Previously, we discussed a new project of the Ellen G. White Estate aimed at re-defining the life and work of Ellen White for the youngest generation of Adventists. In the January-March 2008 issue of Ellen White: Visionary for Kids, an article by Kessia Reyne Bennett was published entitled ”My Friend Ellen”. Bennett is an Assistant Evangelism Coordinator for the Oregon Conference and writes of her upbringing in Adventism, particularly regarding the impact Ellen White played in her spiritual life. Writing about the relationship to the Adventist prophetess, Bennett writes: “My friendship with her began about 11 years ago. I was a teenager at the time and had just moved 500 miles to learn more about faith and the Bible and the Adventist message. I was starting at a new school in a new place—and I felt plenty of awkwardness trying to navigate the unfamiliar hallways and social networks. I was always glad when I could spend the weekend with my new friends at Hockinson Heights Church. It was there that I first heard about Ellen, though it was several weeks before I met her personally. And when I did, I thought that she and I would be friends for a long time.”

The reverence shown here for “Ellen” is very similar to the way Christians speak of finding Jesus Christ for the first time, which makes reading the rest of this article particularly troubling. Instead of speaking about Jesus as the revealed Son of God who is able to save and keep his sheep, Bennett places the prophetess in a mediatorial role between herself and Jesus. “Most of the reason that I liked Ellen was that she was a devout Christian. It seemed she had nothing to say that wasn’t about God, and when she talked about Him it was like she really knew Him—and I could sense it. It was inspiring, really. ... The other reason I liked Ellen was that she talked straight. Flattery is annoying, and she never flattered anybody. She was always real and always concerned about what mattered. If you were too caught up in yourself, Ellen would let you know. If you were neglecting what Jesus had asked of you, Ellen would remind you of your responsibility.”

The message for the young children reading this article is clear: make friends with Ellen White so you can be reminded of what Jesus has asked you to do. But wait! Hasn’t Jesus already spoken clearly enough? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that “long ago” God spoke by the prophets, but in “these last days” he speaks to us directly through his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2)? Apparently not in the mind of Ms. Bennett and all who would saddle the next generation of Adventists with another voice competing for their attention, ultimately drowning out the voice of the Son who has already spoken with forceful clarity.

Bennett gives us a peek into what results from listening to the competing voices—as she says it, reading Ellen White gave her a “guilt complex”. “It started to drive me crazy! And besides, she was so old-fashioned and a lot of good Christians had never read anything Ellen had written . . . I was friendly on the outside but angry on the inside, hoping I’d never run into her again.” For Bennett, these feelings of guilt did not last long. Now we reach the real heart of Bennett’s message. “But when I heard people talking bad about her, calling her a liar and fake and a cheat, it kind of woke me up. Because I knew that what had bothered me about Ellen White was her truth-telling.”

The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that it can be easily transposed to any number of “prophets” who carry similar messages aimed at inducing guilt, modifying behavior and speaking for God. Consider the dietary and behavioral restrictions placed on Mormons. Should a young Mormon “wake up” to the truth of Joseph Smith’s ministry simply because others are critical of his message?

But there is more to the story here. Bennett seems intent on keeping the kids who are reading her article from thinking critically about Ellen White, long before they reach the age where they may gain the necessary skills to do so. She writes, “...I read up on the criticisms of her ministry and the responses too. Eventually I became convinced that the critics were wrong: Ellen G. White was a faithful messenger of Jesus. Her love for and commitment to Him was so evident on every page, and she never said anything to me that contradicted the Word. I couldn’t hold against her my hardheartedness, I couldn’t hold against her the way other people quoted her, I couldn’t hold against her her faithfulness.”

The message couldn’t be more clear. Ellen White is infallible, never contradicts Scripture, and is absolutely essential to understanding what Jesus wants you to do. Nevermind that the poor children are potentially dead in their sins and enemies of God, needing to be reconciled to the Father through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s beside the point. Instead, the children need to discover their “friend” Ellen, who will tell them exactly how to be “good” boys and girls if they listen well, unless they harden their hearts against her.

