Yes, it is easy to get away from the original post when not kept in check. My apologies. I was mostly commenting on what I viewed as apparent hostility in that EGW is being pandered to the youth. My issue was more the way it was being done and not that it was being done at all. Maybe I am in agreement with Greg and the OP and am just blowing hot air.
There’s plenty of hot air to go around here, my own included.
Guibox, I want to be sure I understand you. Are you saying that you disagree with telling children that nothing Ellen White wrote contradicts the Bible? For someone who wants to reform the Adventist church, I figured you would be a little more vocal about this.
guibox - 12 February 2008 09:24 AM
I’m not sure what this has to do with wanting to abandon the SDA faith. I have no problems admitting that our church has missed the mark. Only those who expect an infallible church will be disappointed that their church seems ‘deceptive’ or plain ‘wrong’ on one area and thus must question everything to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I agree that there is no infallible church. Where Adventism differs from many others, however, is their claim for exclusively being “God’s true church” as opposed to other Christian churches which see the body of Christ as wider than their own denominational boundaries.
Just yesterday I came across an example in the “Adventist Today” publication. In answering the question “Do you consider yourself an Adventist first or a Christian first?”, G. Edward Reid, the stewardship director of the North American Division said this:
“I have accepted Christ as my Savior; therefore, I am first a Christian. I have become a member of His church—the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Simply stated, I believe the Adventist Church, though only 1 percent of all the Christian community, is most like the early New Testament Church in its biblical teachings and acceptance of the Great Commission to take the gospel to every creature on earth. I am in a covenant relationship with Christ. I express that publicly by being a part of and supporting His Church. Therefore I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian.” (source)
As long as Adventist administrators continue to talk this way, they set themselves up for serious scrutiny. These are the same claims made by Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and many other self-described “true” Christian churches. Adventism, like the rest, teaches a compromised gospel at best and a false gospel at worst. This is not to say there aren’t true Christians within Adventism or even individual “evangelical” churches that are more faithful to the biblical gospel, but the trend is away from the gospel and toward the unique features of Adventism that are not held in common with other self-described Christian churches.
guibox - 12 February 2008 09:24 AM
Despite the errors of my church, I find much more doctrinally wrong with most of the other churches out there. No amount of disfavor in areas like the IJ and apocalyptic prophecy will make me throw out other areas of doctrine that I believe are biblically sound. Frankly, if one doesn’t start questioning what they believe and why, they are setting themselves up for anything that comes there way.
And many of us have questioned “what we believe and why” with regards to Adventism, and we’ve voted with our feet. What is the problem with this, Guibox?
guibox - 12 February 2008 09:24 AM
To me, I feel that this has happened with many former SDAs. It really makes me wonder how ‘brainwashed’ they really were to feel that they were duped by virtually all SDA doctrines and not merely one or two.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate?
From the old, heart-throbbing “Stories about Little Ellen” to the current White Estate magazine for kids, it is evident that they want to reach Adventist kids at a very tender age. Whatever happened to Ellen White’s dictum that children should never even begin to be formally taught anything until in the eight to ten age range? Now SDA colleges and universities provide extensive training and even offer degrees in Early Childhood Education. I know of no Adventist parents who withhold their children from any formal education until at least age eight. Obviously, Adventist parents are unwilling to face jail sentences for violating child education laws. Contemporary Adventist kids are no longer free “little lambs” as Ellen White mandated.
By the way, do you think that the current personnel of the White Estate withhold their “little lambs” from any type of formal training until at least age eight? I seriously doubt it. Like with the Bible, contemporary Adventists pick and choose whatever advice they like best from Ellen White and simply ignore the rest. Their cognitive dissonance is truly amazing.
To me, I feel that this has happened with many former SDAs. It really makes me wonder how ‘brainwashed’ they really were to feel that they were duped by virtually all SDA doctrines and not merely one or two.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate?
Greg
I really don’t put much stock in the opinions of those who have ‘come out of Adventism’ due to a doctrine like EGW or the IJ and then rail against practically every doctrine that might be different from other Christian faiths that the SDA church holds. For some reason, they seem to have been duped by not one doctrine, but EVERY doctrine while in the faith. That tells me that they were either incredibly gullible to begin with or must have gone through some pretty extensive brainwashing to have believed everything and then go against everything.
Not very balanced to me. This tells me that there is NOTHING biblical about SDA doctrines thus signifying that we are truly a demonic cult with nothing but falsehoods for all doctrine. Truly a cult.
