Thoughts on "Adventism Going Two Ways" by Charles D. Mills

[GiveHimGlory]

I recently noticed a book on Amazon by Charles D. Mills entitled "Adventism Going Two Ways" - has anyone read it or knows what it is about?

[John317]

No, never heard of it.

But now that I Googled the writer's name, I see an ad for the book which says

Quote:

You live your life, professing a sincere belief in Jesus and the current doctrines of the Adventist church. You die, feeling convinced that you will see Jesus when He comes. You have been in the grave awaiting this event to happen. The resurrection occurs! The trumpet sounds!! You awake from your sleep and, lo and behold, you are outside the walls of the New Jerusalem! What happened?!!!

"Adventism Going in Two Directions" is a book that, according to one reviewer, will "rock the foundations of the Adventist church" because it will answer this question and many more that will shock many. It is a must read for anyone concerned about their eternal destination.

Do you know Charles D. Mills?

How did you learn of it and what makes you ask about it?

I wonder why anyone thinks this book will "rock the foundations of the Adventist church."

There's nothing happening in the SDA Church today that should take anyone by surprise if they've been studying the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White.

[John317]

Your link didn't take me to the book.

It's here: http://www.amazon.com/Adventism-Going-Two-Ways-Where/dp/1432775065

[phkrause]

There's nothing happening in the SDA Church today that should take anyone by surprise if they've been studying the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White.

Exactly John, not sure why everyone always wants to believe stuff like this?

[debbym]

from the book, a quote

"Thy way oh God is in the sanctuary." Psalms 77:13

"God designs that the plan of redemptionm shall come to his people as the latter rain: for they are fast losing their connection with God." Bible training school january 1, 1913

[GiveHimGlory]

I came across it because I have an ebay search set to "Adventism" so I get an email of any new items with that in the title.

I discovered you can get a free sample for your Kindle, so I had a read of the first part.

This is basically his argument.

In the early Adventist church the role of Ellen White was to correct mistakes. If the church was right about A, B, C and D, she wouldn't write about it, if they were wrong about E, she would write about it.

Consequently if we just read Ellen White, we won't learn about A, B, C and D - we will only do that if we go back and study the writings of the time.

Mills argues that what the early Adventist church believed - the details, not the headlines - is fundamentally different to what the church today believes, but we only discover this by going back and reading the full width of publications from the early church. We don't get it just from reading Ellen White as she was only correcting mistakes.

This is what he says the book aims to do. I didn't get any further.

[Stan]

I believe charles has left the Adventist Church and formed his own "Free Adventist Church" just more Church Identity Theft, providing, as I was told, Tithe income for himself.

[BobRyan]

This is basically his argument.

In the early Adventist church the role of Ellen White was to correct mistakes. If the church was right about A, B, C and D, she wouldn't write about it, if they were wrong about E, she would write about it.

Consequently if we just read Ellen White, we won't learn about A, B, C and D - we will only do that if we go back and study the writings of the time.

Mills argues that what the early Adventist church believed - the details, not the headlines - is fundamentally different to what the church today believes, but we only discover this by going back and reading the full width of publications from the early church. We don't get it just from reading Ellen White as she was only correcting mistakes.

The same could be said of Paul if one were addressing those who had not read much of his writing in detail.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

In the early Adventist church the role of Ellen White was to correct mistakes. If the church was right about A, B, C and D, she wouldn't write about it, if they were wrong about E, she would write about it.

Consequently if we just read Ellen White, we won't learn about A, B, C and D - we will only do that if we go back and study the writings of the time.

Charles Mills is wrong in making this assumption, and it seems that everything else he says is based on that wrong assumption.

Ellen White explained that she did not necessarily correct every wrong teaching or practice in the church. She said that wasn't what what God raised her up to do. She believed that it was up to church members to study the Bible for themselves to see if a teaching or practice was right or not. Many times she did not say anything about an error or problem because she hoped that it would be recognized and corrected by the church.

Charles Mills also apparently assumes that God revealed all truth to Ellen White. For sure, everything that God revealed to her is truth, but not all truth was revealed to her.

[John317]

In the early Adventist church the role of Ellen White was to correct mistakes. If the church was right about A, B, C and D, she wouldn't write about it, if they were wrong about E, she would write about it.

Consequently if we just read Ellen White, we won't learn about A, B, C and D - we will only do that if we go back and study the writings of the time.

Mills argues that what the early Adventist church believed - the details, not the headlines - is fundamentally different to what the church today believes, but we only discover this by going back and reading the full width of publications from the early church.

This is the idea behind a lot of the people who reject the Trinity and copy the beliefs of the "pioneers." They study what the Pioneers taught on the subject and often quote from them in order to support their rejection of the Trinity. However, they don't seem to realize that our Pioneers would be the first to recommend studying the Bible for themselves to find truth; they wouldn't have told future generations of SDA's to study their writings for the truth. The Pioneers often did not always even agree among themselves, and they made many mistakes. They all were growing and changing as they learned more light.

We need to pay attention not only to what our Pioneers believed but to why the Pioneers believed as they did. For instance, why did they reject the Trinity doctrine? How did they understand the doctrine? And how did they treat the evidence of the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy?

As important as it is to know our Adventist history, we need to realize that our Pioneers are not the standard, or measuring-stick, of truth. That standard is really the Bible alone. Ellen White's writings are a secondary standard, which must always be judged by the Scriptures.