What do you call yourself . . .

[John317]

I have never heard of that happening before. It must be up to the individual pastor.

Yes, it is to a large extent up to the pastor or elder. Most people who are baptized are given Bible studies by someone besides the pastor or elder, but the pastor or elder always talk to them individually in order to make sure the candidate understands the important step they're about to take.

Originally Posted By: shelly

In my conference we must state we agree with the 28 Fundamentals before being baptised.

OK. I'm sure you're right. Perhaps that is becoming the practice today. I know it didn't use to be. They would have the list of FB 28 and they would ask if people believed them, but if a person told the pastor or elder that they wanted to study more of a certain doctrine before they could be sure they fully understood it and supported it, their uncertainty on one or two doctrines would not be considered enough to stop the baptism from going forward.

Originally Posted By: shelly

I have never heard of someone being unsure of our beliefs and still being baptised into the church.

While serving as as an associate pastor in Southern California, I gave Bible studies to a young man who was anxious to be baptized. He was really in love with Jesus and wanted to do right. But on the morning he was to be baptized, I found him smoking in his car and he told me that he'd worked on the previous Sabbath. When I told the head pastor, he almost called off the baptism, but he finally went ahead with it because he showed a willingness to study and learn more of what the Bible teaches on these topics. I am sure, though, that if he had said he was opposed to any of the main doctrines of the church, he wouldn't have been baptized.

My point is that most pastors and elders are willing to allow for the fact that people who are newly baptized are still learning and must be given opportunity to grow in knowledge. A person doesn't have to know everything in order to be baptized into Christ and become a member of the SDA church.

My father was a long-time SDA pastor, and I don't believe he had a standard that all all candidates must know the doctrines in all their detail before baptism.

Originally Posted By: shelly

But in the same breath, you are proving my point. If a baptismal canadate is opposed to EGW they are not allowed to be baptised-therefore belief in EGW is a condition for membership. Actions speak louder than words. Openly rejecting EGW means that you cannot be an SDA.

Yes, if someone says that they are unwilling to study Ellen White in order to make up their mind about her role as a prophet of God, they almost certainly (depending somewhwat on the pastor or elder) won't be allowed to become a member of the SDA church. There is obviously a difference between someone who is still studying and is open to the evidence, and someone who has made up their mind to oppose her.

In most cases where this occurs, the SDA studying with the individual would continue to attempt to show them the right way. They wouldn't easily give up on the person. In most instances, the only solution is the person prayerfully reading widely of Ellen White's books, although it also helps to know the facts of her life and of how she wrote. This may well entail reading at least two good, documented biographies of her. I've found that much of the doubt about Ellen White comes from misinformation or of having only a part of the truth.

As I said, to baptize someone in that state of mind would only be an invitation to division in the church, not because they don't have a firm belief in Ellen White, but because they have a firm belief against her and would encourage others to believe the same.

Originally Posted By: shelly

You can be disallowed membership or have your current memebership revoked.

I have never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped merely because of not believing in Ellen White writings.

But ministers and teachers can lose their credential or license to preach and teach if they teach in opposition to Ellen White. It is not a question of teaching contrary to just any Ellen White statement. It's a question, rather, of teaching contrary to a fundamental doctrine. In this connection, Desmond Ford and a number of other pastors and teachers come to mind. Desmond Ford is still a member of the church, at least as of about a year ago when I contacted an associate of his.

A major reason for ministers and teachers losing their authority to teach and preach is that it's unfair to use the tithe to support a teaching that is clearly opposed to the church's teaching.

Personally, though, I know of one very well-known SDA pastor who doesn't believe in some of Ellen White major views, but I don't believe he's ever spoken of it clearly from the pulpit. (I know of this because he told me privately. I don't mean to give the impression that this pastor held this belief secretly or dishonestly, but he simply didn't advertise it in public.)

