One of the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura, a Latin phrase which means, “by Scripture alone”. In the face of the medieval Catholic Church which placed equal weight on Scripture and church tradition–a practice which continues to this day–the Reformers saw the need to strip away the layers of error added to the Bible through the “inspired commentary” of the Pope and the traditions of the church. They argued that the Bible should be its own interpreter, and that if any church body was able to control it by claiming to be its sole infallible interpreter, then God’s Word would effectively be overruled by the traditions and insights of fallible men. Indeed, the Pope is said to be endowed with “situational infallibility” which allows him–a fallible human–to be totally infallible when it comes to matters of biblical interpretation.

It might come as a surprise that some Adventists claim the same role for Ellen White, and the arguments used in support are quite similar. While her claim for infallibility in the Testimonies is not new (see 8MR 18.1), there has been an effort by church leaders over the years to soften the claims made for her ability to comment on Scripture without error. This was particularly evident during the 1950s when cult expert Walter Martin began an investigation into Ellen White’s role in the Adventist church. One of the particular points he questioned church leaders about concerned whether she was an “infallible interpreter of Scripture”, arguing that if she was effectively used this way, she would be functioning no differently than the Pope.

In July of 2006, Adventist theologians from around the world met in Izmir, Turkey for the second International Bible Conference to address topics they considered important for maintaining theological unity within the church (see Adventist Review summary here). One of the speakers, P. Gerard Damsteegt, associate professor of church history at Andrews University, presented a paper entitled, “The Adventist Theologian, the Three Angels’ Messages, and the Unity of the Church”. I’ve obtained a copy of this paper and it offers important clues into the discussions taking place behind closed doors among Adventist theologians. For Adventists who thought their church was moving away from Ellen White’s role as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, the conclusions of this document will come as a surprise.

Continue reading...

In his paper, Damsteegt labors to reconcile the Reformation principle of sola scriptura with Ellen White’s extra-biblical writings. Under the heading, “The Meaning of the ‘Bible Only’”, he explains in a heavily-footnoted sentence how Ellen White viewed the principle of sola scriptura: “An analysis of Ellen White’s use of the phrase ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ reveals that she contrasts it with human ‘views and ideas,’ erroneous traditions on the Sabbath and the Law of God, opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians, ‘sayings and doings of men,’ ‘human wisdom,’ false visions, views of the churches steeped in popular theology from which the early Adventists separated themselves, the ‘religions of fable and tradition,’ ‘imaginary religion,’ ‘a religion of words and forms,’ and ‘tradition and human theories and maxims’.” Damsteegt follows this by stringing together several additional Ellen White quotes, driving home his main point:

“This expression ‘the Bible only’ she [sic] never used for contrasting her own writings with the Bible. In Ellen White’s mind there was perfect harmony between the Bible and her writings because ‘the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and the author of the spirit of prophecy.’ Therefore ‘it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word.’” (emphasis mine)

The logic here is simple–if God is the author of Scripture and he also speaks through Ellen White, there cannot be any contradiction between her words and the Bible. While many Adventists have hesitated to make such a sweeping conclusion, Fundamental Belief 18 recognizes Ellen White as “a continuing and authoritative source of truth”, which is essentially the same as Damesteegt’s view, albeit more general in nature.

Where this gets tricky for Adventists is in their desire to refrain from calling Ellen White’s writings an “infallible commentary” on Scripture because they realize this would put her in the same category as the Pope. But Damsteegt apparently has no trouble doing this in the company of his fellow Adventist theologians behind closed doors, and indeed, this seems to be his whole purpose. Having already placed her (using her own definition of sola scriptura) above the opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians and human wisdom, he says, “This unique relationship between the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy has given the latter (Ellen White) a place above all extra-Biblical sources. Consequently in Bible study, the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy hold a superior position over other research tools” (emphasis mine). In a circular way, Damsteegt quotes Ellen White for support: “it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word” (Great Controversy, vii), placing her squarely into the role of Scripture’s infallible interpreter. Damsteegt is not concluding aything new here, but is merely reiterating the claims Ellen White made for herself. Driving this point home to his Adventist colleagues, he writes, “Theologians have a serious obligation to see that their influence will preserve the unity of the church by upholding its end-time message and mission.” Translation: we need to be unified as theologians behind the idea that the only acceptable theological insights are those which Ellen White has already blessed.

