| Author | Message | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 115 Registered: 8-2006 |
I wanted to start a new thread about this after reading over the book that Jackob mentioned that proposes the "two legs of truth" and the contradictory nature of truth. After reading this post by Colleen, I remembered to do this: Colleen said on the 5 questions thread: There's still an open question on the board of whether or not the Bible is inerrantóand this question determines whether we can even have a real discussion. Raven said it well: the claim for inerrancy is only made for the original languagesóthe "altar"/"Censer" issue demonstrates this fact. But if we don't take the Bible's own words and claims of inerrancy as truth, then we have already thrown out the Bible as a firm foundation. Interestingly, when we decide to evaluate the Bible's inerrancy based on its own claim, it begins to fit together completely. As for the SDA church never making the claim that EGW is as authoritative as the Bibleówell, we both know that in actuality, they do. Just last November Jud Lake from Southern University, Jon Paulien from Andrews Seminary, George Knight from Andrews, and Craig Newborn from the White Estate gave a weekend "summit" meeting regarding Ellen White in Gladstone, OR. At this moment I don't remember which of these SDA leaders made this comparison, but here's what was said: Ellen White is inspired exactly as were the Bible writers. God used the same methods for both and inspired them all equally. But the PURPOSE of Ellen's writings was never to be canonical. The PURPOSE of her writings was to be a lesser light pointing to the greater light. So, she is not considered to be on an equal plane with the Bible. So, here's the obfuscation: Her "INSPIRATION" was equal to the Bible writers; her writings are not equal to the Bible because they were not SUPPOSED to be. Do you not see how convoluted and illogical this reasoning is? If she is inspired exactly as the Bible writers were inspiredóif she was sent from God to be a messenger for His church, then OF COURSE her writings must be considered equally authoritative. But noóthe church sets up a straw-man argument to make a public claim (her opus is not equal to the Bible) that contradicts their essential claim for her: she was inspired exactly as were the Bible writers. This argument is fallacious and doesn't hold water. And in fact, Walk, the church validates its arguments about Ellen by trying to show that the Bible itself disagrees with itselfójust like Ellen! I don't have to explain how false this argument isóbut I can say this: if one decides to take God at His word and read the Bible as a cohesive, inerrant whole, it makes more and more sense on deeper and deeper levels. There is absolutely no need to try to juggle Paul with Jesus or Johnóor the law with Jesus Himselfóthe Bible itself is completely unambiguous. --------------------------------------------- Adventists, in my view, have the very basic problem and question of how to handle Ellen White, and the decision on what to do about her. Ellen's theology permeates every part of Adventism, but some honest SDA's see her contradictory statements on everything from salvation, the nature of Christ, escatology, to food and drink. So, how to keep the faith in the "Spirit of Prophecy" which they wrongly attribute to her, and what the bible says? The answer for many, if not most, who remain in the Adventist church is to bring down the bible to the level of Ellen White. IF Ellen is inspired in the same way as the bible writers, and we know there are errors (as Walk pointed out she was wrong on 1843/44, wrong on the shut door, she copied, etc) how do we still have faith in her and establish her writings as a continuing and authoritative source of truth, then we must find the same problems in the bible, for it is the authoritative source of truth for the Christian. In this vein, the book "Adventism in Conflict" purports that we can have confidence in Ellen White because of her contradictory poles of truth, because the bible has contradictory poles. It's an extrapolation that would be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic. I once again have to affirm my belief that this is the basic spiritual stronghold that Adventists find impossible outside of God's grace and mercy to be free of. The bible is inerrant, totally. Ellen is not. Adventists are trying so very hard to make sense out of Adventism. I pray for them to be free! Susan Susan | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 327 Registered: 11-2004 |
