Guibox, are you saying that the Bible is the standard by which truth should be judged?  If so, I wholeheartedly agree with you.  “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)

Also, what do you think about the practice in your denomination of using the writings of Ellen White as a source of truth, even when she disagrees with the Bible?

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
Also, what do you think about the practice in your denomination of using the writings of Ellen White as a source of truth, even when she disagrees with the Bible? Greg

I think that it depends what areas she is used as a ‘source of truth’.

I think time, history and medicine has proven that she is not a relible source of truth in those areas. However, she never claimed it for herself.

I strongly believe that the 1980 fundamental beliefs was a ‘pendulum swinging drastically the other way’ from the Ford situation. This is evident by the fact that the FBs didn’t put EGW on such a pedastal from 1932 on. Then all of a sudden we have ‘authoritative source of truth’ thrown in.

I believe the same as Bacchiocchi and Bradford. The people of God are to ‘hold fast to what is good’ and discard that which is not. The prophet’s role is to ‘uplift and edify the body of Christ’. These things I believe she did and that EGWs writings do work in this regard.

It is when we try to make her an infallible interpreter and exegete of scripture and history, and make her the final word on biblical interpretation where I disagree. Many in our church in doing so go against what she herself said.

So if I’m going to follow anything the church says, it will be when the church was reasonable and saw things in the proper perspective, not when they went against the very counsel EGW and the pioneers established.

So even if I disagree with the current denominational stance, I am still being a faithful and true SDA. 

Thanks for your insights and honesty Guibox in answering questions.

We are about to head out of town, so will be checking back some next week.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Stan

Thanksgiving! Bah! We Canadians celebrated it a month ago...when it is supposed to be celebrated! 

Have a good trip.

guibox

Guibox, thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I assume when you say that you hold fast to what is good, you uphold the things EGW wrote that have stood the test of time, while discarding the rest.  Particularly you would not uphold the areas where she interpreted the Bible or history incorrectly and you would stand in agreement with Bacchiocchi, Bradford and Ford.  In standing with these men, especially Ford, do you feel any obligation to oppose those within your church who make EGW the infallible interpreter of Scripture?  For instance, do you oppose the teaching of the investigative judgment and are you against the publishing of books promiting this doctrine?

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
In standing with these men, especially Ford, do you feel any obligation to oppose those within your church who make EGW the infallible interpreter of Scripture?  For instance, do you oppose the teaching of the investigative judgment and are you against the publishing of books promiting this doctrine?

Greg

If what you say is true that you saw me posting on revivalsermons, then you know for a fact the answer to your first inquiry. To me making her infallible (though many would deny this, this is what they do) is just as nonsensical as throwing her all out and calling her a ‘false prophet’ and having a ‘demon familiar’. I deny the ‘IJ’ in the sense that our salvation is not assured until our name comes up in judgement. To me this isn’t what the church teaches as the IJ. The IJ is basically a formality for the rest of the universe to show that God is just and fair and that the decisions that have been already made for those whose destinies have been determined were done so in a righteous manner.

In all my 22 years as an SDA, I have yet to meet an SDA that believes that until our name comes up in the IJ we have no clue if we are saved or lost and that one sin can turn the judgement against us.

I don’t completely deny the idea of a ‘pre-advent judgement’ (I like this term much better than ‘investigative’ judgment).  What I deny is the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and 1844 to establish it. To me, the best interpretation I have seen of Daniel 8 and 9 so far (even more convincing then either Cottrell or Ford’s interpretation) is found at jesusinstituteforum.com in a paper by Leo F. Greer III.

[quote author="guibox"]
If what you say is true that you saw me posting on revivalsermons, then you know for a fact the answer to your first inquiry. To me making her infallible (though many would deny this, this is what they do) is just as nonsensical as throwing her all out and calling her a ‘false prophet’ and having a ‘demon familiar’. I deny the ‘IJ’ in the sense that our salvation is not assured until our name comes up in judgement. To me this isn’t what the church teaches as the IJ. The IJ is basically a formality for the rest of the universe to show that God is just and fair and that the decisions that have been already made for those whose destinies have been determined were done so in a righteous manner.