From the old, heart-throbbing “Stories about Little Ellen” to the current White Estate magazine for kids, it is evident that they want to reach Adventist kids at a very tender age. Whatever happened to Ellen White’s dictum that children should never even begin to be formally taught anything until in the eight to ten age range? Now SDA colleges and universities provide extensive training and even offer degrees in Early Childhood Education. I know of no Adventist parents who withhold their children from any formal education until at least age eight. Obviously, Adventist parents are unwilling to face jail sentences for violating child education laws. Contemporary Adventist kids are no longer free “little lambs” as Ellen White mandated.
By the way, do you think that the current personnel of the White Estate withhold their “little lambs” from any type of formal training until at least age eight? I seriously doubt it. Like with the Bible, contemporary Adventists pick and choose whatever advice they like best from Ellen White and simply ignore the rest. Their cognitive dissonance is truly amazing.
Dennis Fischer
And this is what happens when you take everything from EGW as blanket gospel that applies for all cultures and age periods. EGW was describing the ideal for her time. She also made it clear that if parents can’t control the kids, they should be in school.
Guibox, I notice you passed over my question about kids being taught that EGW never contradicted the Bible and also passed over my comments about the exclusivity of the Adventist church. You are quite eager to show former Adventists how brainwashed we are, but I find your unwillingness to address our concerns as evidence against your own position. When there’s always an excuse for the aberrant SDA doctrines (such as the IJ) and EGW’s clear contradiction of Scripture, the “cultic” designation seems all the more valid.
I really don’t put much stock in the opinions of those who have ‘come out of Adventism’ due to a doctrine like EGW or the IJ and then rail against practically every doctrine that might be different from other Christian faiths that the SDA church holds. For some reason, they seem to have been duped by not one doctrine, but EVERY doctrine while in the faith. That tells me that they were either incredibly gullible to begin with or must have gone through some pretty extensive brainwashing to have believed everything and then go against everything.
Not very balanced to me. This tells me that there is NOTHING biblical about SDA doctrines thus signifying that we are truly a demonic cult with nothing but falsehoods for all doctrine. Truly a cult.
Yeah...okay.
In your view a balanced rejection takes place only when it is a partial rejection. According to this logic former mormons are not balanced, former JWs are not balanced, even if they had enough biblical reasons for rejecting the entire religious system in which they were involved. They had good reasons for doing this, and we have biblical reasons for rejecting adventism. We came to the conclusion that the Bible does not sustain the particular doctrines of adventism, and consequently rejected adventism.
As far as I’m understanding Guibox’s position, he considers IJ as secondary importance to, let’s say, annihilationism. Because the other churches believe in an eternal hell, he sees this as being a greater error than the IJ. If this is not what he’s trying to say, I stand open to correction, but from what he said, he used annihilationism as a justification for his standing for adventism and against the rest of the Christian world.
But for the sake of argument, suppose that the entire Christian world, myself included, are wrong on this point. Suppose that we will discover that Guibox and Stan and others are right and God’s punishment is temporary and the hell is not eternal. Suppose that God will punish sinners just for a time. But how our wrong belief in eternal punishment will affect our salvation? Will we loose our salvation if we were wrong at this point? We believed correctly that God will punish sin, and we were wrong only about the duration of punishment, would this belief send us to hell? Would we be annihilated just because we got wrong on time? Of course not!
But if we would discover the the IJ is wrong, that we believed in a gospel of righteousness by works and sabbath keeping was not required for salvation and we were involved in a legalistic program? Will legalism affect our salvation?
YES. Definitely. Thousands of adventists will suffer the final punishment because they believed the adventist gospel, if they will discover that their church was deadly wrong on this point.
The Christian world may be wrong on eternal punishment and still saved, but if adventists are wrong on IJ and their view of sabbath, the final discovery will bring huge differences in the outcome.
As one of the least educated observers here, I cautiously add to your comments that beliefs and practices that are not scripturally based or supported are more than simply an error or a mistake. They are at best a distraction from that which is Holy and true, and at worst, will mislead a soul to eternal loss. The True Gospel is not Adventist, nor Lutheran, nor Catholic, nor Presbyterian, or even Baptist! It is simply and purely “The Gospel of Jesus Christ”. And as Guibox pointed out earlier, there are no Christian churches without error. There are, however, Christian churches that are continuously seeking the truth of Christ’s gospel. Our fallen human nature will cause us to stray, but the only star by which a faithful Christian church will find guidance is the Gospel of Christ. And while the path of a gospel following Christian church will vary about the straight line of perfection, their eyes stay firmly fixed upon the star of the Gospel truth and the eternal Destination to which it leads.
