| Author |
Message |
Faith2
Registered user
Username: Faith2
Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |     |
Hello Everyone!
My hubby and I had our first visit today from an uncle who is Adventist. He talked about everything and some more before finally asking us why we left the church. After we expressed ourselves he ventured to tell us about 1888, when a few individuals (Patterson and others) tried to introduce the grace message to the Adventist Church but the church rejected it. Does anyone know what he's talking about?
He surprisingly explained grace to us beautifully. He still believes that the Adventist church is superior and challenged us to test all doctrine against the life of Christ. He was a little confused when we told him certain things about Ellen. He also argued that the sanctuary message could be supported by scripture alone.
The most shocking aspect of our conversation was that he found out that we left the church through my husband's father (Pastor) who has not said not a single word to us! Oh well, 1888??
|
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 464
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:21 pm: | |
Following is a link to more information on 1888.
1888 General Conference ... links: http://www.1888msc.org/
Hope this helps. The SDA church had an opportunity to become a full grace church and sidestepped it.
Belva |
Drpatti
Registered user
Username: Drpatti
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:48 pm: | |
Hi, Belva,
1888 is just another great SDA myth.
Waggoner and Jones no more had the Gospel than the RCC (which is the theology that they were touting). For them (as with Venden) "righteousness by faith" is being made righteous by the indwelling Spirit instead of the Reformational and Pauline Gospel of being declared righteous by God for the sake of the doing and dying of Jesus Christ.
I strongly recommend the book at the following link as a Gospel- and Reformation-oriented evaluation of Waggoner's theology.
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/2.html
|
Drpatti
Registered user
Username: Drpatti
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:50 pm: | |
I'm sorry.
I did not read carefully enough. I should have addressed that post to Faith2.
Didn't mean to contradict you, Belva.
|
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 466
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 5:21 pm: | |
Thank you, Drpatti, for the expanded info on Waggoner. I was not aware of that information. I did know that the righteousness by faith gospel was tied closely to complete obedience to the 10 commandments. In other words, it really didn't add that much to the SDA church. |
Drpatti
Registered user
Username: Drpatti
Post Number: 36
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 5:24 pm: | |
True!
And thank you for not taking offense at my brashness.
One can never get 2 steps away from works in SDAism. The Waggoner/Venden message is simply legalism in a slightly different (more deceptive, IMO) package.
|
Faith2
Registered user
Username: Faith2
Post Number: 47
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 6:15 pm: | |
Drpatti
I do not take offense to your brashness. It seems that NOTHING is really as it seems in Adventism. The play on words do the most damage. When you are in church and seriously seeking God, phrases like, "Is Being MADE and IS DECLARED Righteous" don't jump out at you.
One thing that I can say is that Waggoner inspired my uncle's CORRECT understanding of righteousness by faith.
Belva, thank you for the link.
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:21 pm: | |
Patti, I agree with you. A few years ago we read a book published by the "1888 Committee" which supposedly is returning to the "message" of righteousness by faith from Jones/Waggoner days. It was still Adventism, still centered on EGW, and it downplayed Jesus sacrifice, saying that Jesus died to demonstrate to us how sinful we were. His death was to teach us about ourselves, not to be intrinsically salvific.
Colleen |
Drpatti
Registered user
Username: Drpatti
Post Number: 39
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:39 pm: | |
I have just run into a new incarnation of Waggoner's theology on CARM. It is strange, twisted theology, indeed, that this faction is teaching.
1. God had already reconciled the world to Himself before Christ; Christ's sacrifice was for us to observe and to learn about God's character.
2. Our salvation is only the secondary purpose of the Gospel; the first purpose is to reveal "the truth about God" to the world.
3. The Plan of Salvation was to vindicate God's character which Satan had maligned (and thus began the Great Controversy).
4. That if we seek Christ for salvation, we are being selfish. That we should seek Christ simply to get to know God.
5. That it is GOD that is "on trial" in the IJ. The IJ is actually about justifying God, not us.
Etc....