Guibox, indeed I saw you on revivalsermons--I just wanted to make sure nothing had changed, as it has been almost a year since I saw you there.  (Did you lose your posting privileges with the rest of us?)

I appreciate that you’d like to strike a balance between historic and former Adventists and I will not try to talk you out of it.  I guess what I’m trying to understand is how someone can acknowledge that Ellen White was wrong on many points, particularly in her prophetic endorsement of the unbiblical doctrine of the investigative judgment, while still considering her credible.  Let’s not forget she said that God showed her the truth of this teaching.  Was she self-decieved or did she really hear from God and something was lost in the translation?

This is why exposing error, the topic of this thread, is so important.  If Ellen White claimed to receive a prophetic message from God that is diametrically opposed to the gospel, somehow we have to reconcile that.  I must give credit to those who have left Adventism over these problems (and more importantly leaving for the unfettered gospel of Jesus Christ), but perhaps you can help me see how your position is just as credible.

[quote author="guibox"]
In all my 22 years as an SDA, I have yet to meet an SDA that believes that until our name comes up in the IJ we have no clue if we are saved or lost and that one sin can turn the judgement against us.

Have you forgotten our friends “walk in the light,” “colporteur,” and “sdazeal” already? 

Quote from: guibox on November 22, 2006, 11:00:03 PM
I don’t completely deny the idea of a ‘pre-advent judgement’ (I like this term much better than ‘investigative’ judgment).  What I deny is the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and 1844 to establish it. To me, the best interpretation I have seen of Daniel 8 and 9 so far (even more convincing then either Cottrell or Ford’s interpretation) is found at jesusinstituteforum.com in a paper by Leo F. Greer III.

I’ll check out that reference, thanks.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
Guibox, indeed I saw you on revivalsermons--I just wanted to make sure nothing had changed, as it has been almost a year since I saw you there.  (Did you lose your posting privileges with the rest of us?)

No, I just decided that I had had enough and told them I was gone. On occasion I go back and have to ‘bite my tongue’ because I don’t want to give guys like colporteur the satisfaction that I couldn’t ‘stay away from the truth’. BTW, onigirl, liane and now newbie put colporteur and sdazeal to shame for fanaticism. Another BTW, sdazeal was banned a short time ago for preaching against the trinity...Go Pastor O’ffill! Now if he could just get rid of the other quacks it would really be a good start!

[quote author="Greg"]
I appreciate that you’d like to strike a balance between historic and former Adventists and I will not try to talk you out of it.  I guess what I’m trying to understand is how someone can acknowledge that Ellen White was wrong on many points, particularly in her prophetic endorsement of the unbiblical doctrine of the investigative judgment, while still considering her credible.  Let’s not forget she said that God showed her the truth of this teaching.  Was she self-decieved or did she really hear from God and something was lost in the translation?

Like Cottrell, I like to take some of EGWs statements contextually and historically for what it meant for the church at the time. EGW biggest endorsement for it was that it was a ‘pillar of the faith’ and that without it ‘all would fall’. This is historically true. The church was coming out of the Great Disappointment and desperately needed something to cling to. The church’s beginnings rallied around this doctrine to explain the disappointment. It was indeed a pillar and so much stock and organization was centered around it that there very well could have been another disappointment. EGW was not a theologian, neither did the pioneers of the day have everything and all the reference to this subject and Greek study like we do now. I believe that EGW was a pioneer of her time, was helped by the opinions and study of others (look how much she depended on Uriah Smith for historical and theological information). And sometimes, she was just plain old wrong. She was human, she had her strict Methodist upbringing to contend with as well.

I believe like Bacchiocchi said, that EGW was progressive and that were she alive today and had the chance to sit down with scholars who have shown many of the things she believed back then were incorrect, she would readily change her view on things.

If we say that EGW could not have been wrong (or is a false prophet if she got anything wrong) then we expect her to be infallible just like the uber-conservatives. This is a narrow and incorrect view on NT inspiration.