I don't mean to claim that the church has always been consistent in its policy. I do know of at least one sad case where an SDA pastor friend of mine had his credential revoked simply because when asked about his views on Ellen White, he was honest enough to say that he did have some questions about certain of her writings. He was treated unfairly, and I hope his case is fairly rare. It happened during the 1980s about the time that Desmond Ford was removed as a professor of theology.

Originally Posted By: shelly

But we still say that beleif in EGW is not a test of faith. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the term test of faith. What is considered a test of faith?

Her writings aren't considered a test of membership or fellowship, but I realize that there are different views and practices in connection with this in some parts of the world church.

[ClubV12]

When I was baptized, recently and I'm looking at my certificate right now, I was asked to verbally agree to 13 principles listed on the back of that certificate.

None of those 13 items ask for a specific belief in Ellen White as having the gift of prophecy.

#8 Comes closest to your concern Shelly. "I accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church."

#11 May also be applicable. "I know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist church."

There is nothing in the baptismal vow that specifically requires a belief in Ellen White as a prophetess of the Lord.

After 20 years, I'm sure you "know and understand" the fundamental teachings of the church. You have indicated you do believe in prophets and that there may be more than one in these last days. I fully concur! There were people who had inspired dreams during Ellen Whites lifetime and she acknowledged they were from the Lord. That may well happen in our time, along with visions or heavenly revelations of some kind. How will we know if these people are inspired of God? By putting there reports to the test, the law and the testimony.

You CANNOT BE REMOVED from membership due to disbelief in the inspiration of Ellen White. You CANNOT be denied baptism on that point either.

What John was saying concerning that is an important point, as Sister White has also made clear: Those FIGHTING AGAINST the Spirit of Prophecy is another matter entirely. In that case, it could indeed rise to the level of disfellowship or refusal of church membership or baptism. Which I fully support, I DON'T want to sit in Sabbath School class and have to deal with someone constantly bad mouthing the prophetess. Take it outside, all the way outside, outside the church and away from me.

There are a number of reasons listed in the church manual as cause for disfellowship. This list is a "test of faith". Belief in Sister White, yay or nay, is NOT one of them!

[shelly]

Thanks John317. I can appreciate your view. It helps me understand where others are coming from when they say that the belief for EGW is not a test of faith-they are talking about her specific wrtitings. I believe that those of us who see EGW as a test of faith are refering to the fact that if we do not come to the right conclusion about Siser White (that she is a prophet and accept her writings are inspired) we cannot be baptised members of the church or if we come to this conclusion after baptism they should not be voiced. I am against those in the church who try to disrupt the service, SS, bible studies by trying to advance thier own beliefs. I am also against the position I am in that makes me feel that I must lie (breaking God's Commandments) in order to remain a member in good standing within my church. As stated before I have no issue with individuals who love the writings of Sister White. I have heard some great and insightful quotes from her.

[ClubV12]

There are different views on the interpretation of something like "fighting against" the SOP. Where do you draw the line on that? That can really only be established by the local church officers, or national as the case may be. But typically that would be a local decision.

If I had to make that call, in your case, I would need considerably more information. It does not appear to me, from your posts here, that you are "fighting against" the prophet, you simply don't believe or are not sure. Now after 20 years in the church that does give me pause and it is something I would have to consider.

I would wonder, is the "case closed" on this issue for you? No need to answer of course, I'm just thinking out loud. Will that lead to problems within the church, for other members? Like arguing in Sabbath School class about whether or not Adam and Eve were naked or covered with a robe of light? Would you cause enough strife within the community that perhaps baptism (or rebaptism) should be reconsidered?

There are several on this forum who openly and adamantly fight against the prophetess. If that were the case in my local church, VERY active, VERY verbal on assaulting the prophetess' status, it would be a serious concern. Perhaps even rising to the level of considering some official church action to "cease and desist" or face censure, or worse.

