Thanks for those quotes, Guibox.  I could not find the Bradford book on Dr. Bacchiochi’s website, so if you can point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it.

Part of the trouble with coming clean about Ellen White is the peril it does to one’s denominational employment.  Raymond Cottrell and now Bacchiochi have made some inroads, but they’ve done so after their jobs were no longer on the line.  I realize Bacchiochi has taken a lot of heat from the historic Adventists and I commend him for standing up for what he believes, even though I don’t agree with all of his teachings.

I pray that more men and women of faith will courageously stand for biblical truth within the Adventist church so that the gospel may be heard with clarity.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
Thanks for those quotes, Guibox.  I could not find the Bradford book on Dr. Bacchiochi’s website, so if you can point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it.

Part of the trouble with coming clean about Ellen White is the peril it does to one’s denominational employment.  Raymond Cottrell and now Bacchiochi have made some inroads, but they’ve done so after their jobs were no longer on the line.  I realize Bacchiochi has taken a lot of heat from the historic Adventists and I commend him for standing up for what he believes, even though I don’t agree with all of his teachings.

I pray that more men and women of faith will courageously stand for biblical truth within the Adventist church so that the gospel may be heard with clarity.

Greg

Though Bacchiocchi doesn’t have a ‘job’ on the line, he is hesistant to stir up controversy. As a matter of fact, he stopped researching the alternative to the 1260 days/42 months/time times and half a time simply because of the extreme negativity it was causing and that some might lose the faith. Regardless, he still does speak when he needs to despite the inevitable back lash.

Greg, even though it is not on his website, the books can be purchased through Bacchiocchi. He has links in his newsletters. Though the book costs $25 normally, he is offering it for $5 in quantities of 150 or more which is a good deal if you have 150 people who want it. I didn’t see it at our mobile ABC that rolls around. Other than that, I’m guessing the ABC could order it in.  Before the book was released, Bradford released a small booklet called ‘Prophets Are Human’ which simplified and condensed some of his ‘More Than a Prophet’. I do own that and though it is good, I want to get the real deal.

Here are the links to Bacchiocchi’s newsletters where three chapters of Bradfords book are laid out. Dr. B has a lot of preamble so just scroll down until Bradford’s part comes up.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_151.htm “The Credibility of Ellen White”

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_152.htm “Ellen White and the Bible”

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_155.htm “Ellen White’s Theological Growth”

Newsletter #150 is Bacchiocchi’s on ‘EGW and the Trinity” which shows that despite the semi-Arianism of some of the pioneers, EGW upheld the Trinity doctrine.

[quote author="guibox"]
Though Bacchiocchi doesn’t have a ‘job’ on the line, he is hesistant to stir up controversy. As a matter of fact, he stopped researching the alternative to the 1260 days/42 months/time times and half a time simply because of the extreme negativity it was causing and that some might lose the faith. Regardless, he still does speak when he needs to despite the inevitable back lash.

This is what is disturbing to me and many others...somehow even when a “friendly” critic such as Cottrell or Bacchiocchi dare to examine Ellen White’s work, they are attacked.  Those in positions to make a significant stand for truth know that the moment they open their mouths, they risk losing their careers, friends, security, etc.  Obviously there is great diversity within Adventism and not everyone views Ellen White as “untouchable,” but I still think this is the majority viewpoint.

I haven’t read through all of the Bradford stuff yet, but I ran across this section about Walter Martin that I found interesting:

Walter Martin was once interviewed about his concepts of Ellen White. He was critical of her work, on a basis she did not meet up with his private expectations. Toward the end of the interview he said, “I have been pressed and pressed by people to get me to say Ellen White is a false prophet. . . . Mrs. White in my opinion, made false statements. She misused what she claimed was the prophetic gift she had. I believe this, in certain instances. But if you’re going to try and say that makes Ellen White the same as the false prophets prohibited in Exodus and Deuteronomy, then you have to demonstrate, that Ellen White was an unbeliever and that it was a deliberate and willful perversion of truth regarding salvation and revelation. That’s a very fine line. . . . Of course, technically, I would have to say that the person who prophesies in the name of God and turns out to be wrong, has prophesied falsely. You have to say that. But they want me to go further than that. They want me to make Mrs. White a biblical false prophet which means that she is not a Christian. I cannot endorse that.”