Thanks for highlighting this article, Greg.  It’s evident that the indoctrination of the young into the ways of Ellen is very much alive and well in the church.  This very thing is what opened the eyes of my denominationally employed, (at least) 4th generation SDA wife that led to her to investigate some of the things she always just assumed were true.  She was doing the SDA home school kindergarten curriculum for my son and was alarmed at several of the lessons dealing with EGW in this manner..."and he never questioned the truthfulness of Ellen ever again...” or something to that effect, etc.  There’s really no other reason to include stuff like this in a curriculum for 5-year olds other than early indoctrination.

I’m almost afraid to respond to these posts for fear I will succumb to ranting.

This deliberate brainwashing of innocent children to never question Ellen White is despicable and cultic

Enough said

John Douglas

Frankly, I think you folks are worrying way too much.

I have no problems with our children learning about EGW. My hope is that she will be taught in the right light. You can’t ignore her and she can’t simply be thrown on the trash heap. To do so is to ignore many years and pages of writings, counsel and inspiration (yes, I believe this occurred along with the negatives). It is foolish to think that the church is going to toss her out.

So the important thing is that she is taught properly...herein lies my complaint, not that she is being promoted at all to our youth.

The critics say ‘learn that she was a false prophet at the worst and a misguided sometimes delusional ‘Christian’ at the best’. The others say ‘ignore the critics, she was a dedicated source of authoritative truth for the church. To neglect her writings is to put your Christianity in peril’ EGW MUST be taught in the right light or mental mayhem and doubts will arise. There is way too much conflicting information that will only throw our youth in a state of confusion whether they reject or accept her. I believe that a balance is needed (even though I am in the minority on this stance with you fine folk here as I would be at a conservative forum like Revival Sermons..oh well..the truth is the truth )

For the record, I decided to meet the EGW issue head on in my Religon 11/12 class. I fretted over this class for a week wondering how I was going to get my message across without offending certain parents. I was expecting a back lash of epic proportions.

Guess what happened?

Nada…

The kids COULDN’T HAVE CARED LESS. They looked bored about my presentation, had no clue about any controversy and really didn’t have an opinion one way or the other on EGW. Only two had even read some of her books.

I do not believe that EGW is an issue of concern to the next generation. They didn’t go through the Rea/Ford controversies of the 70s and 80s. They aren’t attending the SDA Colleges of our youth that required segregation, no blue jeans, no condiments at the cafeteria and mandatory church attendance. Church apologism and sectarianism is not important to them in this day and age with what all they are going through.

I believe that unless she is really kept in the forefront, EGW will simply be relegated to one aspect of our church’s history, but not the most important thing in today’s age.

guibox - 11 February 2008 09:45 AM

I have no problems with our children learning about EGW. My hope is that she will be taught in the right light. You can’t ignore her and she can’t simply be thrown on the trash heap. To do so is to ignore many years and pages of writings, counsel and inspiration (yes, I believe this occurred along with the negatives). It is foolish to think that the church is going to toss her out.

Why can’t EGW be ignored? It sounds like you are making a pragmatic decision to keep and redefine her simply because you know the church cannot move out from under her influence. If EGW can’t be ignored, you’re implying that she brings something to the table not found in the pages of Scripture. Guibox, what is the benefit of keeping EGW?

For the record, I decided to meet the EGW issue head on in my Religon 11/12 class. I fretted over this class for a week wondering how I was going to get my message across without offending certain parents. I was expecting a back lash of epic proportions.

Guess what happened?

Nada…

The kids COULDN’T HAVE CARED LESS. They looked bored about my presentation, had no clue about any controversy and really didn’t have an opinion one way or the other on EGW. Only two had even read some of her books.

Actually, this worries me. If the kids don’t know enough to care about the problems Ellen White’s writings pose in their contradiction of the gospel, you have bigger problems than whether or not they are being taught to understand her properly.

I do not believe that EGW is an issue of concern to the next generation. They didn’t go through the Rea/Ford controversies of the 70s and 80s. They aren’t attending the SDA Colleges of our youth that required segregation, no blue jeans, no condiments at the cafeteria and mandatory church attendance. Church apologism and sectarianism is not important to them in this day and age with what all they are going through.

