| Author | Message | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
What would the Seventh-day Adventist Church look like if they owned up to the fact that Ellen G. White was wrong. What would even get them to the point of making such an admission? | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Joel, I've wondered that, too. I really don't believe they will corporately come to that unless through some miracle the leaders experience a true conversion. The reason I don't think the church will come to that point is this: they acknowledge that without the doctrine of 1844 and the investigative judgment, there is no reason for the church to exist. That is the church's ONLY unique doctrine. I heard a tape of a Q & A seminar held in 1998 in the North Pacific Union Conference for the conference "workers' retreat". (Read that, ministers' retreat.) The subject of this particular meeting centered on questions raised by Dale Ratzlaff's books which many of the pastors had received via mailings funded by anonymous donors. Angel Rodriuez from the GC said bluntly that without the IJ, the Adventist church would have no reason to exist. There would be no budging from owning that doctrine. In fact, there could be no IJ doctrine without EGW. It takes her "inspiration" to distort Daniel into supporting an investigative judgment starting in 1844. Further, (and this is something that I don't think most Adventists really understand unless they've "gone there") if you jettison Ellen, you suddenly have permission to look at all the doctrines with new eyes. You suddenly read the Bible with new questions. It is truly when an Adventist reads Scripture without Ellen and with prayer for God to reveal truth that the blinders come off. As long as EGW is acknowledged even as a somewhat eccentric matriarch back in one's heritage, her power is in place. As long as one cannot admit she's a false prophet, the Bible must be read with certain biases or questions. The minute one can say she's a false prophet or not inspired, however, the Bible becomes a new book. The church absolutely knows EGW plagiarized most if not all of the Great Controversy. It knows how much she plagiarized all her other books as well. Their own researcher, Veltman, completed an investigation in the early 80's (1980?) which reported the extent of her plagiarism. The church has also known for decades that her testimonies were often suspect and that her visions were not really from God. The 1919 Bible conference is clear proof that the powers that be decided to sweep under the rug their own questions and their certainty that she was not the prophet people thought her to be. They also agreed to seal their report for 50 years. (It's now available online, I believe.) In answer to your question, Joel, the church knows. The average person in the pew doesn't really know, but the leadership and the theologians KNOW. They just don't want to lose their power, prestige, income, retirement, etc. There is A LOT of money made on the side at high levels,facilitated by the connections among the top "power brokers". This and other self-serving opportunities keep the "secret" under wraps. Really, though, it's not acknowledged because Satan is behind the deception. The whole problem is a spiritual problem. Just look at how hard it is to get an Adventist to be willing to really SEE the biblical reality and the craziness of EGW. This isn't just a matter of ignorance. It's a matter of supressing the truth and giving the author of lies a legitimate foothold within the organization. (See what Paul said about suppression of truth in Romans 1:18-32.) If the Adventist church were really to let EGW go, the result would probably look much like the Worldwide Church of God after it officially embraced the New Covenant. The church split; many reactionary offshoots emerged. The official church is still functioning, but it has been decimated by the financial and membership fallout. I continue to pray the the truth about Adventism will become known and that God will lead those whose hearts want truth to himself. Colleen | ||
| Freeatlast (Freeatlast) |
The minutes are available at the following link: http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/dovenet/sda1919b.htm | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Thank you, Freeatlast! Colleen | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Well said, Colleen! | ||
| Cindy (Cindy) |
"Howling in agony"...??? I can hardly believe--even after a number of years away from her--the effect it has on me when reading these quotes of EGWs' from her "Early Writings" book (taken from an article of Dale Ratzlaffs' in the recent May-June, 2003 "Proclamation!" magazine, entitled "Do Adventists preach another gospel?"): "Then I was shown a company who were howling in agony. On their garments was written in large characters, 'Thou art weighted in the balance, and found wanting.' I asked who this company was. The angel said, 'These are they who have once kept the Sabbath and have given it up...'". (p 37.) And... "I saw that the Holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers". (p.3.) I feel sadness and anger over the continuance of this nonsense taking the place of our completeness in Christ.... Christ Jesus, who said, "Come unto Me, and I will give you rest." Another article in that same issue (May-June, 2003), entitled "When religion brings psychological trauma to the soul" (by J. LeBron McBride) is helpful for those of us who have been effected by these "inspired" quotes. Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