I remember listening to a John Ankerberg interview of Walter Martin from the mid-80s (near the end of his life) where Martin affirmed his view that Ellen White was a pious Christian woman.  I do believe we have a greater degree of sophistication about the problems with her prophetic gift now (25 years later), but I am not willing to jump in with many other formers who easily brand her as a non-Christian.  She clearly loved the Lord and went to her grave a believer--even D.M. Canright is on the record as believing this.

For me, the biggest problem comes from the claims she made that she was “more than a prophet,” and worse, the anti-gospel theology she promoted in the investigative judgment doctrine and her endorsement of perfectionism.

If the Adventist church would take men such as Ford, Cottrell and Bacchiocchi seriously and not be afraid to admit that Ellen White was not a theologian and was wrong about many things, the focus would be placed back on the gospel and away from the Adventist theological/prophetic rabbit trails.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]
This is what is disturbing to me and many others...somehow even when a “friendly” critic such as Cottrell or Bacchiocchi dare to examine Ellen White’s work, they are attacked.  Those in positions to make a significant stand for truth know that the moment they open their mouths, they risk losing their careers, friends, security, etc.  Obviously there is great diversity within Adventism and not everyone views Ellen White as “untouchable,” but I still think this is the majority viewpoint..

I disagree with Bacchiocchi on many things but I must respect the man. He can’t win. He tries to show that he is indeed an SDA apologist on those things that he believes are biblical...and yet the conservatives hate him anyway. He tries to show that he is ready to challenge what has been readily accepted but biblically in error and makes it plain that to use EGW as our straight jacket so that no more biblical study can happen is wrong and challenges traditional SDA beliefs he believes is biblical suspect...and the formers hate him anyway.

[quote author="Greg"]
I remember listening to a John Ankerberg interview of Walter Martin from the mid-80s (near the end of his life) where Martin affirmed his view that Ellen White was a pious Christian woman.  I do believe we have a greater degree of sophistication about the problems with her prophetic gift now (25 years later), but I am not willing to jump in with many other formers who easily brand her as a non-Christian.  She clearly loved the Lord and went to her grave a believer--even D.M. Canright is on the record as believing this.

Yes, I was appalled at the attitude on FAF of some towards EGW saying she had a ‘demon familiar’ and was not saved. This is in part due to a misguided view on EGW that I believe Bradford and Bach are trying to dispel. Just as the conservative element need an ‘EGW tune up’, so do some of the formers. I am amazed that some of the ‘SDA fanaticism’ seems to have been kept by some formers but is being applied to the opposite end of the spectrum. One needs to have some sort of balance, I think.

[quote author="Greg"]
For me, the biggest problem comes from the claims she made that she was “more than a prophet,” and worse, the anti-gospel theology she promoted in the investigative judgment doctrine and her endorsement of perfectionism.

Greg, I believe that EGW was also growing theologically too. Bradford brings this out in one of the newsletters I sent you too. On the Atoday website when the 1844 SS lesson was being discussed, Desmond Ford was going head to head with Kevin Paulson on some issues. One of them was ‘sinless perfection’. Kevin was saying that denying it was denying a truth of the church and that EGW fully endorsed it. It is interesting to see Des’ reply. I am bolding some parts for emphasis. 

Des Ford: “It is of considerable interest to me that Kevin is distrustful of “scholars and theologians”. Is it because he can find so few that hold to his bizarre positions? How many SDA scholars can he find who advocate the brand of perfectionism he proffers? The General Conference years back put out a brochure repudiating such views, and EGW in her last years was peculiarly allergic to all forms of perfectionism.