Ford’s criticism of EGW’s writings were centered on their nullification of the biblical gospel. He said her endorsement of the investigative judgment “cut the nerve of Christian assurance” by focusing on the fruit and not the root of our Christian experience. This criticism is still valid today, particularly since the denomination is reiterating and re-emphasizing her teachings as vital for its members to “connect with Jesus”. Guibox, if it is as you say and today’s church could care less about this whole thing, Adventists have much bigger problems than we can imagine, because their complacency implies disinterest in the foundation of the Christian faith.

I believe that unless she is really kept in the forefront, EGW will simply be relegated to one aspect of our church’s history, but not the most important thing in today’s age.

Didn’t Ellen White warn that the church would lose its way if her testimonies were ignored? Was she wrong on this point too? This cafeteria approach to her writings leads me to wonder what part of her teachings you consider worth preserving.

Greg

Wow,

That’s all I can say when i see how adventists are trying to “whitewash” Ellen’s mistakes as what is wrong is less significant than what is good in her writings. The problem is that what they think was good is in reality worse that what they consider to be wrong, because it subtly denies the reality of Christ and redemption. All the peculiar and distinctive teachings of adventism takes a part from Jesus Christ’s glory manifested in his person and work of redemption.

Imagine Ellen White applying for a post of pastor in a one of the evangelical churches and presenting her plan for the ministry by talking about how she will teach Investigative Judgment, Sabbath as Seal of God, Sunday as the mark of the Beast, soul sleep and anihilationism, and expecting to be accepted not as an average pastor, but as the best person fit for the job !

She will not be accepted, which proves that she’s not qualified even to be a normal, average, Christian leader. If she’s not qualified for being a normal leader, image how she will pass the test of a prophet, above the ordinary leaders.

Gabriel

Greg - 11 February 2008 10:31 AM

Why can’t EGW be ignored? It sounds like you are making a pragmatic decision to keep and redefine her simply because you know the church can never move out from under her influence. If EGW can’t be ignored, you’re implying that she brings something to the table not found in the pages of Scripture. Guibox, what is the benefit of keeping EGW?

The pragmatic aspect of this IS the reality for the SDA church. The complaining here is that EGW is being promoted to the SDA youth. Well, hello...it’s going to happen. It HAS to happen for a church who promotes it to function in their understanding. Saying ‘why can’t it be ignored’ is not relevant to the reality of the situation for the SDA church in teaching their SDA youth.

The benefit of keeping EGW is for counsel of which she has given much more for good then bad. EGW did have profound insight into areas homiletic and theological. I don’t care how much bad you find or how you see her, these facts found in the lives of people who knew her well and the hundreds of thousands of pages she has written cannot be denied, nor can (or should) they be just thrown out.

When EGW becomes the final interpreter and commentary on scripture and the mantra becomes ‘what would White do’, her writings have become more than they should be.

Greg - 11 February 2008 10:31 AM

Actually, this worries me. If the kids don’t know enough to care about the problems Ellen White’s writings pose in their contradiction of the gospel, you have bigger problems than whether or not they are being taught to understand her properly.

If they are not being taught the gospel and scriptures, you might have a problem. However, if the don’t know what White teaches and glean their facts from the Bible, there should be no problem. As a matter of fact, I think that is better. It takes away the massive confusion they would be getting from both sides.

Greg - 11 February 2008 10:31 AM

Ford’s criticism of EGW’s writings were centered on their nullification of the biblical gospel. He said her endorsement of the investigative judgment “cut the nerve of Christian assurance” by focusing on the fruit and not the root of our Christian experience. This criticism is still valid today, particularly since the denomination is reiterating and re-emphasizing her teachings as vital for its members to “connect with Jesus”. Guibox, if it is as you say and today’s church could care less about this whole thing, Adventists have much bigger problems than we can imagine because their complacency implies disinterest in the foundation of the Christian faith.

And yet Ford still had respect for her as a solid Christian woman and believed her to be inspired. Hmmm....

I disagree with your last part. The complacency is not found in people believing that EGW taught ‘false assurance’ and then simply ignoring her. First, I don’t believe that the SDA church teaches a false gospel to begin with. Second, the problems and issues that are taken up with EGW from youth and others in the church is more to the way she is used and her ‘nit-picking counsel’ on dress, food and other standards.  The complacency is found in kids not taking the time to use her to determine the way they should live.