Guibox, I notice you passed over my question about kids being taught that EGW never contradicted the Bible and also passed over my comments about the exclusivity of the Adventist church. You are quite eager to show former Adventists how brainwashed we are, but I find your unwillingness to address our concerns as evidence against your own position. When there’s always an excuse for the aberrant SDA doctrines (such as the IJ) and EGW’s clear contradiction of Scripture, the “cultic” designation seems all the more valid.
Greg
You know where I stand on the matter, Greg. I have made it plain that EGW was wrong in many instances. However, where you say ‘contradicted’, I say ‘misinterpreted’. We all misinterpret the bible. You believe that Arminianists contradict the gospel of grace. Armininianists believe Calvinists misinterpret John 6 and other passages. Are you a false preacher because of it?
Intent is very important. EGW was like us. She was a product of her times and was human. If she was not infallible in interpretation then she must misinterpret. The same rule applies to all of us.
And for the record, I am not telling formers how brainwashed they are..I am saying that they have to perceive themselves to have been very brainwashed to have found error with all doctrinal aspects of SDAism to have accepted it all wholeheartedly and then to have abandoned it all.
As far as I’m understanding Guibox’s position, he considers IJ as secondary importance to, let’s say, annihilationism. Because the other churches believe in an eternal hell, he sees this as being a greater error than the IJ. If this is not what he’s trying to say, I stand open to correction, but from what he said, he used annihilationism as a justification for his standing for adventism and against the rest of the Christian world.
Who said anything about annihilationism? I merely pointed out that I wouldn’t discard all the doctrines of the church simply because I disregard the IJ.
Perhaps the spirit is working on you.
And I wasn’t saying that annihilation is a greater error than the IJ. You are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that just because I reject one doctrine as false, it doesn’t mean that all the doctrines are suspect and then I try to find a way out and throw them out by guilt by association.
My point is that the doctrine of IJ may not be biblical, but I believe that the doctrines such as annihilation and conditional immortality ARE strongly biblical and have been believed by Reformers and many others from all faiths (even the Catholic faith!) for many centuries.
It seems to me that because the IJ is an aberrant doctrine, the rest fall under the SDA deceptive cloak and are abandoned at the simplest proof text (like Revelation 14:10-11 or 2 Corinthians 5:8). This is all is needed for some who have felt deceived by the IJ that this is continual deception and it cannot be trusted (everyone is different so they must be right as the SDA church has been proven wrong on others).
And yet even some like Stan can see the biblical merit in annihilation. There are other former SDAs that have not abandoned conditional immortality either.
My point is that disagreeing on one point doesn’t make the rest suspect. Yet to hear some formers talk, they have lumped all these biblical doctrines in the pile of ‘devilish deception’ and use them to prove their point that the SDA church is a cult.
You know where I stand on the matter, Greg. I have made it plain that EGW was wrong in many instances. However, where you say ‘contradicted’, I say ‘misinterpreted’. We all misinterpret the bible. You believe that Arminianists contradict the gospel of grace. Armininianists believe Calvinists misinterpret John 6 and other passages. Are you a false preacher because of it?
Guibox, I totally hear what you are saying. The problem is that Adventism has not characterized Ellen White as someone who can be questioned. Instead, she is characterized as “more than a prophet” and someone who “never contradicts the Bible”. Most of the former Adventists I know have investigated these claims and found them to be patently false. It is not wrong for them to feel duped or deceived when they realize that Ellen White does not live up to the claims she made for herself and the claims the church continues to make for her. They are not “brainwashed” for believing that they have been lied to, and where there is one lie, there are likely many more.
Arminianism vs. Calvinism is an entirely different issue and is a rabbit trail for the current discussion.
What I want to hear from you, Guibox, is an admission that your church has and continues to portray Ellen White as something different than what she is in reality. You’ve implied this, but I want to hear a clear admission from you that lies and misinformation are still being taught to the Adventist laity, even to its youngest members who lack the critical thinking skills necessary to see through it. Can we at least agree on this?
guibox - 12 February 2008 02:04 PM
Intent is very important. EGW was like us. She was a product of her times and was human. If she was not infallible in interpretation then she must misinterpret. The same rule applies to all of us.
