You are not logged in.
Elaine: You can find them here http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/index.html
Offline
as did the pastor in the story above, then what Sirje, which post# are you referring to?
but then you have the above which makes EGW the ultimate interpreter of the Bible.
I don't view it that way. For me, her counsel is:
Study your Bible. If you want to use my writings, do so after studying the Bible, then gather more ideas from them and then preach using the Bible.
Recall that she was asked how to use her writings. She is not saying you have to use her writings. She simply responds to HMJ Richard's question, how to use her writings in his preaching ministry?
Offline
Don,
Sirje, which post# are you referring to?
Ellen turned down a request to preach and said the pastor should preach since he had a message he felt was from God.
I realize the thrust of this piece was directed at how to use her writings, but in the process, and quite unintended, EGW makes the statement that makes her interpretation the ultimate stamp of authenticity. My question is, what if my interpretation is not same as hers, then what? Would she have given her blessing on the pastor's sermon? Is EGW the ultimate judge as to what is correct interpretation of the Bible? This is how she was presented to me. If that is the case, then none of us have a personal dialogue with the HS. Isn't that how the RCC views the pope authority?
Offline
I realize the thrust of this piece was directed at how to use her writings, but in the process, and quite unintended, EGW makes the statement that makes her interpretation the ultimate stamp of authenticity.
I don't believe she intended such. As I read how she interacted with people, I don't see her taking on that role.
She said she got a blessing from the sermon. Remember, that is before the advice on how to use her writings. In other words, she found a blessing in his unique and spirit-filled comments.
My question is, what if my interpretation is not same as hers, then what?
We have examples of this happening, a few. The clearest is the debate, early on, about when to start the Sabbath. She and Joseph Bates held out for 6:00 as the starting time when J.N. Andrews, her husband and others had accepted the sundown view. She seemed capable of living with differing viewpoints.
She considered the Bible the final authority and she appealed to the meaning of the scriptures to make her points. Also, two intensive Bible thinkers, Jones and Waggoner, taught her more about Jesus. We don't see her proclaiming herself as the final authority of Scriptural interpretation persistently, if at all.
Would she have given her blessing on the pastor's sermon?
If he presented big errors, I think she would have addressed them by the use of scriptural logic. I believe she would not have fussed over smaller points of difference.
Is EGW the ultimate judge as to what is correct interpretation of the Bible?
Not for me. Routinely, I present the Bible's limits and advise my students regarding Ellen White's commentary going beyond those Bible limits. We meet this especially in Grade 9 because of the Creation story and the flood.
This is how she was presented to me.
I have read such viewpoints expressed by Adventist leaders over the decades. It is concerning. We have miles to go before we have an improved understanding her place in Adventism. She certainly held authority, re: advising on organizational matters. I have examined some of the General Conference Committee minutes. I have been impressed how seriously they took her counsels.
Recall how http://adventisthistory.wordpress.com/c … nzo-barry/ was rehired because of her going to bat for him.
If that is the case, then none of us have a personal dialogue with the HS. Isn't that how the RCC views the pope authority?
I believe in the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We can demonstrate that EGW did as well. She often warned against restricting the spirit by having just a few leaders holding all the power.
Offline
So Don, if it's not EW, what do you think should define Adventism; and, do you have any indication that any kind of shift is happening, especially there, in the Mecca of Canadian Adventism? Here in the trenches it's business as usual with thus sayeth Ellen White, PERIOD, and AMEN.
Offline
There is no doubt that Ellen defined Adventism. Whether she was the origin of thought can be disputed, but with the I was shown she nailed down the planks of what Adventists believe today.
It was only because Elder Richards had all her planks memorized and presented them as she would have that he found grace from her. As it was she had to correct him as to how he presented his sermon. The Testimonies are full of her rebuke. It must have been very hard to have had her looking over their shoulders.
Another thing, I would be more than very irrate if anyone would publish my faults in a bunch of red books that were sold to the body of the church. That would make me sue happy.
Don, do you believe all the "I was shown" Or "my accompanied angel" statements are from the Thrown?
