My answer really does require a lengthy response, but since I also have a sermon to finish for this weekend (A Christ centered one devoid of ellen white quotes I would point out) I would summarize with this, my main points of difference with adventism are in regards to Ellen White and the investigative judgment. While I realize there have been mistakes I have found within Adventism many true Christians as well. The more true Christians that leave the church then the worse off it will be, If there is to be any hope of the church moving past some of these theological issues then there needs be more of those people in the church who are willing to question but also to realize that discussing and eventually moving past these issues is a growth process that will take time. If I live my life with Jesus Christ at the center of my beliefs and encourage those in the churches that I work in and with to do the same then my conscience is clear.
I apologize if my initial response came off sounding accusatory, or in anyway judgmental. I typed out a long response last night but through my pushing a wrong button, it has been lost and only the cyber gods will know how insightful, profound and astute it was. When those things happen, I think only a couple of nasty thoughts and then figure it wasn’t meant to be, and probably for good reason.
I guess I wrongly assumed that you would be comfortable calling Ellen White a prophetess, given the fact that this admonition is one of the fundamental beliefs of the SDa church, of which you stated you were a in a position of Adventist Pastoral leadership, albeit at a lower level.
I guess I also assumed that someone on the payroll, in leadership, would also be in agreement with the traditional view of the Investigative judgment as reitterated and affirmed by the GC president Jan Paulsen, and also still considered a/the foundational cornerstone of the Adventist theological paradigm.
I am truly heartened to hear you say that your salvation rests solely on your acceptance of Christ’s gift through His sacrifice at calvary that will cover all your sins.
Given the above belief, I am curious as to whether you consider “the Sabbath” to be the seal of God, and whether you preach that it will be an end time salvation issue as is continuing to be taught and endorsed officially by the SDA church? This I feel is also one of the foundational beliefs that a professed Adventist, and especially one in leadership would hold steadfastly too.
If you profess the above, do you see that in anyway being contradictory to your stated belief in salvation by Christ alone?
If you do not feel that the “Sabbath” is a salvation issue, if you do not profess Ellen White as a prophet as describe by the White Estate, and the GC, if you do not endorse the official and traditional view of the Investigative Judgment, why are you a Seventh-day Adventist, let alone a Seventh-day Adventist Minister?
I am curious if you believe that the SDA church is God’s end time Remnant Church, as is taught in all SDA Revelation Seminars and as confirmed and taught by Ellen White? If you do, on what basis do you make this claim, given the above discussion?
Although I was never an Adventist Minister, I was an Adventist for 45 year, with 16 of those years being schooled in Adventist institutions.
Once I recognized I could not profess or endorse the above doctrines of the church, I realized I could no longer be truthful and authentic if I continued to even pretend I was something I was not.
Thank you Chiapet for your comment. Please understand we are all here to learn and grow. This is my continued prayer for you as well.
Chia, I want to press you a little bit on what you said here. It sounds like you are saying that those Adventists who hold Ellen White as a prophetess are “unbalanced”, and also that it is possible to be an Adventist in good standing without believing this. Many transitioning and former Adventists would raise their eyebrows at this, because as you are well aware, the church has an official position on Ellen White’s prophetic authority:
What I essentially meant by that Is I do and always have held issue with the way Ellen White has been elevated in the Adventist church. Perhaps unbalanced was too strong a word, they have essentially elevated her to a level with scripture which despite the the fact that the church leadership does support the view you mentioned I at least give them credit in stating that we do not equate her writings with the bible. This statement is found in many documents by the biblical research institute. I would say at the heart of this issue is that for a while in the church before we started questioning, developing and solidifying our view on Ellen White there were many that did not have a proper view of her or her writings. Unfortunately by this time some of these views were so ingrained into the church as a whole that it is an uphill battle for many to see the degree to which Ellen White has elevated beyond which she should have been. I would say there are many Adventists in good standing who hold to a much more moderate view of Ellen White, they also however realize that a change, and moving out from under her influence is not something that will happen overnight. Essentially I would theorize that there are many of us who would choose to work within our context while not subscribing to the infallible interpreter view. I have been in many churches, especially churches with a predominatly younger crowd, most notably the churces located in our college towns, where hardly a mention of Ellen White is heard.