“If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh could see things in their true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas . . . while we cannot claim perfection of the flesh, we may have Christian perfection of the soul. Through the sacrifice made in our behalf, sins may be perfectly forgiven. ....The conscience can be freed from condemnation . . . while sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed.” SM 2:32, 33.

“In ourselves we are sinners, but in Christ we are righteous.” l SM 394.

“Are you in Christ? Not if you do not acknowledge yourselves erring, helpless, condemned sinners.” 5T 48)

EGW says here that we have perfection of the soul by having Christ ‘perfectly forgive us’. Isn’t that a neat expression?

[quote author="Greg"]
If the Adventist church would take men such as Ford, Cottrell and Bacchiocchi seriously and not be afraid to admit that Ellen White was not a theologian and was wrong about many things, the focus would be placed back on the gospel and away from the Adventist theological/prophetic rabbit trails.

I agree but one needn’t think this is a modern, evangelical influenced opinion. One merely has to look at quotes from A.G. Daniells, W.W. Prescott and even Willie White himself to see that the church made EGW more than even she claimed to be. I believe she’d be horrified to see how people use her and her writings and the status they have elevated both to.

BTW, are you on FAF? If so, what is your moniker there?

[quote author="guibox"]
Yes, I was appalled at the attitude on FAF of some towards EGW saying she had a ‘demon familiar’ and was not saved. This is in part due to a misguided view on EGW that I believe Bradford and Bach are trying to dispel. Just as the conservative element need an ‘EGW tune up’, so do some of the formers. I am amazed that some of the ‘SDA fanaticism’ seems to have been kept by some formers but is being applied to the opposite end of the spectrum. One needs to have some sort of balance, I think.

You’ve hit on the problem here.  If formers are tearing down a version of EGW that doesn’t correspond with reality, you must explain why a majority of Adventists (especially the church leadership) endorse this same view.  Yes there are examples of people here and there who are trying to be honest about some of the problems with EGW, but there is no widespread repenting by the church of their inappropriate use of her.  You don’t see prominent church leaders admit that she was downright wrong or even harmful at some points.  Instead, you see a recycling of the EGW apologetics that rings as hollow today as it did in the 1950s when F.D. Nichol wrote his book.  Until such a time as prominent church leaders are willing to go on the record and admit their wrongs, the formers will continue to level their charges, with cause.

[quote author="guibox"]
Greg, I believe that EGW was also growing theologically too. Bradford brings this out in one of the newsletters I sent you too. On the Atoday website when the 1844 SS lesson was being discussed, Desmond Ford was going head to head with Kevin Paulson on some issues. One of them was ‘sinless perfection’. Kevin was saying that denying it was denying a truth of the church and that EGW fully endorsed it. It is interesting to see Des’ reply. I am bolding some parts for emphasis.

Thanks for that passage by Dr. Ford.  Speaking from a former’s perspective, the problem is not finding statements where EGW is theologically correct, it’s all of the areas where she is flat out incorrect.  Sure she may have grown theologically over her lifetime, but why does the church keep churning out the Testimonies, Early Writings, etc. as if there is still a blessing to be gained from reading them?  If we’re going to admit that she grew during her lifetime and became more orthodox, we must also admit that she held downright unorthodox views earlier in her life that, if treated as coming from the mouth of a prophet, can do significant damage to people who take her seriously.

[quote author="guibox"]
EGW says here that we have perfection of the soul by having Christ ‘perfectly forgive us’. Isn’t that a neat expression?

But in other places she says that even one unconfessed sin will keep us out of heaven.  I don’t deny that statement you quoted sounds good, but the problem is that you have ten statements on the other side that sound horrible.

[quote author="guibox"]
I agree but one needn’t think this is a modern, evangelical influenced opinion. One merely has to look at quotes from A.G. Daniells, W.W. Prescott and even Willie White himself to see that the church made EGW more than even she claimed to be. I believe she’d be horrified to see how people use her and her writings and the status they have elevated both to.

The one statement from A.G. Daniells that I’m aware of occurred at the 1919 Bible Conference and was kept under wraps until the 1980s, which begs the question, why wasn’t Daniells prepared to make those statements publically?

