I e-mailed Dr. Bacchiocchi about these comments and Damsteegth considering his and Bradford’s views on EGW. here was his reply:
Hi Darrell:
Thank you for your perceptive comments. Damsteegt is one of those who worships Ellen White like the Catholics worship Mary. He believes that Ellen White is always right and all the historians who disagree with her are always wrong. We had discussions on the Sabbathkeeping among the Waldenses. It is a known fact that they did not observe the Sabbath.
It is unfortunate when a few of our teachers want to prove that Ellen White is always right, notwithstanding to contrary clear evidences.
BTW, have any of you listened to the discussions held in colorado at the EGW Summit in 2005? They are very good. Paulien, Knight and two others had two lectures each about the role of EGW, the proper use and abuse of it.
Also, I noticed that there was a conference held by many of the scholars centered around the 50th annivesary of ‘Questions on Doctrine’. Apparently even Jan Paulsen was against this because of the strife it might cause. They held it anyway..
Good for them! I’m looking forward to the publications of it. Arther Patrick was one of them. He is a scholar from Avondale who also believes the same as Bradford about EGW.
Thank-you for the above quote from Bacchiocchi. He seems to at least recognize that EGW wasn’t right on certain topics.
Unfortunately, I would suspect that the official Church position and the White Estate position, would beg to differ with his analysis just as they have dismissed Bradford’s position. They know that if they give an inch, it will all come tumbling down. I know you regret the inclusion of “the continuing and authoritative source of truth” in the Fundamental belief. I give you credit for seeing the fallacy of that statement. Sadly, the GC and the powers that be, cannot and will not rescind that statement, as that is the glue that holds the Adventist ship afloat. To now renounce that position would be tantamount to admitting a mistake, and we all know that has not happened since before 1844. The fact that they so strongly hold to that position in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, speaks to their credibility, and also to whether they honestly want integity and truth to be known. It is sad that it is only in retirement that men like Cottrell, Bradford, and Sam Bach finally feel comfortable enough to deviate even slightly from the official position. Given the evidence, I don’t think any of them have done justice to exposing the ongoing official Church misrepresentation of what Ellen White’s “gift” was. In my layman’s opinion, the Church continues to promote the unsupportable, and are on very shaky ground credibility wise by doing so. It speaks to their motives and legitimacy in my opinion.
On a side note and far from the topic at hand. What a great concert the other week. Folks we have in our midst a master musician. My friend, your playing, singing, and musicality were head and shoulders above the rest of the band. It was an honor and a privilage to witness. I also appreciated your testimony. It was pure unadulterated Gospel. Thank you.
God Bless as we all continue this fascinating journey of discovery in our search for truth,
In a post above I showed how at 1919 Conference those present affirmed the infallibility of Ellen White regarding dogmas, starting with Daniells and ending with Prescott, if you like. Just affirming that Ellen White is not infallible regarding the details is not sufficient in order to adhere to the position of Sola Scriptura.
In the Romano Catholic belief, the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, not at any time and any place. Not all that the pope said is infallible, but he certainly possess it partially at least, in certain areas. The adventist position, including scholars like Bacchiocchi who rejects Ellen White’s infallibility when it comes to details, affirms her infallibility when it comes to core and central beliefs, dogmas.
For example, In his newsletter no. 73, “Prophet or Plagiarist”, he claims that, when Ellen White copied from others, she had the ability to distinguish between truth and error.
Ellen White’s son and principal helper in the latter part of her life, William C. White, reported that God revealed to her that in the writings of others she would find truth expressed in an acceptable manner which would help her convey the messages she had been given. “In her early experience when she was sorely distressed over the difficulty of putting into human language the revelations of truths that had been imparted to her, she was reminded of the fact that all wisdom and knowledge comes from God and she was assured that God would bestow grace and guidance. She was told that in the reading of religious books and journals, she would find precious gems of truth expressed in acceptable language, and that she would be given help from heaven to recognize these and to separate them from the rubbish of error with which she would sometimes find them associated.”7
This ability to distinguish truth from error brings us to our next point and the testimony of a non-Adventist scientist.
