September 23 is not new information to SDAs. They still rely on L. E. Froom's claim that, in 1844, the Karaite Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement on October 22, one month later than the Orthodox Jews. Their argument is not based on fact, for no Karaite sources support Froom's claim. Instead researchers have repeatedly shown the Karaite Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement on September 23, 1844 — the very day required by the Bible and the very same day (10th of Tishri) celebrated by Orthodox/Rabbinical Jews!
Anyway, I'm done with this. My intention when I posted my first posting on here was simply to ask Marcel a question. I have no desire to be subject to Andre's continuing attacks. That is why I left this church 40 years ago. Adventists always consider themselves the only true church so all the rest of us are wrong and attacked.
I will continue to believe that I am saved by my faith and Gods truly amazing gift of Grace, not worshiping on Saturday or paying tithes or accepting EGW as a prophet. And trust me, Andre, my Biblical views today are so much less restrictive than any of the SDA doctrine ever was.
— Ellen G. White in Great Controversy, page 401
The 1950's presented SDAs with two notable opportunities to admit their sanctuary doctrine errors. First was when the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on the book of Daniel was revised by editors Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld and Francis D. Nichol. In a taped address (given around 1985) Cottrell remembers stormy sessions where "we really struggled" to make sense out of Daniel 8 and 9 and wondered "what are we going to put into the Commentary?"
As a result, Cottrell researched the position of non-SDA scholars and discovered that no reputable Christian scholar has ever accepted Adventism's sanctuary doctrine! Highly regarded cult watcher, Walter Martin, examined Bible texts presented by SDAs and wrote in his book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists: "None of these texts has anything to do with any judgment now going on. Neither the grammar, nor the context supports such a contention. ... (The SDA sanctuary doctrine) relies on out-of-context quotations. The Adventist error is that they draw from the Scriptures interpretations which cannot be substantiated by exegesis, but rest largely upon inference and deduction." Writing in Eternity magazine, Martin's associate, Barnhouse, said: "The (SDA sanctuary doctrine resulting from the Great Disappointment of 1844) is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history! We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position. And we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable."
Cottrell's research led him to exclaim: "Time and again non-Adventist Bible scholars have examined Adventist beliefs and have given all of them a bill of health as having some roots in Scripture. ... But without exception, and often in the most emphatic terms, they denounce our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as 'eisegesis of the worst kind' (that is, reading into the Bible something that is not there). Perish the thought, but the invariable rule appears to be that the more a non-Adventist knows about the Bible and how to study it, the less disposed he is to look with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14!
"Now, if only minor matters were involved, we could dismiss these criticisms. But when the keystone in our theological 'arch' has been the target of these criticisms — you knock the keystone of an arch out — what's going to happen? You don't have an arch there! That has been the target of these attacks, so in a certain sense, the integrity of our church is at stake! And, unfortunately, we have never faced up realistically, yet, to this fact!"
A second opportunity for Seventh-day Adventism to resolve their doctrinal errors occurred in 1958. Here again are Cottrell's taped recollections: "In 1958 ... it fell to my lot, as a Review and Herald Publishing Association editor, to revise the perennial classic Bible Readings (published for nearly 100 years). ... The old plates had worn out and we had to make new plates. ... The Review and Herald thought it would be highly desirable to bring Bible Readings into harmony with the (Seventh-day Adventist Bible) Commentary so that we wouldn't be saying something out of one corner of our mouth and something else out of the other corner. So it fell to my lot, then, to come to Daniel 8:14, the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. And with all of these statements — of Martin and Barnhouse and Lindsell and DeHaan and you name them — reverberating in my mind just like an echo that kept going back and forth ..., I decided that I would try to find some way to say what we wanted to say about the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in a way that would take the ammunition out of these people's hands so they couldn't criticize us like they were — present it as Biblical. And after struggling, I found that it couldn't be done!
"So I went to Elder Nichol one day and I said, 'Elder Nichol, what do you do in a case like this?' I was really trying my very best to present the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in the book Bible Readings — I couldn't do it! He said, 'Well, what do (our) college Bible teachers have to say? ... Write them a letter.' So I composed a letter in which I asked a number of key questions on getting the sanctuary doctrine out of Daniel 8:14. And I sent this questionnaire out to every teacher of Hebrew in our colleges — we didn't have any universities at the time — and to the head of every Bible department and a number of other Bible teachers I was personally acquainted with. And I protected them by assuring them their names would never be associated with any responses they made.
"I asked these questions and all twenty-seven I wrote to replied. Without exception the responses expressed the opinion that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the antitypical Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. There was not one college Bible teacher who came out and said there is a basis in exegesis — that is in the language or the context.
"And then I had asked another question: 'What reason, other than language and context can you offer?' And thirteen, half of the twenty-seven, said 'There is no other basis.' In other words, half of them were saying there is no basis whatever! Then there was a little scattering among the other half — two people replied this way and I was really taken back by those replies — two of them proposed that the English word 'cleansed,' in the King James Version, was 'a fortunate accident!' How about having the most important of our doctrines based upon a 'fortunate accident' in translation! ...
"Actually, it was not an accident, the Septuagint has the word 'cleansed,' ... and they put the word 'cleansed' in because they thought it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. So the (Seventh-day) Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, the interpretation of 'cleansed,' is based on an ancient translation made by Jewish people into Greek believing that Antiochus Epiphanes had fulfilled the prophecy. So if we take the word 'cleansed' there, we really ought to say that it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes.
"Well, I went to Elder Nichol. Since he had gotten me into this fix, it was up to him to get me out of it. You know what he did? He took them (the responses) over to the President of the General Conference, Elder Figuhr. And the General Conference appointed the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel to try to find some answers to these questions. Well, the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel met for five years. I was a member of the committee. We studied forty-five prepared papers for the committee and adjourned without finding any answers!
"Now, there was a majority on the Committee and a minority, altogether fourteen people. Nine of them, the majority at the end, wanted to issue a formal report in which we wouldn't say one word about any problems or any questions. Now remember, the name of the committee was Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel. And they wanted a report that would just make everybody happy and say some nice things. Well there were five of us that didn't think that was intellectually honest. We didn't think that the church would be well served by such a report.... The majority insisted on that 'unanimous' report to which we would have to sign our names — and we couldn't conscientiously do that because we would be to blame for a report that didn't deal with any of the problems!
"So we made several proposals. We made a proposal that would deal honestly with the facts and the different proposed solutions — the reasons for them — and let people make up their own minds. Well of course that didn't meet the desire of the majority. Another proposal we made was that there be no report and any member of the committee, on his own initiative, could submit any article for publication in the Review or Ministry or any other journal, under his own name and without mentioning the committee. That way people could say what they wanted to. No, those weren't acceptable. So we came out with a facetious suggestion. We proposed that they let us five step out into the corridor, and then the majority could have a unanimous vote just as they wanted it." — Raymond F. Cottrell in taped address, circa 1985.
In the end, the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel had no solutions! This insight into the inner workings of Seventh-day Adventism answers a number of questions as to why the church has continued to teach their non-Biblical sanctuary doctrine for another half century. Without question reputable non-Adventist Bible scholars and the overwhelming majority of Adventist Bible scholars agreed the entire doctrine of 1844 is not Biblical. Those wishing to study this subject further will find ample inspiration in the following twenty questions contributed by former Seventh-day Adventist pastor Phillip Wilson:
1. It should be explained why the context of Daniel 8 is not considered and why the question of Daniel 8:13 is ignored, when seeking to interpret its answer given in Daniel 8:14.
