defending EGW

[LifeHiscost]

After hearing so many times what you can't do, and what you are supposed to do....after a while she becomes a warden, or a hard taskmaster....and we begin to hate hearing her words...

[Neil D]

I know when I point this out, that some here will defend thier posts....but guys and gals...

when I pointed out that those sdas who loathe EGW's writings, I neglected to point out that they will follow the bible...These members have no problems with God, but every problem with EGW and the word "should" and "ought". They have and desire God to direct them, but for another to tell them what to do, is too much. They will not take part in being held responsible for the sins of planet or for the hold up in Jesus' return.

..for example, when EGW says that our church should be...or ought to be....or should do...or ought to do... these words are directed at people who hurt...really hurt to hear such words because the next phrase or an implication is that because we SDAs are NOT doing these things, we are stuck on this sin laden planet because of them. THEY are the ones reponsible for holding back the 2nd coming of Christ..

Matthew 11:30

For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

If we have this volume of writings from EGw, we have guilt at the volume of possible sins being directed at people who really do care...It is a co-dependants relationship.....and a painful one...It's no wonder that these people who hurt so much do not use EGW as a guide....or maybe they do and are closet EGW listeners, but they have walled off from thier friends the ability to share things that inspire thier friends from the guilt that they carry..

..and now, I see a post that uses the "should" and "ought" concept...I know, we are all guilty of this..I have done this and there are times that I am horrified by this...So, I try not to use EGW writings...I like the idea of a softer touch when using trying to correct people...but it is contentious ...Sort of like using a iron crowbar and a wooden 2x4...I know, it still hurts....Maybe I just won't correct others at all..........................................

then again, maybe the moon is made out of blue cheese....

[Hair]

We OUGHT to say Swiss cheese because it has the holes in it like the Moon has craters, this is what SHOULD be used for moon cheese.

Another one that is overused and is bothersome to me is this one: "We are counseled" as in "Well, the spirit of prophecy COUNSELS us to do such and such."

And also, the term "the spirit of prophecy". I don't like it in conversation when people do not use her name, but replace it with "the spirit of prophecy". Its as if EGW IS the SOLE spirit of prophecy and there has been none before nor could there be any after.

And if EGW points out something in scripture that you did not see before reading what she wrote about it, that's great, but then why do you quote what she said ABOUT the scripture? Once you know what she BROUGHT OUT in the scripture teach THAT. I don't go around saying 2+2=4 because Mrs. Brady taught me that in 1ST Grade. No, 2+2 IS 4, Mrs. Brady just helped me learn it.

[Ted Oplinger]

Nice points, Hair.

Blessings,

[Gail]

We OUGHT to say Swiss cheese because it has the holes in it like the Moon has craters, this is what SHOULD be used for moon cheese.

Another one that is overused and is bothersome to me is this one: "We are counseled" as in "Well, the spirit of prophecy COUNSELS us to do such and such."

And also, the term "the spirit of prophecy". I don't like it in conversation when people do not use her name, but replace it with "the spirit of prophecy". Its as if EGW IS the SOLE spirit of prophecy and there has been none before nor could there be any after.

And if EGW points out something in scripture that you did not see before reading what she wrote about it, that's great, but then why do you quote what she said ABOUT the scripture? Once you know what she BROUGHT OUT in the scripture teach THAT. I don't go around saying 2+2=4 because Mrs. Brady taught me that in 1ST Grade. No, 2+2 IS 4, Mrs. Brady just helped me learn it.

Nice!

[Planey]

And also, the term "the spirit of prophecy". I don't like it in conversation when people do not use her name, but replace it with "the spirit of prophecy". Its as if EGW IS the SOLE spirit of prophecy and there has been none before nor could there be any after.

I just SO agree with this, Hair.

I have always thought it should be written "Spirit of prophecy" as I believe it is referring to the Holy Spirit. Not to Ellen G White.