I believe that God allowed this folk to develop this doctrine to help them through a tight situation. Both EGW and the pioneers’ belief was that the church would not stop growing and that nobody could say ‘we have all the truth now’. Hence, I believe the goal was to continue to grow and adjust as necessary. Unfortunately, the church began to forget that and persecute those who after receiving more light tried to make some of these growth changes.

[quote author="Greg"]
I’ll check out that reference, thanks.
Greg

You can find it here. Basically, the premise is that the events in Daniel 8:11-14 are fulfilled in Daniel 9:26,27. The 2300 days take place during the final week in a Christological fulfillment. It is very scholarly (and lengthy) but thorough and it is a fantastic view which makes more sense then anything else I have seen.

http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/LAPart1.html

[quote author="guibox"]
Like Cottrell, I like to take some of EGWs statements contextually and historically for what it meant for the church at the time. EGW biggest endorsement for it was that it was a ‘pillar of the faith’ and that without it ‘all would fall’. This is historically true. The church was coming out of the Great Disappointment and desperately needed something to cling to. The church’s beginnings rallied around this doctrine to explain the disappointment. It was indeed a pillar and so much stock and organization was centered around it that there very well could have been another disappointment.

What would have been so bad about those who went through the Great Disappointment returning to their previous congregations like William Miller did?  The idea you are promoting here places the integrity of the SDA denomination above the integrity of the biblical gospel and the doctrinal foundation of Christianity.  Instead of assimilating back into the larger body of Christ, Adventists spent the next 100 years trying to prove themselves that they were different than “apostate” protestant churches.  I don’t see this as a constructive period and I have a very difficult time believing that God would purposely lead people into error and let them dwell there for so long, all in the name of avoiding further disappointment.  What was gained from this exercise?  We now have a denomination that is somewhat confused about the law, gospel, justification by faith, sanctification and is more focused on eschatology than the cross.

[quote author="guibox"]
I believe like Bacchiocchi said, that EGW was progressive and that were she alive today and had the chance to sit down with scholars who have shown many of the things she believed back then were incorrect, she would readily change her view on things.

Again, I don’t want to nit-pick or drag out all the quotes by Ellen White affirming the opposite of what you have said.  During her life she was given repeated opportunities to repudiate the investigative judgment doctrine, but she steadfastly refused.  There was just as much evidence then as there is today to reject this doctrine, because the Bible has not changed.  As an example, Albion Ballenger raised many of the same concerns over 100 years ago that Desmond Ford did in the 1980s, yet Ballenger was roundly criticized, pronounced a heretic, and run out of the church, mostly on the testimony of Ellen White.  This does not sound very progressive to me.  (To read more about this, see Ballenger’s book “Cast out for the Cross of Christ” http://www.bible.ca/7-1909-ballenger-cast-out-for-the-cross.htm)

[quote author="guibox"]
I believe that God allowed this folk to develop this doctrine to help them through a tight situation. Both EGW and the pioneers’ belief was that the church would not stop growing and that nobody could say ‘we have all the truth now’. Hence, I believe the goal was to continue to grow and adjust as necessary. Unfortunately, the church began to forget that and persecute those who after receiving more light tried to make some of these growth changes.

As I said above, the persecution you mention was present from the very beginning and it should not surprise us that it continues to this day.  It would be more consistent for the church to continue promoting the sanctuary/IJ doctrines than it would be to turn from these teachings now.

Why ascribe to God an error that man has created?  Why would God lead people into gospel-denying error, allow it to take root for over 100 years, and then try to turn the ship around?

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
Why ascribe to God an error that man has created?  Why would God lead people into gospel-denying error, allow it to take root for over 100 years, and then try to turn the ship around?