2. It must be proved that 2300 evening and morning sacrifices equal 2300 full days, when there is no conclusive evidence from Daniel 8:14 itself (and no other text of Scripture to confirm) that it means full days.
3. It must not only be proved that a day equals a year in prophecy but that an evening and a morning sacrifice equal one year.
4. In the face of the contextual implication that the 2300-year period would commence when the daily sacrifice was suspended, it must be argued that it began, rather, in 457 B.C. — a date which had nothing to do with taking away the regular burnt offering.
5. It must be proved that the heavenly sanctuary is meant, when the context refers to the earthly sanctuary and activity against it by the little horn.
6. It must be proved that the cleansing of the sanctuary means cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints, when the context refers to cleansing it from pollution by the desolating activities of the little horn.
7. It must be proved that confessed sins defile the sanctuary; and that the blood of individual sin offerings was taken into the sanctuary, that such blood was sin laden, and, therefore, defiled the holy places.
8. It must be assumed that 490 years are cut off from the 2300 years, when there is nothing in Daniel 8 or 9 that requires it.
9. It must be assumed that the 2300 years and the 490 years begin together, although there is no proof of this.
10. It must be maintained that the reconsecration of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14, as well as the anointing of the sanctuary in Daniel 9:24 are not the same, but are separated by nearly 2,000 years.
11. It must be proved that there is both contextual and linguistic linkage between Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16.
12. It must be demonstrated that the word that was issued in Daniel 9:25 refers to the kingly decree and that Artaxerxes made such a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, when there is no evidence that he did.
13. It must be proved that the cleansing of the sanctuary commenced — when Daniel 8:14 says nothing about commencing — not just in 1844, but on October 22, 1844. Since such detail is not in the Bible, it must be shown that Karaites did celebrate the day of atonement on October 22 in 1844 (which they did not), and that the Karaite religious calendar is more reliable than the orthodox rabbinical calendar. This entire exercise depends, of course, upon proving that the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is the same as that typified in Leviticus 16.
14. It must be explained why, in giving the 2300 days a New Testament application, it is still necessary to be tied to the Jewish ceremonies and practices — since Seventh-day Adventists teach that after the cross, Judaism, as a system, was disqualified; and today the true Israel of God is His church.
15. It must be shown that the antitypical day of atonement began in 1844; and it must be explained why Christ's great act of atonement [Calvary] is not the day of atonement, but is separated from it by 1800 years.
16. It must be proved that the two-apartment schema of the Old Testament sanctuary parallels a two-apartment ministry by Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, when Hebrews does not suggest such a conclusion.
17. It must be shown that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary, and that Christ moved from the holy place to the most holy place in 1844. It must be explained also how, when the New Testament says that Christ entered God's presence and sat down on the throne in the heavenly sanctuary (as Hebrews 9:12 says), this only means the first apartment in Heaven.
18. It must be shown further why Christ must function as a priest after the order of Aaron, when Hebrews teaches that He has transcended that priesthood and functions as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
19. It must be proved that the judgment that began in 1844 was an investigative judgment only for the professed people of God — not a judgment of the wicked horn or of Babylon.
20. It must be shown this is what Revelation 14:7 is describing, though it gives no such details on this trial of the saints. Does Revelation 14:7 refer to this investigative judgment? Or does it refer to the great judgment hour of God that commenced at the cross?
It is a fact that the majority of reputable Christian Bible scholars believe the "2300 evenings and mornings" of Daniel 8:14 refer to the events leading up to the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes on December 4, 168 B.C. and on through its reconsecration on December 14, 165 B.C.
The Septuagint was written between 285 B.C. and 246 B.C. Therefore, the translators could not possibly have known about the defilement and "cleansing" of Jerusalem's temple — an event which occurred at least 81 years after the Septuagint was written. Thus Elder Cottrell was mistaken when he stated the writers of the Septuagint used the word "cleansed" (thus apparently manipulatating the intent of Scripture) because they thought Daniel 8:14 applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. Seventh-day Adventists continue to have difficulty coping with the inerrancy of God's Word — particularly when their own prophet Ellen White is so error-prone.
The historical evidence is clear that the earthly temple was defiled and cleansed — reconsecrated — nearly two centuries before Christ. In the light of history, is it logical to assume Daniel was predicting an event which would not occur until A.D. 1844 in heaven — some 2,500 years after the angel spoke with him in vision? Or is it more likely that Daniel 8:14 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration of the temple (fulfilled just 500 years after Daniel wrote) and followed immediately by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and thus the fulfillment of Daniel chapter 9?
Seventh-day Adventists have long claimed to be the successors and completers of the Protestant Reformation. But they have long departed from the Reformation's battle cry of "Sola Scriptura — The Bible Alone!" The Sanctuary Doctrine, the 2,300 days, the Investigative Judgment and the Great Disappointment all evolved not from the solid rock of Scripture, but from the miasmic writings of Ellen G. White. And that is the "keystone in the arch" of Seventh-day Adventism!
By the way, I am definitely in the camp of thought inspiration, not verbal or word for word. Great discussion. Thanks!
However, I would caution in the future from assuming that all contemporary SDA's agree on fundamentals or EGW's teachings. And to many more (especially twenty-somethings), EGW may as well have never existed and has no influence whatsoever. Case in point, commenter Armed2Win (an SDA) a few comments back, who stated "She has absolutely NO affect on my life and provides NO lighthouse beacon to my journey, other than an occasional reference for interest only."
So, allow me to answer your earlier question.
"My question to him was if you think she is wacky, why are you still following her?"
Answer: I don't. Quite frankly, I haven't even read any of her books, not one. And I am a 5th generation SDA! My Adventism means to be intrinsically called to be a follower of Jesus, and not of a "denomination," and to follow The Great Commission as a command to lead others to the cross (salvation) by way of His grace alone, on the account of Christ alone.
Because of that, I am often branded as not being "Adventist enough" by right-wingers, a label I can live with. Place me in the evangelical-SDA camp, if you so desire, on matters of theology. I'm quite comfortable there.
You stated, "You can call yourself a progressive Adventist or whatever you want to but your church is still relying on EGW for doctrine."
My "church" is not the global corporate institution located in Silver Springs, MD. Nor was it the one located in Battle Creek, MI 150 years ago (?). My "church" is where I worship daily in my bedroom, in the streets, in my car, at my neighbor's, at the supermarket, and where I experience apostolic community and fellowship with fellow believers in Christ seven days a week. That "church" (whether as a building where the choir sings or as the Body) has never preached EGW or Adventist doctrines because it understand that doctrines don't save, Christ does. Unfortunately, that's not the "church" you experienced, is it?
Thank you for your thoughtful and highly informative remarks. I value them. Have you read my follow up letter?
But seriously now, I didn't mean to become argumentative on you. If anything, I meant to show you that every story has 2 sides. You may beat Ellen White to a pulp but I've seen her resist the most vicious attacks unscathed. As I've proven in my post...
I don't see you tackling the discrepancies in the Bible that I posted. I would like to see some kind of apology on those, since you seem to believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. Oh well...