Susan, thank you for opening a new thread. Colleen reported "Ellen White is inspired exactly as were the Bible writers. God used the same methods for both and inspired them all equally. But the PURPOSE of Ellen's writings was never to be canonical. The PURPOSE of her writings was to be a lesser light pointing to the greater light. So, she is not considered to be on an equal plane with the Bible." What a shocking and blaring statement that is. No wonder SDAs believe the Bible has errors as that is the only way they can justify their doctrines and Ellen White's inspiration. They said EGW is not on an equal plane with the Bible, yet they cannot come up with their doctrines from the Bible alone. I remember being taught that very thing "EGW is not on an equal plane with the Bible" so when I saw inconsistencies between EGW and the Bible I discounted EGW and not the Bible. If she is not on an equal plane than the inconsistencies should make us question her rather than the Bible's inerrancy. I've not been one to refer to Adventism as a cult. I think partly because I do not want to acknowledge that my family is deep within a cult. When I consider what Colleen shared I realize that cult is the right word to use. When the inerrancy of the Bible is questioned and a second source is used to interpret the Bible how can that not be considered cultic? I'm one who still believes in prophecy today too. But all prophecy needs to be looked at in the light of the Bible. If they do not agree the Bible should never be disgarded or dismissed as having errors. I understand Christians interpret the Bible differently, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about whether we can trust the Bible as authoritative truth. I often like to hear perspectives of other Christians and look at the texts in the Bible that they refer to. Many times our interpretation is different but I can acknowledge that they are basing their beliefs on their interpretation of the Bible. I cannot come to that conclusion with an Adventist because they do not know that a certain text is valid without EGW's interpretation. If you do not have the Bible as the solid foundation of truth how can you know what truth is? If Adventists view the Bible as potentially in error then how can they know that anything is correct? The true answer lies here: what EGW said is true and the Bible should be looked at from that perspective. My heart aches for my loved ones stuck in Adventism, a cult  | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 116 Registered: 8-2006 |
U2, It most certainly IS a shocking and blaring statement! I think if you truly believe that Ellen is not on a par with the bible, when you start to question, you leave. The ones who abide by the fundamental "Her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth" believe as the report Colleen gave us. So they must rationalize. And they must stay, because, after all, Ellen said you must stay in the Church. But the Church is NOT the "CHURCH", SDA denomination, building, etc. The true Church is made up of those who are saved by Christ and follow Him alone. You have hit on a profound truth and difference between Adventists and Christians who base their faith on the inerrant bible alone. Truth IS, and the bible is truth. Ellen is NOT the truth, nor is she any way in any form on a par, purpose the same or not. By the way, this problem in saying the bible is not inerrant and is full of problems is not limited to Adventism only. There are many denominations and groups who feel the same way. They just don't have a prophet to make a common connection with, except for JW's and Mormons. Those without just disregard anything in the bible they don't like or don't agree with, and say it's full of contradictions and error. Susan (Message edited by SusanS on November 10, 2006) | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 126 Registered: 8-2006  |
Susan and U2, You make excellent points. I posted an example on the other thread of how the SDA denomination places ellenology equal to or above the Bible. Here is another, An SDA friends father, an elder, worker, retirement age, asked some questions about the Holy Spirit. His questions came from the Bible and he wanted Bible answers. He was put off for about three years, being told they would 'get back' with him. One day he briefly mentioned something from the pulpit about his new Biblical understanding of the HS. Soon after, my friends Dad was "stripped of all his positions." I do not know the details of the questions but I do know the mannerism in which this was handled. Very, very cultic in action. Is this Biblical? No. EGW? Yes Have any of you experienced EGW being placed equal to or above the Bible in SDA PRACTICE? | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 518 Registered: 10-2002  |
Yes, I realized from the same thread that in practical belief, as Adventists we put Ellen above the Bible. We had faith in our tradition, in what we had received from our forefathers in the church... so much faith that we had the truth, in fact, that we had more faith in our tradition than in Scripture. Practically, our tradition could not be questioned *as much as* Scripture could. I said "we" because I still identify myself with Adventists now and then, mostly in prayer & intercession and for their sakes as well. Sometimes maybe the "mystery" of Adventism can help be cleared up when we reach back into how we used to feel & think when we were Adventists. I looked at what was written about the two legs of truth, etc., and I realized that I would've been definitely nodding my head in