[quote author="guibox"]
BTW, are you on FAF? If so, what is your moniker there?

I haven’t posted there recently, but it shouldn’t be too hard to find me since I’m not good at coming up with creative names like “guibox” or “riverfonz”.

Greg

Greg, the problem of ‘not coming clean’ is not merely an SDA problem. Frankly, the only church I have ever seen change their views so drastically is Armstrong’s church of God. Look at all the evangelicals and Reformed theologians coming forward (very influential and well respected) giving clear evidence why eternal torment is unbiblical and a false doctrine and yet we don’t see denominations churches en masse coming forward.

Why?

One might say that it is due to interpretation but I think it goes deeper and this philosophy is prevelant in the SDA church:

It is simply what we’ve grown up believing and are comfortable ‘knowing’ that what we’ve been taught is true and that those who taught us couldn’t have been wrong. Also we appeal to longevity of the belief as further support for its ‘truth’.

The bottom line is that churches and denominations are NOT going to abruptly change that which they strongly believe to be true. People are going to change and this is evident not just in the SDA church but all over. I am amazingly surprised at the amount of non-SDA webstites that are supporting conditional immortality, annihilation and even Sabbath worship and I can guarantee that the denomination they belong to doesn’t endorse such views.

We need to stop being concerned about the denomination because history tells us that they do not change. We can’t use that as a reason to disregard everything it says or that there is no personal truth we can’t find or endorse on the same subject despite the denominations stance on the matter.

Guibox, by your argument, we can accept any number of aberrant theologies because we will still be able to find “personal truth” buried among the falsehoods.  By this logic, a Mormon should just stay a Mormon and be content with his own views even though his church is teaching heresy.

I will agree that there are many areas of theology, some of which you mentioned, that are debated among believers and probably always will be.  But when a church tampers with the foundation of the Christian faith–the gospel of Jesus Christ–we can’t just sweep this aside as a non-event.  The foundation of the Adventist church, the “plank” upon which the church was built, is the aberrant understanding of Daniel 8:14 and the resultant sanctuary/investigative judgment doctrines.  As Desmond Ford rightly points out, these doctrines “cut the nerve of Christian assurance” and lead to a belief that one can never really know where they stand with God.

How many Adventists have gone to their graves not knowing whether they would be saved?  How many Adventists have given up on a relationship with God because of their deep sense of inadequacy?  Despite what you think about some of the debatable doctrines you’ve mentioned, there are many biblically-grounded evangelical churches that have the gospel right, both in their statements of belief and in practice.  Adventism, sadly, does not.  Yes, there are individuals in the Adventist church who are saved, but as long as the investigative judgment doctrine remains an official teaching, the Adventist church is officially at odds with the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.

Greg

Wow, what a great conversation I missed out on by having the one-day flu, and trying to work at the same time!

Guibox, I really like your spirit. I don’t agree with you on some things, but the tone of the debate here is a model of what debate should be like--civil!

I do agree with you on eternal torment being unbiblical, but I have to agree with Greg. We have to determine what is essential to the foundation of the gospel.

I would have to ask you, ‘why is Ellen White even relevant today? Why is the church continuing to reprint the early writings and continue to sell this as material that came in vision directly from God?

Desmond Ford went to his “death” in SDA over the issue of the gospel. There was a time before I left Adventism, that I was willing to stay if only the SDA church repudiated the doctrine of the IJ.

It is difficult to change institutional belief systems. Mormonism is a different entity altogether, as it lies totally outside of Christianity.

Even though I worship at a PCA church, I don’t necessarily agree with their Sunday Sabbatarianism, but most everything else I believe in. I have even been up front with my PCA pastor on my eternal torment belief which he thinks is an aberration, but he realizes some of his Reformed brethren also believe in annihilation.

So because Adventism is wrong on the very basis of justification by faith alone--the cardinal doctrine of the Reformation--then I think that is something to seriously consider. I just could not give my offerings to a church that was not clear on the gospel of salvation.