[John317]

What you say is the very reason that I am opposed to making Ellen White a test of either fellowship or membership in the SDA church. It is OK for you to voice sincere questions in a search for truth. For instance, in a study setting, it is certainly all right for you to say you don't understand something or that in your judgment something she says is not right or in accord with your understanding of the Scriptures. The point is that you are sincerely seeking to understand and to know the truth and you are not merely attempting to stir up stife or cause disunity. Usually this objective is clear, whereas it is also usually clear when some people constantly harp on their doubts and disbelief in regard to Ellen White. This is especially true when it comes to making claims against Ellen White personally.

The problem comes in most instances when people have a "hobby horse" or an "axe to grind" against Ellen White or come to the conclusion that Ellen White was a false prophet and that they must convince other church members that she was a false prophet. When that happens, the issue becomes much different because it is then a matter of agitation and causing division. If someone wants to change a major doctrine in the church, and they don't want to use the acceptable ways of making changes-- which is in conferences and consultation with leadership-- then I believe the only honest thing to do is to leave the church, instead of being a trouble-maker, and attempt to bring changes from outside the church rather than from within.

Why? Because it is so important for the church to be united and speak with one voice, and NOT be teaching several different, contadictory messages to the world. If the world doesn't hear the trumpet give a certain sound, how can it prepare for battle, i.e., Christ's return? This is precisely what Satan is trying to accomplish today because he knows his existence depends on it.

[John317]

Excellent thoughts, Club. :-)

[teresaq]

shelly would you be interested in stating your concerns about specific things EGW has said and see how others understand them as they relate to the scriptures, or would you rather work this out for yourself? If so a thread devoted to that could be started.

ps. Yes, I certainly can see how your fears could be most certainly warranted.

Thanks John317. I can appreciate your view. It helps me understand where others are coming from when they say that the belief for EGW is not a test of faith-they are talking about her specific wrtitings. I believe that those of us who see EGW as a test of faith are refering to the fact that if we do not come to the right conclusion about Siser White (that she is a prophet and accept her writings are inspired) we cannot be baptised members of the church or if we come to this conclusion after baptism they should not be voiced. I am against those in the church who try to disrupt the service, SS, bible studies by trying to advance thier own beliefs. I am also against the position I am in that makes me feel that I must lie (breaking God's Commandments) in order to remain a member in good standing within my church. As stated before I have no issue with individuals who love the writings of Sister White. I have heard some great and insightful quotes from her.

[shelly]

There are different views on the interpretation of something like "fighting against" the SOP. Where do you draw the line on that? That can really only be established by the local church officers, or national as the case may be. But typically that would be a local decision.

If I had to make that call, in your case, I would need considerably more information. It does not appear to me, from your posts here, that you are "fighting against" the prophet, you simply don't believe or are not sure. Now after 20 years in the church that does give me pause and it is something I would have to consider.

I would wonder, is the "case closed" on this issue for you? No need to answer of course, I'm just thinking out loud. Will that lead to problems within the church, for other members? Like arguing in Sabbath School class about whether or not Adam and Eve were naked or covered with a robe of light? Would you cause enough strife within the community that perhaps baptism (or rebaptism) should be reconsidered?

There are several on this forum who openly and adamantly fight against the prophetess. If that were the case in my local church, VERY active, VERY verbal on assaulting the prophetess' status, it would be a serious concern. Perhaps even rising to the level of considering some official church action to "cease and desist" or face censure, or worse.

I couldn't be rebaptised-I do not "believe" in EGW. I accept the church has rules and that is why I try to avoid andy EGW coversation. You should see me sidestep any mention of her-I'm quite skillful. I know that I will have to hide my disbelief for as long as I am a member of this church. I also know that my acceptance or rejection of EGW is not a salvation issue. I have been taught all my life that EGW merely points us back to the bible. Ironically she has done this for me also. My questioning her validity has made me more determined to study the word of God. I think Sister White would not mind this at all!

