Has the damage from Desmond Ford subsided?

[Gerr]

Could you show that letter by EGW?

[wayfinder]

Mrs. White's letter to A.F. Ballenger

When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light, which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat, and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard bearers who have fallen in death are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.

Elder G's proofs are not reliable. If received, they would destroy the faith of God's people in the truth that has made us what we are.

We must be decided on this subject; for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture, are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy. We had the truth; we were directed by the angels of God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of the sanctuary question was given. It is eloquence for every one to keep silent in regard to the features of our faith in which they acted no part. God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks.

I am instructed to say that these words we may use as appropriate for this time, for the time has come when sin must be called by its right name. We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted, who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new theories, which they present claiming that they are truth. But if these theories are received, they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit.--Letter 329, 1905 (Selected Messages Book 1, pp. 161-162)

[John317]

She doesn't say in that letter that we are to trust her writings more than we trust the Bible. She simply warns that there will be people who misapply Scripture to prove that the Investigative Judgment is a false doctrine. I've studied what Ballenger and Ford taught, and I don't believe they're correct in their theology. You might want to read a recent book called, The Silencing of Satan The Gospel of the Investigative Judgment, by Bradley Williams. He deals only with the Bible evidence, and demonstrates clearly that there is sufficient biblical reasons to believe in the IJ.

I believe in what she calls the "old landmarks" because I have found them to be based on the Bible.

The old landmarks, or the foundations of our faith, include the literal and visible return of Christ; the Sabbath; the state of the dead and the non-immortality of the wicked; the heavenly sanctuary; etc.

Do you believe in the Pre-advent Judgment?

[wayfinder]

The bondservants account in Matthew 24:41-52, and the ten bridesmaids are judged prior to the advent of Christ. The judgment is based on response and action as related to the Spirit of truth. The clear statement made about the trustworthy and sensible bondservant is this, when his Master comes to His household, he is either feeding his fellow bondservants or beating them. The outcome of this judgment is specifically connected to the trustworthy and sensible bondservant action and he is either placed over all God's posessions or assigned a place with the hypocrites where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The bridesmaids are accounted ready or not and the five wise are admitted to the marriage feast the foolish are not.

The letter from Ellen White did not address any of the questions that A.F. Ballanger asked and she was rude and presumtious. If I ask you for texts to show some point of discussion you always supply them and I appriciate that, I may or may not agree with your use of it in context, but you have supplied a text. Ellen White supplies no such text, when that is all that Ballanger asked for. He was sincere in his request and if you want to know the whole account of this matter I would be happy to supply it.

[Dr. Rich]

She didn't? Then what did she say by this: "And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God."

Didn't she just testify that her visions trumped scripture? Time does not make a mistake into the truth. So John, what do you believe God said in Revelation 11:1-4? Is not this about the judgment?

[karl]

She didn't? Then what did she say by this: "And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God."

Didn't she just testify that her visions trumped scripture? Time does not make a mistake into the truth. So John, what do you believe God said in Revelation 11:1-4? Is not this about the judgment?

The pillars are Scripture based. All she is saying here is that Scripture harmonizes with Scripture. Beware of an interpretation of Scripture which tears down the Scriptural pillars we have.

Satan hates this church. Hates what it stands for. He has done a masterful job of reversing the Reformation in just about every denomination except this one and he's not giving up here.

[karl]

The result today is a very definite pulling away from the IJ as if it is "not the Gospel" or as if "it is not Christ centered" to talk about it as being "judgment of the saints" where works are evaluated and "we give an account for deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil" 2Cor 5:10.

I think the abandonment of the IJ by the new theology (salvation without sanctification) stems from two sources.

1) How can God even care about our deeds if sanctification is not part of salvation?

2) The purpose of the IJ has been grossly misunderstood. Christ has not convened the court in heaven to catch us in a state of badness (gotcha!) - it is to pull out all the stops and to enlist all the resources of heaven to HELP us be overcomers. The IJ is FOR us, not against us. How can it be otherwise? It ties in with the work of the Holy Spirit in an especial way for end times.

[John317]

I think your last two posts are excellent, Karl.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder:

...The letter from Ellen White did not address any of the questions that A.F. Ballanger asked and she was rude and presumtious. If I ask you for texts to show some point of discussion you always supply them and I appriciate that, I may or may not agree with your use of it in context, but you have supplied a text. Ellen White supplies no such text, when that is all that Ballanger asked for. He was sincere in his request and if you want to know the whole account of this matter I would be happy to supply it.