Honestly, I don't see a need to continue this endless back-and-forth since you seem to be happy where you are in your journey. My point was that inspiration is more on the person than on the words. That would make a big difference for ex-SDAs and progressive SDAs.
You've now seen that many SDAs couldn't care less about Ellen White, including some who have never even read her books.
I do, her writings coupled with the Bible add a totally new dimension to my spiritual walk and I thank God for the revelations. She contributes tremendously to my view of a loving God and his plan for my life.
I wouldn't be where I am today spiritually without the testimonies of Ellen White and I can only glorify God that he allowed my mother to come across this truth before I was born. For me, she led me back to a voracious interest in the Bible and Theology, just as she was meant to. I can tell that my worldview is so broad, so rich, so deep and so vast because of Sister White.
But then again, that's me.
One last thing: I wonder, if you're so happy where you are, I don't understand why you would still hold so much hatred and attack the doctrines of the SDA Church with the same old, trite apologetics that are full of misinformation and which have been refuted repeatedly in the past.
Happy New Year!
Thank you for your comments. It sounds to me like you and I are at least worshiping the same God in pretty much the same way.
I also read your follow-up comment and it appears that you understand to a certain extent, why so many of us left or are leaving SDA.
Andre, you are the reason we left. No, I didn't answer you questions on the Bible. As I stated earlier, I do not need to nor will I defend the Bible. The fact that you need to attack it to a point about EGW just shows me that you hold HER up higher or at least on the same level as the Bible. I suggest you read the Bible more and EGW less. You are the scary Adventist cult I grew up with, that believed EGW was the final say on Biblical passages.
I never claimed what I posted was original. EGW claimed she received her plagiarized writings in a vision. I did not. EGW CLAIMED everything she wrote was from God . I did not. No one has ever stated in their Fundamental Beliefs that I'm some sort of prophet. The SDA's still hold her out to be a prophet with some sort of special gift.
Somehow, I don't think that YOU did your own original research either. You managed to cut and paste your answers much to quickly. I'll also point out that you didn't answer 90% of what I wrote. One of your first attacks on me was telling me to prove that EGW was a foundation of the church. When I did, you never bothered to answer it. I'd like to see some sort of apology on that if we're now going to demand apologies. I never called her wacky yet you accused me of calling her wacky. You never bothered acknowledging that.
Did you ever bother reading EGW's Last Will and Testament? Did you ever bother researching what she told others in the church about who they should leave their money to when they died? (She advocated leaving their estates to the church, not to some relative that didn't need it.) Did you see who she left her estate to? Did you notice it wasn't the church? Did you ever bother to research what your prophet stated about being in debt? Did you notice that she was so far in debt when she died that the General Conference had to take over her estate?
I'm sure you've read all of her "health edicts". Yet she ate meat and oysters herself for 30 years after she told the rest of the church not to. Yet when I mentioned that, you didn't bother answering it.
You seem to love to attack others for what you deem an unanswered question but you pick and chose what you want to answer and talk in circles.
I tried to respond to all of your questions (until you wanted me to defend the Bible). You went in circles around mine and just came up with more attacks.
Yes, you are the reason I left. The rabid Adventism is still as alive and well as it was 40 years ago when I left.
I don't think you have proven a thing in your posts on EGW other than to make me believe that there are still far to many in the Adventist church that can't see the forest for the trees. She has survived the attacks on her only because the Church in Silver Springs continues to put her up there in their Fundamental Beliefs and continues to make big bucks peddling her books and portraying them as some sort of "inspired gift from God" and necessary reading to be saved. Scholars far better than you have already proven she was wrong.
I hold no hatred for the SDA Church. I hold no hatred for EGW. I stated in one of my earlier posts that I believe she was a good Christian woman. I just think she was wrong and I think she knew it and duped a lot of people. There are many things about SDA's that I respect. However, I DO NOT believe that I have to go to church on Saturday to be saved. I DO NOT believe that I have to accept EGW as a prophet to be saved. I DO NOT believe I will receive the mark of the beast for NOT worshiping on Saturday as EGW taught.
And I will say once again Andre, you remind me way to much of those "Holier than thou, we're the ONLY right church and the ONLY church that knows the truth, and the ONLY people that will be saved" Adventists I grew up with, for me to even take you seriously.
Quite honestly, you sounded a lot more hateful towards me than I ever did towards the Adventists.
The difference between your Church and Marcels is astounding. If you both hadn't stated that you were current SDA's, I wouldn't even know you belonged to the same religion.
I'll also point out in answer to your last statement that all the criticism of EGW has been refuted, that the only people in all of Christianity that honestly believe all the attacks on EGW have been refuted, as you stated, are the White Estate and people like you. I have never seen one non-Adventist who ever believed she was correct in her interpretation of Daniel 8:14 but I've seen plenty of scholars INCLUDING Adventists scholars, who I'm sure are far more learned then you, who believe she was absolutely wrong on investigative judgment. I pointed one out to you yesterday. I notice you skipped right over that one.
Your answers to ANY of my posts have been to skip right over what you don't want to see and make blanket statements like, "that's already been refuted". By whom? An adventist apologist? The White Estate? Show me one scholar that doesn't have a financial stake in keeping EGW's version of Investigative Judgment alive that has refuted it. Anyone in all of Christianity will do. You can't because there are none. There is not one theological scholar anywhere (other than at the White Estate) that believes EGW was right. The Adventist explanation of how they got to October 22, 1844 is laughable. I showed you yesterday that by the Hebrew calendar, even if you accept that 2300 days meant the Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844 (as they now claim), it is still wrong as the Jewish Date of Atonement in 1844 was September 23. Did you take your head out of the sand long enough to even go LOOK at the Hebrew calendar?
Go do some research on Desmond Ford. He was one of the SDA's best scholars. A theological teacher. A theological scholar. He was fired by the church when he pointed out just how wrong EGW was on Investigative Judgment.
I have yet to find one non-Adventist scholar anywhere in all of Christianity that believes EGW was correct on Daniel 8:14. I have yet to find one non-Adventist scholar anywhere who believes Jesus went in some other compartment of heaven on October 22, 1844. Every other Christian in the world believes Jesus went to the right hand of God at the ascension, not close to 2000 years later, just to prove the Millerites right. I mean, seriously. They sat in two different compartments of heaven for 2000 years?
Don't even TRY to tell me all the criticism of EGW's writings have been refuted. You did no better job of refuting that junk than the White Estate has done. The circle talk you find there is amazing. Even good Adventist scholars such as Desmond Ford, Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld and Francis D. Nichol have NOT been able to defend Mrs. Whites writings, and being good Adventists, they actually tried. No reputable Christian scholar has ever accepted Adventism's sanctuary doctrine. Cottrell's (and Cottrell was an Adventist trying to prove White was right) research led him to exclaim: "Time and again non-Adventist Bible scholars have examined Adventist beliefs and have given all of them a bill of health as having some roots in Scripture. ... But without exception, and often in the most emphatic terms, they denounce our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as 'eisegesis of the worst kind' (that is, reading into the Bible something that is not there). Perish the thought, but the invariable rule appears to be that the more a non-Adventist knows about the Bible and how to study it, the less disposed he is to look with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.