I apologize if my initial response came of sounding accusatory or in anyway judgmental. I typed out a long response last night but through my pushing a wrong button, it has been lost and only the cyber gods will know how insightful, profound and astute it was. When those things happen, I think only a couple of nasty thoughts and then figure it wasn’t meant to be, and probably for good reason.
I guess I wrongly assumed that you would be comfortable calling Ellen White a prophetess, given the fact that this admonition is one of the fundamental beliefs of the SDa church, of which you stated you were a in a position of Adventist Pastoral leadership, albeit at a lower level.
I guess I also assumed that someone on the payroll, in leadership, would also be in agreement with the traditional view of the Investigative judgment as reitterated and affirmed by the GC president Jan Paulsen, and also still considered a/the foundational cornerstone of the Adventist theological paradigm.
I am truly heartened to hear you say that your salvation rests solely on your acceptance of Christ’s gift through His sacrifice at calvary that will cover all your sins.
Given the above belief, I am curious as to whether you consider “the Sabbath” to be the seal of God, and whether you preach that it will be an end time salvation issue as is continuing to be taught and endorsed officially by the SDA church? This I feel is also one of the foundational beliefs that a professed Adventist, and especially one in leadership would hold steadfastly too.
If you profess the above, do you see that in anyway being contradictory to your stated belief in salvation by Christ alone?
If you do not feel that the “Sabbath” is a salvation issue, if you do not profess Ellen White as a prophet as describe by the White Estate, and the GC, if you do not endorse the official and traditional view of the Investigative Judgment, why are you a Seventh-day Adventist, let alone a Seventh-day Adventist Minister?
I am curious if you believe that the SDA church is God’s end time Remnant Church, as is taught in all SDA Revelation Seminars and as confirmed and taught by Ellen White? If you do, on what basis do you make this claim, given the above discussion?
Although I was never an Adventist Minister, I was an Adventist for 45 year, with 16 of those years being schooled in Adventist institutions.
Once I recognized I could not profess or endorse the above doctrines of the church, I realized I could no longer be truthful and authentic if I continued to even pretend I was something I was not.
Thank you Chiapet for your comment. Please understand we are all here to learn and grow. This is my continued prayer for you as well.
Randy
I thank for our questions and they are all areas in which I have been questioning myself as of lately. I do differ in adventism in a few key areas, most notably Ellen White, the investigative judgment, the mark of the beast, and the remnant church. Before I undertake to answer to cover those areas I will give a brief summary of my background so you can understand more fully where I am coming from. I was brought up in a very staunch ultra conservative SDA church one in which Ellen White was used in ways that were quite off balance, this led me to have some very strong anti Ellen White sentiments. I also did not grow up with a proper understnading of the Gospel given that one of the great weeknesses of the SDA church is the lack of keeping Jesus Christ at the center of our beliefs. I grew up hearing things from people (when talking about “witnessing") like ‘I was able to share with them the truth of the mark of the beast” or other SDA distinctives. This emphasis on doctrine and truth over Jesus has always bothered me and still does to this day. I did not have a proper understanding of the Gospel until my years in an SDA private high school. Which regardless of our feelings on SDA I can definitely say that I would not be in a church at all if I did not attend that school. At the time my life was falling apart, and I was on the verge of making a decision for or against Christ My attendance at this school was the tunring point in my understanding of the Gospel, and my dedication to Jesus Christ, so God can work through any institution regardless of its problems. Anyways from there I went on to an SDA collegefor one year, took a year off after that at which point I felt God calling me into ministry. After a year off examining this possibiltiy I transfered to another SDA college with my major as theology. I actually just recently graduated and got a job where I essentially have the role of a pastoral assistant in the area of evangelism, and I am moved around the state to get churches ready for evangelistic programs. A few additional comments; my strong feelings against Ellen White were partially softened by my realizing that some of her books do have value in the area of devotionals, but I still retained my questions about the position most in the church elevated her to. I have also met several true and sincere Christians in this denomination especially my bible teacher in high school and some of my theology professors in college which greatly helped my Christian walk.