Such a supernatural gift of separating error from truth is the supernatural gift of being infallible. As Daniells 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.
Adopting only truth and rejecting all which is error, without exception, only an infallible person can do this. As Daniells, Bacchiocchi affirms infallibility in doctrinal content, in formulating dogmas, not in details. Obviously the doctrine of Investigative Judgment cannot be rejected. it is a part of what Ellen White called “one straight chain of truth, without one heretical sentence”
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}
And sadly, this doctrine is roman catholic, as you can see by listening to the last White Horse Inn program, in which Dr. Michael Horton interviews the catholic Dr. Robert Sungenis regarding the doctrine of justification by faith as it is understood by the Roman Catholic Church. Sungenis’ comments regarding loosing and regaining justification through confession resembles the same IJ theology present in the SDA church.
Since this topic has a potential to stir our emotions too much, let us enjoy the following story regarding the problem of textual criticism, closely associated the subject we touched here.
A young monk (brother Joseph) arrives at the monastery. Excited about his new call, he is soon assigned a painstaking but important task--helping a group of monks copy volumes of canon law.
However, brother Joseph soon notices that the monks are copying from copies of canon law, they are not consulting the original manuscript.
So, brother Joseph sheepishly summons up the courage to go to the head abbot to question this method. If someone made even the smallest error in an earlier copy, it would never be caught and corrected by those making copies of a copy! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.
The abbot replied to Joseph’s query, “We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.”
So the abbot hurried off down into the dark archives underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts of canon law were held in a locked vault that hadn’t been opened for hundreds of years.
Hours go by and nobody sees the abbot . . . So, brother Joseph gets quite worried about the old man and goes down to look for him.
In the dim light, Joseph sees the abbot banging his head against the wall and wailing in a broken and cracking voice, “We missed the R! We missed the R! We missed the R!” The abbot’s forehead was bloody and bruised and he was crying uncontrollably.
Brother Joseph rushes to his side and asks him, “What’s wrong, father?”
Barely able to speak, the old abbot replied, “The word was . . . “CELEBRATE!!!”
[quote author="RandyGerber"]I know you regret the inclusion of “the continuing and authoritative source of truth” in the Fundamental belief. I give you credit for seeing the fallacy of that statement. Sadly, the GC and the powers that be, cannot and will not rescind that statement, as that is the glue that holds the Adventist ship afloat. To now renounce that position would be tantamount to admitting a mistake, and we all know that has not happened since before 1844.
I don’t think that it has to be that serious. Despite what Gabiel feels Daniells and Prescott felt, I don’t believe at all from what I have researched that they felt EGW was infallible in anyway! If the church took the stand of Daniells, Prescott, Bradford, Patrick and Bacchiocchi, they are only taking a side that was believed by many of those close to EGW. She can be considered inspired. She can be fallible but also be led by God for a specific purpose. If the church goes back to the 1931 FB on EGW, I believe that all parties would be satisfied. That one line ‘authoritative source of truth’ throws a wrench into the whole mechanism and puts it on another level.
[quote author="RandyGerber"]On a side note and far from the topic at hand. What a great concert the other week. Folks we have in our midst a master musician. My friend, your playing, singing, and musicality were head and shoulders above the rest of the band. It was an honor and a privilage to witness. I also appreciated your testimony. It was pure unadulterated Gospel. Thank you.
Randy
Thanks very much, my friend. Considering the awsome musicality of my fellow brethren in the band, I will take that as huge compliment! It was alot of fun and I’m so glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for your support. I have a blast up there. As in the words of Dire Straits ‘That ain’t working, that’s the way you do it..money for nothing and your kicks for free!’ (or is it ‘chicks’? Hmmm..I think my wife would prefer ‘kicks!)