OK, sorry for the sidetrack...

Graeme

[EmptyTomb]

Originally Posted By: LynnDel

EGW has been very misused, and still is. The loathing of her comes to the point where you can quote anyone in the world, even Lady GaGa, with impunity, but the minute you quote EGW, some listeners question the validity of what you're saying.

LD

Unfortunately a lot of those people are SDA,s.You would expect Ellen white to be rejected by worldlings but it always surprises me when church members ignore the counsel given to us by God.

You become what you behold,as scripture says.

ET

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

.Maybe I just won't correct others at all..........................................

then again, maybe the moon is made out of blue cheese....

Then again, maybe you could repeat the Word used by the incumbent

president re: to the use of the Holy Scriptures for counsel, ie:

"The company will stone them with stones and cut them down with their swords; they will slay their sons and their daughters and burn their houses with fire."Ezekiel 23:47

or words in that neighborhood.

God cares!

[fccool]

Quote:

The SDA Church may not be fundamentalist.

However, some members are.

NOTE: The work "fundamentalist" has a range of meanings which differ in differing contexts.

SDA is very much a Fundamentalist denomination, because it bases its ideas on certain fundamental beliefs that it will not revoke even if shown the evidence to the contrary. These "fundomental beliefs" are non-negotiable.

EGW one has really been softened up to the point of that not being a test of membership, but it's not true. EGW is very much a test of membership in SDA church, since she was written in as one of the fundamental beliefs that one is to agree with.

Most of the Adventist leadership was forced to take a more liberal view of EGW once certain facts came to light about her writing and publishing practices, which largely relied on other authors for ideas and concepts, which were then edited, and subsequently revised. In fact, most people who are capable of creative writing and basic understanding of the Bible can do what she did, given a large enough library and a desire to do so. She seemed to read the thoughts of other writers and cut and paste and concatenate these into derivative works that were of the same nature and content.

Church was forced to dance around the term "inspiration", because it now had to include the process of borrowing the ideas of other authors, which would not be problematic if not for the claims that were originally made by the leadership to serve as a proof for her being a writer that did not record mere opinions of men or her own (which she mostly did).

Likewise, I've seen many Advensists exiting Adventism over the issue of "supporting vision". EGW has not really originated any of the Adventist doctrines, which largely came from Adventist scholars like Andrews, Bates and White. BUT, whenever any disputes arose, she would conveniently have a vision that almost in every case supported the "authority position" as the proper one. Of course, she ran into some embarrassing issues there with things like the shut door doctrine, which were edited out to hide the issue... or giving a go-ahead to doctrinal interpretations that were later changed with evolved understanding.

I personally think that she would have much more validity as a prophet if she actually had some doctrinal truths passed on from up high... she did not. She merely would say "I was shown in a vision that these guys are right" after the fact, and when such validation was needed to settle dissenting arguments.

If one evaluate her behavior objectively, one could say that she was used by the denomination in general to formulate and validate certain doctrinal principles that are not readily observable from early church history or the Biblical narrative.

In short, there's no need to defend EGW, or perpetuate the fable that simply is not true. Unfortunately, most Adventists don't know enough about history of their own denomination to be informed on this issue and to ask critical questions.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

SDA is very much a Fundamentalist denomination, because it bases its ideas on certain fundamental beliefs that it will not revoke even if shown the evidence to the contrary. These "fundamental beliefs" are non-negotiable.

In the sense that you state it you are correct.

However, in the general religious world in the United States the term "Fundamentalist" is narrowly applied to a specific set of religious beliefs that were published about 100 years ago.

The SDA Source Book has a good article on this subject. It correctly traces it beginning to 12 doctrinal statements published in the early 1900s, which sold about 3,000,000 copies.

In that sense, the SDA Church is not a fundamentalist denomination as it does not accept certain of those doctrinal beliefs.