What is the worst thing that Ellen White said to A.F Ballanger?

Wasn't she calling a spade a spade? Sometimes prophets have to speak plainly, but I have never seen where Ellen White was rude. Not sure what you refer to when you say she was presumptuous. Can you give an example?

Can you show me your evidence that Ballanger asked Ellen White for Scriptures and that this letter was in response to a request for Bible evidence?

I believe Ellen White was a prophet, and as such, I know that she was frequently given insights and views of people's lives that no one else was privy to. It's possible that Ellen White knew that Ballanger already had his mind made up. You say that Ballanger was sincere in his request, and that may or may not be true. I think we have to assume that he was sincere, but Ellen White may have known different. I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Just because we ask someone for a text doesn't mean they are automatically obliged to give it to us. I've often posted a request for an answer to a question, including a request for Bible evidence, only to receive no reply or a reply that included no verses.

I've read the history of Ballanger and of the controversy we're talking about. I know that he had problems with the Investigative Judgment while he was in England and that he eventually became a Seventh-day Baptist. I don't think he ever quite believed or understood the IJ. He thought that if Christ went directly into the Most Holy Place upon His ascension, this would prove the IJ to be false; and I think that's a very naive and foolish thing to think. Ballanger appeared to have the idea that if Christ ever so much as set foot in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary prior to 1844, such a move on His part would nullify the whole doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. To me that does not show Ballanger had an inkling of what the IJ was all about.

I would be interested to know what causes you to think as you do about A.F. Ballanger. Is it, perhaps, simply because you agree with him that Ellen White was wrong and that the IJ is also wrong?

[Rudy G]

I apolgize for posting a provocative message and not be in a position to respond adequately to questions. I am traveling for work and will not have time to respond for a few days. But, I'll do it bit by bit.

Someone said I sound frustrated.

Yes I am. I was raised in Adventism and it has been very frustrating to gradually discover how cosistently our belief system has been defended and justified with duplicit arguments and resaoning. It seems to be directly tied to the human propensity (even amongst the pious) to embrace beliefs that make us feel important.

Someone asked if I would consider myself a conservative Adventist.

Probably not at this point, but have been a very involved Adventist all my life and embraced for many years what probably could be characterized as conservative Adventism.

Someone asked if I believe Ellen White was a prophet.

I can't give a yes or no answer to that question. She herself seemed reluctant to use that term. I do not presume that positions she takes regarding theology or doctrine are authoritative. Partly because in my opinion there are several distinctive Adventist beliefs that are mistaken interpretations of scriptures and that she seems to embrace these mistakes in the same way she embraced the flawed views of early Adventism. She obviously played a key role in channelling the passion of the Millerite movement into a mission and movement with a meaningful purpose. However, the propaganda and misreprsentation regarding Adventist and Ellen White history make it difficult to find the truth.

Many have asked for me to back up some of my statements with examples.

I'll try to do that bit by bit. But, my original post was intended to be a counter balance to the propaganda that has evolved to preserve the reputation of Adventism and to what to me are the distorted, self-serving interpretations of the Adventist experience. The comments were intended to generate sketicism about the party line and some personal research and study. I will try to give some examples, but do not plan to be drawn into an arugment about the interpretation. Each of us needs to do that for ourself.

More later...

[Rudy G]

For those who asked which Adventists I was referring to...

The pioneers of the Seventh-day Aventist church, who I referred to as Adventists to specifcally include their their spiritual experince before 1863.

When did Ellen White begin her ministry before or after 1863? If one assumes that in 1863 the SDA doctrines were largely established, during what period would you examine the itegrity of their methods and journey to get there?

[Dr. Rich]

"Satan hates this church. Hates what it stands for. He has done a masterful job of reversing the Reformation in just about every denomination except this one and he's not giving up here."

If the above statement is true, then you have many things to learn. Satan is NOT a master at deception for nothing. Christ came to testify to the truth, not set up something called 'Christianity'. Do your own research on who set up the church and the spirit within this church.

As for the IJ--just because one does not believe in the IJ does not in itself do away with sanctification. Read Rev. 11:1-3 to see what God really says about it.