Damsteegt’s proposal sounds very similar to the “Profession of Faith” in the Tridentine Creed used at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent:

“The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I most firmly admit and embrace.  I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother Church has held and does hold, whose [office] it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures; I shall never accept nor interpret it otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (emphasis mine) Source here.

What’s more, it is no surprise that Catholics use essentially the same argument Adventists do for the Pope’s infallibility in interpreting the Bible as the guardian of the church’s so-called ‘Sacred Tradition’:

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the
apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’ Indeed, ‘the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.’ This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other.  For both of them, flowing out from the same divine wellspring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.  It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” (Code of Canon Law, paragraphs 77-78, 80-81) (emphasis mine)

While both Adventists and Catholics claim the Bible as their infallible rule of faith and practice, both churches ironically look outside the Bible to obtain an infallible interpretation. Rome looks to tradition and the Pope for support while Adventists look to Ellen White. While many Adventists consider such practices out of style or no longer officially promoted, it is clear from Damsteegt’s conclusions that it is very much alive and promoted at the highest levels of the Adventist church today.

Returning again to the work of cult expert Walter Martin, it is important to examine what he said in an interview on the John Ankerberg show in January 1985, when he and then-editor of the Adventist Review, William Johnsson were interviewed. Martin recounted a question he asked then-director of the White Estate, Robert Olson, about whether Ellen White was an infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture. Olson refused to answer directly, saying she was “the authoritative voice” of the church. Upon hearing this, Johnsson said, “I’ll give you my answer. She is not the infallible interpreter of Scripture” “You’re sure of that?”, countered Martin. “I’m sure of it”, said Johnsson. Wanting further clarification, Martin asked, “That is your position or the denomination’s position?” At this point, realizing he was getting into a difficult spot, Johnsson backpedeled, “I think we ought to go to the official Statement of Beliefs”. To support his belief that Adventists were bound by Ellen White for their interpretation of Scripture, Martin cited a June 3, 1971 Review and Herald editorial which concluded, “the Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted”, an obvious reference to the role of Ellen White.

After repeated unsuccessful attempts in the ensuing months to get a straight answer on this issue, Martin concluded, “If Seventh-day Adventism depends upon Ellen White’s reputation rather than upon the gospel of grace alone, its classification as a cult will be well earned before the next twenty years has passed” (Adventist Currents, October 1985).

As Damsteegt’s paper testifies, Adventist theologians continue to effectively characterize Ellen White as an “infallible interpreter” of Scripture. One wonders what Walter Martin would say if he could examine the evidence today, now over 20 years since his 1985 prediction.

One thing is certain, the Bible identifies no need for an external source outside of the Holy Spirit to protect or interpret its message. Jesus said, “the Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and the prophet Jeremiah proclaimed, “Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29 ESV). God’s Word cannot be broken from its purpose and it will go wherever it pleases by the power of the Holy Spirit, without requiring an external “infallible” tradition or interpreter. Indeed, the prophet Isaiah says, “...so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11) ESV.

Summarizing this situation in his 1988 assessment of Adventism and the role of Ellen White, Kenneth Samples, a Christian apologist and close associate of Walter Martin, wrote, “Unfortunately, many Adventists see the writings of Ellen White as an infallible shortcut to scriptural understanding. Adventists must understand that if they elevate Ellen White to the position of infallible interpreter, then the dramatic irony of the ages has come true – SDA has a Pope.” To the degree that Adventist theologians continue to promote such a view among themselves and the church body believes them, I cannot find grounds to disagree. Just as Catholics must free themselves from the rule of tradition if they are to stand upon the solid ground of sola scriptura, Adventists must contend with the weight of Ellen White’s legacy and continued promotion by church leaders who know the price of “Scripture alone” but are unwilling to pay it.