But I have not made prophetic claims for myself. I have not been labeled a “continuing and authoritative source of truth” like Ellen White has. I certainly have my opinions and beliefs, but I do not force others to believe like I do on pain of falling short of heaven. Ellen White did this and the church continues to use her words as a measuring stick for the salvation of its members and those “apostate Christians” who are not Adventists.
guibox - 12 February 2008 02:04 PM
And for the record, I am not telling formers how brainwashed they are..I am saying that they have to perceive themselves to have been very brainwashed to have found error with all doctrinal aspects of SDAism to have accepted it all wholeheartedly and then to have abandoned it all.
I walked away from the Adventist church because I could not, in good conscience, continue to lend my time, talents and money to an organization that plays fast and loose with the truth—the truth of the gospel and the truth about Ellen White. Can you at least acknowledge that there are good and logical reasons why some of us have left the church, without trivializing our very difficult decision to leave?
Greg
P.S. I also appreciate very much what Dan Hagen wrote above about focusing on the gospel and there being no “one true” denomination. Unfortunately, there are many sects and churches which have ruled out everyone but themselves as being members of “God’s true church”, and I’m sad to say that Adventism is guilty of this.
Official Adventism claims that Ellen White is a prophetess and/or messenger for OUR time--her counsels being fully relevant and fully sufficient until Jesus returns. I understand why devotees of Ellen White find it impossible and often even embarrassing to adhere to all her dictums. One would literally be a mental case in trying to obey all of her many outlandish directives.
You stated that her counsels, like with the age when to start formal education, were meant for only her time and not ours. Obviously, the SDA Education Department doesn’t know about this. We started our oldest daughter a year later than the public school system because the local SDA elementary school would not accept her at that age due to Ellen White’s counsel. Were we brainwashed? Yes, indeed, I now know we most certainly were. We were even told how to circumvent State authorities for the one-year delayed enrollment.
Also, when Ellen White stated in two different books that masturbation ("secret vice") is the same as suicide, was this just for her time as well? How do I determine which counsel was for her time and which is for my time? I thought the big advantage of having a modern prophet was to have up-to-date information versus relying on Scripture alone. It seems to me that Adventists need a new official prophet with up-to-date counsel (like our Mormon friends have). Actually, there are several SDA prophets right now, but the White Estate will not give them a hearing. Seventh-day Adventists have always had several “prophets” in any given time period of their history.
Who said anything about annihilationism? I merely pointed out that I wouldn’t discard all the doctrines of the church simply because I disregard the IJ.
Perhaps the spirit is working on you.
And I wasn’t saying that annihilation is a greater error than the IJ. You are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that just because I reject one doctrine as false, it doesn’t mean that all the doctrines are suspect and then I try to find a way out and throw them out by guilt by association.
My point is that the doctrine of IJ may not be biblical, but I believe that the doctrines such as annihilation and conditional immortality ARE strongly biblical and have been believed by Reformers and many others from all faiths (even the Catholic faith!) for many centuries.
It seems to me that because the IJ is an aberrant doctrine, the rest fall under the SDA deceptive cloak and are abandoned at the simplest proof text (like Revelation 14:10-11 or 2 Corinthians 5:8). This is all is needed for some who have felt deceived by the IJ that this is continual deception and it cannot be trusted (everyone is different so they must be right as the SDA church has been proven wrong on others).
And yet even some like Stan can see the biblical merit in annihilation. There are other former SDAs that have not abandoned conditional immortality either.
My point is that disagreeing on one point doesn’t make the rest suspect. Yet to hear some formers talk, they have lumped all these biblical doctrines in the pile of ‘devilish deception’ and use them to prove their point that the SDA church is a cult.
You said that the other churches are worse than Adventism. In what points these churches are worse than adventism? The reverse question is, in what points the Adventist church is better than the rest of the protestant churches? It must be in the doctrines which she differs from the other churches, specific doctrines like annihilationism, health foods, sabbath keeping, if we consider IJ as weak points.
guibox - 12 February 2008 09:24 AM
Despite the errors of my church, I find much more doctrinally wrong with most of the other churches out there. No amount of disfavor in areas like the IJ and apocalyptic prophecy will make me throw out other areas of doctrine that I believe are biblically sound. Frankly, if one doesn’t start questioning what they believe and why, they are setting themselves up for anything that comes there way.
