Respectfully, I have the advantage of SDA doctrinal ignorance as I monitor these exchanges. From this viewpoint, I must say, that from these exchanges, I’m not able to discern exactly what you accept and reject about SDA doctrine. Perhaps a point by point review of your position would help us all (especially me...)?
Now, having just typed the preceding text, I’m compelled to try to empathize with your position in your SDA faith. You have specifically acknowledged on this forum that some of EGW’s claims and writings are faulty, but that others are faithful to scripture and therefore valuable. At least in part, you feel that her writings were especially needed and applicable during “her time” and are not necessarily fully applicable today. Now here is where I try to put myself in your place and try to understand your position. As an Evangelical Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, I express the following humbly:
! would be deeply troubled if:
1) Luther claimed to speak for God!
2) Luther or any other church official claimed the status of prophet and failed the test as EGW has.
3) If any so called Lutheran prophet imposed extra-scriptural behavioral standards (works) as absolute requirements for salvation.
4) If a so called Lutheran prophet stated that all who don’t practice pure Lutheranism are apostate, lost, and not of the one true Christian church!
At this point I must say my confidence in my denomination would be sorely damaged and I would hopefully be seeking a much more scripturally faithful worship path (Christian church). Please know that I use the “Lutheran” label only because it is my persuasion and a perspective from which I can speak accurately. More importantly, I don’t want to give any impression of superiority or absolute correctness regarding my religious persuasion or position. I am simply using this method as a contrasting mechanism, to highlight how I might feel if I were in your position, being at least partially bound to the teachings of EGW.
This thread was started to address and discuss the indoctrination of young children as to the reliability, infallibility, and truthfulness of Ellen G. White. Lutherans catechize (train) their children primarily using the Holy Bible along with the scriptural interpretations of Luther (small catechism). At this age, we never feel a need to address or to sell the accuracy of Luther’s interpretations and his presentation of scripture. This does not mean that we assume Luther to be infallible! It means that, at this level, and as far as our children are concerned, Luther stands as a pastoral signpost, pointing always at the Holy scripture as the only source of truth and the freedom found in Christ. Now, when we as adults study the Holy Word at a higher level, and if we reference Luther’s opinions and interpretations, we use them only as if he were sitting at the table with us as a respected and knowledgeable pastor. The final and sole authoritative source of our information is the Holy Scripture. Before our class begins, we pray that Christ will guide us (via the Holy Spirit) to His truth!
Guibox, dear brother in Christ, If EGW were a true prophet and a true student (apostle) of Christ, then why do her teachings and writings not clearly and scripturally point to Christ alone? All of the apostles, Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc, clearly and uniformly declare in their writings “but not I” to ensure that those hearing the message don’t look to them personally for the truth, but look to Christ alone as the source of truth and life!
Respectfully, and prayerfully…
P.S. I see that much was posted while I was working on this text. I apologize if I missed something critical in the previous posts…
I can understand your concern but unfortunately, your claims aren’t as black and white as they may come across to you.
EGW has made it plain over and over that the scriptures are our sole authority. Yes, she did make some big claims about the validity of her writings but never at the expense of scripture. She chastised many a person who argued over and over about something and tried to appeal to her writings for an argument. She always told them to go to the Bible.
Despite some of the claims I still believe (as did some of the pioneers like A.G. Daniells and W.W. Prescott and even Willie White (her son)) that the church has elevated her role and writings far from what was intended (and from what she intended).
I would bet that those at the 1919 General Conference would be aghast at the wording of the FB labeling EGW as ‘an authoritative source of truth’. Even the 1931 FB was not worded this way.
Now it’s clear where you stand regarding anihilationism,. I don’t want to debate this on another thread, not that I will not do it if it is necessary, what was misleading in your previous posts were your remarks about “eternal punishment” in contexts which had nothing to do with the subject discussed and thought that this was for you a strong reason to consider the other churches worse than SDA. I made the statement that I’m open to correction, and if eternal punishment is not what in your view makes the other churches worse than the SDA church, I would like to know what makes them worse in your eyes.
