Glorify Him,

Clearly and sadly, it has become obvious that your intent is not to find the truth about Seventh-day Adventism--at least not now.  Instead, you repeatedly attack those who expose the myths of Adventism.  Truly, the most loving thing anyone can do is to warn others against the false gospels in our world today.  Many times this results in people being offended who still fervently cling to such toxic belief systems.  I well remember the days when I also was in a defensive and sensitive mode in regard to Adventism.  However, friends don’t let friends become Adventists.  We serve an awesome, prayer-answering God.

Dennis Fischer

Hi Dennis. I fear you don’t understand me. I don’t “attack” those of you who are attacking the SDA church. I don’t attack your belief. I simply said that I don’t find all the ‘claims’ that are made. And why should “I” have to go hunting. Why can’t you simply post the references so that I can “find” what you are referring to. If I made claims and then simply stated “go find it in the Bible” .... would you accept the claims? NO.

But, as far your beliefs .... I don’t agree with them but I accept you in the family of God as ‘Christian’. I wish you would accept my beliefs. I don’t happen to believe that as Christians we will all have the same understanding. I think theological tolerance is important. For we will not all see eye to eye on all issues in my mind. But, we remain brothers and sisters in Christ.

What concerns me here is the elietist attitude that permeates this site. You sit in judgment of SDAs and don’t show tolerance of your brothers and sisters in Christ. You build up straw men and attack. When I say that I believe as you do ... you say Oh NO you don’t. It appears that you live to attack and if I agree ... you just can’t take it. You have to have a fight.

All I can do on this forum is to continue to point you to the 28 Fundamentals. Those are what SDAs believe ... not your personal annocdotal collective experiences.

Glorify Him - 01 August 2008 05:04 AM

All I can do on this forum is to continue to point you to the 28 Fundamentals. Those are what SDAs believe ... not your personal annocdotal collective experiences.

Glorify Him, we’ve beaten this horse to death on other threads. If you point to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, you put Ellen White in a unique place as a “continuing and authoritative source of truth”. While I appreciate your desire to find common ground, there is still a great gulf that divides us. No Christian body outside the Adventist church gives Ellen White the authority that fundamental belief #18 does. By making her a source of truth, Adventists perpetuate and widen the division between themselves and other Christians.

Ellen White is guilty of dividing the body of Christ by labeling other believers as “apostate” for worshiping on Sunday (AG 59.4), for having the “blood of souls” on their hands for not joining the Millerite date-setting (EW 233.2) and for implying that they prayed to Satan (EW 56.1). Even the name “Seventh-day Adventist” was carefully chosen and endorsed by Ellen to be a “standing rebuke” against non-Adventist Christians (4bSG 54.4).

Glorify Him, you ask us to show “tolerance” for brothers and sisters and label us “elitist” for our words here, but you minimize any responsibility for Ellen White’s words and false teachings. We are the guilty ones for opposing these teachings. Instead of dealing with Ellen White’s words, you’d rather shoot the messenger who is asking you to consider the errors. If you are really interested in fostering tolerance, you’d be outraged by the hateful and divisive words of your prophetess, but instead, you prefer to criticize those who are the object of her hatred.

Glorify Him, if you’d like to find common ground with us in the body of Christ, you can start by conceding that Ellen White did not speak for God when she pronounced condemnation on other Christians. We can find all sorts of agreement on other issues, but it will come to nothing as long as you ignore the prophetess whose words continue to divide Adventists from the body of Christ.

Greg

Glorify Him, if you’d like to find common ground with us in the body of Christ, you can start by conceding that Ellen White did not speak for God when she pronounced condemnation on other Christians. We can find all sorts of agreement on other issues, but it will come to nothing as long as you ignore the prophetess whose words continue to divide Adventists from the body of Christ.

Greg

Okay Greg ... In the interest of unity ... I will do as you say. I will “concede that Ellen White did not speak for God when she pronounced condemnation on other Christians.”.

And if there are other words that you feel divide us ... I will concede them too if possible. But I will disagree with your interpretation of the Belief that Ellen White is ‘a’ authority of truth. Like I have stated before ... Many are an authority of truth on a variety of spiritual subjects. I would classify you as an authority on some truth ... just as Ellen White is.

If we take Ellen White for her words .... we are to throw out those words of hers that are not consistant with the Bible. I have to do this often when reading her words. Could I be wrong in doing so? Perhaps. But as she so often states ... we are to go back to the Bible. We are always to check human words with the Bible. As she states .... we are to believe in the Bible and the Bible alone as our standard.