Anyways from that background I know find myself in a mode of questioning, most notably with the four ideas mentioned above. I will say I am still a sabbatarian, but would hesitate to take it as far as most SDA’s have. I believe the concept of the sabbath is important (essentially God saying, take a day and chill, and spend it with me), and that the commandment is specific about the day, but in my most recent thinking I have looked at it as not my worshiping on that day that saves me but because God has saved me my regenerated nature automatically wants to spend time with my God on that day as well as every other day of the week. I will admit there are a number of weeknesses with the way SDA’s “keep” the sabbath. “oh, its sundown, I guess I can put that CD back in,” to which my question would be, “if you had to take it out in the first place, what does that say??” Also nowehere does the bible say “thou shalt have a worship service on saturday” it says keep the day holy which if I spend the day hiking, swimming, or just taking a break and communing with God I am still following the commandment but not because I think I have to in order to be saved but because I want to spend a day with my savior Jesus Christ. Anyways thats a whole other discussion.
Now for the other areas of difference.
Ellen White - I would much rather see Ellen White as someone who was heavily involved in the founding of the church but also made some mistakes. She is by no means infallible.
The investigative judgment - simply put my stance on this is that there is a judgment, the bible is clear on that, but since my sins have been covered, and I have the imputed righteousness of Christ, I have no concern in the Judgment because every one of my sins has been covered by the death of Jesus.
The mark of the beast From my study of revelation what I believe is really at the heart of this issue is worship, are you worshiping God or worshiping satan, and essentially rebellion against God is what the issue is, and any commandment could be what is causing someone (someone who has not surrendured their life to christ and is not covered by his blood) to be in a state of rebellion.
The remnant church I have alot of Issues with this, what I always see at the heart of this is the concept of “the visible church” and “the invisible church.” One being the visible church organizations on earth and the other being all of Christs true followers. In my mind I see the invisible church concept as being the same as the remnant, so the remnant is not an earthly organization but a gathering of all the true followers of Jesus Christ.
That is essentially a summary of where my theology differs.
Thank you so much for your forthright and honest explanations. I have many more questions and hope for more discussion, but right now on the westcoast its lunch time, and I promised my staff its on me today.
I appreciate your candor and look forward to more.
Chiapet, thanks for sharing more about yourself above. I find myself agreeing with you on many points, most importantly the gospel. You said that you were covered by the imputed righteousness of Christ, and I could not agree more. I never heard about imputation while I was in the Adventist church, but I must admit that many Christians are confused by the concept of receiving Christ’s righteousness in exchange for their sin. This bible doctrine was recovered during the Protestant Reformation, but it remains obscure to many supposed inheritors of the Reformation to this day.
Ellen White was a big stumbling block to me in my exodus away from Adventism. I simply could not construct a coherent Adventist belief system that left her out of the picture or even relegated to the role of a devotional writer. As you are well aware, she claims a much higher authority for herself, e.g. “more than a prophet” and the church continues to labor under the weight of these claims. Unfortunately, I don’t see this changing anytime soon.
I totally agree with what you said about the remnant church being the “invisible” church, made up of the body of believers from the entire world who have been born again and are hidden in the righteousness of Christ.
Chiapet, I won’t presume to tell you what to do given your present love for Jesus and his gospel. To my thinking, you are an evangelist among people who need to hear the gospel, freed from the layers of extra-biblical doctrines and “prophecies” that the church has accumulated over the years. I hope you are able to share the good news with as many Adventists as possible.