As far as I know, there is a pattern between former adventists: anihilationism is the last adventist doctrine abandoned. And I think that this is so partly because adventism instill in people the fear that they will fall under Satan’s deception if they abandon anihilationism, the SDA church makes a huge issue from it, being after the sabbath the second doctrine for which the other churches are identified as Babylon, under Satan’s deception.
guibox - 13 February 2008 07:38 AM
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.
Well, neither the other churches like the following quotation from Ellen White
Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience. {GC 588.1}
The problem with sabbatarianism and anihilationism, beside the role these particular beliefs play regarding salvation and other things related, is that in the hands of Ellen White and the SDA church these two doctrines functions as walls of separation between the church and the rest of Christianity. The rest of Christianity is seen as being deceived by Satan, and consequently the SDA sees herself as separate from these churches. Based on them, the SDA church sees itself on a different plane, not following the churches in apostasy, not in unity with them, different, in a different place, in a different category.
And here is my point: why the SDA church feels offended when the other churches tells her “You’re not one of us, you’re different, you’re in a different category” using the label cult? Cult is nothing else than a label used by the evangelical churches to identify a church as in another category than them, not evangelical, different, not a part of the Body of Christ, speaking on the level of organizations. Individuals involved in cults may be a part of the body of Christ, but at the level of organization, visible body, teaching, structure, system of faith, the difference between an evangelical church and one which is not in the same category is defined by using the label “christian cult”.
I believe that the SDA church cannot eat the cake and have it at the same time. She can’t differentiate herself from the evangelical churches in the way she does, by calling them deceived by Satan because they believe in anihilationism and worship on Sunday, and at the same time react negatively when the same anathema she put on the other churches falls on her.
Luther received an anathema from the Pope because the Pope rejected the gospel Luther preached. Consequently Luther said: “The Pope cursed the gospel, because of this he cursed himself, let him be anathema”. In a similar fashion the SDA church curses other churches considering them deceived by Satan, and because she curse the body of Christ and call the head of the Body Satan, when in reality the head of these Churches is Christ, by doing this, she is falling under her own curse, because it is satanic to call Christ, the Head of the evangelical churches “Satan”.
Here are some other quotes from Ellen White on the same theme, and this is the person who claimed to speak for God the following words and never recanted them,
I saw that since Jesus left the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and entered within the second veil, the churches have been filling up with every unclean and hateful bird. I saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; yet their members profess to be Christians. Their profession, their prayers, and their exhortations are an abomination in the sight of God. Said the angel, ”God will not smell in their assemblies. Selfishness, fraud, and deceit are practiced by them without the reprovings of conscience. And over all these evil traits they throw the cloak of religion.” I was shown the pride of the nominal churches. God is not in their thoughts; their carnal minds dwell upon themselves; they decorate their poor mortal bodies, and then look upon themselves with satisfaction and pleasure. Jesus and the angels look upon them in anger. Said the angel, “Their sins and pride have reached unto heaven. Their portion is prepared. Justice and judgment have slumbered long, but will soon awake. Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” The fearful threatenings of the third angel are to be realized, and all the wicked are to drink of the wrath of God. An innumerable host of evil angels are spreading over the whole land and crowding the churches. These agents of Satan look upon the religious bodies with exultation, for the cloak of religion covers the greatest crime and iniquity. {EW 274.1}
He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, standing before the Father, a great High Priest. On the hem of his garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. And I saw those who rose up with Jesus send up their faith to him in the Holiest, and pray--my Father give us thy Spirit. Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In the breath was light, power, and much love, joy and peace. Then I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne and pray, Father give us thy Spirit; then Satan would breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace. Satan’s object was to keep them deceived, and to draw back and deceive God’s children. {ExV 43.1}
Because adventists use sabbatarianism and anihilationism as doctrines by which they separate themselves from Christ’s body, because these doctrines stands in the way of having full fellowship with Christ’s body, the evangelical world, it is only normal to see these doctrines as important in defining the cult status of SDA. Now, at the level of individuals, people may disagree with heir church’s position, but as long as Ellen White is seen by the church as speaking authoritatively for her, and these quotations and these doctrines are playing the role of walls of separation, the organization deserves to be put in a different category than evangelical. After all they are erecting these barriers, they are pretending to be in a different category than the other churches, they pretend to be the remnant in contrast with Babylon and its daughter, the protestant churches which are led and deceived by Satan, following him by worshiping on Sunday and believing in eternal punishment and consciousness after death.
