Can one be an adventist and NOT believe that Ellen White was a prophet

[Aliensanctuary]

While some take great comfort in EGW's voluminous writings and find them beneficial, as I once did, others see her more as a con artist, making unprovable claims such as communication with "angels" or hopelessly outdated End Times predictions. Some may feel SDA membership should be contingent upon belief in EGW, while others would like to see something else. Not that there isn't some good in EGW, but, can she be trusted without any proof?

No matter, though, because SDAism is just another distraction from the true system of the Temple Service, a system that will be restored in the Kingdom of YHVH, a system that will last forever.

[Tom Wetmore]

As some have already talked about and Stan I think meant, we as a church really need to better define and understand the NT gift of prophecy.  It was a problem I think EGW herself was keenly aware of evidenced by her own strong preference to be known simply as a messenger.  The words prophet and prophecy are terms that carry a lot of baggage, a considerable part of which do not really contribute positively to the understanding of the NT gift of prophecy. 

 

 

 

	1Co 14:3	But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement, and consolation.

 

The NT doesn't speak so much about special select  people who are designated as prophets, but more about any person who prophecies.  The prophet Joel spoke of the gift of the HS being widely given on many people from various categories, old , young, men, women, etc.  Peter at Pentecost affirmed that was taking place then and it is a hallmark of God's people for all time and the end of time.  What are the sources of edification, encouragement and comfort for any one of us?  We are beneficiaries of the gift of prophecy from many places, some quite unexpected and unusual.  We seem to focused on the source though and not the result.  

Pin that light, I can affirm that EGW is a source of edification, encouragement and comfort. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Excellent response Tom.

Many people who reject her are actually rejecting a caricature of what she really was.  Their vision (No pun intended.) of her ministry in not based in any reality.

 

[whbae]

Greg.

I do not know where you got this "5 group business".  I am not disputing how many groups we have, but to belong to SDA church one must believe that Ellen White was the God inspired true prophet.

[Stan]

Can a Mormon be a Mormon without confidence and belief in Joseph Smith at all?

 

Did EGW vie her self a s prophet?  Did she admit to errors? Was she claiming infallibility? Are her writing a sledgehammer or more Pastoral?

[Gail]

And she herself said that if people studied their Bibles more there wouldn't be a need for her work. (my paraphrase)   This is a different approach to our attitude to the Word, the Scriptures, which are the bread and water of life to us.

[joeb]

​Thanks joeb. 

In 1997, when I decided that I believed only in God our Father, and His literal son - Jesus the Christ, I actually had some folks turn around with their backs to me, rather than say hello at church.  I was told that I could not teach Sabbath School any longer.  I was told that I was welcome to attend, but I was to remain quiet and stop asking controversial unsettling questions.  I LEFT.  Haven't been back since.  This was a fairly large congregation - not a little country church.

​I would never turn my back on you over what you believe.  I would however, agree with the decision that you not be given a platform to teach things that are not in line with SDA beliefs.   That is what teaching SS class is, a platform.  I'm sure you can see why that platform was denied you.  I can see why though, that the public shunning of you for a theological stand, honestly held, would be very personally hurtful. 

All that said, I'm sorry you were treated in such a hurtful manner.  Things like this are why I can never agree with a theology that minimizes sin and God's power over it, for a theology like that allows such un-Christlike behavior to indulged in by many in the church without any fear of being held accountable on this earth.  They will be held accountable, ultimately, but not now.  This kind of stuff, along with dishonesty, ought to rooted out of the church pronto for it destroys both the power and influence of the church.

[Gregory Matthews]

Whbea:  With due respect to you and I do not mean to put your down in any way.  Your statement clearly indicates that you are out of touch with denominational life and membership.

The REVIEW published an article, some years back, that spoke to the five different groups that existed then in the SDA Church.  I have attended meetings for clergy where denominational officials have spoken to the same point of five different groups.

 

Let me give you the background:  For the past several decades, the leadership of this denomination ahs practiced what has commonly been called the "Big Tent" approach.  This has been practiced in an attempt to keep the SDA denomination from splitting as has happened to other Protestant denominations.  The theology behind this has been that the Church in End  Times will consist of both wheat and tares and that in the final resolution of this issue, it will be Christ who will have to separate the wheat from the tares.  In more recent times the theology has expanded.  Congregations are asking a fundamental question:  What should be the requirements for membership in the SDA denomination?  a) Should membership be a place of spiritual nurture where people who have not yet arrived come in to be nurtured on their spiritual journey?  It should be noted that the congregations who follow this  thought open their membership to a wide group of people who have not yet fully arrived.  'b)  Should membership  be restricted to people who have reached a specific level of doctrinal understanding and adherence to life-style practices?  If so, what should be the level of doctrinal and life-style adherence that should be required. 

It should be noted that both here in the NAD and also elsewhere, with official support from Conference administration congregations have come into existence that have experimented with these issues and probably departed in major ways from what you would have expected.   Some of these experimental congregations have not worked out well and they no longer exist within the family of SDA congregations.  Others exist to this day.   The bottom line is that some experiments fail and other succeed.

Such experimental congregations have been attempted in other areas of  the World.  It was either the REVIEW of MIINISTRY, I have forgotten which  that published, a few years back, one story of such. 