agreement eight years ago. It made a lot of sense. But knowing what I know now, there's something wrong in the foundation. I think I've said this somewhere before, but I had an enlightening experience when I once surfed through the Vatican website. I read & skimmed through some big thing John Paul II had written (or that was written for him) about church authority, and wow! It was DEEP stuff! I was impressed by the thoroughness of thought & wisdom. But it was incredible because the whole thing --as impressively developed as it was-- was basically irrelevant. The foundation of Catholic authority was off. The whole, great developed argument rested on the foundation of misinterpreting what Jesus said to Peter. Still, it was impressive. I've often thought of this when looking at Adventism and some other popular systematic theologies... they are very deep, very developed, very thoughtful. And the process & wisdom necessary to put them together is worthy of some kind of respect. But at the base of them, something very basic is overlooked or misunderstood at the beginning, the foundation. The hard thing is that once you've staked yourself in the 16th floor, it's hard to believe something might be bad in the foundation. After you've climbed up to the 16th floor, you feel like the "foundational stuff" was a long time ago. No need to revisit there. So it makes it a lot harder to hear anyone who disagrees with your "building" because you're caught up in the higher-floor complexities, which at that point are very, very developed & intricate (and often fascinating in that respect). The intricate arguments & beliefs you are interested in now are very convincing to you, and when people try to say something about the foundation, you reply with the intricate arguments as if they are proof that the foundation is okay. Anyway, this goes not only for Adventism, but also for many developed systematic theologies. | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 118 Registered: 8-2006 |
Timmy, I see the practice of placing EGW above the bible every Sabbath when Adventists attend church, don't eat pork, don't vote, don't wear a wedding ring, etc etc etc. My best friend would say that she doesn't read Ellen White, never agreed to her status as a prophet when she was baptized (her pastor said she didn't have to) and that she thinks of her writings as inspiring. However, she will make comments like "we know the final movements will be rapid ones" and of course we know that comes from EGW. My best friend is very faithful to study her Sabbath School lesson and follow the SS on television with Doug Batchelor. Even if you deny the prophetic gift in EGW, if you follow Adventist doctrines you have agreed she is authoritative. As Ramone has said, the very foundation of Adventism is wrong. Ramone, I really appreciate your analogy of the building and how the intricate arguments are all built on that foundation, and wow, are they ever intricate. But if that foundation is not correct, nothing built on it will be. The question remains to me - how do we help our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers in the SDA church to re-examine the foundation of the church? I think it will have to be the Holy Spirit. We can only pray for His working on the hearts of those who claim faith in Jesus. It will take a miracle, but then, I think we are miracles, so why am I worried or doubting? God is sovereign, and He will do as He pleases. I do pray every day for them, though. Susan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 524 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hmm, Susan, now that I think about it... You wrote: One thing that occurs to me now is that this "building" example works both ways. I already said it's not exclusive for Adventism but can apply to many (and perhaps any) systems of theology. But, it can also go the other way... What I mean is, we as Formers are able to recognize a lot of things about Adventism that Adventists aren't able to recognize. (Most of the time when Adventists see Formers, they think we never really understood Adventism's foundation. It's inconceivable to them that might possibly understand it more clearly than they do.) But what I mean is that we can kind of end up dwelling in our own "building"... our own conversations and complex intricacies of things we've realized about Adventism. It's not that these things are necessarily untrue---it's simply that it's very hard to understand the building if you don't get the foundation first. I think often we try to talk to Adventists by presenting all "20 floors" (so to speak) at once. State of the dead. Eternal punishment. Spirit more than breath. Ellen's plagiarism. SDA anti-trinitarianism. The distinction between Trinitarianism and Tritheism. Etc. Often the things we mention can only be understood by a fraction of Adventists -- by those familiar with historical teachings, the original foundations of Adventism, and those who have read enough of Ellen White so that they consciously are aware of what she believes. (Most Adventists believe similarly, but it is