There is an interesting trend developing in ìhard-core Adventist Apologetics.î Perhaps others here have long since noticed this, but it is new to me. Now, instead of clinging to every last word of EGW, there is a tendency to suggest a sort of ìcycle of gradual pollution.î By this, I mean that somewhere back in the past, there was an ìoriginal pure and unadulteratedî message that began with the Apostles. This dissipated through the Catholic Church (the beast, donít ya know). The Protestant Reformation (the future apostates of Babylon, ya see) purified and reestablished the message. It died out again, and was finally recovered by . . . (wait for it) . . . THE SAINTED WILLIAM MILLER (who in the end was reclaimed by the devil when he renounced his own teachings.) Now, it turns out, wherever you can demonstrate any error on the part of EGW, it was not her ìoriginal message.î Apparently, some conspiratorial junta altered and added the error without her knowledge or approval. So, it seems, in order to rectify the situation, we must be diverted . . . erm, ah . . . refocused on . . . THE SAINTED WILLIAM MILLER, because he preached the original, pure message. Furthermore, THE SAINTED WILLIAM MILLER had an ìenormous effectî on theology, and eschatology eclipsed by no one in the annals of Christian doctrine. . . . well . . . except for the fact that the vast majority of Christians, then and now, had little interest in what many proved false before 1843-1844 and what facts proved false afterwards. Next, I suppose, we will be distracted . . . erm, I mean . . . refocused on the Waldensians or some such obscure group where evidence is even more scarce. (despite the fact that they cannot even get the facts about the Waldensians straight where facts do exist.) Yeah, but . . . Yeah, but . . . << shrug >> | ||
| Freeatlast (Freeatlast) |
"A house divided against itsself cannot stand" It is only a matter of time... | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
. . . and now . . . . . . the rest of the story. . . (phew! . . . it is so hard to speak when you smile that big. . .)  There is a little more here. My wife recently made a statement out of exasperation with some really evil goings-on by one of the ìfirst familiesî of her church: ìI sure am glad my faith does not depend on my |b{religion}!! (I think she may have intended the meaning of something like ìdenominationî instead of ìreligion.î) I noticed her most recent favorite literature:
(Yep, Pacific Press, and all that) That coupled with wading through a few ponderous TSDA diatribes about THE SAINTED WILLIAM MILLER and THE ORIGINAL PURE REFORMATION THEOLOGY (which bears more in common with EGW than ML or Scripture) I began to see a strategy. Assaulted on all sides with difficult evidence, push back into much less explored areas. Drop any defense of obvious missteps and insist that the real issue is never fully understood by anyone who has not spent decades memorizing the most obscure episodes and the fuzziest evidence as far back in history as possible. That way, we start from zero and effectively negate any valid arguments previously made. How clever. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Great analysis, Jerry. It reminds me that one of the marks of a cult (according to Steve, the amatuer but extremely knowledgable cult expert on our forum) is that they change their doctrines or beliefs as time goes on. True Christianity does not change. Don't it just make you stop and think?! Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Yes, at the local sda church that I go to nearly each week with my mother I have heard talk of this polluting of the current truth. It would be best to stick with only the Bible because the Bible will allways have current truth. | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
That may be why its called "present truth." It's true today, but tomorrow, who knows!?!? | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Jerry, One of the things I found interesting in your post was your wife's use of the word "religion" to refer to Adventism. I have noticed this use of the word as well. For whatever reason (probably becasue it would suggest a degree of equality within the body of Christ), Adventist do not seem to use the term "denomination" very much. Rather they talk about sharing their "religion" or sharing their "faith". In this context these words always mean "Adventism" and not Christianity. In many cases the "sharing" is in reference to "sharing" with (proselityzing) Christians. In some ways I think that Adventist really do see Adventism and orthodox Christianity as two seperate religions..........perhaps they are. This may also explain the way adventists use the term "The Church". This never refers to the universal body of believers, but always is specifically applied to the SDA "denomination". | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
That is a good point, Chris. I will take it a little further. Therefore, perhaps we can relate this to the concept that Adventism is the ìonly true Christianity.î However, ponder this: how is it my wife can say, ìI am glad my faith does not depend on my religionî and hold onto the belief that Adventism is ìthe only truth?î Something is going on here. I cannot quite nail it down, but there is something. This last weekend, she attended a ìWomen of Faithî conference in a large auditorium. She came back very depressed. One of her complaints was the music. She does not like overly demonstrative singing performances. I happen to agree, yet I am not as disturbed with that style as she is. I know some here have very different reactions to that type of music. Nevertheless, I believe that the music issue was a ìred herring.î She expressed her depression like this: ìI feel that I contribute nothing to your life (meaning in our marriage). I just feel I have accomplished nothing (meaning in her life goals).î I said, ìYou are wrong. You have contributed your love. That love is shown in many things.î Here is my point. She thinks in terms of deeds meriting love. I think in terms of love expressed in many ways including deeds. This is typical Adventist thinking. However, what is the point of the ìfaith vs. religionî statement? How could an Adventist, secure in oneís beliefs, separate true faith from the SDA church? Hmmm. I am watching, with interest, but passively watching. | ||
| Melissa (Melissa) |
B is very different in a mixed sort of way. He becomes very insulted when I call them a religion. He keeps trying to tell me they are a denomination much as methodists, presbyterians and baptists. When I ask why it matters then, what the name over the door of the church I worship in is if God is preached and honored inside, he reverts to the separatist position. But he is not consistent. There are times, they are the only true church, then there are times they're not so dissimilar from "us". It just depends upon which point he is trying to prove. Usually, if he's trying to convince me to come with him, they're not so different. If he's trying to explain why he can't come with me, they're the closest thing to being completely biblical out there. When I point out the inconsistencies in his arguments, I'm focusing on the negative. Basically, if I don't agree with him, I'm wrong. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