So please don't bother trying to tell me that all the claims against EGW have been refuted. Even your own church scholars can't refute them and I'm willing to bet they are a whole lot smarter, a whole lot more scholarly and way better educated in theology than either you or I.
Get your head out of the sand and read something besides EGW. If you still believe her AFTER you've actually read the Bible without her interpretation, great. You are so EGW indoctrinated, I don't think you'll bother to do your own study. You certainly haven't given me any new research. At least I had the good grace to actually do part of my research on SDA websites and the White Estate Library. When I heard last week that EGW had plagiarized most of her work, I did not believe it. Mind you, I've been away from the SDA church for a lot of years and had not heard any of the ongoing controversy within the church over the last 25 years or so. I went and did my own research and read BOTH sides, including the SDA side and drew my own conclusions. I'm still doing research, which is how I came across this blog in the first place. All you do is stick with the SDA apologists view. You haven't got the guts to look at both sides.
Thank God there are others in your church that disagree with you. Thank God there are others in your church that do not elevate EGW's writings to the level of the Bible as you do. The minute you wanted me to defend the Bible, you gave yourself away on that one. People like you who make EGW into a prophet, the final word on par with the Bible are the reason the Adventists continue to be called a cult.
Andre, is it really that important for Faye to believe in EGW? Do you honestly believe her eternal salvation is at risk? The last I looked, Jesus is the only way to heaven, not EGW. And Faye, is it really necessary for you to try to disprove something Andre holds close to his heart and is vitally relevant and important to his faith?
It seems to me that both Faye and Andre have an ax to grind, both harboring anger, and majoring in something that is so minor to our being saved in and through the person of Jesus Christ. Truthfully, this is a problem that seems apparent in both conservative and progressive SDA circles. "Majoring in minors".
The truth is this, "By this will the whole world know that you are my disciples - if you have love for one another." Not the belief in or against EGW. Not even keeping the best day of the week (the Sabbath) will define you as a disciple of Christ (I bet that could spark a debate.) Neither will belief in the Investigative Judgment.
Instead of trying to prove a moot point (either pro or con), I would much rather hear how Jesus touched your life, how His Grace has freed you from the bonds of slavery to sin and/or legalism. Now there is something to shout about!!!!
Thanks for your comments. I couldn't agree more when you say that we're "majoring in the minors". All my years in Theological Seminaries have been on that Major! Hopefully now in a PhD program in Theology at a non-SDA University, I may be able to show that SDAs are increasingly more interested in the major pillars of Christian faith…
You’re also right that this is not the venue to hold long theological discussions. As my previous comment stated, I simply tried to show that every story has other perspectives. I don’t see the point of trying to change one’s view if they seem to be satisfied in their newfound walk with Christ.
I disagree that there was anger in my comments, as you implied. I guess that’s because theological discussions end up being construed as personal attacks, when we’re simply probing ideas. I disagree that I’ve attacked anyone personally. If I was at times facetious, the comments are there for perusal.
For the record, I don't believe anyone is going to be lost for rejecting EGW or for wearing make-up, eating meat or pork, smoking or drinking beer, keeping Sunday or rejecting the Sanctuary doctrine. We are saved FREELY by Christ and are lost when we reject Christ. Period. SDA’s have spent decades trying to add to the FREE gift of salvation by piling works or Sabbath keeping on top of doctrines. That is a disgrace to the true gospel.
I’ve been revising my SDA beliefs that we are the sole remnant. God has a remnant and it includes many in the SDA church and other denominations, including the Catholic Church (yes…) I've frequented Evangelical churches for years as a musician and have found wonderful people there who I know love Christ sincerely and will be saved; so it's not a matter of what church I belong to or what I believe in as much as it is in Whom I believe. God will be the judge. How many SDA’s are lost because they haven’t found the joy of salvation in Christ?
In hindsight, we lambast the misplaced emphasis and unbalanced views of our church in decades past but it was because of the evangelistic zeal of some Adventists in the 70's that my family found Christ. Their love of prophecies opened the door for my mother to be exposed to the Gospel. Who knows, maybe I would be an atheist today without the work of those Adventists, legalistic and unbalanced as they may have been. God works in mysterious ways…
Today I’m part of a Progressive SDA church in the East Coast, a grace-oriented community of faith. It has been a tremedous journey for my family and me and we’re loving the light and accepting atmosphere, the open-mindedness and the emphasis on the ‘majors’ of the Christian faith. Prophecies are never preached, women wear jewelry abundantly, there are ashtrays at the door and there are at least 10 first-time visitor parking spots in the front of the church. What a concept!! My church makes me believe there’s hope for Adventism!
I believe God has a plan for the SDA Church and blogs like these might as well spark the beginning of a revolution in our ways of doing church and place our emphasis on the real gospel. This blog needs to keep former SDAs coming but I think the greatest impact will be on the ones who stayed.
As Marcel put it: “So why stay, you ask? Well, let me ask, why leave?” As far as I’m concerned, the villification of the SDA Church such as we’ve seen here further solidifies my decision to stay and make it right.
Happy New Year to all!
What a concept, indeed! Make sure those first time visitors get to park up close and pick and choose which tenants and beliefs of the church you wish to abide by or believe in and still call yourself and Adventist. Then tell me I'm somehow vilifying the church, all the while picking and choosing what parts of the church you yourself, want to believe in.
I was NOT vilifying the church. To do so would vilify those adventists I truly respect for actually BELIEVING in and PRACTICING their religion. My original question remains. If EGW is still a foundation of the church (which she is) and if EGW is still a prophet of the church (which she is) and if you call her writings "wacky" as the original poster, did, why remain members of an organized denomination when NONE of you seem to be able to or want to uphold the basic tenants and doctrines of the church? I can't even find agreement between some of the people on this blog, on what a Seventh Day Adventist believes. You all seem to belong to different religions where your only common ground is in the name, Seventh Day Adventist.
If I'm going to "join" something, whether it be a religion or any other organization, I'd at least like to think I BELIEVE in it and I'm not sticking around just because I can't think of anything better to do.
My reasons for leaving the SDA church 40 years ago remains. I do NOT believe EGW was or is a prophet. And, too many Seventh Day Adventists still believe they are somehow "better" than the rest of Christianity, even if they don't bother following their own church tenants and 28 Fundamental Beliefs.
You are beginning to resemble the “former Adventist” the first letter was intended for, and the whole reason I wrote it. Think about it, Faye….do you honestly believe that the Adventism you left 40 years ago is the same Adventism today? Perhaps to some gray-haired congregations of a 10 member church in a rural Kansas farmtown, but seriously, Faye, this last argument was weak, reactionary and totally unfounded. Although the tenants of the “religion” remain from 40 years ago, the people have changed and the times have changed, and that’s the point you need to accept. It is not 1968! You speak of “joining” as if SDA is a club for privileged cult members. (ok, I set myself up here, there are splinter groups that are cultic, but they believe in a false gospel of salvation by works).
You wrote: “You all seem to belong to different religions where your only common ground is in the name, Seventh Day Adventist.”
I hope you can accept that for many Adventists, they are no different than you, and their most prevalent “common ground” is an allegiance to being a follower of Christ. Period. Those Adventists are the ones I encourage you to get to know.