[karl]

As for the IJ--just because one does not believe in the IJ does not in itself do away with sanctification. Read Rev. 11:1-3 to see what God really says about it.

To me, it's the other way around. Doing away with sanctification as an integral part of salvation makes the IJ seem unnecessary. You can believe in sanctification-salvation without believing in the IJ, but it's hard to find a need for the IJ if you don't believe in sanctification-salvation.

[wayfinder]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

She didn't? Then what did she say by this: "And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God."

Didn't she just testify that her visions trumped scripture? Time does not make a mistake into the truth. So John, what do you believe God said in Revelation 11:1-4? Is not this about the judgment?

The pillars are Scripture based. All she is saying here is that Scripture harmonizes with Scripture. Beware of an interpretation of Scripture which tears down the Scriptural pillars we have.

Satan hates this church. Hates what it stands for. He has done a masterful job of reversing the Reformation in just about every denomination except this one and he's not giving up here.

Ballanger's request was for Ellen White to provide scripture proof for the position that was taken by the Adventist leadership in reguards to the sanctuary doctrine. Ellen White provided no scripture and accused Ballanger of "twisting the truth", he had done no such thing. Here is A.F. Ballangers request, in part.

Dear Sr. White:

For some time I have been constrained to write to you regarding my convictions on the sanctuary. Many of my friends have urged me to do this, while others have thought it useless inasmuch as, in their opinion, the letter would never reach you.

Nevertheless I have decided to write, and state my difficulty frankly. My first difficulty is with the interpretation which you give to the following scripture found in Heb. 6:19,20, 'Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.'

I cannot help believing that this term 'within the veil' refers to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary and the scriptures which convinced me, are given below.

On one side I have placed the interpretation given this scripture by the Word of God and on the other side the interpretation which you have given it. You will note that you merely assert that this term applies to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, but you do not refer to any scripture which uses the term and applies it to the first apartment. What I am pleading for in this letter, is, that if there be a 'thus saith the Lord' to support your statement, that, out of compassion for my soul you furnish it.

[karl]

Did EGW maintain that Jesus stayed out of the MHP until the IJ started? I think she just talks about His heavenly sanctuary ministry moving from HP to MHP in 1844. I think He had access to the MHP even when not doing ministry in there.

I see no problem with Jesus going in and out of the MHP. He is, incidentally, the new and living Way by which we approach the Father who is in the MHP. When Jesus ascended to His Father, didn't He enter the MHP?

[wayfinder]

"Instead of ... Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming." Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 58.

"Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly (sanctuary), at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation." Ellen White, Early Writings, p. 253.

[karl]

"Instead of ... Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming." Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 58.

"Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly (sanctuary), at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation." Ellen White, Early Writings, p. 253.

Does she say that Jesus was never in the MHP prior to 1844? She just says He went in there in 1844 to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation.

If I say that you entered your bedroom last night in order to sleep, we cannot assume that this was the first time.

[John317]

Quote:

Rudy G: I was raised in Adventism and it has been very frustrating to gradually discover how cosistently our belief system has been defended and justified with duplicit arguments and resaoning. It seems to be directly tied to the human propensity (even amongst the pious) to embrace beliefs that make us feel important.

It would be good if you could give examples of the "duplicit arguments and reasoning."

Do you believe the same thing about the disciples or Paul, who also embraced beliefs that made them feel important?

Are we to judge the truthfulness of a doctrine on the basis of how they make people feel? Should we think if it makes someone look important, it must be false, but if it makes them look small, it must be true?

I know you're traveling right now and can't respond very well, but when you're able to, I look forward to discussing these questions.

Quote:

Rudy G: Someone asked if I believe Ellen White was a prophet.

I can't give a yes or no answer to that question. She herself seemed reluctant to use that term.

Why was Ellen White reluctent to use that term? She gives the answer in 1 SM 31-36.

In those pages she says plainly that her work included the work of a prophet. She claimed that God gave her many dreams and visions and that the Holy Spirit helped her write out the messages to the church. She said they were not her messages but God's. She also claimed that God ordained her to the work of giving His messages to the church. Christ called her to be His messenger and that she bore His messages. Finally, she said that the reason she didn't use the name or title of prophet was that there were so many false prophets, and her work included much more than the title prophet signifies. She said if others want to call her a prophet, she had no objection to it.

Are you in agreement with the above information?