However, in more recent times that definition has swung to a broader meaning. That prior meaning is losing its primacy. As a result, the SDA Church may be called a fundamentalist denomination by some.

[fccool]

You are correct about a 100 years ago, but you are a bit off about the disagreement. Christian fundomentalism is identified by 5 non-negotiable doctrines:

1) Biblical Inerrancy

2) Biblical Literacy (especially when it comes to the creation account)

3) Virgin Birth

4) Substitutional Atonement

5) Literal and bodily resurrection and eminent return of Christ

See here, for example:

http://thriceholy.net/fundamentals.html

These are the "5 fundamentals" of fundamentalism, and Adventist denomination would agree with all five. Virtually all of the fundamentalist churches will have their disagreements about the rest.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

EGW one has really been softened up to the point of that not being a test of membership, but it's not true. EGW is very much a test of membership in SDA church, since she was written in as one of the fundamental beliefs that one is to agree with.

NO. EGW is not a test of fellowship.

The SDA CHURCH Manual prescribes two (2) form of a baptismal vow that one is expected to take upon joining the SDA Church.

See pages 32- 35 of the 2005 Manual.

The shortened "alternative form" requires assent to three (3) statements, none of which come close to mention of EGW.

The standard form requires assent to 13 statements. Statement # 8 requires a belief in spiritual gifts, to include the spirit of prophecy. However, There is not requirement that this be extended to EGW. Anyone who thinks that it does is wrong.

It should be noted that the so-called 28 fundamental beliefs are not a test of fellowship. They are simply a statement of doctrinal positions that are generally held within the SDA Church.

One who believes that the Bible is the standard and does not accept the general thinking of the church toward EGW, may be a SDA.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

You are correct about a 100 years ago, but you are a bit off about the disagreement. Christian fundomentalism is identified by 5 non-negotiable doctrines:

1) Biblical Inerrancy

2) Biblical Literacy (especially when it comes to the creation account)

3) Virgin Birth

4) Substitutional Atonement

5) Literal and bodily resurrection and eminent return of Christ

I am well aware of this modernized revision of the term.

But, I correctly stated that in the beginning there were 12 doctrinal positions.

My personal bias is to look at history. It is in history that one sees fundamentalism developing on a bedrock of 12. And, I meet people today who still advocate for those twelve, although some modern revisionists have reduced them to the five you mention, and others have revised beyond that.

[fccool]

Gregory,

I think I should clarify here. I'm talking about the practical execution as opposed to the "portrayal in a manual". The beliefs are seen in action. If tomorrow you will stand in front of your church and declare that you have great doubts about EGW being a prophet, there's a high likelihood that you will be barred from leadership positions, and quite possibly ostracized in some churches.

The main reason for this is in fact the logic of what you are saying. The doctrinal statement is very self-validating in nature, and it reads "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. "

The phrasing of this belief was specifically re-formulated in 1980 to make EGW to be inalienable part of Adventistm. In fact, it was formulated in a way that anyone who rejects this idea actually rejects Adventism. Here's a simple flow of reasoning:

1) The core concept is that Adventists are remnant people.

2) How do we know that? - the Spirit of Prophecy

3) How was it expressed? - EGW

4) Therefore it follows that if you don't believe #4... you don't believe #1... and you are not an Adventist.

As an elder of our church bluntly put it - "There would not be Adventist Church without EGW, people who don't believe that she was a prophet are not Adventists".

I certainly would love to see an example of Adventist Pastor who openly claims to have some doubts. I know some examples of people who "resigned" over the issue.

[fccool]

Quote:

But, I correctly stated that in the beginning there were 12 doctrinal positions.

My personal bias is to look at history. It is in history that one sees fundamentalism developing on a bedrock of 12. And, I meet people today who still advocate for those twelve, although some modern revisionists have reduced them to the five you mention, and others have revised beyond that.