You wrote: “If I'm going to "join" something, whether it be a religion or any other organization, I'd at least like to think I BELIEVE in it and I'm not sticking around just because I can't think of anything better to do.”
Show me a denomination/religion that believes the exact same thing, Faye. Do all Presbyterians believe in pre-destination? Do all Baptists believe in salvation through water immersion? Do all evangelicals believe in eternal torment in hell?
You wrote: “My reasons for leaving the SDA church 40 years ago remains. I do NOT believe EGW was or is a prophet. And, too many Seventh Day Adventists still believe they are somehow "better" than the rest of Christianity, even if they don't bother following their own church tenants and 28 Fundamental Beliefs.”
That’s true. There are many Adventists like that, unfortunately. Exclusivity in many Adventist circles still remains, yes. But that goes with any denomination, Faye, not just Adventism. I would hope that you haven’t, since leaving Adventism, turned into a right-wing evangelical condemning and judging the lifestyles of others. Many former Adventists, as described in my original letter, went from legalists to grace legalists, using the Bible as their weapon of self-righteousness and religiosity. The pendulum swung completely the other way, yet they maintain a cold and rigid heart.
Let me end with an illustration. Think of it as a scene in a movie:
I see traditionals setting out to prove their “belief” that EGW was a prophet. They do this by choice and forget the bigger picture – who they are called to be as disciples in the kingdom of God here and now. I see ex-Adventists setting out to prove their “belief” that EGW was NOT a prophet. They do this by choice and forget the bigger picture – who they are called to be as disciples in the kingdom of God here and now. The rhetoric is a perpetual cycle and both camps miss the point. And the rest? We tip-toe around the bar brawl trying not to get hit by flying bottles on our way out, shaking our heads, rolling our eyes in disgust and muttering, “get over it already.”
I should probably point out that in all my years as a musician in Evangelical Churches, I’ve found the deepest kinds of legalistic attitudes, ones that would make our strict and exclusive SDA ways pale in comparison. You find Christians who are not followers of Christ in all communities. I even encountered legalism in Universalist churches, where you can’t sing about Jesus!!
Also, I want to clarify that although the SDA Church I’m a member of is “grace-oriented” and does not initially attract seekers through the distinctives of the Adventis faith, I feel it still is very much a Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Among other strictly SDA characteristics, we still worship on Saturday and Ellen White is still quoted from the pulpit as an inspired author by our 3 pastors.
I support the ministries of this particular church because I believe we’re on to something here… I’ve enjoyed the diverse expression of our faith in this community with its emphasis on relationships and a cutting edge worship style. The children’s program is probably the best in the area so my daughter has a blast every Sabbath. Consequently it’s a younger, well-accomplished congregation and the talent pool is vast. However, although the SDA distinctives are not a major emphasis (if at all) in this particular community, I don’t necessarily believe this is the ultimate way of expressing the Adventist faith. It may work well with a cross-section of the American/European populations today but it would be really narrow-minded to stamp this is THE solution for Adventist problems, past or present.
I also support financially Prophecy Seminars in South America because they’re still very effective third world countries. (What a shame we haven’t made them more Christ-centered in North-America). This is probably due to the cultural environment: in poorer countries where justice is trampled and one’s outlook in life is bleak, people seem to be attracted to an image of a loving and just God that the prophecies portray, One that has had a plan all along and is just patiently waiting to pour judgement on the wicked ones of this age (politicians and corporations) all the while reserving paradise for those who are faithful followers of the Lamb. The SDA church grows by leaps and bounds in Brazil, Africa and Southeast Asia using the Christ of the prophecies as their main theme. .
We should also keep in mind that Jesus not only spoke about Old Testament prophecies but he Himself was the subject of and fulfilled 360 of them. He was also a prophet who spent some of his last moments with the disciples talking about the endtimes prophecies. So it seems to me that followers of Christ, do-what-Jesus-did Adventists will not necessarily reject prophecies because they may be construed as fear-driven as one progressive Pastor put it. Our prophetic distinctives DO have Christ at the center, it’s just that we have lost Him in the details and missed the point.
So… we can’t paint the solution for our weak, modern outreach approach towards non-SDAs and former SDAs alike with broad post-modern brushes. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this blog, although very important, these postmodern, progressive discussions are irrelevant to a vast majority of SDA communities across the world. This is strictly a North American-European problem. Need I point out that even this blog has a worlwide readership.
Finally, TV and populist theologians are daily indoctrinating the masses about ancient “prophecies” (non biblical or eisegetical) and the afterlife and progressive followers of Christ should have an age-appropriate answer to those seekers as well, lest we breed a generation of loving, but confused and shortsighted Christians.
That’s my 2 cents…
If EGW is a false prophet then by Biblical authority we are commanded to separate from false teachers, no matter how progressive certain members may be. Until one takes that step of obedience, God is under no further obligation to provide you with more truth or light. He'll leave you where you are at.
For those of us who have discovered she does not pass the test of a prophet ... who have obeyed the command to separate from false teachers (again the denomination, not individual SDAs) ... God has graciously revealed to us the Truth that their are churches out there that are actually much closer to the truth and much more grounded in honoring His Word.
In His Grip!
I'm curious what test of a real prophet are you referring to? ... Can you give some examples?
Also, does the test apply while the prophet is still living or does it transcend their lifespan?
Andre
You asked, "Does the test apply while the prophet is still living or does it transcend their life-span?
Wouldn't that depend on how specific the prophecy time line is?
You also asked me for examples of how I would test a prophet. I think you've already been given many examples, but here is a test I'd love for you to reconcile for me, with one of EGW's teachings:
... If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. —Isaiah 8:20
EGW teaches that during the end of time the righteous will have to live during probation without an intercessor:
"In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor." —GC 613-614.
Scripture teaches something totally different:
... "He ALWAYS lives to make intercession" ... —Hebrews 7:22-25
"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying ... lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." —Matthew 28:18-20
So Andre which is it? Will Jesus be with me ALWAYS till the end of time as Scripture promises ... or is He leaving me during probation like EGW promises?
And Andre, why do you suppose the focus of this debate is about "where we worship and what organization we belong to." Rather than about "Whom" we worship and belong to!
Lastly I'm addressing these questions specifically to all those progressives who remain in Adventism who no longer view EGW as an authority ... where in Scripture are you told that it is ever okay to dismiss a prophet? Weren't all true prophets to be revered and listened to? Where are you told you are at the luxury of picking and choosing only certain aspects of a prophet's teachings? And if you have really determined that she isn't either an authority or a prophet, then how do you reconcile that with the command to separate from false teachers?
Your comment sheds light on the prophetic gift of Ellen White and I thank you for that.
We need to make a decision on whether the prophet must be considered false when his prophecies are not fulfilled during his lifetime or whether the prophet may have predicted something that transcends his/her lifespan.
If we hunker down on that concept, all Old Testament prophets were considered false by their contemporaries since their prophecies of Jesus’ birth were not fulfilled in their lifetime. Obviously that is not the case. In this scenario, Jesus would also be considered a false prophet since his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem was not fulfilled until 70 AD, almost 40 years after his death. Paul, Jesus and John and other NT prophecies on the end time would be false as well.