Offline
Don,
The statement that Sirje quoted above, After this, go to these writings of the SOP. See what they say on the subject for side lights and true emphasis and TO BE SURE that you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in your interpretation, jumped off the page with red flag alerts. This idea is why so many SDA's really don't read their Bible except to read a prooftext, or to read through Ellen's lenses.
In fact, many just read Ellen. I mean, why bother with the first step, because what you read and understand really doesn't matter unless it agrees with Ellen's interpretation. It must agree with Ellen or it is wrong. This could not be plainer. One more example of talking out of both sides of her mouth. Yeah, you go and read and study, but check with me before you make a final determination, cause you know, I'm really the one who knows.
She didn't know when Sabbath began? The one who flew to heaven and viewed Jesus countenance and God's frown? The one who saw the glowing light around the fourth commandemnt? You mean, on the great end time test, that this Prophet didn't know, or was not privy to the correct way to count the time for Sabbath observance? You can't really believe this, can you? Give me a freaking break!!!!!!! Get rid of the ultimate bondwoman and false prophet. Why in the world do intelligent people cling to this nonsense?
Offline
Carol,
I had a friend back in the 70's who told me that she really couldn't read the Bible because it was too confusing, but Ellen White was so much easier to understand. That's about the norm I think.
Offline
Sirje,
I've heard and read the same statements, and seen the fruits of this as well. Many of hubby's family members, and our friends through the years, were really clueless about the Bible, except the prooftexting of Ellen/SDAism. Oh, and the classic, Well, Paul is hard to understand. No, only hard to understand if you try to make him mesh with Ellen.
Offline
I know this turns Adventists off, but your situation is no different than that of Mormons, JWs and others that claim to have supernatural leaders.
For some reason the brethren cannot see the fallacies. This is even more so with Adventism because they want so much to become mainline. Their good works programs rival the RCC which is no small accomplishment. This makes a big impression on those who are not Biblically grounded. Once in the fold peer pressure is a driving force to keep everyone drinking the koolade.
I am so thankful that I was strong enough to break the bond and throw off the yoke. The Holy Spirit is there waiting for anyone who is willing to remove the yoke. Jesus offers the real Rest.
Offline
Don Wrote in answer to the statement
Is EGW the ultimate judge as to what is correct interpretation of the Bible?
Not for me. Routinely, I present the Bible's limits and advise my students regarding Ellen White's commentary going beyond those Bible limits. We meet this especially in Grade 9 because of the Creation story and the flood.
Let me ask you the question I asked one time over at hs.com. What do you find in Ellen White that are theological errors?
They could not find one example. I can find a host of examples. Do you find theological errors in Ellen Whites writings?
Offline
Do you find theological errors in Ellen Whites writings?
I must admit that I cannot recall any significant errors in her writings. Remember, I am writing as a Seventh-day Adventist. I believe that EGW was a woman of Christian faith. When I read the work of a fellow Christian, I don't usually seek for an argument about what they write. When I read her writings, I am looking for interesting insights, historical or devotional. I have developed a blog where I profile the most impressive:
http://essaysbyellenwhite.wordpress.com/
She certainly brings out information not found in the Bible. I don't consider such to be theological errors. She spoke incorrectly to her children about whether God loves bad boys or not. Yet in other places her understanding of the love of God for sinners is quite profound.
Having said that I have not found significant error, I would not be upset to find such and I would not be opposed to disagreeing with her.
Ron, why not give us your list. I will be glad to openly examine them with you. What did you have in mind?
Offline
The reason I brought it up is because it seems to me those who take their theology from Ellen White never seem to see any errors in her theology. I am sure you could find numerous errors in Luther's theology, most Lutherans can find those errors. But Adventists can't see them in Ellen because Ellen is their inspired commentator so they can't see any errors.