We are also having another concert Wednesday night, Nov 21 at Creekside if you’re interested. Won’t be gospel but fun nonetheless. Keep praying for the guys in the band as God is really more at an arms length instead of someone personal to them.
I second what Dennis just said about Gabriel’s posts. I have enjoyed reading so many good posts on this site.
I will be really busy the next three months as I must concentrate on learning a new computer program for charting in the hospital, in addition to the home responsibilities.
I am happy to say that my wife Marti continues encouraging progress.
And I “third” Gabriel’s posts. I’m glad we can stop taking ourselves so seriously for a moment to enjoy a good joke.
Guibox, I’m gratified to see you still turning this issue over in your mind. I would suggest that you examine Gabriel’s arguments more closely because they are not based on a “feeling” he has about what Daniells and Prescott believed, but on their actual recorded observations.
Also, I “second” what Randy said about Adventist theologians suddenly becoming bold about Ellen White in their retirement. I appreciate their candor, but it would have far greater impact if they actually “put their money where their mouth is” when they had something to lose.
Finally, whether Damsteegt has been branded by Bacchiocchi as a worshiper of Ellen White or not, the fact remains that Damsteegt is still a professor at the Adventist seminary. On some level, we must agree that the church tacitly approves of his message if they continue to pay him for his services, knowing that he can teach this message to the next generation of Adventist pastors and theologians.
We must lay ultimate responsibility for this mess at the feet of today’s Adventist administrators who steadfastly refuse to clarify the role of Ellen White for the church. By refusing to take a stand, they continue to allow Ellen White to be misused by all sides. They must know that if any weakening of her prophetic role is formally undertaken by the church, the membership would be further destabilized. For a recent example, we need look no further than the breakup of the Worldwide Church of God after Armstrongism was renounced.
The reality is that Ellen White is still officially a “continuing and authoritative source of truth”. In light of this, if a dissenting Adventist remains in the church, he is the one who is outside the pale of Adventist dogma, not the other way around.
Greg
P.S. Guibox, I’d love to hear your music someday. Is your stuff on iTunes yet?
[quote author="Greg"]I would suggest that you examine Gabriel’s arguments more closely because they are not based on a “feeling” he has about what Daniells and Prescott believed, but on their actual recorded observations
The problem is, is that Gabriel has not really represented Daniells or Prescott’s views in full. Daniells took HUGE flack for his stance by the conservatives, to the point that one of them bragged in 1922 that he was the reason Daniells ended up not getting re-elected. Such a thing would not have occurred if Daniells had reflected the current thinking of EGW which is held to this day. On the contrary, he went against the grain but still considered her inspired. Infallible? No way. Not in any fashion and much of his dialogue shows that.
[quote author="Greg"]Finally, whether Damsteegt has been branded by Bacchiochi as a worshiper of Ellen White or not, the fact remains that Damsteegt is still a professor at the Adventist seminary. On some level, we must agree that the church tacitly approves of his message if they continue to pay him for his services, knowing that he can teach this message to the next generation of Adventist pastors and theologians
However, George Knight, Alden Thompson, Fritz Guy, Roy Adams and many others who basically agree with Bradford and Bacchiocchi are employed by the GC as well. Bacchiocchi has not been sanctioned by the church and is free to preach these things in any SDA church that will host him (unlike Ford who got blacklisted from pretty much any SDA church, most recently in California).
[quote author="Greg"]P.S. Guibox, I’d love to hear your music someday. Is your stuff on iTunes yet?
You can listen to a clip or two here. Keep in mind that we have improved and we have a new banjo player and dobro player who are incredibly good. We have another CD which includes them in the mix right now. I am playing the lead guitar and singing the tenor vocals.
What are the gentlemen you named (George Knight, Alden Thompson, Fritz Guy, Roy Adams) doing to change the fact that their church claims Ellen White is a “continuing and authoritative source of truth”? Where have they drawn the battle lines and said, “Here I stand, I can do no other?”
One of the men, Roy Adams, is listed as a contributing author to the Seventh-day Adventists Believe... book, which was edited by none other than P.G. Damsteegt (see here for the credit and bio).