This argument is untenable for obvious reasons. Therefore, the example you gave on Ellen White as a false prophet is wanting, since we have not reached the specific period that she alluded in that particular prophecy. Based on the Bible, Ellen White is right when she says that Jesus will not make intercession forever, more specifically during probation. If you interpret ALWAYS in Hebrews as forever and ever, than: “Will Jesus be an intercessor when we are in heaven and then in the New Earth and throughout eternity? No”. Then you must reinterpret the word ALWAYS in Hebrews as continuous while necessary.
Furthermore, she has many prophecies and predictions that were fulfilled in her lifetime. A good source is the website found here http://www.ellengwhite.info/predictions.htm.<BR... don’t mean to continue this discussion since it has been exhausted on this very post previously and people start construing differing perspectives as personal attacks. I’m also not trying to prove that SALVATION DEPENDS on a belief (or non-belief, for that matter) in EGWhite any more than it depends on the Bible. Salvation is a free gift offered by God through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Anything added (eg., acceptance or rejection of doctrines) must be anathema.
And, in my life, she has been a true messenger of God. It comes down to personal experience.
Having said that, I’m not ready to abandon my belief in the revelations God gave to Ellen White on the kind of argumentation being offered by former or current SDAs here and elsewhere, much less by the ludicrous diatribes found on websites gallore.
Finally, because I happen to have a more fluid position on revelation/inspiration and unabashedly consider her revelations as having the same quality as those of the Bible writers (i.e., thought inspiration, not verbal inspiration), an attack on her writings must also be accompanied by a cold and impartial look at the discrepancies, conditional prophecies and factual errors found in the Bible.
In his Free gift,
Andre
You said:
"We need to make a decision on whether the prophet must be considered false when his prophecies are not fulfilled during his lifetime or whether the prophet may have predicted something that transcends his/her lifespan."
That is one way to test a prophet. But we can also test the prophet based on whether or not they contradict Scripture, or change the meaning of Scripture, or add to Scripture.
You said:
"Based on the Bible, Ellen White is right when she says that Jesus will not make intercession forever, more specifically during probation."
Can you please show me where we are taught that in Scripture? Where are we taught there will be a probation, in which Believers will have to stand on their own, before a Holy God, without an Intercessor, during the time of trouble, before the 2nd Coming.
I need the references to those Scriptural teachings.
In His Grip
Ane
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/ser/kir-cop1.php
It's crazy that this strand has ended with a validity of EGW debate! That's not cool. Let's keep it going so it can end on a more productive note! Andre, I have to say I was confused by much of your posting. On one side I hear you proclaiming yourself as a firm believer and lover of EGW writings but on the other hand you talk about the liberal-progressive church that you attend, and how you visit many non-SDA churches due to your music, then I think I read something where you said that the way your church does it isn't necessarily the right way (please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have your direct quote). I'm not exactly sure where you stand and that can be confusing to a non-SDA or ex-SDA.
Faye, I'm sorry but you do sound angry. And perhaps you have good reason to be. It sounds like what happened back in 1968 really hurt you to the core and you're probably not over it...and I don't judge you for that. But I do agree with Marcel and I must say that the church has changed a lot since then. Well, I can't even speak as to what exactly it was like back then cause I wasn't even born, but I've heard the stories. My mom and her whole family joined the SDA church in the 60's. But I must ask you this: If you were to meet an SDA who was Bible believing, who rejected or was unconcerned about EGW's teachings, who was loving and kind, who had the spirit of service and did their best to exemplify Christ in his/her daily living, would you respect this person or would you still view them as a confused, half-stepper for still remaining in the SDA church? I feel that my friend sees me as that. She says that she appreciates "my brand of Adventism" but I sense that she doesn't really respect my choice to stay in the faith. She's often trying to get me to read these books and articles that discredit EGW just because she knows I don't hold her up there with the Bible and I have doubts about her prophet status. You remind me so much of my friend when you said what you did about belonging to a church and needing to believe in the foundation of that church (forgive my paraphrase). But I can't really go there. Does every church member non-SDA and SDA alike really know the foundations of their church and must they believe in them wholeheartedly to be taken seriously? Even when many churches were founded centuries ago and on principles/doctrines that hold little importance in today's Christian thought? Personally, I doubt it. And I'm not going to read the EGW bashing books because I don't think that's what God would have me invest my time into. I think he would have me read things that are spiritually uplifting and that would strengthen my walk with him.
So I stick to what I said in my post back in April. As long as I believe that I can grow in faith and serve God as an SDA, and that there are others in this church who desire the same thing, I'm staying put.
All I want is the texts in the Bible that state Believers will have to go through a time of probation before the 2nd Coming, in which they will have to stand before a Holy God without the Holy Spirit; and without our Intercessor Jesus Christ ... where does Scripture teach this?
Can you provide such texts?
Ane
Just jumping in from the other side as one who is now SDA by profession of faith. Why? The short answer is that my local church has people who love Jesus, a pastor who preaches grace, and structures that support outreach and service to others. Also, I am kind of hard to shock in regard to church failings.
*I've been in a number of other denominations and disagree with something in them all (could never be more than a 3 point Calvinist on a good day)
* Inauspicious beginnings for a church are nothing to someone who was in a denomination that split so it could support slavery during the Civil war (so I hear about the PCA)
*Prophets saying strange/untrue things is nothing for someone who belonged to a charismatic prayer meeting and has charismatic friends and relatives
*Legalism? Try some of the people I've met among (non-SDA)homeschooling families (Your wife doesn't wear a denim jumper? Gasp!)
I'll admit to being a slightly bitter ex-Presbyterian but I am working on it.
There is nothing wrong with setting aside time to spend with a loved one, especially if that loved one is Jesus Christ!! What is so wrong about worshipping on Saturday as we were commanded to. Ex-Adventist are blatantly disobeying God's commandment to "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, six days........ God never changes and if he said to "Remember", who are you to teach others to forget the Lord's command. Are the other commandments also not binding e.g. adultery, stealing worshipping idols? This appears to be open rebellion against God's command, remember where and who started rebelling. It was the devil himself, in heaven above.
When it comes to the issue of former Adventists, I have to honestly scratch my head and wonder what kind of Adventism they are talking about. I am a 3rd generation Adventist, and I can truly say that my experience as a child and teenager was a positive one. I had a loving mother who was very balanced in raising me in our faith. I never got the impression that we lived the way we did to earn salvation.
I can understand the frustration some former Adventists have encountered, mainly because of fanatics among us (Shepherd's Rod, 'historic' Adventists) who are a disgrace to the Lord Jesus and to Adventism. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater surely doesn't help.
It's sad that there are so few blogs like this one, where we can talk all these issues out. I looked in the Google and Yahoo search engines trying to find encouragement for people who are considering leaving the Adventist church to STAY in the church. I find more websites telling us to run like the plague from the church than to stay. How sad for us! Are we that oblivious to the need to encourage each other to hold on to our faith that we don't think people need to be encouraged to stay? Or do we think that the ones who are considering leaving are spiritual weaklings anyway, and good riddance to bad rubbish? One would almost think that we don't really care whether people leave or not, except to tell them that they are lost if they do leave.
Former Adventists are people with as many faults as any other group of people. Many are stuck in vindictive bitterness, but many have worked through it and found a place of peace and deep concern for those trapped in ANY false religion. The forums you read are a place for them to work through those issues, so you are going to encounter a great deal of "bashing" as people process the lies they grew up believing. If you think it's "groupthink" you have not stuck around long enough for the lively arguments. Formers have landed in almost every sector of Christianity, so group think is not even possible, but loving each other is.