As long as Ellen is the interpreter you won't see the errors because you don't go by what the Bible says you go by what Ellen says. That is also why you don't seem to have a problem when Ellen goes far beyond the Bible. Of course when you as you say don't consider bringing out information not found in the Bible to be theological errors then you can easily accept that God rejected Satan's repentance in heaven or that God will inflict pain upon the wicked for days or weeks as He destroys them.
It is all A-OKAY because your theology is not really based upon the Bible or even upon reason? for example what possible purpose is there to inflict pain upon someone for days or weeks if you are going to kill them anyway.
So no I dont see much reason to give you a list of examples because you have explained why you cant find the theological errors pretty well whether you realized it or not when you wrote what you wrote.
Offline
As long as Ellen is the interpreter you wont see the errors because you dont go by what the Bible says you go by what Ellen says.
Perhaps. I do grant her some significant leeway. I dont accept that I dont go by what the Bible says, however. That can be demonstrated as we examine Bible doctrines and issues.
Have any of Ellen Whites teachings crossed over from acceptable to erroneous? The two examples you have given can be examined. Would they rise to the level of error, such as her telling her boys that God doesnt love bad boys.
Well, not likely. God did not accept King Sauls repentance either. And the idea of pain being inflicted on different intensities is, unfortunately, a Bible teaching. It will be more tolerable... and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, are Bible phrases.
I guess what I am willing to do re: EGW that I am not willing to do for say, Max Lucado, is to explain her eccentic statements. But, I am willing to admit that such teachings are not in the Bible. I believe that the distinction between Biblically-supported and those teachings which are not Biblically-supported is important. In this way I can maintain my independence and continue to properly study the Bible without using Ellen White as my sole interpreter.
Offline
Ryan, thanks for the link.
Evidently, the official church feels it is important to focus on EGW and the SOP. As if previous lessons on such pillars as the unique interpretation of Daniel and the 2300 days and the IJ beginning in 1844, was not sufficient, so they are spending more time on re-emphasizing the doctrine of the ministry of EGW and her importance as the official commentator of the Bible.
There is a great difference in the education of the U.S. today than 150 years ago. Then, people were more ready to accept a prophet and the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation prophecies that, for some questionable reason, no one in the entire Christian church for nearly 2000 years had been able to decipher. It was even easier to attract gullible Christians then, especially when their knowledge of history, especially Christian history, was deficient. The majority of Adventists today in the NAD are 2nd-5th generation. What are the figures for accessing new college-educated converts today?
Those are surely not the ones that would be attracted to the "Prophecy Seminars claiming to explain the Mark of the Beast and illustrated with scary beasts. How many here have friends that they would ask to go to such a program?
Offline
It was even easier to attract gullible Christians then,
As I read the early Adventist publications, i.e. Present Truth and the Review and Herald in the 1850s, I note the opposite. The studies presented are amazingly thorough.
I imagine a community of believers separated by distance and united by the Review. After a hard day on the farm or in the office, they come home, turn on the gas light, open their Bibles and spend an evening with James White, Joseph Bates, J.N. Andrews, J.H. Waggoner, M.E. Cornell, David Arnold, etc. These people wrote lengthy essays establishing their points by Scripture. This kind of interaction produced a very alert community. I would not say they were gullible, or easily deceived.
Offline
Don Wrote:
Have any of Ellen White's teachings crossed over from acceptable to erroneous? The two examples you have given can be examined. Would they rise to the level of error, such as her telling her boys that God doesn't love bad boys.
Her first error was writing that lie to her son. Being upset it is somewhat understandable. She magnified the error by publishing that letter in her book. Then aggrevated that error by saying that her writings did not contain sister Whites opinions but were of God, going even farther and saying it was all of God or all of the devil.
So what part of that is OK? Not one part, it was all wrong from the lie to her son onward.
What part of your defense is workable. Ellen said some tormented for days and weeks you equate with gnashing of teeth. So you withdraw from logic and in essence admit that the eternal torment in hell is a Biblical idea. Granted it is entirely Biblical and entirely illogical on several fronts. So you have said Ellen White's version is illogical just as the Bible's texts can be taken in an illogical way.
You then say: Well, not likely. God did not accept King Saul's repentance either.