I think you are mistaking the 12 volumes containing 90 essays with fundamental beliefs (perhaps you are not, if we consider the thematic grouping of these articles). See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals

These articles were published and the core beliefs summarized in publications mere decades from publishing the original articles, mainly because many dealt with sociological and political issues. It is by no means a modern reductionism, but an original attempt to single out the core fundamentals and include Catholicism (among many other denominations), which was even considered to be non-Christian.

But, even in that broader context, Adventism would probably disagree with 3-4 articles out of the entire 90. I think we can agree that it's predominantly fundamentalist.

[debbym]

Quote:

SDA is very much a Fundamentalist denomination, because it bases its ideas on certain fundamental beliefs that it will not revoke even if shown the evidence to the contrary. These "fundomental beliefs" are non-negotiable.

this can be a boring protracted argument with many opinions on each side, from the top theologians at the top sad seminaries, you will learn the sda church is not a fundamentalist church, we do not believe in inerrancy of scruipture ... etc etc etc...

but it seems every opinion is floating around and all kinds of sda's, which is prime evidence we are not a cult and neither fundamentalist.

[fccool]

Quote:

this can be a boring protracted argument with many opinions on each side, from the top theologians at the top sad seminaries, you will learn the sda church is not a fundamentalist church, we do not believe in inerrancy of scruipture ... etc etc etc...

Infallible definition = incapable of error

But, to be fair, I think that the Academic side of the modern SDA theology who knows and understands the historical issues brought up by some of the top Advenstist theologians... tend to be more liberal and have more room for possibility in their belief system.

In the end, I think you are fairly referring to individuality of belief as interpreted by the members, which is fair IMO.

My statement was about the practiced belief of the establishment in general. What percentage of pastors would you think answer "yes" to every one of the 5?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

NO. EGW is not a test of fellowship.

The SDA CHURCH Manual prescribes two (2) form of a baptismal vow that one is expected to take upon joining the SDA Church.

See pages 32- 35 of the 2005 Manual.

The shortened "alternative form" requires assent to three (3) statements, none of which come close to mention of EGW.

The standard form requires assent to 13 statements. Statement # 8 requires a belief in spiritual gifts, to include the spirit of prophecy. However, There is not requirement that this be extended to EGW. Anyone who thinks that it does is wrong.

It should be noted that the so-called 28 fundamental beliefs are not a test of fellowship. They are simply a statement of doctrinal positions that are generally held within the SDA Church.

One who believes that the Bible is the standard and does not accept the general thinking of the church toward EGW, may be a SDA.

Thanks for that Greg. I was under the impression all I had to believe was the Holy Bible (the Word of God) in order to be a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. If that isn't true then I've been living under a false impression for the last 45 years.

"The sun will become dark,

and the moon will turn blood red

before that great and terrible[a] day of the Lord arrives.

But everyone who calls on the name of the Lord

will be saved,

for some on Mount Zion in Jerusalem will escape,

just as the Lord has said.

These will be among the survivors

whom the Lord has called."Joel 2:31-32 NLT

"The sun will become dark,

and the moon will turn blood red

before that great and glorious day of the Lord arrives.

But everyone who calls on the name of the Lord

will be saved.’"Acts 2:20-21 NLT

God cares!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

this can be a boring protracted argument with many opinions on each side, from the top theologians at the top sad seminaries, you will learn the sda church is not a fundamentalist church, we do not believe in inerrancy of scruipture ... etc etc etc...

NO!

We clearly believe in some of the 12, or 4 or 5, whatever number you wish to come up with.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I think I should clarify here. I'm talking about the practical execution as opposed to the "portrayal in a manual". The beliefs are seen in action. If tomorrow you will stand in front of your church and declare that you have great doubts about EGW being a prophet, there's a high likelihood that you will be barred from leadership positions, and quite possibly ostracized in some churches.