Greg,

thank-you for this very insightful analysis. Your understanding is what many of us see happening, regardless of what the moderate or evangelical Adventists would like to believe or have us think.

The promotion of Ellen White does not come from the fringe historical wing of the church, as many would have you belief. It comes from the very top at the GC level.

Thank you again,

Randy

Greg,

I would like to join Randy in thanking you for posting this.  It certainly was an eye-opener and should be for all clear-thinking SDA’s for whom the truth matters, as well.

Before reading Damsteegt’s comments tonight, I hadn’t heard Mrs. White’s idea of what Sola Scriptura meant (by her definition).  This paragraph I found particularly disturbing:

“This expression ‘the Bible only’ she [sic] never used for contrasting her own writings with the Bible. In Ellen White’s mind there was perfect harmony between the Bible and her writings because ‘the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and the author of the spirit of prophecy.’ Therefore ‘it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word.’” (emphasis mine)

If the above statement is true, then Mrs. White did elevate her own writings to the level of Scripture and did make herself an “infallible interpreter” of them.  Yes, I think Walter Martin would have been more than interested to have read this.

By continuing to advocate for this position, the SDA church places itself squarely in the company of not only Roman Catholicism and the Pope, but also alongside the likes of Joseph Smith and the Watchtower.  Adventist “Progressives” can try all day to re-invent (or salvage) Ellen White and her rightful role in church history and continuing authority, but these efforts really ring hollow in light of what we now know.

Aaron

Which is why it is nearly impossible to have a meaningful biblical dialogue with Adventists. We’re using the same words but have different dictionaries. EGW is the dictionary of choice for Adventists, wittingly or unwittingly.  Sola Scriptura, as understood by them, is the source of their anti-biblical theology.

John

Damsteegt’s article is useful in showing that Ellen White was aware of “Bible alone” principle, adopted it, and applied it as far as other Christian leaders and traditions were involved, but took exception in applying it to herself and her writings. This may be seen as hypocrisy at worst or inconsistency at best, nevertheless, to her credit, Ellen White at least endorsed in theory the Sola Scriptura (Bible alone)reformation principle, while in practice failing to follow her own counsel.

Since she’s dead, the responsibility leans heavily on her followers, first with the adventist theologians and administrators of the church, who, seeing Ellen’s inconsistent behavior, have no excuse to repeat her mistakes. Since Damsteegt is aware that Ellen took exception in applying Sola Scriptura to herself, it is expected for him to take a different course than Ellen White and lead the church toward a consistent position, toward a clear Sola Scriptura position. 

Endorsing at least in theory the formal principle of the reformation (Sola Scriptura) is what differentiates the SDA church from JW or LDS church which have no place for it, even if what the SDA church gives with the right hand takes with the left (Fundamental Principle 18). At least our adventist friends don’t need to adopt a new position regarding the Bible, just to adjust their other beliefs in order to be consistent at this point. Those interested in being true protestants will disagree with their church at this position.

Walter Martin had not removed the label cult from the SDA church indiscriminately. He specifically sent the message that the “historic adventist” conservative or ultra-conservative school of thought is beyond the borders of Christian faith, its views regarding the role of Ellen White, Jesus’ ‘fallen’ human nature, perfectionism and Investigative Judgment, Mark of the beast, and legalistic gospel, does not qualify it as a Christian movement. I wonder if he would be willing to receive the Lord’s Supper from the hands of Collin Standish or Russel Standish, if he would be willing to recognize them as true Christian ministers, since he would not hesitate to classify the Hartland movement as a full blown cult.