ClubV12-what do you mean when yous say individuals "fight against the prophetess"? Are you saying that fighting against her is fighting against God, the established organization, or as you stated the individual? Alot of times when people talk about defending the prophetess it is unclear if they mean the person or whether they believe rejection means fighting against God. Each one would have different spiritual consequences. Fighting against God is more serious than fighing against the church which would be less serious than fighting against Sister White. Unless you believe they are all one in the same.

[John317]

I like your insights here, Club. Especially what you say about the doctrinal requirements for your baptism. I do agree with you, too, about those who let it be known they are fighting against Ellen White and want to convince others to believe as they do.

What people have to realize is that no divided church can long endure. No church can be expected to encourage people to fight against the very values and beliefs that the church stands for and is trying to inculcate.

For instance, it should be clear that the SDA church firmly believes in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. It makes no secret that it wants people to believe in her and follow what she taught, because the church believes that she was inspired by God.

Given that fact, why in the world would anyone expect the church to give its tithes to help fight against the church's own objectives? As Christ Himself said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And Satan knows this. That is one Bible verse you can be absolutely sure he has etched on his mind forever.

[John317]

..ClubV12-what do you mean when yous say individuals "fight against the prophetess"? Are you saying that fighting against her is fighting against God, the established organization, or as you stated the individual? Alot of times when people talk about defending the prophetess it is unclear if they mean the person or whether they believe rejection means fighting against God. Each one would have different spiritual consequences. Fighting against God is more serious than fighing against the church which would be less serious than fighting against Sister White. Unless you believe they are all one in the same.

Fighting against Ellen White is most definitely the same as fighting against God, but what we have to realize is that many people who fight against her are like the men who killed Christ-- they didn't fully realize what they were doing.

If she was a true prophet of God-- and I believe she was-- then of course fighting against her messages would be the same as fighting against the One who gave her the messages.

Good examples of this are the experiences of the Israeltes in the wilderness who fought against Moses. Were they really fighting against Moses? The Bible shows clearly that they were actually fighting against God, and that is exactly how God viewed it.

But like I said at the beginning of this post, God does take into account a person's awareness and knowledge and their opportunities to know the truth.

[ClubV12]

"Fighting against" is a term that Sister White herself used to describe this "condition". Interpreting what that means is difficult and will vary from church to church as I don't see how you could write a "list" that would cover every aspect of it.

Lets take a radical example first. We had a very spiritual young man coming to our church for awhile, wanted to be baptized right away (thats beginning to sound typical). He was "on fire", to the point of speaking in tongues! Coming down the center of the church during the service "preaching". Within a few weeks it became pretty obvious to everyone the guy had some serious mental issues. It got so bad he had to be physically removed from church. I've never seen him since, he said he was going to travel around the USA preaching. He was not baptized....

We have several examples on THIS web site of those who adamantly opposed to Ellen White, going so far as to call her a liar. Rarely missing an opportunity to drive that message home. What if they talked like that in church? At the social meetings? Or Sabbath school class? It could not be tolerated for long. What if they showed up with signs in the parking lot? You gotta do something! Indeed, you will find a limit to that kind of talk even on this web site! Certain minimum standards must be maintained for a group to exist.

But I think Ellen White is talking about far less radical behaviour than that. Personally I believe she is also taking about "rumor mongering" about the inspiration of EGW work, gossip, nit picking (and never missing a chance), causing subtle and disruption within the members, constantly questioning or leaving doubt as to Ellen Whites gift. Some of that actually strengthens the true believer, like in your case where it drives you to the word. In my case, hearing it so often, it drove me to Ellen Whites writings, to re-verify for myself what I believed. I came away stronger as a result. It doesn't have to rise to the level of "radical" to be "fighting against". I believe it can be subtle and on going. But who will decide? How will we know? Where do we draw the line?

Tough questions....

[teresaq]

One gentleman told me they were the same. Imagine equating fallen man, aka the church, with God!