I believe that unless she is really kept in the forefront, EGW will simply be relegated to one aspect of our church’s history, but not the most important thing in today’s age.

Greg - 11 February 2008 10:31 AM

Didn’t Ellen White warn that the church would lose its way if her testimonies were ignored? Was she wrong on this point too? This cafeteria approach to her writings leads me to wonder what part of her teachings you consider worth preserving.
Greg

Simple. According to the counsel of Paul. Keep that which is good, discard that which is bad. Understand her writings in the proper counsel of relevancy, culture, time period and the fact that times and even theology can change under the concept of progressive revelation, something that EGW practiced and understood. Dont’ take her writings as a blanket application to all times and people. Understand that she was fallible. She was not an exegete of scripture, nor an authority on historical, theological and medical matters.

guibox - 11 February 2008 12:30 PM

The pragmatic aspect of this IS the reality for the SDA church. The complaining here is that EGW is being promoted to the SDA youth. Well, hello...it’s going to happen. It HAS to happen for a church who promotes it to function in their understanding. Saying ‘why can’t it be ignored’ is not relevant to the reality of the situation for the SDA church in teaching their SDA youth.

So for “good” Mormons, the pragmatic counsel you are recommending here is to embrace the “good” in Joseph Smith and focus on the “positive” aspects of his ministry. They’re gonna hear about him anyway, so they might as well have a well-polished and “believable” version of him to trust.... Come on, Guibox, you’re ignoring the very deep problems in Ellen White here...you’re asking us all to swallow EGW because she cannot be discounted, or else the Adventist church would have no reason to exist, just like the Mormon church would have no reason to exist apart from the “prophecies” of Joseph Smith. You’re starting with the assumption that EGW must be kept and therein lies the root of all your subsequent erroneous conclusions. If she can’t be subjected to the same examination that Paul commended the Bereans for (Acts 17:11), she has moved beyond the role of simply being a “homiletical” and “theological” counselor to the level of inspired mouthpiece for God. Of course, this is what your church teaches about her already because they officially describe her as an “authoritative source of truth”.  The subversion of Christ’s authority and the authority of Scripture is completed once this assumption about EGW is made, and this is exactly the aim of the writer of the “My Friend Ellen” article. “...she never said anything to me that contradicted the Word...” The message is clear: “Kids, you can trust Mrs. White because she’s never said or written anything that goes against God’s Word, and in fact, she’s much easier to understand than the Bible!”

The benefit of keeping EGW is for counsel of which she has given much more for good then bad. EGW did have profound insight into areas homiletic and theological. I don’t care how much bad you find or how you see her, these facts found in the lives of people who knew her well and the hundreds of thousands of pages she has written cannot be denied, nor can (or should) they be just thrown out.

Joseph Smith has written hundreds of pages too. Should we keep his writings on the same basis?

When EGW becomes the final interpreter and commentary on scripture and the mantra becomes ‘what would White do’, her writings have become more than they should be.

But as a source of truth, how can she not at least be on par with Scripture, if not its infallible interpreter?

If they are not being taught the gospel and scriptures, you might have a problem. However, if the don’t know what White teaches and glean their facts from the Bible, there should be no problem. As a matter of fact, I think that is better. It takes away the massive confusion they would be getting from both sides.

Go back and read the Valuegenesis study I cited in the ”Appeal to our Adventist Friends” and tell me the kids aren’t confused.

And yet Ford still had respect for her as a solid Christian woman and believed her to be inspired. Hmmm....

I’d like to hear his current opinion on the topic. Last I heard from him, he was arguing strenuously against the Investigative Judgment doctrine in the very same way we do here on 4TG. I don’t know if Ellen White was a born-again Christian and I cannot judge her heart. All I have to go on is her anti-gospel teachings, and that’s enough for me to know that I could never recommend the Adventist Church to anyone desiring to learn about the Christian faith. Seeing as how Dr. Ford was banned from working for the church, my guess is that he’d agree with me. There’s simply too much confusion and conflicting teaching there for me to recommend it to anyone, and the source of confusion can be traced straight back to Ellen White. Guibox, the fact that you must pick through her writings to find the good and re-define her role proves this point.