Greg

Man is man and God allows them to do as they will. That is what freedom of choice is. IMO, this has occurred with the false belief that man has an immortal soul and that God will torment man throughout eternity. These are things (with some interference throughout the ages) that the church has believed for well over a millenia. You will convince me that the Sabbath is done away with and the IJ is false long before you could ever convince me that that ‘eternal torment’ and ‘immortality of the soul’ are biblical.
Many scholars today from many faiths, are coming to the same conclusion.  According to your reasoning. They are wrong and the church is right and ‘how could God ever allow an error to take such root and then try to change it’

That is the nature of man interpreting and practicing religion. Long cherished beliefs held as true by the majority has been proven that this is not a solid foundation for accepting biblical truth. The Catholic church believed heresies for over a 1000 years! The only Christian church! God’s church! Then the Reformation came and dispelled it after 1500 years!

I believe we are experiencing another Reformation of some sorts in many churches. Many are starting to go back to the Bible and change their long held views. The SDA church is not any different.

[quote author="guibox"]
Man is man and God allows them to do as they will. That is what freedom of choice is. IMO, this has occurred with the false belief that man has an immortal soul and that God will torment man throughout eternity. These are things (with some interference throughout the ages) that the church has believed for well over a millenia. You will convince me that the Sabbath is done away with and the IJ is false long before you could ever convince me that that ‘eternal torment’ and ‘immortality of the soul’ are biblical.
Many scholars today from many faiths, are coming to the same conclusion.  According to your reasoning. They are wrong and the church is right and ‘how could God ever allow an error to take such root and then try to change it’

No, that wasn’t my reasoning, I was inferring from your previous post that this was your conclusion, because you said God specifically allowed the early Adventists to be strengthened as a group by the sanctuary/IJ doctrines.  My point was that God is not in the business of authoring confusion and theological errors.

Just consider the implications of God using the sanctuary/IJ doctrines to galvanize the early Adventists.  Think of all the generations of Adventists who have been unclear on the gospel as a result, taught to be insecure about their salvation.  Would the same God who inspired the words “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13 ESV) endorse a doctrine that strikes at the very heart of this statement?

To implicate God in the errors of Adventism is to give him responsibility for something that lies solely with the human authors of those errors.

[quote author="guibox"]
That is the nature of man interpreting and practicing religion. Long cherished beliefs held as true by the majority has been proven that this is not a solid foundation for accepting biblical truth. The Catholic church believed heresies for over a 1000 years! The only Christian church! God’s church! Then the Reformation came and dispelled it after 1500 years!

There is no question that error exists in many forms in many different denominations and religions.  But just because Catholics are wrong in much of their theology doesn’t mean it is acceptable for Adventists to be wrong.  And if Adventists are honest enough to admit their mistakes, wouldn’t it seem logical that they would repent from them and stop selling the books that continue to spread confusion?

[quote author="guibox"]
I believe we are experiencing another Reformation of some sorts in many churches. Many are starting to go back to the Bible and change their long held views. The SDA church is not any different.

I don’t see any indication from within the administrative ranks of Adventism that the investigative judgment doctrine is close to being thrown out.  The conference president reiterated his endorsement of it recently, the Ellen White books containing this doctrine are still sold and the last Sabbath School quarterly was entirely devoted to it.

It seems that many Adventists are content to stand with Desmond Ford in private, but have learned from his experience to say nothing in public.  Hopefully through open dialogue on this site and others, we can start to change that.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
No, that wasn’t my reasoning, I was inferring from your previous post that this was your conclusion, because you said God specifically allowed the early Adventists to be strengthened as a group by the sanctuary/IJ doctrines.  My point was that God is not in the business of authoring confusion and theological errors.

And my point that still stands is that God allowed many throughout the millenia to do the exact same thing through many doctrines that were considered ‘truth’ but shown to be ‘error’ and still are peddled off as truth in many instances. So who’s side is God on then? Everybody feels that God endorses each side.

[quote author="Greg"]
Just consider the implications of God using the sanctuary/IJ doctrines to galvanize the early Adventists.  Think of all the generations of Adventists who have been unclear on the gospel as a result, taught to be insecure about their salvation.  Would the same God who inspired the words “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13 ESV) endorse a doctrine that strikes at the very heart of this statement?