I don't think people consciously equate the three but, yes, I have seen by reactions that there is at least some equating in minds of the 3.

... Fighting against God is more serious than fighing against the church which would be less serious than fighting against Sister White. Unless you believe they are all one in the same.

[ClubV12]

Because I believe so deeply in Sister Whites gift of prophecy, those "fighting against" it are in fact fighting against the source of that gift, which is God. This not something to take lightly, as FAR to many do around here. It is not Ellen White you are fighting, it is God.

IF she is of God, you can do her no harm. If she is of man, it means nothing anyway. The consequences of getting it wrong, the "if" is deadly serious.

[John317]

I couldn't be rebaptised-I do not "believe" in EGW. I accept the church has rules and that is why I try to avoid andy EGW coversation. You should see me sidestep any mention of her-I'm quite skillful. I know that I will have to hide my disbelief for as long as I am a member of this church.

This part has me concerned.

If you have been a member of the church for 20 or so years, you should have already worked through these issues and have come to some firm conclusions on the basis of your experiences and study of both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

On many occasions you should avoid controversy and the stirring up of conflict, but there are times when it is appropriate to talk about your questions, particularly to teachers and pastors, in order to resolve the issues that are troubling you.

As long as you do this in appropriate circumstances, it ought not to be a problem or a threat to your church membership.

What is your disbelief based on? What are some of the most important parts of Ellen G. White's writings that cause you the gravest doubts?

Have you never received any satisfactory help through prayer, or either in your own research, reading, or in conversing with others?

[ClubV12]

Please forgive for posting an Ellen White quote, it may help answer the question of "fighting against".

"If you would obey their teachings, you would be assured of their divine origin. Remember, your unbelief does not effect their truthfulness. If they are from God, they will stand. Those who seek to lessen the faith of God’s people in these testimonies, which have been in the church for the last thirty-six years, are fighting against God. It is not the instrument whom you slight and insult, but God, who has spoken to you in these warnings and reproofs." {PH001 18.4}

An Appeal. 1882; 2002 (18).

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I never had to answer any questions. I've never been to a baptism where someone was interrogated. How odd. :/

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: John317

It's true of course that FB 18 is part of our church's official beliefs. But my point is that if you were to say that you are still studying Ellen White's writings and that you are not sure yet whether you believe in her as a prophet of God, you would still be able to be baptized and become a member of the church. My children were recently baptized and they were never required to state that they believe in Ellen White as God's last day prophet. When I was baptized (1973) along with a friend of mine, neither of us were asked whether we believed in Ellen White's prophetic gift as a condition of baptism.

Some pastors or elders may ask the question, but as long as a candidate is willing to study Ellen White and make up their mind as they learn, they will be able to be baptized.

On the other hand, it is true that if a candidate is firmly or vocally opposed to Ellen White and her writings, they almost certainly will not be accepted as a member of the church-- and for very good reasons. To baptize such a person would be a sure cause of strife and disunity.

I have never heard of that happening before. It must be up to the individual pastor. In my conference we must state we agree with the 28 Fundamentals before being baptised. I have never heard of someone being unsure of our beliefs and still being baptised into the church. But in the same breath, you are proving my point. If a baptismal canadate is opposed to EGW they are not allowed to be baptised-therefore belief in EGW is a condition for membership. Actions speak louder than words. Openly rejecting EGW means that you cannot be an SDA. You can be disallowed membership or have your current memebership revoked. But we still say that beleif in EGW is not a test of faith. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the term test of faith. What is considered a test of faith?

GREAT POINT! I COULD BE WRONG BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE SDA ARE SPEAKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS?

[shelly]

Originally Posted By: shelly

I couldn't be rebaptised-I do not "believe" in EGW. I accept the church has rules and that is why I try to avoid andy EGW coversation. You should see me sidestep any mention of her-I'm quite skillful. I know that I will have to hide my disbelief for as long as I am a member of this church.

This part has me concerned.