Of course, what is true at the denominational level is not true at the individual level. It is very possible for an adventist to disagree with the above, but he is not in the position to defend his church when she’s criticizing for its current position.
Gabriel, like many anti-EGW activists, you seem to be using pretty vague EGW quotes to support your opinion. I see nowhere where in these two instances of EGW’s visions (which can be interpreted quite symbolically too and don’t think that she herself even really new the meaning of alot of her visions) where it says that ‘any church outside the SDA church is ‘wicked’ and God ignores their prayers. I see nothing like that. I see EGW talking about wicked people in these churches having a ‘cloak of religion’ (and for the record, I believe EGW even said this about people in the SDA church).
You are exaggerating what is being said in your application.
EGW had an extensive library of Christian authors (who do you think she copied some of her writings from??), and admired Charles Spurgeon. A strange and hypocritical stance for someone who believes that God ignores the prayers of other churches and calls them ‘wicked’.
C’mon guibox, there is nothing vague about the quotes posted by Gabriel. That Ellen White admired Christian authors and borrowed from them only makes the situation worse, not better. If she was stealing words from others and then turning around and broadly criticizing Protestants, she is at least guilty of speaking out of both sides of her mouth.
Consider this very clear statement from her:
“Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said that they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ’s coming, but they objected to the definite time. God’s all-seeing eye read their hearts. They did not love Jesus near. They knew that their unchristian lives would not stand the test, for they were not walking in the humble path marked out by Him. These false shepherds stood in the way of the work of God. The truth spoken in its convincing power aroused the people, and like the jailer, they began to inquire, “What must I do to be saved?” But these shepherds stepped in between the truth and the people, and preached smooth things to lead them from the truth. They united with Satan and his angels, crying, “Peace, peace,” when there was no peace. Those who loved their ease and were content with their distance from God would not be aroused from their carnal security. I saw that angels of God marked it all; the garments of those unconsecrated shepherds were covered with the blood of souls. {EW 233.2}
Ministers who would not accept this saving message themselves hindered those who would have received it. The blood of souls is upon them. Preachers and people joined to oppose this message from heaven and to persecute William Miller and those who united with him in the work. Falsehoods were circulated to injure his influence; and at different times after he had plainly declared the counsel of God, applying cutting truths to the hearts of his hearers, great rage was kindled against him, and as he left the place of meeting, some waylaid him in order to take his life. But angels of God were sent to protect him, and they led him safely away from the angry mob. His work was not yet finished.” {EW 234.1}
Guibox, there is no way to soften this message. Ellen White clearly says that those ministers who opposed the Millerite date-setting for the return of Christ had the “blood of souls” upon them. Obviously she sought to solidify her base and keep people separated from their Protestant churches. If this is not a blanket condemnation of those Christian ministers who examined William Miller’s claims and rejected them on the basis of Scripture (Matthew 24:36), I don’t know what it is.
Sorry Greg, but I stand firm you cannot glean Gabriel’s meanings from his two quotes.
And your quotes are just as vague. I do not see a blanket application here. I see many specific areas of influence and issue pointed out that have been applied to the SDA chuch just as much by EGW. I don’t see anywhere where it speaks about the ministers having a problem with date setting as receiving God’s wrath or being hell bound. Even after the fact would Miller and the pioneers renounce their date setting.
What I do see (and what probably even Miller would have attested to) was an opposition to the message...the urgency of the coming of Christ and the necessity to be prepared. I believe there was an opposition to the movement period. Now I’m sure you could argue that fact, but the quotes given could be interpreted in that fashion, especially when we know how EGW and the Millerites felt about date setting after the fact.
Did it also occur to you that what was considered good counsel could be realized as incorrect later on? Is there no room for growth? If EGW were infallible we would have expected her to get everything right from the very beginning. If she is not infallible and God didn’t reveal everything that ever would be in 100% correctness, than we MUST expect error and room for growth and correction. To not do so is to be unreasonable and illogical.
Both sides of the camp(conservative SDAs and formers) fall short because of unrealistic expectations.
