Like I said ... she was considered a good authority to confirm doctrine. But she never established any. She offered her blessing or opinion of approval on many issues .... some of which were doctrine. I’ve done the same here on this forum. It is just that most just don’t consider me as good of an authority as EGW, or Jon Paulien or Jan Paulsen or George Knight.
Yet Jon Paulien, Jan Paulsen and George Knight have not been voted by the GC in session as continuing and authoritative “sources” of truth. Therefore, your comparison is way off the mark.
Glorify Him - 09 April 2008 01:56 PM
If you doubt this. I would challenge you to provide some proof of just one doctrine that she actually established.
How about her teaching that Christians who don’t realize Jesus left the Holy Place for the Most Holy Place in 1844 are actually praying to Satan?
“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.” (Early Writings, Experience and Views, 43.1)
And what about the doctrine that “secret vice” (or masturbation) would cause a person to become mentally ill and have a “misshapen head”?
“The state of the world is alarming. Everywhere we look we see imbecility, dwarf forms, crippled limbs, misshapen heads and deformity of every description…. Corrupt habits are wasting their energies, and bringing upon them loathsome and complicated diseases. Unsuspecting parents will try the skill of physicians, one after another, who prescribe drugs, when they generally know the real cause of the failing health, but for fear of offending, and losing their fees, they keep silent, when as faithful physicians they should expose the real cause…. Children who practice self indulgence [masturbation] … must pay the penalty.” (An Appeal to Mothers: The Great Cause of the Physical, Mental, and Moral Ruin of Children of Our Time., p. 14)
And of course, her most weighty contribution—the doctrine that a single unconfessed sin will condemn a Christian in the judgment.
“All who have ever taken upon themselves the name of Christ must pass its searching scrutiny. Both the living and the dead are to be judged ‘out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.’ Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned, and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God ... Day after day, passing into eternity, bears its burden of records for the books of heaven. Words once spoken, deeds once done, can never be recalled. Angels have registered both the good and the evil. The mightiest conqueror upon the earth can not call back the record of even a single day. Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or to condemn” (The Great Controversy, pg. 552, 1940 edition).
Do you believe that Jesus is our example in all areas of Christian living? Dennis does not appear to have time to answer and in reading some of your posts, you seem like a reasonable guy.
You had a question… Saying that Jesus drank wine (I notice you did not say fermented) or ate meat, does not show that He broke any commandments. Dennis, when I asked him, seemed to go straight to the Sabbath and say it was ceremonial. Which seemed to imply that he might agree Jesus observed the Sabbath. To say that I am ‘vegetarian’ is proof that I am not following Jesus example is poor logic. Besides there is no commandment at issue and so the analogy fails. Is this the basis for your argument that we don’t need to follow Jesus (and a hint of the reasoning to come? ).
(IF WE START A DIALOG), I don’t have much time, so keeping your reasoning short and simple helps me out. Naturally, I am only interested in the Bible, not that I don’t appreciate EGW or others, but we should be able to arrive at Truth without outside help, which I’m sure you will respect. Early history is fine as long as it is early history as supported AND contained in the Bible. ( Basically ends with John… )
I’ll try to be more thick skinned and ignore unloving attitudes. I’ve quickly learned that dialog with those types does not lead me to a closer walk with Jesus.
Good research Greg.However .... I can’t find some of these references such as “Experience and Views”. But again I will state that she has never established one single doctrine of the church. None of those wonderful quotes of yours are established doctrines of the church. The church has not approved them. They are not one of the 28 fundamentals. So, I really don’t understand why you would quote them. As I have said .... EGW is a continuing “source” of truth. But she is just ONE source of many. It just so happens that our church has not identified any “others” but they would be too many to list.
IN a Football or Basketball game they give an award for the Most Valuable Player (MVP). This does not mean that none of the other players are “valuable”. There are MANY valuable players but only one gets the recognition. So it is with Ellen White.
Again .... NO Seventh day Adventist believes in ALL that she ever said. That is just ridiculous. So, go ahead and list all the stupid things that she might have said at one point or another. Big Deal. She actually made mistakes Greg. Big Deal. WE don’t hold her infallible but instead we show that by having all this stuff available for all to read and decide for themselves. Some may actually want to believe some of her ‘stupid’ stuff. To each his or her own .....
This is the quote, from Early Writings, page 56, under the chapter heading “Experience and Views”.
“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.” Satan would then 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.” {EW 56.1}
To this, Glorify Him, you say “big deal”. But it is a big deal, because Ellen White claimed this was shown to her in vision, directly from God. She wrote this account down as God’s message to the Advent people. You say her statements don’t establish doctrine, yet she says God is giving her precious messages for Adventists through her visions, and her words are endorsed as authoritative by the GC in session. This is doctrine, whether you want to believe it or not.
The way I see it, there are two options: 1) Ellen White did not get her visions from God or 2) God has a communication problem. Ellen White merely making a mistake is not an option, because she said God showed her specific things. It is not a simple “mistake” to believe you are getting communications from God, it is either true or it is not.