If you have been a member of the church for 20 or so years, you should have already worked through these issues and have come to some firm conclusions on the basis of your experiences and study of both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

On many occasions you should avoid controversy and the stirring up of conflict, but there are times when it is appropriate to talk about your questions, particularly to teachers and pastors, in order to resolve the issues that are troubling you.

As long as you do this in appropriate circumstances, it ought not to be a problem or a threat to your church membership.

What is your disbelief based on? What are some of the most important parts of Ellen G. White's writings that cause you the gravest doubts?

Have you never received any satisfactory help through prayer, or either in your own research, reading, or in conversing with others?

As we are finding in this thread each church environment is different. The current church I attend is not a environment in which I can openly question EGW. Sad but true. I mentioned that I was not interested in a morning study book based on the writings of EGW and you would have thought that I said I slapped my Mom! I am someone who began to doubt EGW more and more over the years. I had less doubts when I got baptised. I can't list specific events that caused me to question her. It is more of small instances over the years that have caused me serious doubts. The biggest problem I have is that her writings add to the bible and subtiley change the meaning of the word. Emphasis, phrasing, ect can change the entire meaning of a passage. When you introduce new details you begin to change the original meaning. I am uncomfortable about that. There is also the added pressure of after studying one must come up with the right conclusion. What if after deep study you still cannot state that you believe in EGW? Then what? There is no true choice in this matter. There is ony one acceptable response no matter what you truely feel in your heart. I have to ask myself why bother? Unless I get to the point where I being to believe but need someone to help show me evidence to strengthen my faith it can only make things more difficult for me to reveal my concerns.

[shelly]

Because I believe so deeply in Sister Whites gift of prophecy, those "fighting against" it are in fact fighting against the source of that gift, which is God. This not something to take lightly, as FAR to many do around here. It is not Ellen White you are fighting, it is God.

IF she is of God, you can do her no harm. If she is of man, it means nothing anyway. The consequences of getting it wrong, the "if" is deadly serious.

That's fine. I just find that in discussions alot of time good commuication can't take place because people are using similar terms to address completely different ideas. As far as fighing against Ellen White, I believe it is wrong to personally attack EGW. She is my Sister in Christ and I am careful not to disrespect any member of my Christian Family. I also believe things should be decently and in order. Church is not the place to press ones own agenda. With that being said, I don't believe that disagreeing with EGW, if it is done respectfully, is a problem. Those in the bible that were punished for not hearing the prophets became disrespectful to those bringing the message-take Elisha for example. Moses was grumbled against and false allegations were made against him. It is not the questioning because God seems to allow us to question. Job questioned God and still lived.

[ClubV12]

"If you would obey their teachings, you would be assured of their divine origin."

From my limited experience it seems to me that those who doubt the Testimonies are of two groups. Those who have not read them, and that is a LARGE percentage of SDA's. Very few have actually read them, they know of quotes, use them for referrence, see some quotes here and there, hear about quotes from others. This is a superficial understanding of the Testimonies, but perhaps it is enough for some, perhaps. The second group are those who are not "obeying their teachings", thus they have no deep assurance of the divine origin. This is a "partial acceptance", it is a short step from here to full rejection. At some point, it may take years or decades, they will be brought to a testing point. Their duty, as it regards the Testimonies, will be made clear. They will have to take a stand for or against. You cannot partially believe in the Lord and stand firm through lifes struggles, you cannot be partially saved.

There are endless ways to reason out why one does need to follow the clear counsel, often this is done with a sincere heart. Such are looking for the minimum requirements called for and still be saved.

If you haven't actually read, or at least studied, the Testimonies, if you haven't incoporated the counsel of the Testimonies in your life, unbelief is the fruit. Unbelief WILL come to all those, in time, that have not bothered to work this out.

When they see their error and make an attempt to come back to the path they are like a fly trapped in the web of a spider. The hurdels appear unsurmountable, the victory impossible to gain. Their only hope will be a decidedly close connection with God and His power alone can save them.

