Ellen White Listed as "Heretic of The Week" on Catholic Herald Website

[BlessedMan]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

How arrogant of man to remove the sacredness of the Day of Atonement and call it and the Sabbath a "shadow" after Jesus' death and Resurrection (Leviticus 23, 26-32 Compared with Colossians 2, 16-17. Particularly after God said the Day of Atonement was an "appointed time" (just like the sabbath) FOR EVER throughout the generations of Israel. 

Something to consider when pondering this would be asking yourself if God would ever reach a point where it would be insignificant (to God) that you violated the commandment about stealing, lying, cheating or murdering. God said, in speaking of the Sabbath; 

Isaiah 1, 14:  When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

These are ALL ritual / ceremonial "appointed times" on the Israelite Liturgical Calendar - these were NOT native / natural to the people of Israel any more than they would have been native / natural to the Chinese or Greek peoples. They were introduced to Israel by supernatural means exactly as Scripture says they were:

I would have to disagree with your interpretation of these and similar scriptures. NONE of them are in deference to the Sabbath - the seventh-day Sabbath that God often called "good" "hallowed" "blessed" etc.  Why would God turn around one day and call the seventh-day Sabbath "good," and then say the opposite a few centuries later? of course, the understanding is not to be seen as some fault in God's word; but more in keeping with our constant misunderstanding of same.

There is one point we could tentaively agree on here, this "ceremonial" aspect that God was obviously talking about in lev, or other related verses; it is true, He did say that after the cross there was no more use for any of them; but its equally true that He also said this about that "ceremonial" aspects well-before the cross. If there actually were any changes to the sabbath commandment itself; God would not have beat around the bush, He would just say so. Any change in any "one" commandment, would have to be applied to all the other nine. No really good way to justify it otherwise.

But more later...

[Gustave]

10 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

I would have to disagree with your interpretation of these and similar scriptures. NONE of them are in deference to the Sabbath - the seventh-day Sabbath that God often called "good" "hallowed" "blessed" etc.  Why would God turn around one day and call the seventh-day Sabbath "good," and then say the opposite a few centuries later? of course, the understanding is not to be seen as some fault in God's word; but more in keeping with our constant misunderstanding of same.

There is one point we could tentaively agree on here, this "ceremonial" aspect that God was obviously talking about in lev, or other related verses; it is true, He did say that after the cross there was no more use for any of them; but its equally true that He also said this about that "ceremonial" aspects well-before the cross. If there actually were any changes to the sabbath commandment itself; God would not have beat around the bush, He would just say so. Any change in any "one" commandment, would have to be applied to all the other nine. No really good way to justify it otherwise.

But more later...

You wouldn't say that Romans 14, 1-5 doesn't cover that? 

The information I have access to says this text was dealing with Judaizers in the early Church and here Paul is telling Jewish Christians to not judge Christian converts from paganism for what they eat (foods considered unclean by Jews) and not observing the Sabbath. Likewise Paul is also telling Christians who came from other than Jewish backgrounds to not judge what the Jews were doing. As the Christians (both Jews and non-Jews were assembling together on the 1st day of the week anyway). 

We know from contemporary and ancient Jewish history that Jews don't make a contribution or collection "on sabbath" in the Synagogue we can also know the references Paul make about the Collection and it being done EVERY Sunday means that indeed was when the Christians were assembling themselves together.  

[B/W Photodude]

Ceremonial holy days were treated much the same way the Sabbath would be treated. So, while the gentile did not have to observe these ceremonials "sabbaths", it in no way diminished the seventh day Sabbath which was instituted as part of creation and belongs to all humanity and is not property of the Jewish faith.

The prophet Isaiah looking forward in vision saw beyond this age to the new world to be created after the wicked and the devil are annihilated and wrote, "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Isaiah 66:22-24

[phkrause]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

That's exactly what I mean.

What does that mean?????

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, phkrause said:

What does that mean?????

Perhaps I am wrong here and I'm trying hard to keep everyone straight in my head. You come from a Jewish background and worship in a Messianic Jewish setting or home Church? Am I mistaken in understanding that you believe Ellen White had the gift of prophecy? If so you have my express apology. If you don't believe it was possible for Christ to sin and loose His salvation you again have my express apology. 

 

[phkrause]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Yes, God said He would come and would succeed in saving. There was no possibility of failure. The 1st person who I know of who suggested that there was a possibility of failure was Arius (founder of Arianism). Scripture is explicit that notion was impossible. 