not something they are aware of as having originated with Ellen). In short, I think the best thing we can do is to focus on the foundation -- that is, on Christ, on the Gospel, on the New Covenant. In Christianity we sometimes use the expression, "a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ." And I think that whatever we consider to be that, it's going to be the essential Gospel. And that's what we need to focus on when we are among them. Going into the web of intricacies & particulars and every particular heresy of Adventism -- well, not only is it difficult to follow us and catch up, but because of their different starting point, often they honestly just wouldn't be able to understand. | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 121 Registered: 8-2006 |
Absolutely, Ramone, I agree. That was the reason for the question that I asked. How to re-examine the foundation when many don't know what it's truly based on. I don't have much interaction with Adventists any more except with my best friend and a few co-workers. With them, I just talk about Jesus and how He is working in our lives. With those who are not Adventists, I point out other differences. The lesson is to make sure our own "buildings" are built on the sure foundation, Jesus Christ, as Paul tells us in Corinthians. Susan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4937 Registered: 12-2003  |
I agree. The gospel and reading the Bible in context are the first step in the recognition of truth that most Adventists need in order to start figuring things out. Some people, of course, do have other catalystsóbut understanding the gospel begins the process of seeing the reality of all the other doctrines. Colleen | ||
| Cforrester Registered user Username: Cforrester Post Number: 29 Registered: 7-2004 |
Well said Agapetos. Very good observations and perspective. Could I add this: When we speak of ìChristî or ìJesusî to a Mormon you can actually have a nice conversation. But there are actually two simultaneous conversations since you and your Mormon friend have very different definitions to words. Your ìJesusî and theirs are fundamentally different, yet you can both say stuff like ìfocus on Jesusî and ìsavedî. The more I studied Romans and Galatians the more I was confused as to why we Adventists were so strict about Sabbath, jewelry, etc. The more I understood about who Jesus was (pre-advent ñ I didnít know He was the Creator), how and who He was during His ministry, what He said, and what Paul taught about what He accomplished, the more I experienced a dissonance about Adventist particulars. I kept stumbling over one question: If we are no longer under Law but grace, why do we make the Sabbath so important? Studying the truth built up an internal conflict and pressure; later seeing the many credibility problems in Adventist and EGW history drove me to then dig into the specifics of how we ìprovedî Adventist doctrines. That study was in the shadow of the truth in Christ that I already knew. That study, created more dissonance; after all of this, then, coming back to the credibility problems of EGW and early Adventists helped me to understand the foolishness of accepting EGW as ìa word of confirmation from God on our doctrinesî. I had to then decide what I was going to build my knowledge upon and make my decisions from. Richard OFfill told me once that there is no such thing as ìsola scripturaî ñ we always have an interpreter. He believed it was safer to trust Ellen White than himself. I found, and find that a dangerous concept. Then why not trust Mohammad or Joseph Smith or David Koresh? All claimed to speak for God and all claimed that there are errors in the transmission and translation of scripture. It is also circular logic. We believe the Bible is true and the test of theology. Ellen White agrees with the Bible therefore she is a prophet. But wait, she says this but the Bible says that. True, but since she is a prophet I trust her interpretation of that passage over my own. Many Evangelicals donít have a problem with Adventists because what they hear the Adventists say (today) sounds ok. ìFormersî have a problem because we know the definitions. We know ìthe rest of the storyî - even if some Adventists to not. It seems to me that much of what Paul did was to review the common knowledge the Jews would have had, but correctly defined terms and concepts in light of Jesus and the cross. He clearly articulated what the Law was for and what it could not accomplish. Paul says, ìI determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucifiedî. Thatís what got me thinking, and thatís what keeps me going. | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 309 Registered: 12-2004 |