In this respect the Testimonies, in the end, will be an individual "test of faith", not an official test of faith. God works on the heart, and belief in the Testimonies is a heart matter, not an "official" matter.

The Testimonies are very detailed as it concerns a way of life. Impossible to live up to without a true connection with the Lord. They contain much in the way of "hard sayings, who can hear them"? Only those who are truly, deeply committed in their walk with Jesus. There will only be a remnant of the remnant, a small percentage of those who currently claim to be Seventh-day Adventist that will go through to the end. A small percentage indeed.

Many will see the testimony I've written here as an EGW "hammer", it's to strong, it's to pointed, it "bothers them", they will fight against it, reject it, ignore it. But it remains the truth. You cannot be partially converted, your only fooling yourself and those around you. The Testimonies, like the bible, will remain intact, they will stand, they will ultimately judge those who reject them. At some point, they will be a very personal "test of faith" for each one of us.

Seek the Lord with ALL your heart and soul, while there is still time. His love and grace is sufficient if you only call on His name.

[shelly]

ClubV12, I see that you are passionate about this subject. You have found the testimonies as a uplifting addition to your spiritual life. I am happy for you. I see your enthusiasm like someone who has discovered a great new resturaunt and can't wait to tell friends and families about the great food and service you recieved their. However you find that when they went they were underwhelmed. I think this is the heart of the issue with those who embrace EGW and those of us who do not. Those who have been blessed by her cannot understand how others cannot come to the same conclusion. But why is it an issue? If not believing in EGW points me back to the bible and your belief in her points you back to the bible don't we arrive at the same destination?

[ClubV12]

Not necessarily, I don't think we will arrive at the same destination without the counsel of Ellen White on scripture.

If that were possible, there would be numerous churches with similiar, if not the same, beliefs as Seventh-day Adventists. What separates this church from all others? Why can't other churches or individuals come to the same conclusions as it concerns interpretation of scripture?

Did the founders come to the correct understanding of the doctrine by searching the scriptures and the scriptures only? Thats a yes and no answer!! They searched with a sincere and open heart with much prayer and consultation with each other, comparing verse against verse. Slowly coming to a conclusion as to interpretation. This is how the Holy Spirit works, no one man is given the light, God is no respector of persons. It is within the frame work of the counsel of the brethren that a correct understanding of the scriptures is arrived at. The impact Ellen White had on this cannot, should not, be underestimated. While she did not directly determine the doctrine she verified, through the Lord, each point as it was studied and a conclusion arrived at.

Without her testimony on these matters, we would be no different than any other Sabbath keeping church. Look how many different ways "sincere" bible studying folk arrive at distinctly different views. THIS is why we have so many different denominations.

I am convinced if we don't follow the counsel of the Lords messenger for our time we will, like so many others, be left with incorrect interpretation of scripture.

Just look at the wild conclusions on scripture interpretation we find on this very web site! For those who partially accept the Testimonies, they are close, but close is still lost. For those who utterly reject the Testimonies we get the most wild of interpretations, some, approaching fantasy. There is no logic, no reason as they ignore historical events that all but shout the truth! Many recognize that the Sabbath is the correct seventh day, but they fail to see how important that issue is. Their minds are dulled by the many voices proclaiming it of little importance. But all the world will see this single issue as the final dividing point between those who follow God and those who do not. It is easy to understand the Sabbath issue, for Seventh-day Adventist's, why is it so hard to then consider the rest of the counsel? Even if we understand it, we reject it as "not that important", much like the world rejects the concept of the Seventh day.

[John317]

....The biggest problem I have is that her writings add to the bible and subtiley change the meaning of the word. Emphasis, phrasing, ect can change the entire meaning of a passage. When you introduce new details you begin to change the original meaning.

I see what you mean, and I understand why you say this, but it really is not true that her writings add to the Bible.