Describing Damsteegt’s role in this work, the acknowledgements say:
..individual authors, rather than committees, write the best books. So we have combined the efforts of many with the efforts of one person, P. G. Damsteegt, who had the task of preparing the initial draft of each chapter.
Damsteegt, a unique blend of scholar and evangelist, was born and reared in the Netherlands. After finding Christ while serving as an aeronautical engineer in the Dutch Air Force, he pursued a theological education in Europe and the United States. In 1977 he was granted a Doctor of Theology degree from the Free Reformed University of Amsterdam for a historical-theological and missiological study of the Biblical foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Damsteegt presently teaches at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University in Michigan.
I guess Damsteegt is further inside the Adventist mainstream than we’ve been led to believe by the good professor Bacchiocchi.
What are the gentlemen you named (George Knight, Alden Thompson, Fritz Guy, Roy Adams) doing to change the fact that their church claims Ellen White is a “continuing and authoritative source of truth”? Where have they drawn the battle lines and said, “Here I stand, I can do no other?”
Well, they’ve written numerous books which have deviated from the norm. Knight and Paulien were 2 of the four features speakers at the EGW Summit 2005. I listened to one of Knight’s addresses and I heard stuff, though not as bold as Bradford, that would raise the ire of the strict EGW apologist. In the question and answer period, Knight felt it was quite important that this get out to the church folk.
I believe he also spoke at the recent 50th anniversary on QOD which is a smack in the face to the traditional SDA who felt it sent the church up the river. Even the church leaders were against having it. Other leaders and theologians had it anyway. I believe a similar EGW Summit (or something equivalent to it) was held in Australia where Arthur Patrick spoke (as he did at the QOD session).
I think things like those are huge steps.
[quote author="Greg"]I guess Damsteegt is further inside the Adventist mainstream than we’ve been led to believe by the good professor Bacchiocchi.
Greg
Dr. B never said that Damsteegt wasn’t not in the mainstream. Most likely they taught together. He merely pointed out that Damsteegt was a strict EGW apologist.
I’m not sure why you don’t think that even a few very influential people can run the dictates of the church? Remember Cottrell in speaking about Gerard Hasel in the 70s? (I think that was his name). It seems like he held the same type of position at Andrews that Damsteegt does now. In such an institution, one can control the pastoral medium. M.I.Andreaeson in the 50s was also of a similar influence. All it takes is for a few people like Damsteegt, Paulson, Kirkpatrick and the Standish brothers who have alot of clout, influence and the resources to promote their brand of theology and what are others going to do?
[quote author="Guibox"]The problem is, is that Gabriel has not really represented Daniells or Prescott’s views in full. Daniells took HUGE flack for his stance by the conservatives, to the point that one of them bragged in 1922 that he was the reason Daniells ended up not getting re-elected. Such a thing would not have occurred if Daniells had reflected the current thinking of EGW which is held to this day. On the contrary, he went against the grain but still considered her inspired. Infallible? No way. Not in any fashion and much of his dialogue shows that.
I agree that Daniells take a lot of flack for his stance by the conservatives, all I’m arguing for is that he was criticized because he had not argued for the infallibility of Ellen White in everything she had written (including details) but he certainly argued for infallibility in doctrinal content.
[quote author="Daniells"]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.
he certainly views Ellen White as superior to all the church leaders that ever existed, because they were not able to “rightly distinguish between all error and truth”. In his view, Ellen White had this gift, she was capable of “distinguish between all error and truth.” The others were able to distinguish some error and truth, but not “all”, they still made errors in interpretations. their ability is contrasted with Ellen White’s ability to have no doctrinal errors, to have all truth and no error in his message (a far as doctrinal content is concerned, not details). That I don’t misrepresent him is seen from the fact that he added
[quote author="Daniells"]I do not know of a single truth in this Book that is sat aside by the spirit of prophecy
1. White embraced all truths from the Bible, she had not sat aside one single truth (no fail in embracing all truths of the Bible - in contrast with other fallible leaders who neglected these truths
[quote author="Daniells"]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
2. “nor a single [...] biblical error”, she made no errors when it comes to doctrinal content.