I hope to post more later today, but have to run now,

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
Guibox, I really like your spirit. I don’t agree with you on some things, but the tone of the debate here is a model of what debate should be like--civil!

Thank you! Let’s hope as more and more of both camps begin to merge here that it remains so!

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
I would have to ask you, ‘why is Ellen White even relevant today? Why is the church continuing to reprint the early writings and continue to sell this as material that came in vision directly from God?

I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t believe that there is some grand conspiracy of cover-up. I believe that there just are things some people feel are better left ignored..such as dealing with the specifics of inspiration.

As for why EGW is relevant? I believe that she has wonderful counsel and biblical homiletics that are quite inspiring. I do not agree with many formers when they have absolutely nothing good to say about her writings or that anything good was plagiarized. To me this is as nonsensical as those who feel that every word was verbally inspired and is like manna from heaven.

Just today, the pastor had a quote from EGW from ‘Acts of the Apostles’ on the role of the church to reflect the love of Christ. I thought it was a fantastic quote and it really hit home.

I refuse to accept everything as the uber-conservatives do, and to throw it all out like many of the formers do. To me both sides are thinking irrationally.

This is why I really appreciated A.G. Daniells et.al at the 1919 GC and the efforts of scholars like Bacchiocchi, Bradford, Ford and others who see the validity of EGW despite her errors and the way the church has mistreated and misrepresented her.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
So because Adventism is wrong on the very basis of justification by faith alone--the cardinal doctrine of the Reformation--then I think that is something to seriously consider. I just could not give my offerings to a church that was not clear on the gospel of salvation.

I guess it is all a matter of perspective. I do not believe (nor have I met an SDA yet who does) that we are saved by works. It is only the blood of Christ that saves us and is a free gift. As far as I know, my church has always believed it. It is the sanctification aspect that there is confusion. Yet, I don’t believe that this is merely an SDA issue at all! I doubt if you ask the average person whether they should do good works or not, many will answer as any SDA will...we do it because we are saved, not to be saved. This has always been the mantra in all my 22 years in the church.

Are you ready to say that every denomination believes in ‘JBFA’ as you do? Probably not, so many churches probably don’t understand the real details of righteousness by faith either, but like the SDA church, I don’t think they feel that works save us.

[quote author="guibox"]
Thank you! Let’s hope as more and more of both camps begin to merge here that it remains so!

A hearty amen to this sentiment!

[quote author="guibox"]
I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t believe that there is some grand conspiracy of cover-up. I believe that there just are things some people feel are better left ignored..such as dealing with the specifics of inspiration.

As for why EGW is relevant? I believe that she has wonderful counsel and biblical homiletics that are quite inspiring. I do not agree with many formers when they have absolutely nothing good to say about her writings or that anything good was plagiarized. To me this is as nonsensical as those who feel that every word was verbally inspired and is like manna from heaven.

Just today, the pastor had a quote from EGW from ‘Acts of the Apostles’ on the role of the church to reflect the love of Christ. I thought it was a fantastic quote and it really hit home.

I refuse to accept everything as the uber-conservatives do, and to throw it all out like many of the formers do. To me both sides are thinking irrationally.

Guibox, I have no problem with your stance.  If Ellen White was considered a counselor or deveotional writer by the majority of people who read her, I don’t think we’d have any of these problems.  Unfortunately, as I said above, she identified herself as more than a prophet and her writings have been treated as supernatural by a majority of Adventists.  I would have no argument if the official stance of the church was that Ellen White was an inspirational writer rather than a continuing and authoritative source of truth as stated in fundamental belief #18 (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html).  This type of statement demands a higher degree of reverence for her work and opens her writings to a whole new level of inquiry.  That said, it should not be surprising when those who have taken the church’s teaching seriously either develop into “uber-conservatives” or ultimately, “formers.”

[quote author="guibox"]
This is why I really appreciated A.G. Daniells et.al at the 1919 GC and the efforts of scholars like Bacchiocchi, Bradford, Ford and others who see the validity of EGW despite her errors and the way the church has mistreated and misrepresented her.