Nice comparison where does the Bible ever say that Satan repented? Actually where does it say that Saul's repentance was not accepted, just because there was consequences to fighting people and you can end up being killed is hardly evidence for God not repenting. In any case you equate Ellen's fiction to your assumptions of a Bible story. Are they equivalent?
It is pretty clear to me that this is far more then going by the Bible. It is going by Ellen and trying to back up your choices by a rather slanted view of the Bible. Either through assumptions as in Saul or by returning to total illogical views because the Bible uses symbolic language.
Offline
It is pretty clear to me that this is far more then going by the Bible.
I see a difference between cutting someone some slack and depending on them for Bible understanding.
Ellen White, as a matter of personal style, adds to the Bible story. I'm not opposed to her doing that. Bible movies, such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Jeremiah and Esther, do the same.
Regarding EGW, I do have some reservations:I make sure not to present her extra-biblical material as Biblical truth. I don't understand this aspect of her ministry. Her spiritual understanding is not infallible. Unless my personal faith is assaulted, I don't fuss with what she writes.
I do this because I have accepted her ministry as part of my life. So far, the benefits I gain from her writings have been many. The difference between the Biblical text and the EGW assertions provide mind exercises. For example, when Lucifer's repentance is brought up, or the length of time a persons suffers in the Last Judgment, it becomes necessary to put on one's thinking cap and assess what is being said.
In the post above, I did that. In response, Ron has challenged my assumptions and I go back to the drawing board and think my assumptions through afresh. None of this mental activity would take place if there were no apparent contradictions of concepts. We are to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other people's thoughts. This applies to the thoughts evident in the EGW writings, too.
Offline
Several statements by EGW:
Every one who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. The Signs of the Times, 07-23-1902.
He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in his power his people might also lead lives of sinlessness. Atlantic Union Gleaner, 01-17-1906.
Through faith in Christ we must render obedience to all requirement of God; through his merits we may be elevated to keep God's commandments. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 05-08-1913.
Offline
It was even easier to attract gullible Christians then
I am intrigued with this gullible concept. I have mentioned the thorough nature of the Early Adventist writings. Adventism provided an intellectually stimulating environment by which people could improve their thinking skills in the context of a Christian faith.
Offline
Lives of Sinlessness
Elaine thanks for those quotes:January 17, 1906 How the Growth of the Gospel Seed is Hindered.
The Saviour said again: Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the wayside. But he that received seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. AU Gleaner, January 17, 1906 par.
Those who do not follow true Christian principles, whose natural and cultivated tendencies to wrong have not been changed by the grace of God, have no root in themselves; and therefore they lose the interest which they once felt in the truth. They return to their sinful practices. They may continue to make a profession of Christianity, but they do not go on from grace to grace. For a time they are neither cold nor hot, but they finally become hardened to all good impressions. They grow careless, worldly, inattentive. They hear the truth but do not receive it. Of this class Christ says: Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it. AU Gleaner, January 17, 1906 par. 2
Of Chorazin and Bethsaida, cities in which so many of Christ's mighty works were done, which were exalted to heaven by being honored with his presence, the Saviour declared: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. AU Gleaner, January 17, 1906 par. 3
Those who have been favored with great light and many opportunities, but who have not accepted the light nor improved the opportunities, who have not followed correct principles in dealing with their brethren or with unbelievers, will receive punishment in accordance with their sin. They will meet with some sad surprises in the last great day, when every case shall be brought up in review before God. In their record they will see that which will fill them with shame, but nothing can be changed. All is beyond recall. AU Gleaner, January 17, 1906 par. 4
Christ has made every provision for the sanctification of his church. He has made abundant provision for every soul to have such grace and strength that he will be more than a conqueror in the warfare against sin. The Saviour is wounded afresh and put to open shame when his people pay no heed to his word. He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in his power his people might also lead lives of sinlessness. He desires them by practicing the principles of truth to show to the world that God's grace has power to sanctify the heart.