SO .... when you read her ... just remember the words ..... IN with the Good and OUT with the Bad.  And if you feel there is just too much Bad .... Then just throw her words out and find another author for your extra-Biblical reading. No Biggie.

This is what she would tell you to do if she was alive. Belief in EGW is not a requirement for membership. That is why the Fundamental is written in the way it is. It states that she is just ‘a’ authority of truth. Just ONE. Not the best. Not the biggest. Not the final. Look at the wording. It allows room for all. Those that believe she is the best and final authority of truth ... they are welcome also. And I am sure that those are the ones you like to refer to on this forum. That is your experience and I do not want to deny what you experienced. It is real. But so is my experience in the church .... which is opposite of yours. So, why bring down the entire ship. The SDA church is inclusive enough for all.

Glorify Him - 01 August 2008 10:52 AM

Belief in EGW is not a requirement for membership. .

Not true. In the Church Manual which you can download in PDF from here http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/,
there is a specific question,

“8. Do you accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?

You claimed that your spouse is a pastor, you should be familiar with this question.  Of course, the name of EGW is not mentioned in the baptismal vow, but it is implicit in the expression “gift of prophecy” as “identifying mark of the remnant church”. Connect the above question with the Fundamental Belief number 18

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

The question from the baptismal vow does not mention explicitly Ellen as the person in which the gift of prophecy was manifested, but it is obviously that belief in SDA Church as the remnant is connected with belief in Ellen White as the prophet who constitute the “identifying mark of the remnant church”. The SDA Church has only one prophet, Ellen White, and when the Church asks his baptismal candidates to express belief in the gift of prophecy as a sign of the SDA’s remnant status, they ask them to express belief in Ellen as a prophet. There is no other prophet in the SDA Church who can meet the description of the baptismal vow.

Glorify Him, I don’t know your background, you claim to be married with an adventist pastor, and it seems that you’re not aware of what is required in the baptismal vow, that belief in Ellen’s gift is required in the baptismal vow. Until now you refused to disclose your identity and assume responsibility for your words. Maybe it is time to do it now, because your refusal combined with untrue declarations about your church’s position lowers your credibility.

Gabriel

Okay Gabe ... According to your beliefs .... I have no credibility. I can accept that.

BTW ... In the conference I am in ... We consider the Church Manual as a book of ideas or suggestions. Not a strict book that has to be followed legalisticly.

In practice ... No one is denied membership because they don’t believe in Ellen White. I think that you will find this practice in many conferences. But granted ... not Universally.

Glorify Him - 01 August 2008 01:34 PM

Okay Gabe ... According to your beliefs .... I have no credibility. I can accept that.

BTW ... In the conference I am in ... We consider the Church Manual as a book of ideas or suggestions.Not a strict book that has to be followed legalisticly.

In practice ... No one is denied membership because they don’t believe in Ellen White. I think that you will find this practice in many conferences. But granted ... not Universally.

Glorify Him - 30 July 2008 06:16 PM

I’ve been reading a lot of accusations but little or no sources to back up the claims.

Exactly, it’s your turn to provide sources. Your name and your conference name, please, in order to verify your claims.

Gabriel

Having recently attended classes at the Seminary at Andrews .... I can refer you to a number of professors there. One particular one that I took classes from ... who was nearly killed by a student attacker while I was there ... Russell Burrell.  Another one who I took a class from was George Knight.  And while you are at it ...  I took a number of classes from Jon Paulien ... he would be a good reference.  They all can verify what the conferences are now doing.

Glorify Him,

Please provide for me the name of even one SDA Conference or Mission that doesn’t require one to confess absolute belief in Ellen White before being baptized.  Also, please provide for me the name of even one SDA Conference or Mission that doesn’t view the SDA Church Manual as official in every way.

Dennis Fischer

GH, you didn’t give the information Gabriel asked you to provide. Why won’t you back up your claims with evidence? What is the harm in disclosing your conference affiliation and even the name of your church? Shouldn’t church pastors or their spouses be eager to disclose the church and conference where they work? Your unwillingness to do this implies that you have something to hide.

Greg

In the words of the great quotemeister, Yogi Berra, “This is like deja vu all over again.”