I mentioned that I’m speaking at the organizational, confessional level, not at the individual level. I was not talking about what she thought about individuals like Spurgeon, but about what she thought about the organizations.
“In what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith. “The Great Controversy, p. 383
That’s the way it is at the individual level. But at the organizational level, Adventism had seen herself as the remnant church, in contrast with the other churches which constitutes Babylon. Their official belief tells us
But in the same paragraph from which I quoted above, she affirms the identity of Babylon,
Babylon is said to be “the mother of harlots.” By her daughters must be symbolized churches that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14, announcing the fall of Babylon must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the judgment, it must be given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the Roman Church alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries. Furthermore, in the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation the people of God are called upon to come out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God’s people must still be in Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith. At the time of their rise these churches took a noble stand for God and the truth, and His blessing was with them.
Many of the Protestant churches are following Rome’s example of iniquitous connection with “the kings of the earth"--the state churches, by their relation to secular governments; and other denominations, by seeking the favor of the world. And the term “Babylon"--confusion--may be appropriately applied to these bodies, all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet divided into almost innumerable sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories. GC, page 382, 3833
When Canright decided to leave the SDA church and afterward went to the Baptist Church (Spurgeon’s church, by the way), Ellen White decided to bring on the scene her view about the other churches. In chapter 70, Testimonies vol. 5, she employed the image of ships.
Dear Brother M: I had an impressive dream last night. I thought that you were on a strong vessel, sailing on very rough waters. Sometimes the waves beat over the top, and you were drenched with water. You said: “I shall get off; this vessel is going down.” “No,” said one who appeared to be the captain, ”this vessel sails into the harbor. She will never go down.” But you answered: “I shall be washed overboard. As I am neither captain or mate, who cares? I shall take my chances on that vessel you see yonder.” Said the captain: ”I shall not let you go there, for I know that vessel will strike the rocks before she reaches the harbor.” You straightened yourself up, and said with great positiveness: “This vessel will become a wreck; I can see it just as plain as can be.” The captain looked upon you with piercing eye, and said firmly: “I shall not permit you to lose your life by taking that boat. The timbers of her framework are worm-eaten, and she is a deceptive craft. If you had more knowledge you could discern between the spurious and the genuine, the holy and that appointed to utter ruin.” {5T 571.3}
The message is clear: the SDA church is the ship which will not sink, the other vessels will sink. The SDA church will go safe to the harbor, since she is the ark of salvation, and the other churches will sink. When Ellen White spoke about churches as organizational bodies, she spoke of them as sinking ships, daughters of Babylon, which will sink, suffer God’s wrath described in the three Angels Message described in Revelations 14. Because these churches will not adopt sabbath keeping they will be stamped with the mark of the beast and will received God’s wrath. Only those who will exit the Protestant Churches, aka Babylon, will escape.
Gabriel, those quotes could not be more convincing.
Guibox, is it ever appropriate to condemn ministers for having the blood of souls on their hands for not allowing their members to go along with a movement that sets a date for the second coming of Christ, in direct contradiction to Matthew 24:36? Would a prophet of God mislead people this way?
Ellen White was speaking of her visions in those quotes, Guibox. Either Ellen White is lying, or God has a communication problem. You cannot explain it away by claiming the statements are “vague”. Her meaning is ever so clear.
What I do see (and what probably even Miller would have attested to) was an opposition to the message...the urgency of the coming of Christ and the necessity to be prepared. I believe there was an opposition to the movement period. Now I’m sure you could argue that fact, but the quotes given could be interpreted in that fashion, especially when we know how EGW and the Millerites felt about date setting after the fact.
Did it also occur to you that what was considered good counsel could be realized as incorrect later on? Is there no room for growth? If EGW were infallible we would have expected her to get everything right from the very beginning. If she is not infallible and God didn’t reveal everything that ever would be in 100% correctness, than we MUST expect error and room for growth and correction. To not do so is to be unreasonable and illogical.
Both sides of the camp(conservative SDAs and formers) fall short because of unrealistic expectations.