I do agree that there was no possibility of Jesus not going through with dying for us!! Personally I don't believe she meant that Christ could've failed, but that at anytime he could've just decided that it wasn't worth it? Just a thought!!

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  I am not addressing every aspect of the question under discussion.

Standard SDA teaching (Richard Rice is the major exception.), has taught that God knows what will happen in the future.  However, that teaching has included the fact that we have "free will."  In other words, standard SDA teaching has been that the foreknowledge of God does not force people into action against their free will.  Rather it simply states that God knows the future.

 

NOTE:  Something just clicked in my thinking.  Dr. Richard Rice, in his book, The Openness of God, may (?) be arguing, at least in part, the position that Gustave has taken.  I will have to give that some thought, and to check and see if I have tha book in my personal library.

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

I do agree that there was no possibility of Jesus not going through with dying for us!! Personally I don't believe she meant that Christ could've failed, but that at anytime he could've just decided that it wasn't worth it? Just a thought!!

Some folks believe the following indicate that Ellen understood that Christ could have failed by sinning. 

 

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

 

Ellen White, General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists Bulletin Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

 

Ellen White, Desire of Ages page 124
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss.

 

 

Ellen White, Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898
Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

Ellen White
The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would NEVER have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished

 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  I am not addressing every aspect of the question under discussion.

Standard SDA teaching (Richard Rice is the major exception.), has taught that God knows what will happen in the future.  However, that teaching has included the fact that we have "free will."  In other words, standard SDA teaching has been that the foreknowledge of God does not force people into action against their free will.  Rather it simply states that God knows the future.

 

NOTE:  Something just clicked in my thinking.  Dr. Richard Rice, in his book, The Openness of God, may (?) be arguing, at least in part, the position that Gustave has taken.  I will have to give that some thought, and to check and see if I have that book in my personal library.

 

 

I might have to get Rice's book. 

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

I might have to get Rice's book. 

TRY HERE  You can download a 5 pg pdf REVIEW of the book

Theres a pretty good article here on Foreknowledge & Freewill

Is this the kind of stuff you are talking about?

PS I have the book in my Kindle reader, just checked. Its available.

Edited January 27, 2020 by BlessedMan
added ps

[Gregory Matthews]

A concern of mine is that The book that Dr. Rice first wrote was published by the SDA Church in 1980.  The book that seemingly seems to be available, and cited by Blessed Man, is a much later (1994) book that had five (5) authors, only one of which was the SDA Dr. Rice.

I once had a copy of that 1980 book.  I am going to  have to search my library to see if I still have that copy.  I do not have a copy of the 1994 book.

In 1980, Rice book wrote a book

The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. which introduced the term “open theism”. It was published by Seventh-day Adventist publisher Review and Herald but it became very controversial thus it was not reprinted.

The book was later published because of the evangelical Clark Pinnock who gave positive comments about the book. The book was republished by Pinnock’s publisher Bethany House under the title God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will. In 1994, theologians started contributing to the book together with Rice. He teaches about “Open Theism” at Loma Linda University as of 2007.

[Gregory Matthews]

My memory of the book by Dr. Rice goes back about 40 years to 1980.  As such, it may be flawed and incorrect.  It may be that Dr. Rice teaches the exact opposite of what Gustave suggests.

What I can say is that the book was very controversial within Adventism and I am certain that the Review regretted publishing it.

NOTE:  Amazon has the 1980 book on sale for $85.00!

 

 

[Gustave]

I did some reading on "open theism" and from what I'm gathering it suggests that God indeed knows exactly on what would happen before it takes place HOWEVER "open theism" says this ability ONLY pertains to set reality. The question is - did Rice agree that the outcome of God's victory was "set reality" as in: 

1st Peter 1,19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, Foreknown indeed BEFORE the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you, Who through him are faithful in God, who raised him up from the dead, and hath given him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God

Ephesians 1,10
to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out EVERYTHING in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory

2 Timothy 1,8
Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the GOSPEL according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, WHICH WAS GIVEN US in Christ Jesus BEFORE the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

Ephesians 1,9
he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he PURPOSED in Christ

Job 42,2
I know that you can do all things; NO purpose of yours can be thwarted

Psalm 33,11
But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through ALL generations

 

OR,

did Rice agree with how Ellen White and the Pioneers taught it - that Christ only had power because He was perfectly obedient & subservient to The Father? 