If the fundamentalist characteristic of "contending for the faith" as scripture commands bothers you, I can make no apology for that. Truth matters. I cannot be warm to the "good" elements in Adventism any more than I can for those found in Mormonism. It is a false system, and while they do good, I could never condone the organization in any way. Not because of what they have done to me, but because of the idolatry of the entire system, and preaching a different gospel. If you are preaching the true gospel, you are not in essence, an SDA and should call yourself something else, lest you lead someone back to the foundations and doctrines of demons. There isn't much "grace" in the NT when it comes to a different gospel, other than the one we have already received.
I don't think you can possibly know the reasons for every individual decision to leave Adventism. It's very presumptuous to attempt to do so, as only God can read hearts and motives.
As for throwing out a belief in the Investigative Judgment, etc., if Ellen White is a true prophet of God it seems to me that those who choose to remain Adventists have no business tossing out any of her teachings. If God revealed these doctrines to her, has He changed since the time of their being penned? It seems to me that one would almost have to be an old-fashioned Adventist, embracing the entire, complete teaching of its founding members, one of whom is believed to be a prophet, or not remain a member of the church.
As for flipping the finger at Adventism on the way out, that has never been true of me or of others I know who have left. Speaking for myself, it saddened and still saddens me today that it came to the point of feeling the need to leave. I wasn't feeling lofty, proud, self-righteous, rebellious--or any of the things so many current Adventists assume every ex-church member feels and cultivates.
I don't Ellen White bash. I wonder. I study, I pray. I dream. Sometimes I long to be able to once again embrace Adventism, because it was such a huge part of my childhood years. But it wasn't always a positive part; I got lost in its legalism and, what hurts most, lost any sense of a loving God.
It seems to me that so many here and on similar blogs are only concerned with throwing jibes and pointing fingers, whether they be Adventists or former Adventists. And I can't help think that if those of you still believing in the SDA church would reach out to those who have lost their way--for whatever reason--with compassion and empathy, instead of snide remarks, why just maybe some of us could heal. Maybe God could even use you to help someone's healing process.
And finally, not all my problem with the Adventist church revolves around doctrinal issues. Not every so-called Adventist home was what it purported to be. Hypocrisy and the basest of crimes take place in many a so-called Adventist home. I was raped for 8 years of my life by the man (my step dad) who brought Adventism into my life. It totally warped my ability to see God. I'm not some angry, bitter ex-member waving my fist at God, or the church. What I am is broken and hurting and going slowly but with great determination through the healing process.
Reading many of these comments hasn't helped me one bit.
And God is near to the brokenhearted--not to those who think they have all the answers.
(I admit I have none of the answers, except for the only one which counts: Jesus Christ the Righteous.)
http://babystepstochrist.blogspot.com/
Congratulations on such a provocative letter. For the time it has been running you have certainly gained a lot of feedback. Are you a fly-fisherman? If you are not, I think you should take it up. You might be as natural as Brad Pitt was in the move, “A River Runs Through it.” You certainly know how to tease out a conflab!!
Greetings from Australia. I agree with some of the posters on the site however, that the tone of the letter was strange, and irritated me because it made judgments about my exit from Adventism. But then again, you had to assume so much in writing about people who leave the church for a whole bag of reasons. So I am going to be generous to you for that. I will just acknowledge my irritation and move on.
It is true I left in the end because I did “not gel with Adventism’s peculiar doctrines.” Well done. That is usually the case with a lot of exits. However the issue I left over had nothing to do with the gospel. I found the gospel in the Adventist church and my view on that matter has never changed. When I first joined the church in the early 1970’s I think the very first Sabbath School quarterly was on the book of Romans and I think there was one on Galations soon after. I memorised the book of Romans up to chapter 12, word for word (yes, I used the KJV because its text is so good for memorizing, just like Shakespeare). And that anchored me in the truth immutably. Even now. I rarely go through a week when on thinking of some issue, a text from those chapters does not come back to mind to confirm what I believe. At the same time I was studying the Sabbath School Lesson I bought Martin Luther’s commentary on Romans and Galations, the latter of which has wandered somewhere else since unfortunately. What an education that quarter’s study was!! What a baptism into the gospel. And with the furore over righteousness by faith, the nature of Christ, the Palmdale Statement, and 1888 that occurred in Australia during the 70s, I always had the book of Romans ringing in my head. So the short and skinny of this is that I have not “seen the light” since I left the church. There is so much good stuff in church publications on the gospel; and Ellen White’s writings have ample material to set people’s feet in the footsteps of Jesus. You don’t have to leave the church to be immersed into the gospel of Jesus. But you do have to find it for yourself, rather than having it served up in lesson study, magazine reading, sermon absorbing etc. And you don’t have to leave the church to do that. Even if you do join another church, you will have the same crosssection of spiritual screwups in the pews, just like the seven epistle’s in the Apocalypse—look at the seven different states of those churches and they were only a few kms from each other. Nothing has changed in the passing of time.
You said, “.I merely wonder about your intentions as seen in the postings of web forums and published testimonies by some of you former SDA's.”
I can understand your stereotyping of formers by the ranting that goes on on forums, but you must see these forums as the confessional, or at least as the centre where like-minded souls can pour out their issues knowing that they are among people who sympathise. When I got the letter back from the church my wife and I resigned from, the tone of the letter suggested that our souls were in peril (since the assumption is that no spiritually healthy person leaves the Adventist church). So there is little chance that these formers would find consolation from chatting with the likes of church folk who view them like they viewed us. So yes, there is a lot of venting on the forums, but in a lot of cases, it is just cathartic, as you, of all people, with your background knowledge should know.
You said, “as groupthink mentality. Know what I mean, Former Adventist? Basically that the opinion expressed by a dominant small group becomes the subscribed theme of the whole group and a means to a perpetual end. Sometimes, if one if not careful, the result can be fingers pointing to heresy that is blown out of proportion, out-of-context conclusions, or black and white blanket statements alluding to Adventism being a cultic denomination deceiving 12 million members worldwide”
This is just a generalisation. Of course, there are sheep who just baa at every negative post against Adventism, since it is another confirmation of their own choice; but there are others like myself who find much to be offered in Adventism that God can use to enrich the spiritual lives of others. And it is these contribution in these forums that tones down such tendencies. But of course with the plethora of forums around, not all of them have moderating contributors. So I am sure you will find some where their views are skewed to one perspective.