This leaves the impression that you consider IJ to be a weak point of Adventism, I don’t know how I put words in your mouth, with the exception that you are not saying that the IJ is wrong. If you are still endorsing Ij and apocalyptic prophecy, you’re talking in this passage as someone who does not endorse it. Make clear what is your position and stop accusing others of putting words in your mouth by posting such misleading statements. let all know if you reject IJ and the end time scenario of adventism, and explain why you don’t believe annihilationism makes the other churches worse than adventism.
Regarding proof texts about the doctrine of annihilationism, there is one thing to affirm that we use these texts as proof texts and there is something different to present a credible alternative exegesis of these texts which is credible. And there are many other sayings of Jesus, Jesus talked about hell more than any other New Testament writer, texts which annihilationists have a hard time in presenting a credible exegesis which takes in account the context of the Bible and the historical context of the times when Jesus uttered those words. Beside these, there are many other texts which do not deal with annihilationism directly but their exegesis does not sustain the annihilationist’s point of view. Here is not the place to debate annihilationism, I just wanted to point that, even if you disagree with the eternal punishment, don’t misrepresent this position as being based on few proof texts without providing solid exegesis for them.
But overall my point was that even if the other churches are wrong on this subject despite the biblical back-up, it will not affect their salvation one iota because but the situation is different with the IJ and the sabbath view of adventism which I presented on another thread about Ellen White as a less than arminian and more than a sabbatizer. These are my reasons to consider SDA church as worse than the other churches.and as Greg said I cannot give credibility to a religious system which endorses a false gospel, which promotes Ellen White as a prophet and which considers itself the remnant church and the rest of the churches as Babylon.
Ah! Good grief people. I can’t address everything you guys say when it is 3 on 1!
But I will do my best to be brief with each.
Greg you said,
I walked away from the Adventist church because I could not, in good conscience, continue to lend my time, talents and money to an organization that plays fast and loose with the truth—the truth of the gospel and the truth about Ellen White. Can you at least acknowledge that there are good and logical reasons why some of us have left the church, without trivializing our very difficult decision to leave?
Absolutely I can acknowledge them. As a matter of fact, the temptation of seperating myself from the physical church due to the abuse I have seen as a worker and other areas has crossed my mind many times. Doctrinal differences don’t bother me and despite my issues with the IJ, would not be a factor of me separating from the church. My issues would be more practical and ethical...to be really honest, I am becoming more and more disgruntled with the whole ‘church as a corporate structure’ scenario. Asceticism looks more appealing to me as the years go on.
My problem is not with somebody saying ‘I have a problem with these doctrines. Seeing as they are the reason why I would call myself an SDA, I can no longer be so’. I see this as much different than somebody bailing out, throwing everything out and criticizing nearly every aspect of SDA doctrine like they given an apple, tasted it, felt it and cherished it as an apple only to decide that it was in fact an orange they were given. I also have a problem when these doctrines (like the Sabbath, annihilation and conditional immortality) are used as both a beating stick and measuring stick to determine how cultic the SDA church is, calling them ‘doctrines of demons’ and other such ridiculous nonsense.
That is not rational. That is not logical. Especially when more and more SDA doctrines are being validated and honored by many other Christian groups and faiths simply through bible study and history and not from the sacred lips of a prophet.
Dennis,
There are people today who don’t go to movie theatres because EGW said so. I would even bet there are some communal conservative, fringe SDAs that don’t ride bicycles and wear extra long skirts. That doesn’t mean that EGW’s counsel necessarily applies today. I also believe that much of EGWs medical advice (like masturbation) was simply a reflection of the lack of medical knowledge we have today. You cannot really compare 19th century medicine with 21st century medicine. You have to look at the times and how things have changed and adjust your opinions as necessary. Our pioneers and EGW did this many times. Why should we stop now? Especially in areas where more knowledge and technology changes opinions daily..even in the opinions of 21st century doctors and researchers?
Gabriel,
Again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that ‘annihilation makes the other churches worse than Adventism.
This leaves the impression that you consider IJ to be a weak point of Adventism, I don’t know how I put words in your mouth, with the exception that you are not saying that the IJ is wrong. If you are still endorsing Ij and apocalyptic prophecy, you’re talking in this passage as someone who does not endorse it. Make clear what is your position and stop accusing others of putting words in your mouth by posting such misleading statements. let all know if you reject IJ and the end time scenario of adventism, and explain why you don’t believe annihilationism makes the other churches worse than adventism.