No kidding !! Is it unrealistic to expect an apology for deluding a lot of people, and wrongfully label the opposing party as Babylon put the label “false” on the pastors who objected to what was wrong in the adventists’s message, time-setting? They directed their objection to the time-setting, what was wrong in the message, not to the preaching of the second coming.
And if they were labeled Babylon for rejecting the time-setting, is it an unrealistic expectation to remove the label Babylon when adventists grew in understanding and see that they used a wrong criteria?
For example, if today somebody will preach that God will come on 15 March 2008, and I reject his time-setting (even today adventists will do this), he labels me as apostate, part of Babylon, but on 16 March, he grows in understanding and recognize that he was wrong about time-setting, it is unrealistic to expect him to drop the label “apostate” and “Babylon” which he previously applied to me?
Unrealistic expectations?
Instead of removing the label Ellen White and the adventists went in the other direction, plunged themselves in the “shut door” theory, in which for the entire world, except adventists, the salvation was not possible. They sustained this for 5 years, and even after many years, Ellen White still defended the idea that those who deliberately rejected Miller’s message had been lost, and no possibility of salvation for them was available after 22 October
I am still a believer in the shut-door theory, but not in the sense in which we at first employed the term or in which it is employed by my opponents. There was a shut door in Noah’s day. There was at that time a withdrawal of the Spirit of God from the sinful race that perished in the waters of the Flood. God Himself gave the shut-door message to Noah: “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years” (Gen. 6:3).”
“There was a shut door in the days of Abraham. Mercy ceased to plead with the inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot, with his wife and two daughters, were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven. There was a shut door in Christ’s day. The Son of God declared to the unbelieving Jews of that generation, “Your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38).
“Looking down the stream of time to the last days, the same infinite power proclaimed through John: ‘These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth’ (Rev. 3:7).”
”I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844. All who saw the light of the first and second angels’ messages and rejected that light were left in darkness. And those who accepted it and received the Holy Spirit which attended the proclamation of the message from heaven, and who afterward renounced their faith and pronounced their experience a delusion, thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer pleaded with them.
“Those who did not see the light had not the guilt of its rejection. It was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that the Spirit of God could not reach. And this class included, as I have stated, both those who refused to accept the message when it was presented to them, and also those who, having received it, afterward renounced their faith. These might have a form of godliness, and profess to be followers of Christ; (Page 261) but having no living connection with God, they would be taken captive by the delusions of Satan.--MS 4, 1883 (see also 1SM, pp. 63, 64). The Early Years Volume One Page 260.
Clear; those who rejected miller’s message were lost as those who rejected Noah’s message. The door of the ark was shut and everyone who was left behind perished in the flood. I see no progress in understanding and the same condemnation sustained after years passed from 1844 (she wrote in 1883).
Unrealistic expectations for a removal of the ban, for a removal of label Babylon, for a removal of condemning others for rejecting what was wrong in your message? I don’t think so, and I have good reasons to stay away from a church which still defends Ellen White and tries to put the blame on those who reject her.
You’re using a double standard, by condemning us for unrealistic expectations, and excusing Ellen White for the condemnation she threw at those who rejected her message. And she also condemned former adventists to hell for abandoning the sabbath
And if one believed, and kept the Sabbath, and received the blessing attending it, and then gave it up, and broke the holy commandment, they would shut the gates of the Holy City against themselves, as sure as there was a God that rules in heaven above.” Those who have clearly seen and fully accepted the truth upon the fourth commandment, and have received the blessing attending obedience, but have since renounced their faith, and dared to violate the law of God, will find, if they persist in this path of disobedience, the gates of the city of God closed against them. {1SM 66.}
So, according to Ellen White, another “shut door” for the formers. Don’t bother they are born again Christian and that the majority of christians will not become sabbath keepers, label them Babylon, and send them all to hell.
Thank you for your comments. As you already know, Adventism teaches and Ellen White insisted that she got everything directly from the “throne of God.” Consequently, the 100,000 pages attributed to her were not merely a reflection of her personal ideas and/or what was considered the prevalent or standard knowledge in her day. You mean God has changed his mind about masturbation being the same as suicide? It is no longer a “crime” as she graphically described it? After all, Adventists repeatedly remind us that Ellen White’s writings were FAR AHEAD of her day in medical knowledge.