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

Ellen White, SM book 1, page 256
Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

“For a period of time Christ was on probation. He took humanity on Himself, to stand the test and trial which the first Adam failed to endure. Had He failed in His test and trial, He would have been disobedient to the voice of God, and the world would have been lost.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times 10^th May 1899, ‘Christ glorified’)

[BlessedMan]

Gustave, Ill tell you one of my "pet pieves" to help explain my point here. One thing that I strongly object to is people taking short snippets of quotes from a writer, any writer, and making those short passages of just a sentence or two to say they mean some great and startling doctrine. I think to be fair, proper context needs to always be examined: EGW was very obviously not unaware of the nature of Christ & His obedience. But she was always clear that "he learned His obedience, as do we:

Quote

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:1-9).  {1SM 261.4}

I could go on for quite a ways, but I think you will get the point. Is it really fair to not post context of the above one or two sentence quotes?

[BlessedMan]

Just now, BlessedMan said:

Is it really fair to not post context of the above one or two sentence quotes?

yes, I know. Some Adventists do this with "the Pope." Maybe now we are even?

[Gustave]

I found some more material on open theism and Richard Rice. It appears that he was of the view that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation and that God (understood to be the Father) didn't know if Jesus would be able to withstand the temptations of the Devil and had the unthinkable happened the Godhead would have been kaput. 

"In creating morally free beings, God left the future of the world partially indefinite. Their free decisions would complete the future. In particular, God left up to human beings the decision of whether or not they would remain loyal to Him (Gen. 2:16, 17). In so doing, God undertook the risk of their disobedience. It was a risk He was willing to take, because without it their obedience would not have manifested personal love for Him.

Again at the Incarnation God undertook the risk that His Son would fail in His struggle with temptation. We can only speculate as to what the consequences of that possibility would have been. Perhaps they are literally unimaginable to us. But the genuineness of Christ’s temptations strongly supports the reality of the risk that God assumed (Matt. 4:1-11; 26:36-44; Luke 4:1-13; 22:39-44; Heb. 2:18; 4:15). And this heigtesns, if anything, our appreciation of His love. In giving His Son for man’s salvation, God was not merely expressing His disposition toward humanity. He was also running the risk of permanently disastrous consequences to the Godhead itself".  https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/richard-rice-on-open-theism/

This is pretty rough stuff here. 

 

[Gustave]

16 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

yes, I know. Some Adventists do this with "the Pope." Maybe now we are even?

Soon as I get some time I'll post links where the quotes can be read in context. I did a long study into this aspect of Ellen White's beliefs and can assure you that she taught that Jesus stood the risk of falling into temptation AND if that would have happened Christ would have rotted in the tomb and "God" would have turned the universe over to Lucifer. 

[BlessedMan]

16 minutes ago, Gustave said:

This is pretty rough stuff here. 

I agree, but I would suggest getting a better idea of the context of your EGW quotes. She obviously taught and believed much differently than what you are insinuatiing:

Quote

Would that we could comprehend the significance of the words, Christ "suffered being tempted." While He was free from the taint of sin, the refined sensibilities of His holy nature rendered contact with evil unspeakably painful to Him. Yet with human nature upon Him, He met the archapostate face to face, and single-handed withstood the foe of His throne. Not even by a thought could Christ be brought to yield to the power of temptation.  {7BC 927.4}

 

[BlessedMan]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Soon as I get some time I'll post links where the quotes can be read in context. I did a long study into this aspect of Ellen White's beliefs and can assure you that she taught that Jesus stood the risk of falling into temptation AND if that would have happened Christ would have rotted in the tomb and "God" would have turned the universe over to Lucifer. 

just beware of the fact said "context" is not always the right picture. I already know the context, and when I have time will deal with a couple of your more obvious distortions...not saying you "distorted" deliberately, you are just taking it as you read it.

Quote

Would that we could comprehend the significance of the words, Christ "suffered being tempted." While He was free from the taint of sin, the refined sensibilities of His holy nature rendered contact with evil unspeakably painful to Him. Yet with human nature upon Him, He met the archapostate face to face, and single-handed withstood the foe of His throne. Not even by a thought could Christ be brought to yield to the power of temptation.  {7BC 927.4}

Here is another one that is pretty clear:

Quote

Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." The storms of temptation burst upon Him, but they could not cause Him to swerve from His allegiance to God (RH Nov. 8, 1887).  {7BC 927.5}

Most of the one-sentence quotes above are quite simply not what she teaches, when isolated from what she was actually trying to say. "Apologists" do this all the time to "win."