Think of all the atheists who turned their back on God because they couldn’t serve a God they felt would allow them to burn in hell for all eternity without any redemption, reformation or mercy. Such a doctrine has made more ‘sons of hell’ then anything else in the entire Christian aresenal of doctrine. At least SDAs have accepted the blood of Christ despite some not feeling that assurance. Unfortunately you cannot say the same thing to those who have been helped along to hell thanks to such a skewed version of God that the church has peddled and still is.

[quote author="Greg"]
To implicate God in the errors of Adventism is to give him responsibility for something that lies solely with the human authors of those errors.....There is no question that error exists in many forms in many different denominations and religions.  But just because Catholics are wrong in much of their theology doesn’t mean it is acceptable for Adventists to be wrong

And many Christians today do it all the time, all the while (like SDAs) calling it ‘truth’. If someone tells me (as they have) that I am following ‘the father of lies’ and ‘twisting the words of Christ’ by believing in annihilation then they are saying that God fully endorses their view no matter how erroneous it can be pointed out to be. This is akin to calling ‘black-white’, something the Bible speaks strongly against.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to make excuses for SDAs, merely to show that what you say is rampant in all Christian denominations. As I said before, ‘error’ and ‘truth’ has become synonymous with ‘my interpretation’ these days.

[quote author="Greg"]
And if Adventists are honest enough to admit their mistakes, wouldn’t it seem logical that they would repent from them and stop selling the books that continue to spread confusion?...I don’t see any indication from within the administrative ranks of Adventism that the investigative judgment doctrine is close to being thrown out.  The conference president reiterated his endorsement of it recently, the Ellen White books containing this doctrine are still sold and the last Sabbath School quarterly was entirely devoted to it.

Give it time. I already see it happening on smaller scales. Bacchiocchi’s stance on some prophetic doctrine (his newsletter go to over 30 000 people around the world), Bradford’s book on EGW (of which is being sold to entire conferences). George Knight, Alden Thompson, Roy Adams, all of these gentlemen are ‘breaking the mold’ in many areas. One just need to look at Revival Sermons to see the conservatives rant and rave about some new program or pastor ‘falling in to apostasy’ as they would call it.

Again, I must reitirate the same thing happening in Christianity all over. So many dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists clinging on to eternal torment while screaming ‘apostasy’ at the many scholars, theologians and laymen alike rethinking their views on it and embracing annihilation. It is just the same as the SDA church. Many are rethinking the IJ and the role of EGW as is currently viewd by he church while many scream ‘heresy’.

[quote author="Greg"]
It seems that many Adventists are content to stand with Desmond Ford in private, but have learned from his experience to say nothing in public.  Hopefully through open dialogue on this site and others, we can start to change that

I just don’t think our job is to change the church. It won’t happen (either in the SDA faith or in other Christian faiths in other areas of doctrine) and it will have to happen on an individual basis. But that is all you can do. Help one at a time.  I’m glad that we have reasonable ‘safe’ dialogue here to do so.

Let’s keep it that way lest we end up ‘biting’ each other over our differences.

[quote author="guibox"]
And my point that still stands is that God allowed many throughout the millenia to do the exact same thing through many doctrines that were considered ‘truth’ but shown to be ‘error’ and still are peddled off as truth in many instances. So who’s side is God on then? Everybody feels that God endorses each side.

As I’ve said before, there are many doctrines within Christianity that are debated, but the gospel should never come up for debate.  This is exactly what has happened within the Adventist church because of the “face saving doctrine” of the sanctuary/investigative judgment.  The gospel became expendable to save the denomination and today, 150 years later, it remains obscure within Adventism.

Whether hell is eternal or not has no bearing on this discussion, because it does not change the fact that those who are saved can have confidence of their salvation in Christ.  Whether hell is eternal or not does not change the fact that our striving, good works, attempts at piety, Sabbath-keeping, tithing, etc., cannot bring us one step closer to salvation, unlike what the historic Adventist church teaches.  As a side note, hell is probably worse than anyone can imagine, even if you believe it will be finite.  We can start another thread on this if you would like.