There’s more to say on the Sabbath issue, but this is a big discussion I can’t broach right now. Suffice it to say that, in the face of our Holy God, all of us will be exposed for the law-breakers we really are. But fortunately God does not make our salvation contingent on our ability to keep law, but solely on the merits of Jesus—a gift He gives to us by faith. If God kept a record of sins, as David says, “who could stand?” (Psalm 130:3). This does not mean we continue to sin willfully, and this is the “rub” of the Sabbath argument. We can explore this more if you would like.
Chiapet, I look forward to hearing more from you and I appreciate your willingness to share some of your thoughts and concerns with us here.
Administrator, I discuss issues with Catholics on the net sometimes and your first paragraph here is so good!
But then there’s this statement:
“This expression ‘the Bible only’ she [sic] never used for contrasting her own writings with the Bible. In Ellen White’s mind there was perfect harmony between the Bible and her writings because ‘the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and the author of the spirit of prophecy.’ Therefore ‘it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word.’” (emphasis mine)
I’ve been reading her writings since I was nine years old and have seen nothing but exaltation of the Scriptures by Ellen White. I put many such quotes on a blog: http://bibleandthebibleonly.blogspot.com/
These quotes made such a powerful impression on my own mind that I have read my Bible almost 6 times within the last 4 years. (Just finishing Micah.) My Bible was brand new when I bought it, but is now all marked up and falling apart. She was instructed to be a lesser light to direct attention to the Greater Light, the Bible, and this is truly the influence her writings had on me personally.
The quote says that in Ellen White’s mind there was perfect harmony between the Bible and her writings, as though she placed her writings on an equal level with the Scriptures. This simply is not the case.
In most any Adventist church on Sabbath one can heard her statements being read from the pulpit, but what did she herself recommend?
“The words of the Bible, and the Bible alone, should be heard from the pulpit.”PK 626.
Here’s two other statements so powerful on this subject, which should leave no doubt as to her position when it comes to any comparison between her writings and the Bible:
When you make the Bible your food, your meat, and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious Word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, “Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that.” Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands.. Manuscript 43, 1901.
Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what “Sister White said"-- “Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what He says. --- The Spalding & Magan Collection, page 167.
It grieves me to see Ellen White castigated and misrepresented, and not because of pride or political reasons - ONLY because of an affection I feel for her and her writings. When I consider all the enlightenment and blessing that has come through those writings! The regard that I have for the Scriptures as the ONLY thing in our world upon which we can rely germinated and solidified from the sentiments I imbibed from her writings.
“The only thing in our world upon which we can rely is the word of God.”DA 121
Here’s one last quote I’ve cherished for years in this regard:
“They say, they say, they say.” You just put the “They says” right away from you. Watch, saith the Lord, to hear what He will say. You look to the Lord, and don’t you look to any human power and get their mind, for they are nothing but human, they are nothing but evil; but you just look to the Lord God of Israel, and He will give you understanding, and He will give you knowledge. But you are not to lean your helpless soul on any other human being. You have got a character to form for your own individual self, and that character God has given every encouragement should be after God’s order. ---- Spalding Magan Collection, p. 171.
Thank you very much for listening. I will say one thing, I’ve always encountered nothing but courtesy and cordiality in this forum, and appreciate my membership here.
Thanks Johnny for your participation. Yes, those are excellent quotes, but the problem is that you may be picking and choosing from her best quotes at times.
But she had extremely negative words for those who would try to challenge her on the sanctuary doctrine. She told Ballenger that he was influenced by demons when he was only quoting from Hebrews 6 If people tried to challenge her on scripture, then she could get very mean.
One friend of mine had met Clifford Goldstein and had a private conversation with him and Goldstein had tried his best shot on my friend. He recommended an obscure chapter in volume 5 of Testimonies in which, according to Goldstein, Ellen White preaches the gospel with clarity and it’s at her best in presenting the message of the gospel. He told my friend that this chapter will persuade him to have second thoughts about adventism and perhaps will be the first step toward regaining his confidence in Ellen White and the message of adventism.