Just running down your list, A.G. Daniells’ beliefs as stated at the 1919 Bible Conference were never known while he was alive (and not until they were uncovered over 50 years later), Desmond Ford was defrocked, and Bacchiocchi has been branded a tool of the papacy.  I don’t mean to sound sarcastic at all when I point out these things, I’m merely illustrating the point that criticism of EGW carries significant repercussions.

[quote author="guibox"]
I guess it is all a matter of perspective. I do not believe (nor have I met an SDA yet who does) that we are saved by works. It is only the blood of Christ that saves us and is a free gift. As far as I know, my church has always believed it. It is the sanctification aspect that there is confusion. Yet, I don’t believe that this is merely an SDA issue at all! I doubt if you ask the average person whether they should do good works or not, many will answer as any SDA will...we do it because we are saved, not to be saved. This has always been the mantra in all my 22 years in the church.

I was in the Adventist church for over 30 years and spent most of that on the West Coast.  There are definitely examples of “grace-based” SDA churches.  You will not find me trying to minimize this...I rejoice about it.  What I learned after moving to the Midwest is that significant pockets of legalistic and “grace-absent” SDA churches exist.  These are the churches where historic SDA doctrine is adhered to, not minimized.  I can remember one Sabbath School class where someone asked whether the investigative judgment doctrine should be preached from the pulpit, and the consensus was an emphatic “yes.” The zeal of these folks forced me to study the issues for myself and what I found is that their position is consistent with what the SDA church has historically stood for.  The founders of the church said no plank should be removed from the doctrines that were amassed during the first 50 years, and there are scores of churches out here that couldn’t agree more.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: newbie

I’m not sure if I should jump into this discussion or not since I’m new here.  I hope you don’t mind if I share a little personal experience here.  I registered as New Mexico but don’t seem to be able to sign on.

I’m neither a active member of the SDA church or a former but in between.  Recently the local SDA pastor asked me to study with him, but it was a real downer.  He is a young man who seems sincere, but he absolutely adores Mrs. White.  He wanted to know why I don’t participate to any significant degree in the church and I said I didn’t accept all the new doctrines which had been brought in since 1980 and explained that the church had left me behind, I hadn’t left the church.

At one time, I really thought the old SDA church would come back, with the committment to truth and God that I experienced as a young man, but I’m slowly giving up hope.  Unfortunately, I don’t see much improvement in some of the formers.  I bought a book from one group of formers, and without asking, they put me on their mailing list and sent me a monthly magaizine in which they lambasted the SDA church as a cult.  I tried to join their forum for former SDAs and they wouldn’t let me in because I told them I was still a member of the SDA church.  I responded that if they were not interested in dialogue to take me off their mailing list.  I’m to the point now that when non-SDA people ask me about my church affiliation, I tell them I’m interdenominational.  On the other hand, I deal with SDAs by not attending Sabbath School or talking to them about anything except the weather. 

Anyway, I’m not sure this is germaine to the discussion on hand, but there doesn’t seem to be any place on this forum to introduce onself.

Hey Newbie (New Mexico), you are welcome to participate in the discussion on this forum!  I sent you an email with instructions on how to login with your username.  I hope to make this a little more intuitive for members who join us in the future.

There aren’t too many places on the web where current SDAs, transitioning SDAs and former SDAs can talk to each other or have a civil conversation.  It is my hope this site can be such a place and that the members will be bound not by a denominational affiliation but by fellowship in Jesus Christ, proclaiming his gospel to all who will listen.

I think I know the mailing list you are talking about.  Without getting into too many specifics, I can tell you that many formers debate whether the Adventist church should be labeled a cult.  If you consult expert “cult watchers,” you’ll find heterogeneity on this issue that doesn’t exist for other groups like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc.  Walter Martin, the original Bible Answer Man and author of “Kingdom of the Cults” refused to call the Adventist church a cult until his death in the late 1980s, although there were hints that he might be changing his stance on the issue.  All of this points out the difficulty in applying a label to a group when the label itself is not well-defined and the practice of the group is so varied.