Her writings must be judged by the Bible. She can't "correct" the Bible like the Mormons believe Joseph Smith's writings do.

If you honestly and sincerely see a contradiction between the Bible and a statement by Ellen White, you MUST take the Bible over Ellen White's writings.

The thing we need to keep in mind, though, is that Ellen White isn't writing as an exegete. That is, Ellen White isn't writing from the viewpoint of a theologian who is studying the passages of the Bible in their exact historical/linguistic contexts. She has a different purpose-- more of the purpose of a pastor and a prophet.

It is kind of like the diffference between studying the books of Moses and comparing them to what Paul says about the books of Moses. Paul wasn't writing from the viewpoint of a student of the Bible who is being careful about historical and contextual details but as a prophet. They have two different purposes in their writing.

[Aliensanctuary]

The Ten Commandments are commands, not an agreement. A covenant is an agreement. There is no agreement in the commandments themselves. The agreement was that God would make the children of Israel His people. The people of Israel then promised that they would obey everything God said.

That was the agreement they had with God. The problem was that they almost immediately broke that agreement, and so God had to renew the covenant. (See Ex. 34)

Yes, the Old Covenant, was an agreement, or a contract. If the people of Israel would love and obey YHVH, he would take care of them and make them a great nation. Generations of slavery and mistreatment gave them quite a negative outlook, though, making them highly critical of Moses and YHVH and prone to seek help from their false gods. It wasn't until that generation's bodies dropped in the desert that the children of Israel could trust and obey the LORD enough to take the land that he had given to them.

The New Covenant, or contract, is an agreement to have the Law of God downloaded into our minds so that we won't have to consider whether or not to obey them. Like certain animals, birds, and insects are biologically programmed to migrate to certain areas of the globe without even thinking about how or why they are migrating, because the behavior is instinctive, so, too, will those entering into the New Covenant have YHVH's Laws, or Code of Ethics, programmed into their minds so their observance becomes instinct. It will be impossible for one to over-ride the program, thus making the Kingdom of God safe for all time.

What is the Code of Ethics of the Kingdom of God? It will be something like this:

Love, honor and obey YHVH at all times, under all circumstances

Do no harm to others, or yourself

Practice self-sacrifice for the good of others

Live as servants of YHVH, and servants of mankind

The New Covenant will not go into effect until we wash up, and drink, from the River of Life, which will remove that part of our human nature which has been more-or-less programmed to rebel against the LORD.

...

Perhaps it's just an accident of time and place that some of our friends here use SOP as a sword and guide to purify SDAism. If they had been born or converted into JW, Mormonism, or Islam, etc., they might very well be attacking our Founding Fathers and Mothers in an effort to purify their particular brand of religion. I like Shelly's candid, thoughtful posts. I believe she's closer to the Kingdom than those displaying their hard-nosed Christianity. In the end, it's how we treat others that really matters, not if we think our particular brand of religious garbage is right, using our arsenal of weapons to humiliate and slay our enemies, defending our little pile of garbage to the death.

Lest we forget, all religions are man-made, and will be discarded like garbage when the LORD comes. The Kingdom of God is not a religion, but a contract that we will make with YHVH. He will remove our selfishness and program our minds with his laws in exchange for living forever as his servants. In his Kingdom, we won't be floating around forever on clouds of bliss, neither will we live as if we are on a perpetual vacation...we'll all have real jobs, working six days out of seven in our little communes, or in housekeeping, food prep, or maintenance in the City of Light...

[John317]

... I am someone who began to doubt EGW more and more over the years. I had less doubts when I got baptised. I can't list specific events that caused me to question her. It is more of small instances over the years that have caused me serious doubts. The biggest problem I have is that her writings add to the bible and subtiley change the meaning of the word. Emphasis, phrasing, ect can change the entire meaning of a passage. When you introduce new details you begin to change the original meaning. I am uncomfortable about that.

Can you give 3 examples of what you consider the biggest problems you've found in her writings?