Here is a link if you would like to read further. If you can stomach it. It makes me nauseous.
http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=121&topic_id=43164&sub_topic_id=43172&mesg_id=&page=2#43175
You see how important is to stay founded in the the Gospel, the Word of Christ. And to prove all things from the Scriptures only. So many would-be theologians love to come up with "new" light. We need no new light; to say that one needs new light is to say that they do not have the Light of the World.
|
Drpatti
Registered user
Username: Drpatti
Post Number: 40
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:41 pm: | |
Oh, and one more:
6. We are the ones who judge God.
|
Bob
Registered user
Username: Bob
Post Number: 259
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:18 am: | |
A few years ago, Robert Weiland, one of the long-time advocates of a return of the SDA Church to the "message of 1888" held a weekend "1888 seminar" in Riverside, on the campus of La Sierra University.
I had heard much about Weiland over the years that I had been in the church, so out of curiosity, I went to their Friday night meeting. Not many people were there, but what a depressing group it was! There was little evidence of joy or freedom in Christ in those folks. The messages presented were fully-charged with references to EGW's teachings and predictions, and obviously, much about the Law and the importance of keeping it.
I left that meeting feeling as if I had passed through a dark cloud. I was convinced that the SDA view of "Righteousness By Faith" is not the genuine thing that it taught in the New Testament.
Bob |
Hrobinsonw
Registered user
Username: Hrobinsonw
Post Number: 168
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 8:42 am: | |
Last weekend my wife had a friend come visit the house that she grew up with in the SDA church. She has also left the church. She ran the Sanctuary message by me and I was curious. Is this message derived from the book of Hebrews? If so, I cannot quite understand how it represents EGW's Sanctuary. The seem as if they are two different events to me. Maybe I need more research. |
Dt
Registered user
Username: Dt
Post Number: 44
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 9:14 am: | |
HROBINSONW,
Grab a Bible (NIV or NKJV are easy to read) and just read Hebrews. Do this a couple of times. Ask yourself if Paul is talking about an event that is 1800 years in the future or if the ceremony was completed at Jesus death. SDA's use a very few verses from Hebrews to point to the IJ. They get there by way of Daniel (cleansing the sanctuary), have an EGW quote bridge the gap and VOILA! the IJ is proved by the Bible.
Just read Hebrews. It is a very clear and forceful message. |
Hrobinsonw
Registered user
Username: Hrobinsonw
Post Number: 169
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 9:57 am: | |
Dt, I apologize for offending you.
I have read Hebrews seven ways to Sunday. That is why I was wondering where it came from. Because when I read Hebrews or anywhere else in the Bible, I just don't see what they are talking about. They keep trying to show me stuff and it just doesn't jump off of the page the same way for me as it does for them. |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 343
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 1:15 pm: | |
Well, Hrobinsonw, you don't see what they see because:
a. You probably believe in verbal inspiration and read the Bible 'as it reads'...
b. You don't have a method of studying the Bible that consists of stringing together 'proof texts' and partial texts to prove a pre-determined point....
c. You don't have the writings of E.G. White to guide you.........
So, let me see if I can clear up a tiny patch of fog.........
The earthly tabernacle that Moses and the Isrealites made had two inner compartments. You had the 'Holy' and then there was a second compartment called the 'Most Holy'. The earthly tabernacle was patterned after the temple in heaven.
So, the reasoning goes that since the earthly tabernacle had a two compartment ministry, then the heavenly must have the same. So, when Christ died and returned to heaven, he went into the 'Holy' part of the heavenly temple. So, for quite some time His ministry was involved with fulfilling the types of what was in the earthly sanctuary.
Daniel says that the temple must be cleansed. In the earthly system, blood cleanses. So, there has to be a time when Christ would enter the most Holy place, apply His blood over the mercy seat, cleanse the sanctuary, judge His people and put an end to sin---thus fulfilling all of the symbology found in the earthly sanctuary.