Recently a meeting was held at Andrews University on the occasion of celebrating 50 years from the first publication of QOD. In January at http://www.qod.andrews.edu/ the papers and the videorecordings of this conference will be available for everyone to see, according to Julius Nam, one of the presenters. His presentation is available for reading here http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/11/02/the-questions-on-doctrine-saga-contours-and-lessons/. At this conference speakers were invited from all the spectrum of adventist thinking, promoters of QOD as George Knight, and those who vehemently were and still are against it, as Collin and Russel Standish. In spite of disagreement they ended up with a surprising communion service, ministered from the front by Angel Rodriguez, Colin Standish and George Knight. Here is the picture, http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/30/1qod_3.jpg
You can read the story here, http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/2007/10/qod-conferenc-4.html.
the author of the article comments on the tears shed at this communion service

Were our tears for the needless pain our church has suffered since the publication of Questions on Doctrines fifty years ago, or for the visible prospect that it is ending?  Both!

Shall we take this as a good or a bad news?

Gabriel

Quote from Walter Martin:

Martin concluded, “If Seventh-day Adventism depends upon Ellen White’s reputation rather than upon the gospel of grace alone, its classification as a cult will be well earned before the next twenty years has passed” (Adventist Currents, October 1985).”
--------------------------------------------------------

I had the privilege of being a close friend of Walter Martin from about 1984 to the time of his death in 1989, and I remember in our conversations him being very troubled about the role of Ellen White. It is a shame that he died a premature death, but as time goes by, and as I observe the statements of SDA theologians behind closed doors, it is likely that Walter Martin would have re-written his book, and I think would have put SDA back into the category of the church of Rome, or even worse, like Mormons or JWs.

However, Kenneth Samples, who knew Walter better than most anyone, refuses to budge much on his assessment, despite his own statements Greg quoted above. For some reason, the evangelical world still wants to give Adventism a pass.

It is only because of the wide diversity within Adventism, that the likes of John MacArthur, Ken Samples, Kim Riddlebarger, et al hesitate to broadbrush SDA as a cult. Some elements are certainly Christian, such as the SDA church pastored by Smuts Van Rooyen and some others, but an increasing segment of Adventism is indeed a part of the kingdom of the cults.

And it must be said, that, even much of the rest of evangelicalism doesn’t have a clue with regard to the basics of the gospel, and a large part of the professing Christian church is likely unsaved, and therefore, the professing Christian church must be evangelized.

There are segments of Pentecostalism which are even worse and more cultic than Adventism, but some former SDAs sometimes seem to think that every thing SDA is bad, and all other denominations are just OK and part of the “larger body of Christ”. Reading stuff lately from John Wesley and the Methodists is very revealing on where Ellen White and Adventism stands. We must be discerning to recognize the false gospels and distinguish them from the true gospel of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone on account of Christ alone. (Ephesians 1 and 2)

Stan

Thanks Gabriel for posting that, I didn’t see your post before posting mine. I will review the material when I get time, but now I have to return to my very busy day.

Stan

Ack! I must break my silence here!

The above quotes and dialogue by Damsteegt is very disheartening. However, I do not think it is necessarily fair to judge Sister White’s views on her writings to scripture based on today’s strict apologists.  As many theologians who take Damsteegt’s view, there are many who would disagree with him. Bacchiocchi, Knight, Jon Paulien, Graeme Bradford, Alden Thompson, Fritz Guy and many others do not see Sister White’s writings on this caliber. Despite some of Sister White’s comments that seemed to place her writings as some sort of authority for the church, she was very clear about where her writings stood in relationship to the scriptures and the importance of scripture over her writings. One of the many quotes on this matter from her:

“Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim from the revealed Word of God.....(To delegates at a 1901 conference she said...."Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never[sic] quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and you make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what ‘Sister White Said’ [sic]-’Sister White said this,’ and ‘Sister White said that,’ and ‘Sister White said the other thing’. But say, ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.”