[quote author="guibox"]
Think of all the atheists who turned their back on God because they couldn’t serve a God they felt would allow them to burn in hell for all eternity without any redemption, reformation or mercy.

Think of all the Adventists who, when faced with their sins of the flesh, believe they have lost their salvation (because that is what their church teaches), consoling themselves that at least they will be annhilated in the end.  Yet with a basic understanding of the gospel message, their despair could be turned to joy and their weakness in the flesh could be turned into confidence in Christ.

[quote author="guibox"]
Such a doctrine has made more ‘sons of hell’ then anything else in the entire Christian aresenal of doctrine. At least SDAs have accepted the blood of Christ despite some not feeling that assurance. Unfortunately you cannot say the same thing to those who have been helped along to hell thanks to such a skewed version of God that the church has peddled and still is.

We really need to review what the Bible says about hell in another thread, because it is not at all pleasant.  Like I said, even if you believe in annihilation, hell is still a horrible reality.  It is a red herring to use this as justification for the continued promulgation of the sanctuary/IJ doctrines.

[quote author="guibox"]
And many Christians today do it all the time, all the while (like SDAs) calling it ‘truth’. If someone tells me (as they have) that I am following ‘the father of lies’ and ‘twisting the words of Christ’ by believing in annihilation then they are saying that God fully endorses their view no matter how erroneous it can be pointed out to be. This is akin to calling ‘black-white’, something the Bible speaks strongly against.

You won’t hear me ever referring to you in that way!  Discussion and debate are healthy if we treat each other with the respect we ourselves would appreciate.  I’m convinced that otherwise reasonable people become disinhibited behind the anonymity of a computer screen and say things they would never dream of articulating in a personal interaction.  If we remember this, we can avoid many of the problems that exist on other sites that shall remain un-named....

[quote author="guibox"]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to make excuses for SDAs, merely to show that what you say is rampant in all Christian denominations. As I said before, ‘error’ and ‘truth’ has become synonymous with ‘my interpretation’ these days.

Again, there are many debates within Christianity, but there should be no debate about the gospel.  There may be error in other denominations, but I know the SDA church because I have lived almost my entire life within its confines.  I know the problems within the church because of my familiarity with it and because many of my family and friends remain there.  The body of Christ, when working together, can resist error wherever it may crop up and we should not shy away from standing for biblical truth just because there are many other churches teaching false doctrine.

[quote author="guibox"]
I just don’t think our job is to change the church. It won’t happen (either in the SDA faith or in other Christian faiths in other areas of doctrine) and it will have to happen on an individual basis. But that is all you can do. Help one at a time.

Now you sound like a “former” who believes nothing good can happen within Adventism....

[quote author="guibox"]
I’m glad that we have reasonable ‘safe’ dialogue here to do so....Let’s keep it that way lest we end up ‘biting’ each other over our differences.

My bark is worse than my bite anyway

I enjoy the dialogue with you, Guibox.  May God bless our efforts to reach our Adventist brothers and sisters for Christ and his gospel.

Greg

Having been away from the computer for a few days, I have really enjoyed reading and catching up on this thread.  Guibox, I do have to say even though I have changed my view back to annihilation, that I don’t see any relation between that belief (which can be debated honestly between both sides who believe in inerrancy) and debating the very basis of salvation doctrine and the heart of the gospel itself. Believe me Adventism has created many atheists with EGW legalism and uncertainty. Those who believe in eternal torment also believe in the simple remedy of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Adventism has turned salvation into a works salvation--this is based on reading the Great Controversy chapter on the Investigative Judgment. I would have given up on salvation long ago if EGW’s statements were true in that chapter. I see no compromise of the gospel of salvation in churches that teach eternal torment.

The IJ is at the heart of what makes Adventism unique. Eternal torment is common to most churches belief system. Somehow, I can’t justify honoring Adventism because they hold to annihilation, but teach basic error with regard to the gospel.

As I said on another thread, if you feel that by staying in SDA and that you are able to witness for the truth of the gospel, then maybe God wants you there still, but at some point we must acknowledge that SDA is still being deceptive when it comes to Ellen White and the IJ.

Stan