Quote

Christ in the weakness of humanity was to meet the temptations of one possessing the powers of the higher nature that God had bestowed on the angelic family. But Christ's humanity was united with divinity, and in this strength He would bear all the temptations that Satan could bring against Him, and yet keep His soul untainted by sin. And this power to overcome He would give to every son and daughter of Adam who would accept by faith the righteous attributes of His character (RH Jan. 28, 1909).  {7BC 927.7}

 

[BlessedMan]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

 

Ellen White, General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists Bulletin Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

 

Ellen White, Desire of Ages page 124
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss.

I would challenge you to put these in their INTENDED context.

[Gustave]

22 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

I would challenge you to put these in their INTENDED context.

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST19400402-V67-14.pdf

^

Page 9

I've got to leave for work so I'll have to burp up the remaining later. 

[BlessedMan]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST19400402-V67-14.pdf

^

Page 9

I've got to leave for work so I'll have to burp up the remaining later. 

NP & No rush at all. Im off to the mountains in a few minutes for the day so I wont be back for at least two days. Take your time. :)

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I would challenge you to put these in their INTENDED context.

For DA page 124:  https://egwwritings.org/?ref=en_DA.131.2&para=130.542

For the GC Bulletin: https://egwwritings.org/?module=writings&params=(search:'Heaven itself was imperiled',bookcode:'',filter:[{'type':'folder','key':'4'},{'type':'folder','key':'1227'},{'type':'folder','key':'5'},{'type':'folder','key':'8'},{'type':'folder','key':'9'},{'type':'folder','key':'10'},{'type':'folder','key':'253'},{'type':'folder','key':'14'}])

 

These and the other quotes are all saying the same thing, i.e. 'Christ could have sinned & therefore fallen'. 

 

Ellen White: He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points a human nature is tempted. HE COULD HAVE SINNED; HE COULD HAVE FALLEN but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.  for context: https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/14060.6474001?hl="he+could+have+fallen"&ss=eyJ0b3RhbCI6NSwicGFyYW1zIjp7InF1ZXJ5IjoiXCJoZSBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGZhbGxlblwiIiwidHlwZSI6ImJhc2ljIiwibGFuZyI6ImVuIiwibGltaXQiOjIwfSwiaW5kZXgiOjR9#6474020

Ellen is speaking "after the fact" here, we know Jesus didn't sin and that hasn't been my point. According to Scripture Jesus COULDN'T SIN therefore, because of this He didn't sin. Jesus was tempted by the Devil for the same reason He was born by a Virgin, grew up in the particular City He grew up in, etc, etc, etc. All these things that the Prophets said would happen HAD TO HAPPEN. That the Christ would be perfect and sinless was one of those things. 

Everyone one of the quotes I've listed positions Christ as risking His eternal existence on the outcome of His Incarnation - Ellen taught that Christ could have sinned and could have fallen and had that happened Christ would have rotted in the tomb to never wake up again. Eternally kaput.  That concept is what I've argued against. 

[BlessedMan]

On 1/26/2020 at 2:19 PM, Gustave said:

Ellen White said that there was a real possibility that Jesus could have failed?

As I have demonstrated how out of context this is already; I wont re-hash the same points. Its important to bear in mind that what Jesus said re John 15:26 that He made a choice. He chose me. He chose us.

Jesus made the first choice—to love and to die for us, to invite us to live with him forever.

We make the next choice—to accept or reject his offer.

Without his choice, we would have no choice to make.

Edited February 3, 2020 by BlessedMan

[Gustave]

On 2/3/2020 at 12:40 PM, BlessedMan said:

As I have demonstrated how out of context this is already; I wont re-hash the same points. Its important to bear in mind that what Jesus said re John 15:26 that He made a choice. He chose me. He chose us.

Jesus made the first choice—to love and to die for us, to invite us to live with him forever.

We make the next choice—to accept or reject his offer.

Without his choice, we would have no choice to make.

Scripture said  Christ had no possibility of failure - Ellen White said that there definitely was a possibility of failure. 

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)

Unfortunately this is the context