I agree. There is a major difference between the requirement to hold a leadership position in the denomination and the requirement to be a member of that denomination. There are a lot of members who are members in good standing and may even hold local leadership positions, who would not be allowed to be ordained clergy.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. "

You are quoting from the 27/28 Fundamental beliefs.

That publication is not designed to be either a test of membership or a test of fellowship. If you will look at the beginning of that publication, it clearly states that it is not intended to be a creed.

That document is intended to be a statement as to the common core of beliefs generally held by SDAs. If you carefully read the individual chapters, you will see that for many of them there is not a common understanding as to the meaning of the specific statements.

The Adventist Review published an article in its November 28, 1991 edition, written by Calvin Rock, entitled "Doctrines, Teachings, and Policies, that you may find of value. I consider it so, even if it does not address exactly the issue that you bring up.

In any case, the standards for membership are listed in the CHURCH MANUAL, and not in the document that you cite.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Thanks for that Greg. I was under the impression all I had to believe was the Holy Bible (the Word of God) in order to be a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. If that isn't true then I've been living under a false impression for the last 45 years.

Take a look at the baptisimal vow that you signed upon your baptism.

The alternative baptisimal vow is of recent time and was not in place 45 years ago.

[Dr. Waite]

Quote:

EGW one has really been softened up to the point of that not being a test of membership, but it's not true. EGW is very much a test of membership in SDA church, since she was written in as one of the fundamental beliefs that one is to agree with.

NO. EGW is not a test of fellowship.

The SDA CHURCH Manual prescribes two (2) form of a baptismal vow that one is expected to take upon joining the SDA Church.

See pages 32- 35 of the 2005 Manual.

The shortened "alternative form" requires assent to three (3) statements, none of which come close to mention of EGW.

The standard form requires assent to 13 statements. Statement # 8 requires a belief in spiritual gifts, to include the spirit of prophecy. However, There is not requirement that this be extended to EGW. Anyone who thinks that it does is wrong.

It should be noted that the so-called 28 fundamental beliefs are not a test of fellowship. They are simply a statement of doctrinal positions that are generally held within the SDA Church.

One who believes that the Bible is the standard and does not accept the general thinking of the church toward EGW, may be a SDA.

Page 46-47 of the revised 2010 edition

alternate vow:

Alternative Vow

1. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord,and do you desire to live your life in a saving relationship with Him?

2. Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?

3. Do you desire to be baptized as a public expression of your belief in Jesus Christ, to be accepted into the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and to support the Church and its mission as a faithful steward by your personal influence, tithes and offerings, and a life of service?

Number 2 of the alternative vow would include number 18 of the fundamental beliefs:

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

[Gregory Matthews]

Interesting. I am going to have to give some further thought to that.

I have always tied such to the 13 statements in the standard baptisimal vow. You are the fist that has told me that it should be tied to the so-called 28 Fundamental Beliefs. It is a new thought to me.

But, I have never claimed perfect understanding of anything.

I thank you for giving me something to think about.

I have some concern about making the 28 a standard for membership. Those who formulated it in the first 27 clearly did not intend for it to be a creed.

The idea was that SDA had a common set of teachings. However, it is the Holy Spirit who leads in ones spiritual development. Therefore, members might not be at the same stage of spiritual development. But, if united as to mission, purpose and a desire to be a member, they could become members. That is why the 13 was not intended to be as expansive as the 28.

As I view the SDA Church today, that is exactly what is taking place, in many (not all) of our churches.

[Gregory Matthews]

I feel a need here to make a personal statement as to where I am in regard to Ellen White:

1) The SDA Church would not exist today, in form that it exists, if it were not for the ministry of EGW.

2) We are indebted to EGW for where we are in publishing, education and in health ministry.

3) EGW supported our global work in evangelism, however, without her we would still have become a global ministry.

4) We derived our major doctrines from study of the Bible and they did not originate in her.

5)God used EGW to guide the developing SDA Church administratively.

6) The Bible is the basis for our standard beliefs. EGW is not.