SusanS and CForrester, I just want to tell you BOTH how much I have appreciated your thoughtful contributions to the FAF forum over the last few months. I have not been posting as frequently as before, but continue to follow, and I have gained a blessing each time I read your insights and thoughts. And Curtis, thank-you for sharing your blog with us. Carry on, and blessings to you both, The other Randy Gerber! | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 133 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thank you, Randy. I have been so blessed over the years by the posts here that I'm happy to have participated in a blessing for someone else. When I had nowhere to go, no one that I could talk to that would understand how hard it is coming out of Adventism, when I worried sometimes that I was on the fast track to hell, this forum was a source of comfort to me. I thank God for Colleen and Richard who have made this a safe place for formers to travel together. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 542 Registered: 10-2002 |
Curtis, That was very true, thanks for sharing! I wonder, then, keeping that in mind---how would we go about speaking to Adventists? My only thought is to go over the Gospel as Paul did, and go over it again and again, until the difference in "terms" becomes apparent to them. I notice we've done that here, but we haven't limited it to the Gospel... we've kind of naturally done that clarification of terms thing on just about every issue. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 309 Registered: 6-2006  |
"My only thought is to go over the Gospel as Paul did, and go over it again and again, until the difference in "terms" becomes apparent to them." Ramone, you're right. For many people (not just Adventists) the Gospel has become so watered down, that if you asked the question "What is the Gospel?" a basic reply would be "Good News". That "Good News" has lost the simple message of Jesus' death and resurrection and has become just about anything. I'd love to be able to confidently open the dialog to share the real Gospel with my in-laws. I'm afraid, however, that I might start WW3~  Leigh Anne | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3019 Registered: 3-2004  |
Cforrester, Now I know why R. Offill banned a bunch of us off his web site almost 2 years ago. Any one could say what they wanted about the Bible and Bible writers copying, but do not let any one condemn EGW. Now I understand better. It was safer for his to trush EGW than to trust the Bible and what the Holy Spirit would teach him. Diana | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 833 Registered: 1-2003 |
I am not banned but I find it too frustrating to be the only voice of disagrement over there...all my co-horts got banned! Still, there is an amazing amount of pure unadulterated SDAism over there that will provide great examples of the SDA mindset, if needed. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3024 Registered: 3-2004 |
Pheeki, I am glad that you were not banned. I go over there and read things every so often and get very frustrated as each of them pat each other on the back for their beliefs. So, I continue to pray for them. Diana | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 141 Registered: 8-2006 |
I knew Richard O'Fill (although admittedly not well) and actually spent a week canvassing with him and Elder Sam Monnier about 20 years ago. I am sorry to see where his misplaced trust in EGW has led him. To believe what Ellen White says over the indwelling Holy Spirit is very sad indeed. | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 149 Registered: 8-2006 |
This weekend I was thinking of the lawsuits the SDA denomination has filed and/or threatened against the 'anti-sda' web sites. I find it interesting that SDAism has built an entire religion on 'anti-catholicism' or 'anti-Sunday' but to my knowledge no Catholic church or any Sunday church has ever sued Adventism. Is my head in the sand or is this true? The flip side of this is the fact that as soon as former Adventist get organized and form a group, they are threatened by SDA legal action. Why is it that the Catholic Church seems to be more tolerant of there 'protestors' than the Adventist are of theirs? I can't really put my finger on it but there is some kind of inconsistancy, double standard or maybe just insecurity that generates this type of mentality. Any thoughts? | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 699 Registered: 8-2004  |
Thought it might interest some of you to read what Catholicism has to say about SDAism: Seventh Day Adventism from Catholic.com Adventists from NewAdvent.com (an Online Catholic Encyclopedia) This one also lists the six versions of Adventism with apparently outdated data on numbers of members in each. I remember once reading an online article about Seventh Day Adventism on a Catholic website that stated that Catholicism recognizes Seventh Day Adventist baptism as well, but I can't seem to locate it at present. Perhaps it was linked to somewhere on this forum already. Have a blessed day! Mary | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 641 Registered: 7-2004  |
Mary, this sentence from your first posted link seems to say Catholicism recognizes SDA baptism:
| ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 700 Registered: 8-2004 |
So it does! Thanks for catching that. There is another place too. Mary |