In her last message to the church she held up the bible and said, ‘I commend to you this book!’.

Again, like the changing of the FB on EGW to ‘an authoritative source of truth’ from the original 1931 version, I believe the church is trying hard to cement Sister White’s influence into the mind’s of the people by being so strict on the matter.
Case in point on the little influence Sister White has on our next generation...In our discussion of EGW in Religion class, only 2 of my 24 students in grade 11/12 had even cracked open a book and were completely unaware of any controversy over EGW. To be more to the point...they really couldn’t have cared less!

Perhaps the leaders of the church feel that going so further to the right with their stance on EGW, they will counteract the swing of EGWs influence from the far left where it seems to be heading.
That doesn’t mean that they are correct or speak for all the church and it’s scholars and theologians.

From Greg
In a circular way, he quotes Ellen White for support: “it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word” (Great Controversy, vii), placing her squarely into the role of Scripture’s infallible interpreter. Damsteegt is not concluding aything new here, but is merely reiterating the claims Ellen White made for herself.

This quote from A.G. Daniells at the 1919 GC discussion on the SOP. A.G Daniells knew sister white well for 30 years and helped her on some of her writings. I’m sure he was well aware of the context of any quotes from Sister White speaking about using her works as an interpreter of scripture. This is what he said:

It is not our position, and it is not right that the spirit of prophecy is the only safe interpreter of the Bible. That is a false doctrine, a false view. It will not stand. Why, my friends what would all the people have done from John’s day down to the present if there were no way to understand the Bible except through the writings of the spirit of prophecy! It is a terrible position to take! That is false, it is error. It is positively dangerous! What do those people do over in Roumania? We have hundreds of Sabbathkeepers there who have not seen a book on the spirit of prophecy? What do those people in China do? Can’t they understand this Book only as we get the interpretation through the spirit of prophecy and then take it to them? That is heathenish!

I would rather take Daniells take on the matter, with him knowing Sister’s White’s views on the matter to still be able to make a comment like this one, then to take Damsteegt’s interpretation of it.

Regarding the 1919 Conference, Daniels shows that the problem of Ellen White’s exaggerated authority was not exclusively created by the leadership of the church. For example, Ellen White’s corrections made in her books raised the question of the accuracy of these books in the light of the claim of being inspired. Changing the content of her writings raises automatically the question “What else can be changed? And how much trust can be put in these writings if the content can suffer adjustments?

A. G. Daniells: We did not create that difficulty, did we? We General Conference men did not create it, for we did not make the revision. We did not take any part in it. We had nothing whatever to do with it. It was all done under her supervision. If there is a difficulty there, she created it, did she not?

F. M. Wilcox: She assumed the whole responsibility for it.

M. F. Kern: But we have to meet it.

What follows shows their difficulty in deciding what parts of Ellen White’s writings cannot be changed and what parts can be. They recognized that the essence of her message cannot be changed, only some details.

A. G. Daniells: Sister White never has written anything on the philosophy of history.

C. L. Benson: No, but she has endorsed our 2300 day proposition, from 538 to 1798.

A. G. Daniells: You understand she did that by placing that in her writings?

C. L. Benson: Yes.

A. G. Daniells: Yes, I suppose she did.

W. W. Prescott: Do I understand Brother Benson’s view is that such a statement as that in “Great Controversy,” that the 1260 years began in 538 and ended in 1798, settles the matter infallibly?

C. L. Benson: No, only on the preaching of doctrines in general. If she endorses the prophetic part of our interpretation, irrespective of details, then she endorses it.