In fact, Adventists even claim that modern medical research hasn’t even caught up with the superior, God-given knowledge of her pen. The White Estate further claims that they are still waiting for medical science to applaud her anti-masturbation stance. Ellen White is supposedly the “Adventist advantage.” She also claimed that as she was writing, and sometimes even hesitated for a moment on any divinely-directed topic, God gave her the EXACT WORD needed. According to her testimony, it was not merely “thought inspiration” (as Adventists now claim) but rather it was nothing less than VERBAL inspiration like the Bible writers experienced. I find it impossible to believe that God somehow didn’t get his facts right about human sexuality in 1864.
Interestingly, when Ellen White wrote her first book on masturbation in 1864 (one year after her infamous 1863 Health Reform vision), the American Civil War was still raging full blast. There was incredible suffering from infection and disease on the battlefield. Some of the cures could have included simple hygienic measures that were still unknown in her day. Yet in the midst of this horrific human suffering, God was supposedly more interested and concerned about the “crime” of secret vice. Truly, Ellen White didn’t address the most serious public health issues of her day. Instead, God supposedly directed her to write two books primarily about masturbation in 1864 and 1870 respectively. A prophet for her time? A prophet for our time? The facts speak louder than words.
Any SDA that still believes in verbal inspiration of EGW obviously hasn’t studied their history or the opinions of the pioneers. A.G. Daniells, Prescott and others at the 1919 GC put that erroneous view to rest very quickly. Even all the whole White family did not believe in verbal inspiration.
Anybody who believes in the verbal inspiration of EGW doesn’t speak for the official church...and they would simply be wrong. Bottom line.
Dennis,
Anybody who believes in the verbal inspiration of EGW doesn’t speak for the official church...and they would simply be wrong. Bottom line.
Guibox, does Ellen White get to speak for herself? When she says that her words came directly from the throne of God, are we supposed to wink at each other as if she is a delusional old lady who must be humored, or shall we investigate her claims?
Let’s listen again to what the prophetess says about herself:
“God has given me a marked, solemn experience in connection with His work; and you may be assured that so long as my life is spared, I shall not cease to lift a warning voice as I am impressed by the Spirit of God, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. I have no special wisdom in myself; I am only an instrument in the Lord’s hands to do the work He has set for me to do.The instructions that I have given by pen or voice have been an expression of the light that God has given me. I have tried to place before you the principles that the Spirit of God has for years been impressing upon my mind and writing on my heart.
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. For Christ’s sake do not confuse the minds of the people with human sophistry and skepticism, and make of none effect the work that the Lord would do. Do not, by your lack of spiritual discernment, make of this agency of God a rock of offense whereby many shall be caused to stumble and fall, “and be snared, and be taken.” Testimonies Vol 5, p. 691, 1889 edition
“Some write to me, saying that God has revealed to them that Sister White is in error, that she is influenced by the leaders to believe some things that are not true, and to reject some things that are true. But the word comes again, ”Heed them not; I have not spoken by them, nor given them any word or message. They have spun lying words, from the suggestions of Satan.” Selected Messages Book 2, page 76, paragraph 2
“Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.” {1888 257.1}
“If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White’s human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human--Sister White’s opinions.They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition.” {1888 257.2}
Again I ask you, Guibox, consider Ellen White’s own words. If she is speaking for God, you are certainly sitting under condemnation for claiming to discern “what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom”.
There are alternatives—Ellen White received visions from a source other than God, was self-deceived or simply lied about her “gift”. Guibox, don’t flee to what modern apologists have said or the claims that have been made on her behalf—listen to your prophetess. You simply cannot soften the claims she made for herself. Her own words make your current position impossible.
It’s time to face the truth about this, my friend.
“God has given me a marked, solemn experience in connection with His work; and you may be assured that so long as my life is spared, I shall not cease to lift a warning voice as I am impressed by the Spirit of God, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. I have no special wisdom in myself; I am only an instrument in the Lord’s hands to do the work He has set for me to do.The instructions that I have given by pen or voice have been an expression of the light that God has given me. I have tried to place before you the principles that the Spirit of God has for years been impressing upon my mind and writing on my heart.