First, I don’t believe that the SDA church teaches a false gospel to begin with.

So you agree that we must pass a work of investigative judgment in order to qualify for the “good news” that we are “fit for heaven”? You believe that even one unconfessed sin will keep you out of heaven, and this is not contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ? This is still the official teaching of Adventism, my friend, and it contradicts the gospel.

Second, the problems and issues that are taken up with EGW from youth and others in the church is more to the way she is used and her ‘nit-picking counsel’ on dress, food and other standards.  The complacency is found in kids not taking the time to use her to determine the way they should live.

I don’t disagree that this is part of the problem, but this is only a symptom of the deeper problem that the SDA gospel is one of works-based righteousness. Guibbox, do you endorse Ellen White’s system of works-based righteousness or is this another area you simply choose to overlook?

According to the counsel of Paul. Keep that which is good, discard that which is bad. Understand her writings in the proper counsel of relevancy, culture, time period and the fact that times and even theology can change under the concept of progressive revelation, something that EGW practiced and understood. Dont’ take her writings as a blanket application to all times and people. Understand that she was fallible. She was not an exegete of scripture, nor an authority on historical, theological and medical matters.

Let’s see how Mrs. White characterizes her own writings and see if she allows herself to be used in the way you are describing.

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

“Let Pioneers Identify Truth.--When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions, contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit.” {CW 31.2}

“We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God."-- Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905.) {CW 32.2}

Guibox, you are now in direct contradiction to Ellen White’s words. You have removed pillars from the foundation of the Adventist religion by minimizing certain key doctrines and simply disregarding the counsels of the prophetess. Her writings are clear—they contain precious truth God gave solely to her and we are not free to pick and choose what we like from them.

Greg

Greg - 11 February 2008 01:10 PM

So for “good” Mormons, the pragmatic counsel you are recommending here is to embrace the “good” in Joseph Smith and focus on the “positive” aspects of his ministry. They’re gonna hear about him anyway, so they might as well have a well-polished and “believable” version of him to trust.... Come on, Guibox, you’re ignoring the very deep problems in Ellen White here...you’re asking us all to swallow EGW because she cannot be discounted, or else the Adventist church would have no reason to exist, just like the Mormon church would have no reason to exist apart from the “prophecies” of Joseph Smith.

I do not believe that EGW can be discounted. I do not believe that it can be done. EGW and her writings, her testimony, her Christian conduct, her experience and influence and her 70 years of dedicated service cannot be discounted.

So what do you do with it? How do you portray it? How do you interpret it? How do you view her role and authority?

These are the facts and the issues in my opinion.

As far as Mormonism goes, I don’t believe (as many other cult watchers will also say) that even with the IJ, you can compare SDAism with Mormonism. If White and Smith were the comparing criterion on acceptability or not, then the SDA church would be considered a cult as well.

That means that despite the IJ (what you say is false gospel), the SDA church is not considered a cult theologically as the Mormons. That means that Smith, by endorsing and promoting (nay, even creating) the beliefs of his church, cannot be considered the same as EGW and is a false prophet.

Greg - 11 February 2008 01:10 PM

Guibox, you are now in direct contradiction to Ellen White’s words. You have removed pillars from the foundation of the Adventist religion by minimizing certain key doctrines and simply disregarding the counsels of the prophetess. Her writings are clear—they contain precious truth God gave solely to her and we are not free to pick and choose what we like from them. Greg

Then according to your belief, you believe she must be infallible or false. This cannot be so. As I said before, her testimony and her life contradict both these views. This is why I believe both stances on opposite sides miss the mark and cannot efficiently solve the ‘problem’ of EGW.

In answer to your above comments, I will post what I said on another thread:

“Yes, I know some will point out to me EGW’s own words on the matter saying how important her writings were and woe to anyone who disregarded them, but I believe that context and applicability to certain areas, as well as EGW’s humanness and theological growth can be attributed to those few specific instances that make EGW seem like she is either placing her writings on par with scripture or contradicting herself (again, see theological growth).”

Guibox, if you want to bury your head in the sand, so be it. I’ve tried to be as fair to Ellen White as I can be and as charitable to you as possible. But my friend, I think that you are playing with fire.