Glorify Him, you say, “Some may actually want to believe some of her ‘stupid’ stuff.” Please consider the implications of this. You have conceded that the visions Ellen White claimed to receive from God were “stupid”. Is this really what you want people to believe about her claimed gift? Was she just making it all up? Was she on hallucinogenic drugs? If she is relating visions from God that are full of nonsense, what’s the point of reading ANYTHING that she wrote? If she can’t be trusted to speak accurately for God, why should we trust her at all? And most importantly, if she’s putting words into God’s mouth, don’t you think the poor Adventists who take her seriously should be warned?
One other option for some of her stuff is that like with most communications ... we are not always able to know just exactly what she was talking about and what was her intent. I could research this about the statement you have given us ... but really can’t be bothered doing so because there would be no end to it.
So, I would just rather say that some of her stuff is in error. And that just does not bother me one bit. I just don’t have the time nor the desire to research and find out what she really meant. I would rather focus on the Bible. So, I am just giving in to your desire to attack Ellen White. For ... I really don’t care.
If she had a vision and whatever it was that she wanted to communicate with us was in error .... I just don’t care and am willing to concede for you that she was wrong. But none of her visions have been voted on and approved by our church. They are not doctrines of our church. We have only 28 doctrines. And none of those came from Ellen White.
Dear GH,
I was surprised that you would make your admission about EGW, so I opened up two of Greg’s notes and don’t see the connection in any of his statements that point to a church doctrine.
Glorify Him
I would challenge you to provide some proof of just one doctrine that she actually established.
Greg
And what about the DOCTRINE that “secret vice” (or masturbation) would cause a person to become mentally ill and have a “misshapen head”?
Well, thank the Lord someone finally informed me about this church doctrine! (LOL)
Greg
And of course, her most weighty contribution—the DOCTRINE that a single unconfessed sin will condemn a Christian in the judgment.
(My emphasis)
Again, where is the link between this statements and any church doctrine? I noticed that when you asked this, Greg ignored you. Perhaps Greg is lying and distorting again and saying something he can’t support… If not, he’ll be happy to show you where this is in an official church doctrine and connect it with proof that it was established by EGW. Did you notice, by the way, how Greg started with “teaching” and then quickly slipped to “doctrine”? As if to add validity by combining truth with error! Semantic! (they’ll tell you)
I have come to the conclusion there is no point in entering into any dialog here regarding EGW. You have already implied that EGW will be distorted, misquoted and shown in the worst possible light. Need I say anything more? Any discussion you have with them on EGW will be endlessly frustrating and pointless and will not arrive at an unbiased conclusion. They will never acknowledge any validity to EGW and will constantly and only attack you.
Hi Bill. You are correct. But, I am not here to establish any validity in EGW. I am here to try to correct the mischaracterizations of the church and Ellen White. You are correct ... they misrepresent her and the church here.
I don’t care if they place any value on EGW. But please I would ask that they don’t misrepresent her role in our
church.
But, I suspect the distortions will remain.
Don’t shoot the messenger, my Adventist friends. Your prophetess is the one who said God showed her these things, not me. If you choose to reject what the prophetess says God showed her, that’s between you, your prophetess and God.
Oh, and Bill (I know you’ll ignore this, but I’d like to correct the record anyway), doctrines and teachings are one in the same, see below.
doc·trine Dictionary.com: something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
Online Etymology Dictionary: teaching, body of teachings, learning
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary: pertaining to, or containing, doctrine or something taught and to be believed, teaching; instruction.
The only doctrines or teachings of our church that belongs to our church are those voted on by our church while our church is at it church’s General Conference Session and approved by our church at said church’s Conference.
These doctrines or teachings of Ellen White are just that ... teachings of Ellen White’s but they do not belong to our church.
They were not approved by a vote of our church.
Ellen White is simply a source of truth as recognized by our church. No where does our church state nor believe that everything she saw in vision or ever wrote represents The Seventh day Adventist Church. You would just love to impose this on the church ... but it simply is not so. Take your interpretation of Ellen White and form your own church. But please don’t impose Ellen White on our church. Not even one of her teachings or visions were approved by the church as a doctrine. All she did was to offer her confirmation that she also believed in the doctrines as set. I think she is entitled to express her belief as a member of this church.
The only doctrines or teachings of our church that belongs to our church are those voted on by our church while our church is at it church’s General Conference Session and approved by our church at said church’s Conference.
These doctrines or teachings of Ellen White are just that ... teachings of Ellen White’s but they do not belong to our church.
They were not approved by a vote of our church.
Ellen White is simply a source of truth as recognized by our church. No where does our church state nor believe that everything she saw in vision or ever wrote represents The Seventh day Adventist Church. You would just love to impose this on the church ... but it simply is not so. Take your interpretation of Ellen White and form your own church. But please don’t impose Ellen White on our church. Not even one of her teachings or visions were approved by the church as a doctrine. All she did was to offer her confirmation that she also believed in the doctrines as set. I think she is entitled to express her belief as a member of this church.