First, what is the context of this? It almost seems like White is speaking to a specific group of people here. See context with EGW is incredibly important. Just because some counsel is emphatic in and of itself in one case, doesn’t mean that ALL the counsel is just as emphatic or contextual to whatever situation it is said in. This is why both camps can use EGW against herself by going to different sources. Just because EGW felt that her counsel was from God, doesn’t mean that the way it is interpreted, written down or carried out by herself is infallible. She never claimed infallibility in her writings or counsel.
How can she be so blatantly contradicting herself? Context.
If there is one thing I have gleaned from studying this issue is that using statements of EGW for blanket applications are what has gotten everyone in the mess we are in to begin with and the reason why our church continues to create confusion and error today.
Second, nothing here supports verbal inspiration. It actually supports thought inspiration quite clearly.
Greg - 14 February 2008 02:40 PM
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.For Christ’s sake do not confuse the minds of the people with human sophistry and skepticism, and make of none effect the work that the Lord would do. Do not, by your lack of spiritual discernment, make of this agency of God a rock of offense whereby many shall be caused to stumble and fall, “and be snared, and be taken.” Testimonies Vol 5, p. 691, 1889 edition
Again, though I believe that context is important for understanding where she is coming from and why she is saying this, I will concede that this seems pretty strong warnings about picking apart her writings. I would like to submit this quote to Bacchiocchi and Bradford to see their opinion, though I think Bradford does address something similar here in his book.
Greg - 14 February 2008 02:40 PM
“Some write to me, saying that God has revealed to them that Sister White is in error, that she is influenced by the leaders to believe some things that are not true, and to reject some things that are true. But the word comes again, ”Heed them not; I have not spoken by them, nor given them any word or message. They have spun lying words, from the suggestions of Satan.” Selected Messages Book 2, page 76, paragraph 2
And yet is has been proven even in her lifetime that Uriah Smith was a big influence in some of her historical errors. His book Daniel and Revelation had glaring errors that needed to be fixed in the 1911 Great Controversy revision. These changes were approved by her and she enlisted the help of scholars around to make sure there were no other errors in it.
Again, it seems like EGW is a dual personality? Context again is everything.
When did she write these things? We also must account for theological growth.
EGW was not infallible nor claimed infallibility.
The fact that there were errors (admittedly so by even her) means that her role was not to be an infallible interpreter of scripture, medicine or history.
So why build up a straw man of errors and use that to disprove her when she, herself admitted she was not infallible?
Greg - 14 February 2008 02:40 PM
“Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.” {1888 257.1}
I do not see here an admonishment in discerning and dissecting her writings according to scripture or history here. I see an addressing of an abuse of it for personal satisfaction and comfort. Saying ‘I don’t like EGW’s counsel here because it doesn’t fit my lifestyle. That is merely her own opinion’ is alot different than saying ‘I don’t agree with her counsel here because history and the word of God say it this way.’ The latter view of her work being compared to the counsel of the scriptures was supported by her in many quotes.
Greg - 14 February 2008 02:40 PM
It’s time to face the truth about this, my friend.
My friend, the truth is not found in an infallible prophetess or a deluded false prophet. Evidence of her life and writings disprove both stances.
Again, I really do encourage you to access the online version of ‘More Than a Prophet’. It makes things much clearer and logical than the utter confusion and abuse of ‘either or’ that have riddled everyone’s understanding of EGW.
Translation of the above: words can mean anything we want them to, as long as the “context” is understood correctly.
There is no straw man. The truth is not found in Bacchiocchi or Bradford’s spin. Ellen White’s self-contradictions do not excuse her erroneous visions and the errors in the testimonies she claims came directly from God. She cannot simultaneously claim to be God’s messenger (who cannot be argued with) while spewing anti-biblical error.
The same “fruit” of Ellen White’s life can be found in the life of Joseph Smith, but it doesn’t excuse either of them.
Here are Ellen White’s own words describing her claim to verbal inspiration: “When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me.” (Selected Messages, Vol. 3, pp. 51, 52 1907; Emphasis supplied) Obviously, this clear statement doesn’t support so-called “thought inspiration” as the White Estate now wants us to believe.