I totally agree with those sites that are arrogant and assume that the gospel cannot be found in Adventism and cannot be found in the writings of Ellen White. But there is always this reaction after a collision like this. And any collision gives off heat. And EGW takes some of this heat because she has so much material, it is easy to bend her stuff to say anything. And it does not help that the denomination as been whitewashing some of the real facts about her life. I laughed at the one I discovered recently –which is probably old hat to you—where one of the photos of Ellen White with the relatives, had a lady with a large necklace on during the photoshoot, and of course, they had to edit the offending necklace out of the photo for Arthur White’s books on the life of Ellen White. I mean how puerile is that? No wonder they take the mickey out of the denomination for the things they have failed to be frank about. And so they should. It is a misrepresentation of the facts. The portrait of the family gathering WITH the necklace says more in favour of Ellen White than without it. So let the chips fall where they will. It will eventually die down, especially as the primary source material becomes more accessible and the EGW Estate cannot hide the dirty linen any more. A more balanced view will come to light with less “manufactured” historiography from the hub of the church. It reminds me of Peter when he separated himself from Paul and the Gentiles when the Christian Jews came up to meet with them for fear of being accused by them of failing the expectations of the leaders down home. But Paul’s condemnation of Peter was justified. It was a false gospel that the Jewish Christians and Peter were living by; and Paul spoke out about it. And we are still benefiting from the contribution that Paul gave in his confrontation of this issue.
You criticise “No, I'm not calling you grace legalists, please. I'm suggesting and asking how often in your ministries of fellowship and outreach are you legalistically anti-legalistic, self righteously anti-self righteous, and ungraciously opposed to those who don't teach grace.” Yes, I agree that there are many “formers” presentations where they blanket the statement that the gospel is not presented in the church, especially while the IJ still lingers in its atmosphere. And yes, they seem smug that they have seen the light and are in a more advantageous position than others. Hey, but that is not new. Look at the Lutheran’s who felt they were in a better situation than other brethren who had not taken the idols out of their churches, so they went and helped them purge the church of idols (slaughtering innocent victims in the atrocities as well, and making themselves murderers—all for the sake of a bit of spiritual arrogance) But there are other formers who know others in the church who present the true grace of God from lesson pamphlet and pulpit. These who remain, we know, may disagree with the thrust of some pockets of power in the church, but we see them continue to worship in the church, uplifting the gospel against all the efforts of the Judaizers in Adventism. We know God has not left himself without witness.
You said, “We are deconstructing and reconstructing Adventist truth. We've moved beyond the griping and debates of historical fundamentalism, the interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, etc. Frankly, we'll leave that to you guys to debate with diehard SDA's because that stuff bores us out of our minds.”
Wrong. While you are in a church where this is propogated and pushed as the party line, you may be tolerated, or then again you may not. This is an ostrich-mentality. It is not healthy organisational psychology, as you know well. Would you say the same if the topic being debated was Arianism? Is it healthy to just let it fester for another decade or two and then have another uproar, because it has never been properly addressed? Is it not much more healthy to face the facts as they stand, assess the position of various sides on a position and map out a long-term program of dialogue over the matter, with open, non-judgmental dialogue, with contributions from all and sundry through publications, presenting both sides of a viewpoint, so that the cut and thrust is open, healthy and progressive, as it occurs in any other discipline of knowledge. The big hindrance here is that being in an organisation where the brokering of power is over the control of knowledge and world view, with its concomitant absence of any checks and balances over its own authority, there is no possibility of two way discussion. So people use other tactics to deal with it. Some, like you, stick their head in the sand, and wait for it to wash over, others go away and rant and rave because they could not rant and rave to the appropriate channels in the church. Others just give up any hope of seeing a solution, and just slip into the shadows. Some like me, do step out of the church but try and offer some constructive contribution to continue the debate that cannot be done healthfully within the organisation.
You know yourself, that if Neal Wilson had made good on his promise of open dialogue and developed an environment where scholars on both sides of the fence could continue to live in the church and openly discuss these matters without fear of reprisal, how different things would be today!! What an example of a Christ-filled church it would be. But the inquisition did its work, and church protagonists were inebriated with the taste of blood, and continued their baleful work, to the detriment of all. Everyone lost, the church, us, you, and most of all, Christ. What an account some will have to answer for.
The rest of your letter is excellent and is written in the right spirit. Well done.
Christian Regards.
Frank Basten
PS you can read my exit story at www.2300days.com along with some contributions in way of rebuttal to traditional SDA views. Not that they will have any effect.
I'm so sorry to hear you got caught up in the politics of the denomination. Unfortunately, with any large organization, politics happen. Many of us have had similar issues - but these are just people, doing their best, within their own brokenness, and trying to replicate Christ. Unfortunately, most of us do a very poor job at that.
As I read the comments above, I am more convinced than ever, that each of us has more work to do, in order to be Christlike. I don't say this to mock, or defame, the above commenters, it's just that sometimes we allow our own hurt, brokenness, dysfunction, and narrow-mindedness shine through too brightly.
Sometimes, for legal reasons, the "institution" is unable to share the details of any conflict or issue. I hate this - but it has more to do with the world we live in then it does with the church.
Thanks for sharing. I hope you can find some relief to your resentment - my guess is, there are nine-years worth of students who love you dearly!
G
We all have our tribes and places of community and belonging. I enjoy belonging in a kind of way to quite a few, including a variety of expressions of christianity and of non-christian as well.
Get over the literalistic attitudes. There are many ways to look at Jesus, God, salvation and inspiration, nature. There is not just one true way - a literalistic evangelical type of one. I grew out of that years ago and it liberated me. Let go of the whole doctrinal approach to things.
If I belong to a group, I belong for my reasons - not what anyone else says it means to belong. So talk to me at that level, not at the level of what some people expect or assume or proscribe.
The scariest group of ex-Adventists (and christians and other religionists as well) I come across are the ones who want to convert me to their form of religion and who know how right they are and how wrong I am. Just shows how embedded they were in that kind of thinking when they were adventists. I'm much safer with the now-atheist ex-sda's - although some of them are dogmatic about how right they are and how we should all believe like them!
I'm over literalist approaches to any aspect of life. I'm over morals-approaches to life. I'm over anyone trying to tell me that if i belong in their group then I'm expected to think, believe, act or behave in certain ways.
Adventism is my tribe of origin and there are some things I enjoy about hanging with certain people and in certain circumstances. I'm never going to walk away from that or them. I also get involved with all kinds of people and experiences that are wildly out of the comfort zone of any mainstream Christians, and even mainstream people in society. I'm not going to give up all that is beautiful in those parts of my life that have filled me with joy, liberation and amazing tastes of life.
I never believed in seeing things in black or white. I'm more into spectrums of colours and vibrations (beyond what can be seen!)
To me Jesus represents the end of religion (and not just bad religion), the end of ideology, the end of dogmatism, the end of dividing walls and barriers, the end of "do it my way or else", the end of moralism. I'm not interested in hopping out of one "container" into another.
I don't think Jesus would recognise much of what passes as Christianity if he materialised in our midst. He'd not be the respectable Christian at all. He'd challenge and provoke and hang out with the so-called "sinners" and liberals and all kinds of people who never feel comfortable in most churches.
I teach at university, and the students who concern me the most are the overt Christians. They try to use their assignments to convert and push their ideas - often when the topic really doesn't have much relevance to that and their level of thinking ability and analysis is really poor. They sound like they've been brainwashed and are saying the "right" things. They aren't just in uni either. No wonder most of us in the world hope Christians never run the world! Or anyone with strong religious tendencies.
Get over trying to rationalise why you stay or belong anywhere. Get over trying to convince me or anyone else why we are wrong and should get out of something. We're grown up and can look after ourselves. "God" is much grander, bigger and mysterious than any of us can ever fathom. So please don't speak on God's behalf and think you know God's will - other than that we each become healthy, whole, alive, loving beings.
Be alive! Be free!