W. W. Prescott: Then that settles it as being a part of that philosophy.

The idea was that even if the details are not accurate, the doctrine which contains those details cannot be rejected, and at this point, Ellen White’s authority is absolute. She’s infallible.  Daniells is showing that for him Ellen White still has the role of theological watchdog, and not only for him, but for all those present, because nobody contradicted Daniells when he said

Now take the doctrines of the Bible: In all the other reformations that came up, the leaders were unable to rightly distinguish between all error and truth,—the Sabbath day, Baptism, the nature of man, etc.,—and so they openly taught errors from this book. But now, when we come to this movement, we find the wonderful power of discrimination on the part of the spirit of prophecy, and I do not know of a single truth in this Book that is sat aside by the spirit of prophecy, nor a single biblical or theological error that came down through the dark ages that has been fostered by the spirit of prophecy and pressed upon the people that we have to discredit when we come to this Book.

The contrast is between “leaders unable to rightly distinguish between all error and truth” and Ellen White who supposedly had the gift of “discrimination”, endorsing only those doctrines which are truth. There is not a “single biblical theological error” which Ellen endorsed, according to Daniells. And not only she does not endorsed heresy, she adopted all the truths of the Bible, all, “I do not know of a single truth in this Book that is sat aside by the spirit of prophecy”

How could this not be a claim of infallibility? Endorse all truths of the Bible, rejects all heresy, does it not make the person infallible? Does this not put Ellen White above the leaders of ”all the other reformations that came up”? Only Ellen White is the exception, the rest of religious leaders, all of them, were not able to distinguish between ”all error and truth”. Since Ellen White’s ability is contrasted with their inability, Daniells shows that he regards Ellen White as the only one who is able to distinguish between “all error and truth”, with other words, an infallible voice.  Only she had the “wonderful power of discrimination” in order to discern “all error and truth”.

Daniells is not far away from Damsteegt, and neither the other contemporary theologians. I have not seen that the situation had changed regarding Ellen White as infallible when it comes to doctrinal content (no heresy, all truth), but fallible in details. It is also in harmony with her claims

I have the most precious matter to reproduce and place before the people in testimony form. While I am able to do this work, the people must have things to revive past history, that they may see that there is one straight chain of truth, without one heretical sentence, in that which I have written. This, I am instructed, is to be a living letter to all in regard to my faith.--Letter 329a, 1905.  {3SM 52.2}

It is no wonder that since these leaders believed that the core of Ellen White’s message is infallible and cannot be changed, they were not able to move the denomination toward a Sola Scriptura position. Rejecting Ellen White’s infallibility when it comes to details, but keeping her as authoritative and infallible when it comes to the essence of doctrinal content is not reflecting fidelity to Sola Scriptura.

Gabriel

Posted anonymously by: anonymous

To think that I wasted 40+ years as a member of such a cultic whitewash… is more than sickening. I need to hurl. Dear God in heaven, deliver us from evil.

Amazingly, Seventh-day Adventists have always taken great pride in claiming to be “the final link of the Protestant Reformation.” Did the nineteenth-century Protestants really need to know about their anti-Trinitarianism, shut-door theology, investigative judgment alibi, Satan ultimately bearing our sins by blotting them out through his annihilation, Jesus had sinful flesh, Jesus could not see beyond the “portals of the tomb,” Jesus was on probation, Jesus could have failed his salvific mission, God’s image-bearers have no spirit entity, Darwin was right that we die just like animals, the Bible is not inerrant nor all-sufficient for Christian faith and practice, adding 100,000 pages of parascriptural writings, ad infinitum? 

Did these Adventist distinctives really complete the Protestant Reformation? Of course not!  Indeed, the Protestant world was much better off before hearing these so-called “special truths.” Moreover, those who embrace extrabiblical revelations are not really Protestants in the first place.  Let us wholeheartedly uphold the Five Solas (or slogans) that became the battle cry of the Protestant Reformation; namely, sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), sola fide ("by faith alone"), sola gratia ("by grace alone"), solus Christus ("by Christ alone"), and Soli Deo Gloria ("Glory to God alone").

Dennis Fischer

Not to change the subject--but I guess I will partly--I’ve noticed on networks like TBN that many of the speakers (I can’t really say they are preachers or pastors) claim to have received and to be giving in their “message” a “word from the Lord”.