Your claim to believe in the authority of the Fundamental Doctrines of the Church does not fit with by your refusal to recognize Ellen White as authoritative.
18. The Gift of Prophecy:
As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.
Ellen White is not only “a source of truth”, her writings are authoritative, have authority and authority implies the obligation to obey them. They have authority for correction, another proof that they can not be dismissed so easily as some people are thinking. And if her writings are authoritative, they are representing the position of the SDA Church correctly, because is is easy to see that if 28 Fundamentals have authority, they represent the SDA Church. And if by them Ellen White’s writings are presented as having authority, these writings are truly representative.
Also the policy of the Church in promoting her writings and also sacking the ministers who dared to oppose them proves where the SDA Church really stands. A lot of people suffered and can testify about the authority and importance of EGW
writings in the life of the SDA Church.
Greg - 10 April 2008 08:18 PM
It’s amazing to see such reluctance to accept what the prophetess claimed God showed her, all while endorsing her as a source of truth.
We’ve been round and round this horse. It does not say ALL of her writings are authoritative nor does it say that ALL of her writings are for correction. Some are and some aren’t. The practice of this church is to not believe all of her writings. To do so would be ridiculous. She says some pretty outdated and stupid things. Yet, much of her writings do fit the description of purpose for the church. No human author is infallible. She is just one that has been recognized as having some merit in her opinions. Take what you like and throw out the rest.
I understand your need to build her up so much in order to destroy her. But, we as SDAs will gladly let you tear her down. She is not infallible. But please don’t tear down our church by false accusations at the way we use her. No one is dismissed from church employment because they don’t believe in all her writings. They would be dismissed because they don’t believe in the 28 Fundamentals. But none of the 28 Fundamentals were established by Ellen White. So, you accusations hold no merit.
And to imply that we ‘obey’ Ellen is simply ridiculous. We in no way ‘obey’ her in any form or fashion. We abide by scripture and scripture only. Ellen is there to point us to scripture. She is the lessor of the two. She simply points us to the authority of scripture. Any SDA can simply toss her and not bother with her if they so choose. Don’t make her a god or a pope.
I am curious to know how these texts fit in with the interpretation of the weekly Sabbath being part of a ceremonial law that Paul didn’t observe?
“I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14)
“I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17).
Again in Acts 21:24, James and all the Jewish elders said of Paul, “that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law”.
What Biblical support do folks use to prove that the Sabbath was not part of the Law being spoken of here and to say that Paul did not observe the weekly Sabbath?
Have a good Sabbath and I’ll look forward to reading all your insults on Sunday!
PS: I see you define teaching as doctrine but don’t make the distinction between EGW teaching and church doctrine or make any connections to where she forms the basis of any of the churches beliefs. She herself refers to the Bible as the only source of belief and you won’t find her quoted in any of the fundamental beliefs. Beliefs are compared to her writings but are formed from the Bible only. Lets let EGW go as I get aggravate when I read some of the biased perspectives here. We can both agree that the Bible is authoritative so we should be able to agree to stick to that as our ‘source’ of doctrine.
Nice try Bill. They will never let go of Ellen White. It gives them something to attack. If we rely on the Holy Bible alone .... they would have no foundation to attack the church. You have made some good points. Ellen pointed to the scriptures as our only source of truth. She indicated that ONLY the Bible should be heard from the pulpit. So, any preacher who quotes Ellen White from the pulpit is going against the ‘doctrines’ of the church.
Nice try Bill. They will never let go of Ellen White. It gives them something to attack.
This is quite comical. It is your church that has not let go of Ellen White, even after the failed prophecies, plagiarism and what you admit is “stupid” stuff she wrote—stuff she said came to her directly from God. (Again, I ask you to think about the implications of calling revelations from God “stupid” while claiming the bearer of that “stupid” divine message as a source of truth.)
Glorify Him, it is not an attack to point out the problems with Ellen White. When you use this argument, you make it sound like your church and Ellen White are helpless victims. This is the ultimate defense mechanism—just label arguments you don’t like an “attack” and claim victim status. Instead of doing this, I encourage you to acknowledge the problems created by Ellen White’s voluminous writings and take some responsibility—as a committed Adventist—for repairing the damage her writings have caused. Ellen White and your church are not victims, they are the source of this mess.
Bill - 11 April 2008 03:13 PM
I am curious to know how these texts fit in with the interpretation of the weekly Sabbath being part of a ceremonial law that Paul didn’t observe?
“I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14)
“I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17).
Again in Acts 21:24, James and all the Jewish elders said of Paul, “that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law”.
Bill, do you observe Passover? Jesus and Paul observed it, and by your reasoning, so should you.
).
Basically ends with John… )