It stirred my curiosity while I had not expected to become as excited as Goldstein about chapter 54, Joshua and the Angel. Reading it I come to see Goldstein’s point, namely to present Ellen White as a preacher of justification by imputation of Christ’s righteousness, sola fide. But when somebody looks at the chapter, while the language of imputation is present, justification is not entirely based on imputation, not on Christ’s righteousness alone as the sole basis. Works, repentance, fight with sin, all these constitute the basis on which the judgment pronounces a favorable judgment, acquits and justifies the believer.
We are to exert every energy of the soul in the work of overcoming, and to look to Jesus for strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves. No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white. The filthy garments are to be removed, and Christ’s robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us. By repentance and faith we are enabled to render obedience to all the commandments of God, and are found without blame before Him. Those who shall meet the approval of God are now afflicting their souls, confessing their sins, and earnestly pleading for pardon through Jesus their Advocate. White, 5T, page 472
The people of God have been in many respects very faulty. Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins which he has tempted them to commit, and he presents these in the most exaggerated light, declaring: “Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Thy throne will not stand in righteousness and judgment. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them.”
But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves to the control of evil. They have put away their sins, and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin, and also their repentance, declares: “‘The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.’ I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands.” {5T 474.2}
As Joshua humbly pleads for the fulfillment of God’s promises, Satan stands up boldly to resist him. He points to the transgressions of Israel as a reason why that people should not be restored to the favor of God. He claims them as his prey and demands that they be given into his hands to be destroyed. {5T 468.1}
The high priest cannot defend himself or his people from Satan’s accusations. He does not claim that Israel are free from fault. In his filthy garments, symbolizing the sins of the people, which he bears as their representative, he stands before the Angel, confessing their guilt, yet pointing to their repentance and humiliation, relying upon the mercy of a sin-pardoning Redeemer and in faith claiming the promises of God. {5T 468.2}
If this is the best of what Ellen White is ready to offer, it fails short by making justification contingent on sanctification. In the final instance, if believers do their best, God does the rest. Repentance, humiliation, putting away sin, striving toward overcoming and being obedient to all the commandments of God, they will be “found without blame” before God, counted righteous.
Well, while fighting with sin, repentance, and obedience toward God’s commandments are evidences of true faith that every believer will manifest, they are presented here in the context of justification, of a final verdict in favor of believer which is not given “apart from works”, but is given on the basis of these works. Works are brought through the back door in a subtle way in order to play their part in the rendering of the verdict. If this verdict, at the beginning of the life of faith was obviously given apart from works because it came before these good works, now the verdict is given after the good works are brought into equation. While this may seem like a theological subtlety, there is a huge difference between being counted righteous solely through imputation and receiving a verdict after an investigative judgment in which your works are playing an essential role in the way the judge pronounce the favorable verdict.
My avatar picture, for those who are not familiar with the person, is a picture of Gresham Machen, and I want to quote from his book Christianity and Liberalism dealing with the galatian disputation about the gospel. It presents very well the motivation behind our dispute with adventism and Ellen’s gospel. Even at her best, we don’t hear the gospel from Ellen White.
But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul’s lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer’s own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical—not even, perhaps, the temporal—order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God’s law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern “practical” Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.
As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. The guilty soul enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all. Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ. ”Just as I am without one plea, But that Thy blood was shed for me”—that was what Paul was contending for in Galatia; that hymn would never have been written if the Judaizers had won. And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.
I can’t improve what Gresham said, and the issue involving the adventist gospel and the order of things in the investigative judgment reflects very well the teachings which Paul confronted in Galatia. Of course, adventist will protest and say that they are just affirming that true faith results in works and these works are just the evidences and not the basis of justification, but I pray that some good day they will be annoyed by the fact that Jesus had to plea their case before God using their repentance, fight with sin, and the rest in the process.