Maybe it would be helpful to reword the question: Do you believe that God gave her dreams and visions and that Christ declared her to be His messenger and told her she was to bear His word?

[wayfinder]

Ballangers question is simmilar to what you are saying. His question was concerning Hebrews 6:19,20. I am sure that you have read what I have posted so far, so I will not post it again here. Ballanger wanted to have a text or texts that would support and clarify the position taken in 1844, that Christ had, on that day, entered the MHP. Ellen White's response to Ballanger was accusatory, judgmental and rude. You read Ballanger's letter and her letter. Ellen White never supplied one text in support of the 1844 sanctuary doctrine, the question is why, the answer is, because there isn't one.

Did you notice how many times in the letter Mrs. White asks us to believe in the "demonstrations of the Holy Spirit" rather than the evidence Ballenger discovered in Hebrews?

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder (quoting) : "Instead of ... Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming." Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 58.

"Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly (sanctuary), at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation." Ellen White, Early Writings, p. 253.

Sure. I believe those statement are true. It means Jesus went into the Most Holy for that purpose at that time. I don't think we're to believe that it was the first time in all of eternity that Christ set foot in that part of the heavenly sanctuary.

What part of those statements do you have an objection to?

[wayfinder]

Quote:

wayfinder (quoting) : "Instead of ... Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming." Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 58.

"Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly (sanctuary), at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation." Ellen White, Early Writings, p. 253.

Sure. I believe those statement are true. It means Jesus went into the Most Holy for that purpose at that time. I don't think we're to believe that it was the first time in all of eternity that Christ set foot in that part of the heavenly sanctuary.

What part of those statements do you have an objection to?

John317, Please read Ballanger's letter to Ellen White (in my earlier post). The question he asked is directly related to your observation. Ellen White is clear that, according to the "pillars of truth" established by the Adventist/SDA church, Christ had not set foot in the Most Holy Place before Oct. 22, 1844.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: Ellen White's response to Ballanger was accusatory, judgmental and rude.

Could you copy and paste the line of the letter which you believe are "accusatory, judgmental and rude"?

I read a post some time back that said we shouldn't be reluctant to "call a spade a spade." I think we should allow a prophet of God to do that.

[wayfinder]

Quote:

wayfinder: Ellen White's response to Ballanger was accusatory, judgmental and rude.

Could you copy and paste the line of the letter which you believe are "accusatory, judgemntal and rude"?

I read a post some time back that said we shouldn't be reluctant to "call a spade a spade." I think we should allow a prophet of God to do that.

We must be decided on this subject; for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture, are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy. We had the truth; we were directed by the angels of God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of the sanctuary question was given. It is eloquence for every one to keep silent in regard to the features of our faith in which they acted no part. God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks.

I am instructed to say that these words we may use as appropriate for this time, for the time has come when sin must be called by its right name. We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted, who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new theories, which they present claiming that they are truth. But if these theories are received, they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit.--Letter 329, 1905 (Selected Messages Book 1, pp. 161-162)

Ellen White Influences the Trial (A.F. Ballanger's trial)

The trial began on May 21, 1905, during the General Conference session. Ballenger was permitted to present his views on the Sanctuary to the leading brethren of the SDA Church. Ballenger arrived at the trial ready to make a defense from the Bible for his teachings. In his own words he describes what happened next:

"Immediately I had begun reading scriptures in proof of my position that the term 'within the veil' of Heb. 6:19 referred to the holy of holies of the true sanctuary, the committee began to bombard me with quotations from the writings of E.G. White.

"I begged them to show me my error from the Word alone, as I could not offer the writings of Mrs. White to the general public as authority in support of any position. It was finally agreed to use the scriptures only in dealing with the matter. But notwithstanding this solemn agreement, the first man to reply, Eld. S.N. Haskell, commenced, and continued unrebuked, to quote the writings of Mrs. White against me." Ballenger, "The Bible in the Reformation", p. 2

One day before the trial was to end, Mrs. White sent a letter to those in attendance at the trial. In this letter, instead of asking the brethren to carefully evaluate Ballenger's theories against the Bible, she instead appeals to their fears:

"In clear, plain language I am to say to those in attendance at this conference that Brother Ballenger has been allowing his mind to receive and believe specious error. He has been misinterpreting and misapplying the Scriptures upon which he has fastened his mind. He is building up theories that are not founded in truth. A warning is now to come to him and to the people, for God has not indited the message that he is bearing. This message, if accepted, would undermine the pillars of our faith." Ellen White, letter "A Warning Against False Theories," May 24, 1905, MR 760.