Beyond the arrogance and falsity of such claims is that such claims conveniently manage to provide a substitute for actually preaching The Word.

Meanwhile, over at R/S there is a thread dealing with the “dreams” of a would-be-EGW-imitator. 

Posted anonymously by: D’Wayne

It’s pretty harsh to call the theology of the SDA church “Anti-bibical.” I believe that the theology, absent the writings of Ellen White, are firmly based on the bible. I will conceded that many of the issues addressed in writing such as the Testimonies are intend to represent God’s will for humanity in modern times and may not be bibically based, but anti-bibical?

The truth is the SDA church was built from the disappointment of a group of individuals who misunderstood the Bible. In their time of discouragement Ellen White provided hope. The hope inspired others to search the scriptures for understanding. The theology discovered/developed from this searching is sound, even if initially it needed the co-signing of Ellen White for the early Adventist to accept it.

The challenge is for the church as a whole to let go of the Ellen White crutch and lean solely on God.

Seventh-day Adventism was founded upon the Millerite deception. To his credit, William Miller admitted his time-setting errors that were graphically portrayed on 15 different charts. Interestingly, Miller was a alot smarter than his devout followers.  For example, when 1844 turned out to be a gigantic hoax, William Miller still owned his upstate New York farm. He and his family had ample food to eat.  He had a nice place to live while many of his followers had to seek refuge in Shaker communes, relatives, neighbors, lunatic asylums, and a few others even committed suicide.  The harsh New England winter was right around the corner. There were no public welfare benefits available in those days.

Obviously, Miller’s dedication did not match that of his followers who sincerely believed Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. If Miller had really believed what he preached, he would have also sold his farm to further his cause. After all, what could he possibly have been afraid of if 1844 was truly a fact?  Why hold back any real estate properties? Why deprive his cause of much-needed funding? Moreover, Miller never invited any of his disappointed followers, who gave their all in response to his false prophecies, to live on his farm. Oh yes, “Father Miller” never bought his homeless, gardenless, hungry, disappointed followers any groceries either.

Dennis Fischer

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

Dennis,

You are so right. “Seventh-day Adventism was founded upon the Millerite deception.” What continues to astound me is the absolute resolve of this cult/denomination to continue teaching that 1844 mess - age like as if the Bible gave credence to such nonsense.

That Jesus didn’t ascend to the right hand of the Father (Most Holy) untill 1844… nonsense!

That the righteous believers entered into judgment in 1844… nonsense!

That the blood of Christ transferred our sins to the heavenly sanctuary… more nonsense!

That satan is the sin bearer for God’s people… complete nonsense!

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

[quote author="D’Wayne"]It’s pretty harsh to call the theology of the SDA church “Anti-bibical.” I believe that the theology, absent the writings of Ellen White, are firmly based on the bible. I will conceded that many of the issues addressed in writing such as the Testimonies are intend to represent God’s will for humanity in modern times and may not be bibically based, but anti-bibical?

The truth is the SDA church was built from the disappointment of a group of individuals who misunderstood the Bible. In their time of discouragement Ellen White provided hope. The hope inspired others to search the scriptures for understanding. The theology discovered/developed from this searching is sound, even if initially it needed the co-signing of Ellen White for the early Adventist to accept it.

The challenge is for the church as a whole to let go of the Ellen White crutch and lean solely on God.

D’Wayne,

I take it that you’re referencing JONVIL’s post of November 3. I’m not John but I’d like to comment on your taking exception.

That adventism has “anti-bibical” theology is quite evident. Does adventism really have any doctrines “absent the writings of Ellen White”? If it wasn’t for the prophet profit, would adventism even exist?

I agree with your last paragraph. The sda church needs “to let go of the Ellen White crutch and lean solely on God.”

Like your handle, by the way. 
dwayne