Greg - 01 August 2008 03:41 PM

GH, you didn’t give the information Gabriel asked you to provide. Why won’t you back up your claims with evidence? What is the harm in disclosing your conference affiliation and even the name of your church? Shouldn’t church pastors or their spouses be eager to disclose the church and conference where they work? Your unwillingness to do this implies that you have something to hide.

Greg

Okay. That’s fine with me. I don’t mind you believing that. I think I answered it better than the references given me. But you can believe what you want. If I have no credibility ... fine.

Your unwillingness to do this implies that you have something to hide.

You are right though with this accusation. I do need to hide from those individuals who believe the way you have stated. Your idea of Adventism is alive and well. I feel it is diminishing more and more but it is still alive. And I do not wish to agitate those conservative Ellen White loyalists. I don’t mind that they believe that way. And I do not wish to be a stumbling block to them. I have my belief but I do not have to impose it on others. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. I happily express my personal ideas and interpretations of scripture ... but I do not impose them on anyone.

We are all Christians even those who are Ellen White thumpers. No need to destroy a ministry over issues like this.

Glorify Him - 01 August 2008 03:32 PM

Having recently attended classes at the Seminary at Andrews .... I can refer you to a number of professors there. One particular one that I took classes from ... who was nearly killed by a student attacker while I was there ... Russell Burrell.  Another one who I took a class from was George Knight.  And while you are at it ...  I took a number of classes from Jon Paulien ... he would be a good reference.  They all can verify what the conferences are now doing.

These are professors who have no power in the administration. It is well known that many scholar at Glacier View were sympathetic with Desmond Ford’s concerns and didn’t want him sacked, but the administration acted in an inquisitorial way, opposed to the wishes of the scholars who didn’t wanted Ford out of ministry and teaching position. As Raymond Cottrell said in his “The sanctuary doctrine, Asset or Liability” paper, Glacier View started an era of obscurantism. The opinion of scholars didn’t matter for administration.

Glorify Him - 01 August 2008 04:11 PM

Your unwillingness to do this implies that you have something to hide.

You are right though with this accusation. I do need to hide from those individuals who believe the way you have stated. Your idea of Adventism is alive and well. I feel it is diminishing more and more but it is still alive. And I do not wish to agitate those conservative Ellen White loyalists

Are those conservative loyalists your spouse superiors, conference leaders? If they are simple members, isolated, on the fringe, why are you afraid of them? Are your spouse suppose to be the leader or not? A leader who has no courage to stand for his conviction does not qualify for his job. Will your spouse loose the income because some members who have no administrative power are displeased by what you are saying? If not, why you are so afraid of them?

Since you mentioned George Knight and Jon Paulien, both of them endorsed Graeme Bradford’s view about Ellen White, expressed in two little booklets. In it the views of Bradford, “Pick what you think it is worth in EGW writings and dismiss what is bad” was expressed in an implicit way. But when the author became explicit and more clear in expressing this view in his latest book “More Than a Prophet”, he discovered himself alone and without any endorsement from Knight and Paulien. In the light of the fact that Graeme’s Bradford views had not changed in time, why these guys are not willing to endorse openly, publicly, his book as the correct view about Ellen White, and the orthodox view? How mainstream in this view? If their view is the mainstream view of the Church, why not endorse it publicly against White Estate criticism of Bradford’s book? When these guys are not willing to openly defend what they know is truth, they are not reliable as sources.

Glorify Him, I think that you, Knight, and Paulen know that your view is not the official view of the church, and you will be sanctioned by the administrators for teaching people to dismiss what it is bad in Ellen White’s writings. Of course, these views are useful in shutting up the mouth of the critics, and keep concerned members who know enough about Ellen White and don’t buy the White Estate’s apologetics in the fold. This kind of double-talk is not a foreign practice of the SDA Church.

Glorify Him - 01 August 2008 04:03 PM

I think I answered it better than the references given me. But you can believe what you want. If I have no credibility ... fine.

Be specific. What references you had not found and on what subjects? General accusations do not build your credibility. Beside this, you’re resorting to an approach which is conversation stopping.

Glorify Him: “You can believe what you want”

Gabriel: “Sure, you can believe what you want too”

and on, and on, and on, and on, and on........... at infinitum

If you want to be credible, don’t use this approach in the future. 

Gabriel

I have no need to be credible. This is a forum. I am simply voicing ‘opinion’ for what it is worth. I am NO authority. For authority .... go to the only authority worth anything ... THE BIBLE.