I do believe the IJ is a weak point in Adventism. Doctrinally speaking this is our weakest point. As far as I’m concerned, no other church has hit the doctrinal truth of the others. I don’t endorse the IJ as is traditionally supported. I do believe that there is biblical evidence for a pre-Advent judgement. Bacchiocchi makes this quite clear without even going into Daniel 8:14, the 2300 days or 1844. I disagree that even the current belief of the IJ can be derived from even a cursory study of Daniel 8:14 never mind an exegetical one. As far as the apocalyptic scenario, I have not fully ruled it out. I don’t believe the SDA view is any worse than the majority of quack nonsense that is espoused on Sunday morning television (Jack Van Impe comes to mind). I believe that the issue will be about worship and their will be a test,
Beyond that, I will simply try to be ready and wait and see what form this takes.
Regarding proof texts about the doctrine of annihilationism, there is one thing to affirm that we use these texts as proof texts and there is something different to present a credible alternative exegesis of these texts which is credible. And there are many other sayings of Jesus, Jesus talked about hell more than any other New Testament writer, texts which annihilationists have a hard time in presenting a credible exegesis which takes in account the context of the Bible and the historical context of the times when Jesus uttered those words.
The alternatives have been given many times over and for many years, Gabriel. Stan has shown numerous quotes from leading evangelical scholars who have given credible exegetical evidence to ‘annihilate’ eternal torment. Even some scholars who believe wholeheartedly in eternal torment have admitted they cannot easily dismiss annihilation as a viable biblical alternative.
Too many traditionalists don’t want to let go of their sacred cows even when the evidence can be disputed. An exegetical study of Revelation 14:10,11 is prime evidence of that. After showing how a close look of Revelation 14 cannot say what it does, many still say, ‘yeah, whatever. I’d rather take the face value. They don’t WANT to be convinced. They’d rather hold to what their eyes initially see instead of what a closer look reveals. This same thing occurs for the SDA when really shown the evidence that Daniel 8:14 just isn’t saying what they think it does.
Every church has sacred cows they don’t want to get rid of.
Beside these, there are many other texts which do not deal with annihilationism directly but their exegesis does not sustain the annihilationist’s point of view. Here is not the place to debate annihilationism, I just wanted to point that, even if you disagree with the eternal punishment, don’t misrepresent this position as being based on few proof texts without providing solid exegesis for them.
If you want to debate this on another thread, I’m all up for it.
However, the majority of thought on eternal torment derives from 3 biblical references:
Revelation 14:10,11
Revelation 20:9
Mark 9:46-49
This is pretty much it. You take these away and eternal torment does not stand. I have a problem with such weight being given to only three verses.
It just so happens that every one of these verses is translated and explained elsewhere in the Bible. The exact same language is derived from the Hebrew (who didn’t have an idea of eternal torment) and is used to support annihilation.
Hmmm...an incredible coincidence or proof that what is written must be scrutinized, analyzed and cross referenced?
Guibox, take your time and don’t worry about the 3 on 1 situation. There’s no rush and this is not a fight, rather, it is an extended discussion. You are also welcome to invite your Adventist friends to come and help even out the score if you’d like
Just one observation: many of Ellen White’s teachings that we’re reacting to are not merely culturally-conditioned statements, but truth claims she made for the “last days”. The Investigative Judgment is one of these teachings. We cannot dismiss her teaching on the IJ as simply a result of her 19th century culture. She said she was shown in a vision that the IJ was a vital truth for the Adventist people. Any attempts to soften her statements now by appealing to culture imply that Ellen White was lying about what she said God showed her in vision. At best, she was self-deceived. I don’t see too many Adventists who will admit that Ellen White could have simply made up (or lied about) her visions, and this is what disturbs me and many other former Adventists. When Adventists continue to teach their children that Ellen White “never contradicted the Bible”, an already bad situation is made much worse and our decision to leave Adventism and avoid having our kids exposed to this stuff is confirmed.
Greg
P.S. Guibox, I see we were posting at the same time above. All I will say for now is that doctrines do matter. Theology matters. There’s a tendency to minimize doctrine in many Christian circles today, and ironically, this is where you will find agreement with many former Adventists. But our doctrinal beliefs shape our interaction with God, and for this reason alone, they are critically important. Speaking generally, I believe the central doctrines of the Christian faith are overshadowed by the unique teachings of Adventism. Until Adventists realize that they are part of a large body of Christian believers instead of emphasizing how they are “God’s church” or “the remnant church”, my criticism here will remain valid.