Greg

And for the record, I believe anyone who takes Ellen White at her word and believes their salvation is dependent upon remembering unconfessed sins, eating certain foods, wearing certain clothing and accepting her testimony as inspired—to the degree they believe this impacts their salvation—they are on a bad road indeed. Effectively, the religion of these individuals is indistinguishable from the religion of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. Call it a cult if you like—it is certainly not biblical Christianity.

Greg

Greg - 11 February 2008 02:27 PM

And for the record, I believe anyone who takes Ellen White at her word and believes their salvation is dependent upon remembering unconfessed sins, eating certain foods, wearing certain clothing and accepting her testimony as inspired—to the degree they believe this impacts their salvation—they are on a bad road indeed. Effectively, the religion of these individuals is indistinguishable from the religion of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. Call it a cult if you like—it is certainly not biblical Christianity.

Greg

You might as well fault most of Christendom then, Greg. Anybody who doesn’t believe in OSAS or election will believe in some variation of the SDA gospel. Arminianism believes that our actions to choose or reject God determine our salvation. No Christian not in those two camps in their right mind will say that the way we behave will not ultimately affect our salvation or (at the least determine whether we have a saving faith or not - which I believe EGW taught).

When you get right down to it, EVERY group not in these two camps believe in salvation by works as defined by your criteria. The problem then doesn’t really lie in SDAism vs the gospel when you get completely honest with yourselves.

The problem is in Arminianism vs Reformed. If you believe that Calvinism is the gospel, then it doesn’t matter if I believe in the IJ or just simply choosing to not fall into sin and die in condemnation (which most of Christendom does believe).

This is why arguing for or against SDAism with Calvinists makes no sense. Instead of comparing apples with apples, I feel like I am defending apples against oranges.

guibox - 11 February 2008 03:47 PM

You might as well fault most of Christendom then, Greg. Anybody who doesn’t believe in OSAS or election will believe in some variation of the SDA gospel. Arminianism believes that our actions to choose or reject God determine our salvation. No Christian not in those two camps in their right mind will say that the way we behave will not ultimately affect our salvation or (at the least determine whether we have a saving faith or not - which I believe EGW taught).

When you get right down to it, EVERY group not in these two camps believe in salvation by works as defined by your criteria. The problem then doesn’t really lie in SDAism vs the gospel when you get completely honest with yourselves.

The problem is in Arminianism vs Reformed. If you believe that Calvinism is the gospel, then it doesn’t matter if I believe in the IJ or just simply choosing to not fall into sin and die in condemnation (which most of Christendom does believe).

This is why arguing for or against SDAism with Calvinists makes no sense. Instead of comparing apples with apples, I feel like I am defending apples against oranges.

While I don’t disagree with you that there are problems with the Arminian gospel, when it comes down to it, Arminians will affirm that they are saved by grace alone. They may not see the implications of their understanding that they can choose to believe in God (making their faith, in essence, a work), but they will affirm along with Reformed Christians that they are saved solely by God’s grace.

Where Ellen White differs from Arminianism is in her teaching that a perfected character qualifies a sinner for salvation. She makes the content of the sinner’s character the ultimate test of their “fitness for heaven”, in contrast to an Arminian who would say that Jesus’ blood (and his blood alone) is the merit upon which Christians stand before God.

Ellen White is not so much an Arminian as she is a semi-Pelagian. Where an Arminian can be faulted for implying that faith is a “work” upon which salvation hangs, the semi-Pelagian believes he has goodness within him that cooperates with God’s saving grace. Both Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism depend upon a form of synergy between the work of God and the work of man, but the semi-Pelagian takes man’s work and elevates it to a level beyond anything resembling justification by faith alone.

Consider these quotes from Ellen White which clearly demonstrate her semi-Pelagianism:

“When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit” (My Life Today, pg. 250).

“To obey the commandments of God is the only way to obtain His favor” (4T 28).

“Man, who has defaced the image of God in his soul by a corrupt life, cannot, by mere human effort, effect a radical change in himself. He must accept the provisions of the gospel; he must be reconciled to God through obedience to His law and faith in Jesus Christ” (4T 294-5).