ìBasically, if I don't agree with him, I'm wrong.î BINGO!!! You win the grand prize! Variants on a theme:
| ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Melissa, there is a definate disconnect between what some Adventist say to outsiders ("non-Adventist") and how they talk to each other or even how they think. Trust, me I behaved this way for 30 years and from talking to others I know I'm not alone. At work I would talk to Christian friends and when questioned on my beliefs would say something like, "No, we really believe a lot of the same things, we just worship on a different day that's all." If pressed, I might go on to say a bit more about the 4th commandment. But the real thoughts in my mind were, "We share some superficial similarities in that we both call ourselves Christians.....But you're too stupid and Biblically illiterate to know which day of the week is the Sabbath so you're part of the whore of Revelation while I'm a part of the remnant church. I feel kind of sorry for you and hope that someday you'll find the "Sabbath Truth" and come out of Babylon before it's too late....you ignorant Sunday-Keeper". Yes, I'm ashamed to admit it, but at times my mental dialogue was just this contemptuous and smug. Much to my shame, it turns out I was the ignorant person that didn't really know the Bible very well (ouside a few well-rehearsed proof texts). Chris | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Jerry, this is straying a bit from the topic at hand, but your mention of Women of Faith (WOF) made me think. When my wife and I were coming out of Adventism, I was just a bit ahead of her in my readiness to leave. One of the things that made a big impact on my wife was attending a WOF conf. She came home and told me, with tears at the corners of her eyes, how overwhelmed she was to realize for the very first time, that all those women were here sisters in Christ. To be surrounded by thousands of women from all different denominations and yet know that they all loved the Lord and shared in a common bond. It totally blew her socks off and gave her the impetus she needed to step out into the world of Christian life outside of Adventism. You see, many Adventist have an "us against them" mentality and feel very seperated from other Christians. It's the remanant vs. Babylon. "Sunday-Keepers" are kind of scary because someday they will come to kill you. What darkness we were in. What joy to be released and to find ourselves a part of the universal body of Christ surrounded by our brothers and sisters! I could never go back. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
How wonderful that God used that experience to help your wife, Chris. Unfortunately, I do not think it had the full ìblow her socks offî effect with my wife. I could be wrong, but I think my wife is a little less likely to see such a stark difference. She has been in other churches almost constantly in her life. Therefore, she is less sensitive to the stark differences. Besides, as we all know, there are flawed people in every denomination. Her particular experiences always tended to place her in a position to see the worst in each church. On the other hand, something must have affected her. With that, I think we can relate this back to the original thread topic: ìWhat would the SDA church look like if they renounced EGW?î Our spouses and those here relating their ìexit experiencesî may have demonstrated how difficult it would be to reconcile that hypothetical with the current culture of the SDA church. There are layers upon layers of defensive postures flexible enough to concede almost any point without giving up EGW. We have all heard Adventists claim that Mrs. White is not the issue while in the next breath insinuating her teaching into Bible verses to twist them into pretzels. I have had many Adventists claim that they ìdonít believe Ellenî and yet demonstrate beliefs that could have come from no other source. Frankly, I believe what has been said here about No Ellen = No SDA Church. However, there can be a ìdenialî of her influence while clinging to her influence. | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Well, Jerry, I used to think that 'No Ellen ='s No SDA church'....but I'm not so sure anymore. The reason I'm not is that I've figured out how so many SDA's can reject EGW (or parts of her writings) and still come up with SDA doctrine out of the Bible........... The answer is 'a very flawed hermaneutic'! This last Sat. I was reading 'Cultic Doctrine' by Dale Ratzlaff and going through the chapter on William Millers 15 proofs of his 1843 message. Dale would then show why Millers proofs didn't hold up. Time and again, Miller used 'wrong analogy' and linked texts together that seemed superficially to go together, but when examined in context---they often weren't even related. Then, I dropped in for part of the sermon being given by an old friend of mine who is an SDA pastor just to see how he was doing. He was preaching on Romans 7 and 8---and guess what he was using? The same, flawed reasoning that Miller used! He used this flawed reasoning to show that Pauls analogy in Rom. 7 of a woman bound to her husband could be the world, or money or anything that distracts us from Christ. This despite the fact that the text clearly states that the two covenants are involved here. This is a false analogy. Then, to keep folks tied to the law after all that is said in the final section of Romans 7, he went to quoting all sorts of texts showing how good the law is----and that the problem is with us for not understanding that Christ came so that by his indwelling Spirit we can keep the law perfectly! This is stringing together unrelated texts that look good superficially. Needless to say, I couldn't stick around for the rest of the sermon. I haven't had a chance yet to dare him to prove his assertions, but I will the first chance I get. Anyway, using this type of hermaneutics you can get the Bible to say whatever you want it to say----and you don't need EGW as backup. So, what I'm seeing is both a re-emphasis on EGW as prophet, but also assertions that the traditional SDA hermaneutic is just as valid as anyone elses'. That way, SDA's can cling to or reject EGW, but either way the core SDA doctrines remain and that is definitely what the G.C. wants! |