Mrs. White is clearly alarmed that this message could undermine the foundation of the entire movement. She adds:

"Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men." Ibid

These warnings must have raised alarm among the brethren present. If this doctrine were to be accepted, it could undermine and destroy the very denomination that was paying their salaries. Mrs. White further warns that "many" would leave the church if these doctrines were accepted:

"If the theories that Brother Ballenger presents were received, they would lead many to depart from the faith. They would counterwork the truths upon which the people of God have stood for the past fifty years. I am bidden to say in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is following a false light. The Lord has not given him the message that he is bearing regarding the sanctuary service." Ibid

If "many" were to leave the church, then the leaders' jobs, their influence, and their position would all be in jeopardy. Finally, Mrs. White claims the "Instructor" had spoken to Ballenger about the situation:

"Our Instructor spoke words to Brother Ballenger: 'You are bringing in confusion and perplexity by your interpretation of the Scriptures. You think that you have been given new light, but your light will become darkness to those who receive it.'"

Ibid

Faced with these dire predictions, what could the brethren do other than rule against Ballenger? Even if Ballenger's arguments held some merit, how could they allow him to continue when it might lead to the destruction of their denomination? If Mrs. White was correct, Ballenger's teachings threatened to destroy everything they had spent their whole lives building up. Ballenger had to be stopped! SDA minister M.L. Andreasen, an eyewitness to the hearing, acknowledges Ellen White's leading role in the defrocking. He wrote that the decision to defrock Ballenger was based on...

"the Spirit of Prophecy and their [the ministers meeting with Ballenger] own convictions." Edwards & Land, p. 133

In the end, it was Mrs. White's testimony that turned the tide against Ballenger and ensured his dismissal. What was the final reason given for his dismissal? M.L. Andreasen shares the following:

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: Please read Ballanger's letter to Ellen White (in my earlier post). The question he asked is directly related to your observation. Ellen White is clear that, according to the "pillars of truth" established by the Adventist/SDA church, Christ had not set foot in the Most Holy Place before Oct. 22, 1844.

Where does Ellen White or the "pillars of truth" teach that Christ had never so much as set foot in the Most Holy Place before 1844?

(I'm not familar with the phrase "pillars of truth." Maybe I've overlooked or forgotten it. Do you have a reference for that? Are you referring to "the pillars of our faith"?)

In terms of the SDA understanding of Heb. 6: 19, 10, see The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, pp. 416, 417. It's in Vol. 12 of the SDA Bible Commentary.

The phrase "the inner shrine behind the curtain" signifies "drawing near to God." It is not designating a particular area of the sanctuary but refers to direct access to God wherever He is. Compare Heb. 6: 19 with 7: 19. Also see the Greek of the LXX at Lev. 16: 2; Numbers 3: 26; Ex. 26: 31, 33, 37.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Could you copy and paste the line of the letter which you believe are "accusatory, judgmental and rude"?

Quote:

wayfinder (quoting Ellen White): We must be decided on this subject; for the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture, are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy. We had the truth; we were directed by the angels of God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of the sanctuary question was given. It is eloquence for every one to keep silent in regard to the features of our faith in which they acted no part. God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks.

I agree with the above. I don't view it as being "accusatory, judgmental and rude." She's stating the truth.

Quote:

Ellen White: I am instructed to say that these words we may use as appropriate for this time, for the time has come when sin must be called by its right name.

She is saying we need to call a spade a spade. I agree. The Bible calls us to do that.

Quote:

Ellen White: We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted, who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new theories, which they present claiming that they are truth. But if these theories are received, they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit.--Letter 329, 1905 (Selected Messages Book 1, pp. 161-162)

Is the above the part you think is "judgmental"? I can see how you might think so, but what if it is true? Is the truth "judgmental"? It would only be "judgmental" if it is not true. I believe her statement here was true. If Ballangers (or Ford's) theories were received, they would lead to a denial of the truth that for the past 150 years God has been giving to His people, substantiating it by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. This is certainly true, and those who reject the IJ or attack it should understand this.

Notice that Ellen White was not saying the teaching is not found in the Bible. She is saying it is found in the Bible and that this understanding of the Scriptures has been substantiateted by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit.