SDA Church in Crisis

[Gregory Matthews]

The following article suggests that the SDA Chruch is in a crisis that must be addressed.

https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2023/ellen-white-scholars-see-crisis-call-change

[Gustave]

This was an interesting article and initially I wasn't going to respond to it being odd man out here - given no one else had I'll throw in my .02. 

The part that caught my attention was:

"The conference ended by recommending clarification in the Official Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which currently states, in part, that the Gift of Prophecy “is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church.”

Sola Scriptura, by definition, is that the Bible Alone is the only INFALLABLE source of authority. Sure, there can be other sources of authority but the Protestant position is that the Bible is the ONLY INFALLABLE source of authority. This was the big rub in the Protestant Reformation and what Luther and the other Reformed traditions insisted on as their foundation. 

The Catholic position is that it's the job of the Church to authoritatively interpret Scripture where there arises a need for interpretation. The following statements make it appear that the SDA's are more like Catholicism than the Protestant Reformers. 

Quote

One of his own number in studying the Bible arrives at conclusions differing from this body of believers. Investigation and discussion follow, strife and division ensue, and a council is called in the enclosure. The two factions are arrayed against each other. Each maintains his position, at least to his own satisfaction, from the Bible. A vote is taken on the question and a majority settle it for the enclosure. The minority settle it for themselves; a new sect is formed. The wall of prejudice is broken down as far as our inquirer is concerned, and once more he is turned loose upon the uncertain sea of investigation. This illustrates the fact that most denominations, at least, have no satisfactory court of final appeal, that while the Bible is infallible and is the basis of all Christian faith, it needs to be infallibly interpreted to avoid confusion and division

&

To be reliable, interpretation must come to us through the same channel through which came the Scripture in the first place. But what is the channel through which Scripture came to us? "The testimony of Jesus," or "the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). 

 

RH19710603-V148-22.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

 

Quote

SS19760401-02.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

How advantaged the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to have a modern inspired interpreter of both the Old and New Testaments! Surely there is every logical reason to give the inspired interpretation top priority in arriving at our understanding of the Word today.

The above is absolutely antithetical to Protestantism, it's only found in restorationist movements and of course, the Catholic Church which has been maintaining this for quite some time now. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

My position is that EGW taught that her writings were subject to the authority of the Bible, as Protestants commonly understand it to be.   In other words, she taught that if the Bible contradicted what she had written, the Bible was to rule.

Unfortunately, some Adventists present themselves as believing that her writings had the authority to explain the Bible.  In other words, the Bible was subject to her understanding.  In some cases, that is more than a mere presentation.  It is an actual belief.

Gustave is correct.  Adventists sometimes present themselves as being quite like Catholics.  Sometimes that is true.  The position of some SDAs as to the authority of the General Conference, meeting in session, is quite similar to the Catholic position on the College of Bishops, when it meets in magisterium.  NOTE:  If I have the title wrong, Gustave may correct me.

[Kevin H]

Mrs. White said that she was not infallible, I fear that too many Adventists limit her fallibility to what she had to say about how inspiration works. 

I am saddened that when she said that if we find a contradiction between what she said and the Bible to follow the Bible. But the typical Adventist use of this guidance is to make her say "I dare you to try to find a contradiction between her and the Bible." 

Mrs. White tells us that exegesis is our job. That her job was to warn people of wrong choices, to point out neglected parts of the scripture, and to make applications of Biblical principles. She would not say things that would confuse people even thought later new discoveries or more careful reading helps us to see it clearer.

For example; she talks about the innkeeper in Luke 2, but she's actually talking about attitudes that we have in our hearts and how we treat people. The word mistranslated "inn" is "kataluma" Although translators knew this was "guest chamber" they did not know just what a kataluma was so they guessed that it was a second work for "inn". They guessed wrong. Families lived in 20 to 40 room buildings called an insula. Some of these rooms were open court yards for cooking, some were storage rooms. Several families, but usually extended families would share an insula. (The fool who wanted to tear down his barn and build a bigger one was not a single home out in the country with a red barn across the street. No, he wanted to throw out his relatives and change their living areas into his storage rooms.) We are not to picture Jesus on the sulfa with only Mary, Martha and Lazarus. No, it was Mark, Martha, Lazarus and who knows how many others from the insula. Anyway, each insula had one room called the -- you guessed it-- kataluma. The kataluma was a room for out of town family to stay in when in town. But if Mrs. White was to point out that the original Christmas tradition is dysfunctional families having a reunion, people would have scratched their heads. 

Another, when the pigs ran into the sea, Mrs. White drew lessons for us in how it would not be wise for us to have a livelihood in say tobacco, alcohol etc. by saying that the Jews should not have been raising pigs there. That area was a gentile area, the only Jews there were like the parodical son, but most people, especially in her day, would think that Jesus was hanging around Jewish areas. 

Another is associating the woman with a bad reputation  washing Jesus' feet with her hair in the home of Simon the Pharisee with Mary in the home of Simon the Leper, and there by also associating Mary with the woman caught in adultery. The woman with the bad reputation in Luke 7 was at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Mary's took place on the Monday night of Passion week. 

These are places where Mrs. White's counsel says that as we learned more about the Bible, we need to move with what we are learning about the Bible. We are not to insist "I don't care what on earth a kataluma was, Mrs. White mentioned the innkeeper so there WAS AN INN!!! Or insist that these gentiles needed to be Jewish, or insist that Mary was the woman with a bad reputation and caught in adultery. Nor do I have to give up Mrs. White's role as a prophet, and learning the lessons she has for me. 

+ 

[Gustave]

Playing Devil's Advocate here - I'd suggest the meaning the article had was what if Ellen White was wrong in some of the things, she said she was "shown"? 

I'm specifically referring to the Doctrine that affirms Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation / Jesus had to return to heaven after He rose from the dead to confirm "God" had accepted His sacrifice, 1844 and other things like this. 

I believe one can make an airtight case (using Scripture only) that there was zero chance The Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation yet it's very rare that an Adventist would agree with that and it seems the reason is that Ellen had already weighed in on that subject and stated the way it was to be (which happened to be what Arius said about the subject). 

[Gustave]

I'd also add that one would expect the true Church to make claims of infallibility - the same as we read the Church made in Acts 15, 28 when it [ The Church] exercised its authority to define Doctrine. This would not be the last time when a question pertaining to faith and morals would arise which is why we see additional Church Councils after the Council of Jerusalem. 

So, I see no Biblical president violated by claiming a charism of infallibility - I'm just saying one would expect to track this charism through the ages via Apostolic succession - at the minimum. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, I think that Adventists would agree that Christ had to return to heaven in order to complete God's plan of salvation.   This is an acknowledgement that God's plan of salvation would have failed is Christ had sinned.  As you would say, that position has serious ramifications.

[Gustave]

YI19070910-V55-37.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

Quote

Jesus refused to receive the homage of his people until he knew that his sacrifice had been accepted by the Father, and until he had received the assurance from God himself that his atonement for the sins of his people had been full and ample, that through his blood they might gain eternal life. Jesus immediately ascended to heaven and presented himself before the throne of God, showing the marks of shame and cruelty upon his brow, his hands and feet. But he refused to receive the coronet of glory, and the royal robe, and he also refused the adoration of the angels as he had refused the homage of Mary, until the Father signified that his offering was accepted.

it's also stated in the Sabbath Bible study.

SS19190401-02.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

 

 

[Gustave]

These statements seem incredibly Arian to me - a direct contradiction to the Historic Christian Creeds. 

But, on another more pressing matter I want to wish everyone a great and happy THANKSGIVING!!! 

[B/W Photodude]

On 11/21/2023 at 7:47 PM, Kevin H said:

 

Another, when the pigs ran into the sea, Mrs. White drew lessons for us in how it would not be wise for us to have a livelihood in say tobacco, alcohol etc. by saying that the Jews should not have been raising pigs there. That area was a gentile area, the only Jews there were like the parodical son, but most people, especially in her day, would think that Jesus was hanging around Jewish areas. 

From Luke: The Demons and the Pigs
…31And the demons kept begging Jesus not to order them to go into the Abyss. 32 There on the hillside a large herd of pigs was feeding. So the demons begged Jesus to let them enter the pigs, and He gave them permission. 33Then the demons came out of the man and went into the pigs, 

I don't think people get the whole demons and pigs story clearly. Where were the demons afraid Jesus would send them? What was the Abyss? And how degraded they were to have to enter pigs to get away! Why the pigs ran into the sea to drown is not clear, because we cannot fully understand what the pigs experience of possession really was. We assume that the demons killed the pigs by drowning. However, I suspicion that the demons really had to experience what death was before they could be released from the pigs. I think the demons got a foretaste of what is in store for them in the lake of fire.

[Gustave]

Quote

B/W Photodude said: What was the Abyss?

It's hell. See Strong's for that part of Luke 8. 

1. bottomless

2. unbounded

3. the abyss

   1. the pit

   2. the immeasurable depth

   3. of Orcus, a very deep gulf or chasm in the lowest parts of the earth used as the common receptacle of the dead and especially as the abode of demons

[Gustave]

On 11/22/2023 at 4:18 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, I think that Adventists would agree that Christ had to return to heaven in order to complete God's plan of salvation.   This is an acknowledgement that God's plan of salvation would have failed is Christ had sinned.  As you would say, that position has serious ramifications.

 

I should have clarified my position better. 

I don't have an issue with Ellen White saying that Jesus returned to heaven, at all. I have an issue with her saying the reason Christ went to heaven - i.e. so Christ could get clarification that the Father had accepted His Sacrifice. 

 

"Jesus refused to receive the homage of his people UNTIL HE KNEW that his sacrifice had been accepted by the Father, AND UNTIL he had received the assurance from "GOD HIMSELF" that his atonement for the sins of his people had been full and ample.........Christ refused the adoration of the angels as he had refused the homage of Mary UNTIL the Father signified that his offering was accepted". Ellen White

Despite the Old Testament Prophets assurance that God would indeed save us, despite the Gospel accounts heralding Jesus' birth (who He really was and what He would do), despite Jesus saying that "all things" spoken of Him by the Old Testament had to happen - - - - Ellen says Jesus DOUBTED or was unsure what He had done had got the job done and needed to go to heaven for the Father to nod his head and pat Christ's? 

Doesn't the Bible classify doubt as sin???? 

James 1, 6-8

&

Whatever is not from faith is sin

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong? Jesus going to heaven after He rose from the dead, to make sure His torture, death and resurrection were up to God's standards makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. No one else here sees a glaring problem with this??? I see Arianism on steroids in this.