These statements would make any Arminian cringe, because they inherently deny the Scriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine that Reformed Christians and Arminians both affirm.

Guibox, I will admit that semi-Pelagianism can be found in other segments of the professing Christian church, but heresy is still heresy. Ellen White doesn’t get a free pass because others also have problems. And as Gabriel said, no evangelical church today would entertain having Ellen White teach her brand of Christianity to their congregation.

We’re also losing sight of the topic of this thread. The point of the article was to demonstrate the way the White Estate is attempting to re-cast Ellen White for the next generation of Adventists who do not have the critical thinking skills to see through the lies they are being fed. One of the lies of the article was that Ellen White “never said anything to me that contradicted the Word.” Guibox, earlier you said it was our job to figure out which parts of Ellen White were valuable and which parts were not. Presumably you would use the Scriptures as a measuring tool to determine value, and if so, don’t you have problems with teaching kids that nothing Ellen White says contradicts God’s Word? How is this not cultic behavior, akin to what Mormons would teach their own children about Joseph Smith?

Greg

There is a good article on Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism here.  We had a discussion on 4TG about this here.

Those who label themselves as ”progressive Adventists” have created an alphabetical list of more than 50 SDA churches worldwide that fit their unique criteria (http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2007/04/church-scene.html).  Interestingly and amazingly, the largest segment of this group is the younger generation of Seventh-day Adventists who increasingly do not associate 1844 and Ellen White with Adventism. 

Some churches on this list are already severed from official Adventism (i.e., Cafekirken and Arhus Cafekirke in Denmark).  The Adventist young people in Denmark and other countries have voted with their feet.  The investigative judgment alibi, 1844, and Ellen White are not equally taught in SDA churches throughout the world.  Ever since L. R. Conradi left Adventism, European Adventists have generally had minimal exposure to these “foundational truths” of the so-called “Remnant Church.”

Paradoxically, these new “progressive” Adventists are dumping Ellen White and her teachings while still giving lip service to other Adventist distinctives.  While they recognize her false claims, they still largely embrace the church she co-founded with her husband.  Other churches on the above-described list have pastors who still receive their salaries from the local SDA Conference.  Obviously, most of these churches are still denominationally-owned.

It is encouraging, however, to note that this new breed of “progressive Adventists” are actually honest-hearted, inquiring Adventists--the first step toward the exit doors.  As these “progressive Adventists” discover that a particular SDA doctrine does not pass close scrutiny, this creates serious concern that still other doctrines may be in the same category. Truly, those who are intent upon accurate answers will no longer remain in a toxic-faith system.  In His own time, God is calling ever-increasing numbers of Adventists out of bondage and fear and into the freedom and security found only in Jesus Christ.

His grace still amazes me,

Dennis Fischer

Greg - 11 February 2008 04:26 PM

We’re also losing sight of the topic of this thread. The point of the article was to demonstrate the way the White Estate is attempting to re-cast Ellen White for the next generation of Adventists who do not have the critical thinking skills to see through the lies they are being fed. One of the lies of the article was that Ellen White “never said anything to me that contradicted the Word.” Guibox, earlier you said it was our job to figure out which parts of Ellen White were valuable and which parts were not. Presumably you would use the Scriptures as a measuring tool to determine value, and if so, don’t you have problems with teaching kids that nothing Ellen White says contradicts God’s Word? How is this not cultic behavior, akin to what Mormons would teach their own children about Joseph Smith?

Greg

Guibox,

I was thinking the same thing as what Greg said above.  I’m not sure if you’re advocating for the article that is the subject of the original post or disagreeing with it.  The author certainly doesn’t agree with your position on the use of EGW so I guess I’m a little confused.

Aaron

Aaron - 11 February 2008 08:29 PM

Guibox,

I was thinking the same thing as what Greg said above.  I’m not sure if you’re advocating for the article that is the subject of the original post or disagreeing with it.  The author certainly doesn’t agree with your position on the use of EGW so I guess I’m a little confused.

Aaron

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.

From Dennis
As these “progressive Adventists” discover that a particular SDA doctrine does not pass close scrutiny, this creates serious concern that still other doctrines may be in the same category.

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.

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.

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.