I personally believe there are Adventists who are effectively in a cult because of the way they place their distinct denominational views above the words of Scripture but I have never been comfortable using the cult label on the church as a whole.  There are others who adhere to the Adventist “lifestyle” without ever being born again or living the godly life you mentioned, perhaps believing on some level they will be saved by association with the “remnant church.” I think this is a much bigger group than anyone would like to admit and it is these individuals who I would love to reach with the gospel, because I was in their camp before God called me out.

If you have the time, I would like to hear you explain a little more about the new doctrines that have been brought in since 1980.  Feel free to start a new thread on that if you would like.

Again, welcome to the forum!

Greg

Frankly, when I hear people (especially formers) call the SDA church a ‘cult’, my brain says, “Okay. Move on guibox and don’t waste your time here”

I am the first to agree that there are many in the church who “think and act culticly” but when people brand the church as a whole it shows more ignorance to me than anything else and I know that any further debate with them will be useless.

Welcome Newbie to 4TG!

You have come to the right place. I don’t think you will find anyone here attacking SDA as a cult in the same way that JW’s and Mormons are. It was Desmond Ford however who warned on the John Ankerberg show that SDA WOULD become a cult if EGW was held up as the final interpreter of scripture. And I have seen no evidence that Ellen is not the final arbiter when it comes to the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.

What worries me is the practical effect of what Ellen White has meant to so many in Adventism. I saw and lived the very damaging psycho-social effects that SDAs legalism had on my life.

I was a close friend and even a personal physician at times to the late Dr. Martin. I will say that Martin told me there was something different about Ellen White and SDA vs. the other truly cultic groups, but he was very worried about the fine line that at times was difficult to discern.

Stan

If you have the time, I would like to hear you explain a little more about the new doctrines that have been brought in since 1980.  Feel free to start a new thread on that if you would like.

Originally the SDA church had no creed, but with the Fundamental Statement of Beliefs the church appears to have become one of the most rigid creedal denominations in all of Christianity.  By making belief in Mrs. White’s authority mandatory for new members, it has eliminated those who would like to join the church but don’t believe in her.  Although I’m a fourth generation Adventist, I know my children will never be members of the SDA church for that reason.

My son is participating in the Church of Christ youth meetings in our town and although my daughter is attending SouthWest Adventist University, there is no way she wants to become a member.  She tells me the theology majors are not the best of the bunch when it comes to students there.  It appears to me from my perch in a small town in New Mexico that since Glacier View, the church is in a downward spiral where the better students avoid the ministry.  I have relatives who work in the church and one of the more prominent ministers asked me why I don’t participate more in church.  He thought it was ungrateful of me to avoid participation since the church spent so much money training me.  I decided to take him up on his challenge.  I recently sent his wife a copy of my latest research on the scapegoat, which she has not responded to yet although she said she has talked to some people at the Biblical Review Committee and asked them for information.  If the church really had the answer, I’d be expecting it any day now, but I’m not holding my breath.  I don’t normally get excited by doctrinal differences but that particular doctrine is very bad indeed, expecially Mrs. White’s statements that Satan bears the penalty for the sins of the saved.

If you guys are interested, I might share my research on the scapegoat.  It is nothing really new, but I got a kick out of doing it.

I was a close friend and even a personal physician at times to the late Dr. Martin. I will say that Martin told me there was something different about Ellen White and SDA vs. the other truly cultic groups, but he was very worried about the fine line that at times was difficult to discern.

I’m impressed that you took care of Walter Martin.  I have always liked his work on the SDA church and also like the book Questions on Doctrines.  However, I do have to say that labeling any organization even the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormans a “cult” bothers me.  Neither one of those organizations are a threat to my life or liberty.  I’m much more concerned about another religion which doesn’t appear in Walter Martin’s books which saws off people’s heads with rusty knives.  That is the religion I worry about.

Are you from my alma mater Loma Linda University?