These two assertions qualifies Ellen White’s gift of discernment as being infallibility as far as doctrinal content is concerned. Here Daniells’ position match the position of conservatives, the only difference between him and the opposition was that the opposition claimed infallibility for details, not only for doctrinal content. The battle was between infallibility as concerning doctrinal content and infallibility as concerning details.
The Roman Catholic Church does not claim infallibility for the Pope regarding all what he’s saying, but only when he speaks ex cathedra. This is what Greg pointed as being “situational infallibility”. It is not a blank check, taking all pope’s teachings as infallible, only those ex cathedra. Despite this amendment, they still claim pope’s infallibility, and no protestant would think that this is acceptable. In a similar way, even if adventists don’t claim infallibility for all the details presented in Ellen White’s writings, they still claim infallibility for her by claiming that she had a “gift of discernment” which permitted her to teach all truth and escape all error in doctrinal matters.
This is according to the way she sees her gift. she had not permitted people to make distinction between what is inspired and what is not inspired in her writings. She allowed for human mistakes as far as doctrinal content and guidance for the church was not involved.
Chapter Title: Ellen G. White and Her Writings, The Sacred and the Common
March 5, 1909
“I am troubled in regard to Brother A, who for some years has been a worker in southern California. He has made some strange statements, and I am pained to see him denying the testimonies as a whole because of what seems to him an inconsistency--a statement made by me in regard to the number of rooms in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium. Brother A says that in a letter written to one of the brethren in southern California, the statement was made by me that the sanitarium contained forty rooms, when there were really only thirty-eight. This, Brother A gives to me as the reason why he has lost confidence in the testimonies. . . .
”The information given concerning the number of rooms in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium was given, not as a revelation from the Lord, but simply as a human opinion. There has never been revealed to me the exact number of rooms in any of our sanitariums; and the knowledge I have obtained of such things I have gained by inquiring of those who were supposed to know. In my words, when speaking upon these common subjects, there is nothing to lead minds to believe that I receive my knowledge in a vision from the Lord and am stating it as such. . . .
“When the Holy Spirit reveals anything regarding the institutions connected with the Lord’s work, or concerning the work of God upon human hearts and minds, as He has revealed these things through me in the past, the message given is to be regarded as light given of God for those who need it. But for one to mix the sacred with the common is a great mistake. In a tendency to do this we may see the working of the enemy to destroy souls”. Selected Messages Book 1, page 38
She used human sources for “common things”, she had not claimed infallibility for all details she had written, but in theological matter, we should hold her to absolute “truth”, “light given of God”.
And now, brethren, I entreat you not to interpose between me and the people, and turn away the light which God would have come to them. Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. Do not feel that you can dissect them to suit your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united. Testimonies, Vol. 5, page 691
She forbids people to follow her writings only when they follow the Bible, and cease following it when she disagrees with the Bible, they had not the “ability to discern what is light from heaven” and what is fallible human statements. She claimed infallibility for theological matters, for doctrinal content, not for common thigns. And this is what Daniells argued for at the 1919 Conference. Infallibility in doctrinal content, not in details. As far as this position is sustained, adventism is no better than catholicism which claims “situational infallibility” for the pope.
[quote author="Greg"]
Finally, whether Damsteegt has been branded by Bacchiocchi as a worshiper of Ellen White or not, the fact remains that Damsteegt is still a professor at the Adventist seminary. On some level, we must agree that the church tacitly approves of his message if they continue to pay him for his services, knowing that he can teach this message to the next generation of Adventist pastors and theologians.
Hi. I am new here. This is my first post. But I would like to point out that having just come from the Seminary at Andrews .... Damsteegt is not doing much of any teaching there anymore. And MOST students do not take him seriously. For what it is worth.