What it all come down too, is that SDA's take the symbols and typology found in the old Covenant temple and its' services----and then try to make each individual symbol/type match up to something that happens in the New Testament.
The problem is that sometimes SEVERAL symbols pointed to the same event. Take the sacrifice of the Atonement lamb. It was killed outside the gates of the city (as Christ was), the sins were laid on a goat which was led off into the wilderness (points to Christs blotting out our sins, never to be seen again), and the chief priest applying the blood over the mercy seat for the atonement of all the Isrealites (a picture of Christ and the true atonement).....
All of the above symbols point to one event---but SDA's split them up and apply them to three DIFFERENT events. The lamb outside the city they apply to Christs' crucifixion. The goat, they apply to Satan as he is bound on earth for a thousand years. The blood applied over the mercy seat they apply to the beginning of the Investigative Judgement in 1844.
Clear as mud....?
Bill
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 682
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 1:31 pm: | |
I went to the "1888 Message Study Committee" web site that Belva linked to and found this quote from Waggoner:
quote:"The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17 This statement is the summing up of what the apostle has to say about the gospel. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but only "to every one that believeth." In it the righteousness of God is revealed. The righteousness of God is the perfect law of God, which is but the transcript of his own righteous will. All unrighteousness is sin or the transgression of the law. The gospel is Godís remedy for sin; its work, therefore, must be to bring men into harmony with the lawóto cause the workings of the righteous law to be manifested in their lives. But this is wholly a work of faithóthe righteousness of God is revealed from "faith to faith" ófaith in the beginning and faith to the endóas it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
--http://www.1888msc.org/living_by_faith/lbf1.htm
In other words, it's just the same old classic "faith plus works (keeping the Law)" SDA false gospel!
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2022
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 1:45 pm: | |
That's right, Jeremy!
Colleen |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 891
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 2:17 pm: | |
Thanks for everyone's enlightening input on this topic. I had a former SDA tell me several years ago that EGW had accepted the "true" gospel by supporting Waggoner, though she later rejected him. He even gave me a link to the article, which I have since lost, but it was too long for me to get through at the time. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 684
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 2:57 pm: | |
Yes, a very popular myth about EGW is that later in her life, she didn't preach her perfection/works gospel and that she preached salvation by grace or something. But that is just totally false--she never changed her gospel one bit, she preached sinless perfection as necessary for salvation even in the 1900s, and she even said late in her life that she hadn't changed her message one bit. Another myth is that EGW embraced the Trinity later in her life--this also cannot be substantiated by facts.
Jeremy |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 385
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 3:10 pm: | |
Waggoner said, "The gospel is Godís remedy for sin; its work, therefore, must be to bring men into harmony with the lawóto cause the workings of the righteous law to be manifested in their lives."
So which sinful human has has ever been brought "into harmony with the law"? Adam and Eve and Jesus incarnate were the only human beings to experience "being in harmony with God's law". Belief in statements like these and the many like it attributed to Ellen White's pen leads people to look to themselves and their own works as the measure of righteouness and salvation, instead of to Jesus who IS their righteousness and salvation beyond measure! It is by beholding HIM that we become changed, not in beholding our own works.
Besides, CLAIMING to keep the law is infinitely different than actually KEEPING it! I believe it is worse. At least the person who acknowledges their lack of commandment-keeping is being honest with themselves and with God. Anyone who even remotely begins to think that commandment-keeping is part of the equation is already on the slippery slope down Hypocrite Hill and will end up in one of two destinations - Ditch of Despair or Ditch of Denial. How many of us here know one or both of those ditches all too well?!