Mrs. E. G. White. ;
AU Gleaner, January 17, 1906 par. 5
At first the idea of leading lives of sinlessness seems so far out of reach to be incredible. But, if I note that all she is saying is that the Christian can live by God's law. God is able to keep them from falling. This is a Biblical teaching.
Can the Christian keep the Law of God with the Spirit's power? Yes, from a practical point of view.
This quote is fascinating:Every one who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.The Signs of the Times, 07-23-1902.
Is she saying that we can eradicate our sinful nature? I don't think so. Christians can have perfection of the soul in which they are as innocent as Adam was before his transgression. Through Christ, this state can be attained. Then, we can, from a practical view point, obey God's commandments with the help of the Holy Spirit. Yet, through all of this, we are not to say that we have reached sinlessness. I see her statement here as a practical emphasis.
Yes, the Christian can keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.
Offline
Yet, through all of this, we are not to say that we have reached sinlessness.
Who on this Earth could truthfully say they have reached sinlessness? What a lie that would be. Anyone who preaches that we can reach this state while on this Earth is telling a lie. Mrs. White did not include Jesus in her formula. She claimed Adventists have to become perfect without the blood of Jesus. This theme is so blatant in her writings. If she ever said differently, it was squashed beyond recognition by all the self determination statements. If it were possible for man to come to a state of perfection, Jesus would have come for naught.
It is no wonder so many have just plain given up and many have left Christianity. Adventism has too many buts.
I might add that the problems found in Adventism are not unique. All churches have to continuously guard against such ideas. We seem to forget that only through the blood of Jesus are we }cleaned up and ready for His appearing.
Mrs. White said that we should never say that we are saved. That is teaching a falsehood. We need to proclaim to the World that we are saved and mean what we say. Salvation is not something we keep grasping for, but never have quite long enough arms to catch it. It is a promise if we have faith to believe.
Offline
Bob,
I think the problem is that the SDA idea of leading sinless lives is all about following specifically the ten commandments, and more specifically, the fourth commandment. There is no concept of sin being any more than the rejection of those ten commandments. There is no concept of sins of omission which is about Christian responsibility where every phase of ones life is governed by a love for God and a love for others.
This was, of course, also the mindset of the Jews, who rejected Christ in the first place. In fact, for them, their entire life was a series of correct behaviors and never touched on motives or intent. That is also why they had so many extra laws that governed every imaginable situation. The traditional SDA position isnt much different - only that there are fewer laws that are written down, but myriads that are understood. In some ways the Jews had a more realistic concept of sin, recognizing the many ways it could manifest itself in our lives. The SDA focus has been much narrower, but both are about appearance.
Earlier there was a discussion about original sin and an objection to its concept. If the Bible is to be taken as the basis of discussion, then there most certainly is something that looks like original sin. According to Paul, that is what Christ dealt with at the cross. That is the only way Christ could be seen as the second Adam. As by one man sin entered...Romans, I think
The Christian church as a whole, and that includes the SDA church, equates the rejection of church policy with sin as well. Unless one is in lockstep with church policy they are seen a rebels to Christian principles. That is also why, on this forum, people like Neal or Elaine are seen as anti Christian because they point out inconsistencies in the HUMAN side of Christianity - and that includes Bible writers.
Christianity and the church, as a human organization, uses all the means any organization employs to sustain and further itself. There is a lot of the end justifying the means in church policy and operations; and so, sin is narrowly compartmentalized and the church is its arbiter.
Offline
Mrs. White said that we should never say that we are saved. That is teaching a falsehood. We need to proclaim to the World that we are saved and mean what we say. Salvation is not something we keep grasping for, but never have quite long enough arms to catch it. It is a promise if we have faith to believe.
Paul didn't have any problem knowing that he was saved. Listen to him:
2 Ti 4:6or I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
2Ti 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I have kept the faith:
2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
Offline
She claimed Adventists have to become perfect without the blood of Jesus.
Bob Shields, what does your phrase without the blood of Jesus
As we examine her essays on living a Christian life, doesn't she speak of depending on Jesus?
Offline