The Gospel is not God's "remedy", it is God's PAYMENT for sin! Sin is not remedied, it is paid for. The text doesn't read, "The wages of sin is death unless it can be remedied". Death is the PAYMENT for sin and, more specifically, JESUS' death is the payment for MY sins. |
Hrobinsonw
Registered user
Username: Hrobinsonw
Post Number: 170
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:39 pm: | |
Bill thanks,
I was wondering why they jump across the Bible so much. |
Dt
Registered user
Username: Dt
Post Number: 45
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 10:33 am: | |
HROBINSONW,
You definitely did not offend me in any way. Sometimes I just get carried away. I have been having this same discussion with relatives lately. |
Hrobinsonw
Registered user
Username: Hrobinsonw
Post Number: 171
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 1:18 pm: | |
Dt,
I have discussions with my wife's friends all of the time. I used to get upset, but not anymore. It is like speaking spanish to a japanese person. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 255
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 4:41 pm: | |
Hrob,
I love your description of speaking spanish to a japanese person. It rings so true. |
Drpatti
Registered user
Username: Drpatti
Post Number: 43
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 4:49 pm: | |
Yes, indeed!
But let us not forget Pentecost!
When the Holy Spirit speaks, everyone hears in his own language! 
|
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 66
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 11:53 pm: | |
About 1888, God used the discovery of it to help lead me to Himself (and out of Adventism).
I forget if it was Ratzlaff who said that 1888 represented a very primitive understanding of the Gospel of righteousness by faith. Haroldo Camacho summed it up for me by saying that the Lord tried to break through to Adventists by putting the Stumbling Stone in their way, but they tripped over it (and keep tripping over it).
The reality of 1888 can only be understood from a spiritual viewpoint, I think, viewing things from the Gospel and from God's heart for the "movement" of His children who thought they were on the right track but weren't.
Jones & Waggonner were onto something, and their writings represent the fact that they were on the road to learning something. They struggled with their Adventist heritage and how to harmonize it with what they were learning of Christ's righteousness. That their views were not ironclad-final can be seen in the fact that both eventually left Adventism.
Their message (as imperfect as it was --- hey, ours are often imperfect, too) was however filled with enough of the truth that it caused a major shaking in Adventism. The faction that was raised on the law and the pride of 'Adventist truth' rose up to shut down J&W as quick as possible.
This is likely the reason that EGW published "Steps to Christ" at a non-SDA publisher instead of using the R&H as she normally would. Her theology at the time does show the emerging conflict between the SDA message and the newly birthing understandings of righteousness by faith, and this is evident in "Steps to Christ", which---imperfect as it is---reads like a breath of fresh air compared to her pre-1888 works. Siding with J&W, she no doubt earned some animosity from the old guard at the helm of the controls in the GC. This is also likely the reason that they shipped her off to Australia against her will (which she said was against God's will). I'm sure there's been a lot of cover-up about arguments she had with them, so that history appears "smooth".
Eventually, of course, the pride of keeping the SDA unit together absorbed the 1888 "message" in EGW and she was able to move on in her own confused way. The rift that 1888 caused in the church, however, can still be seen today, and I believe the root of the conservative/liberal split in Adventism can be seen here.
Those such as Wieland & Short who look back at 1888 are searching for "what we missed", because we feel that if we can pick it up again, then we can re-capture the spirit & glory of the early days of Adventism.
In so searching, they don't see that the path J&W were setting on (beginning to learn of righteousness by faith) was one that would butt heads violently with the original SDA beliefs. The old guard that tried to shut down J&W (and EGW) seemed to recognize the danger of what J&W were beginning to learn.
Modern 1888 enthusiasts still attempt to harmonize righteousness by faith with the Adventist messages. R-by-F is seen as something special delivered to Adventism that was grafted onto the Adventist message, when in fact it was God trying to save Adventism from her pre-1888 theology & pride.
Because they try to harmonize R-by-F with SDA, and because they focus on the eliteness of this R-by-F message, many 1888 enthusiasts end up a lot more legalistic, extreme, and cultic than more moderate or mainstream Adventists. More liberal and grace-oriented Adventists such as who taught me at LSU will groan when they hear someone bring up 1888 because they know of the fanaticism that accompanies its modern researchers. |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 528
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 10:01 am: | |
Agapetos, please email me if possible. I have some questions I'd appreciate asking offline.
richard
rtruitt@mac.com
|