 

In any case, the historic position of the SDA Church has been that one should accept the doctrine of Spiritual Gifts, which includes the Gift of Prophecy, in order to be a member of the SDA Church.  But, one did not have to believe that EGW was a prophet.  That is the position that exists today. There are people who would like to change that position.  To change the requirement for membership, the GS in Texas would have to vote to amend Chapter 6, of the CHURCH MANUAL.  As I have posted elsewhere, I have a copy of the Agenda.  No amendments have been proposed for anything in  Chapter 6.  Without such a vote to amend, the requirements will remain as they currently are.

 

NOTE: I previously posted a URL to the place  where you could download a copy of the GC Agenda.

 

 

 

[GayatfootofCross]

When I was younger I thought all Adventists believed in EGW!

She was quoted all the time(it seems .. no one ever gave book,page,paragraph reference and was not challenged). Even much more than the Bible on occasions. I felt great comfort in all of it.

I felt like we had a treasure trove of mysteries revealed. Our Church would literally spend Sabbath afternoons together throwing The Desire of Ages out on the very rural driveways of various homes. We were great Missionaries .

Then as I got older I found SDAs who didn't hold her in the same exact detailed regard as I. Then I came across those books that challenged her. Oh dear!

I used to read everything of hers that I could get my hands on. Now I am more selective and for the most part, Desire of Ages is incorporated in my devotions. I have read it from cover to cover so many times thru the years.

One day I will share how one of her books initially converted me while in the world. A stranger knocked on my door and just gave it to me out of the blue!

Edited June 9, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[Gregory Matthews]

There is much of value in the work and ministry of EGW.  We would not be the denomination that we are today if God had not given   her to us.  We are indebted to her guidance for our work in education, healthcare, foreign missions and publishing, to just mention a few. 

 

Unfortunately just as some people undervalue her there are others who give her a role that is well beyond what she considered her ministry to be.

 

[LifeHiscost]

 

 

Unfortunately just as some people undervalue her there are others who give her a role that is well beyond what she considered her ministry to be.

 

​The accuser of the brethren doesn't care into which side of the ditch we fall.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[JoeMo]

It should be noted that both here in the NAD and also elsewhere, with official support from Conference administration congregations have come into existence that have experimented with these issues and probably departed in major ways from what you would have expected.   Some of these experimental congregations have not worked out well and they no longer exist within the family of SDA congregations.  Others exist to this day.   The bottom line is that some experiments fail and other succeed.

​Our congregation in Lone Tree, CO is one of those that no longer exists within the SDA family because we "departed in major ways from what you would have expected".  Many members, however, are still on the books in the "Conference Church", whatever that is.  Honestly, I don't pay much attention to it.  Whether the books say so or not, I consider myselg a "generic" SDA.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Rocky Mountain Conference has, over a period  of about 15 years (that I know of) allowed a number of experimental congregations to be part of the family of SDA Churches.  Some of those exist today as SDA Congregations,  some have gone out of existence and some have left the SDA fellowship.

I could name several other Conferences where the same could be said about them.   This is also true for congregations in other areas of the world.

Joe mentioned the "Conference Church."   This is an administrative congregation that Conferences typically set up.  However, one has been set up for the NAD  and it has some members.  People who are members of the so-called Conference Church are Seventh-day Adventists.    They are transferred in and out, generally in the same manner that people transfer in and out of local congregations.   So, If Joe were to decide to become a member of the Boulder congregation, the Boulder Clerk would contact the Conference for a transfer of membership to the Boulder congregation, in the same manner as if Joe had been a member of the Brighton congregation.

It should be noted that local congregations have the authority to decide on membership for their congregation.  Let us say that  Congregation X accepts into membership someone who is thought by others to not be a "true SDA."  What recourse does sthe Conference have?  Only two options:  a) To council and advise the congregation as to their course of action.   'b) To expel the congregation from the family of SDA congregations.  Normally only "a" will be done as the Conference will not want to expel an entire congregation. 

Do I know of cases where this situation has occurred?  Yes.  I am thinking now of a large congregation of hundreds of members.  A formal complaint was made to the effect that one of its members should not be allowed to be a member.  The congregation respectfully declined to follow that advice.  The Conference did not seek to expel that congregation from the family of SDA congregations.  The individual remained a congregational member for years, until he moved to another area.  .

I can think of current situations of a similar nature that exist.  In all of the situations that I am thinking of, the local congregation did not follow the Church Manual.  But, they acted and the SDA Church has very little recourse other than to expel them from the  family of SDA Congregations.  That can only be done by a vote at the Constituency Meeting which takes place once in every several years.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[LifeHiscost]

Ellen White was either a prophet or a false prophet.  I believe she was a prophet.  Personally I would not join a church that follows the writings of someone I consider a false prophet.

​

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Lauralea]

As others have noted, repudiate is a strong word, stronger than doubt or question. One of my best friends has had doubts about this issue, but repudiate would be too strong a word for her, more that she was not sure, and she did not make her views prominent. I think she focused more on the Bible and her relationship with God.. Not sure if this exactly answers your question, and I do believe that the writings of Ellen White are a blessing, but we can only continue our spiritual journey from where we are, not where we are not. I really enjoyed the book Desire of Ages. If you some time decide to read a book she wrote and have not previously, it makes an excellent devotional. From a doctrinal standpoint, it might be helpful to ask a spiritual person mentor you trust to explain to you why they believe she was inspired.

[Aliensanctuary]

 I really enjoyed the book Desire of Ages.

me too. 

[Neil D]

hmmmm......do I really want others to know that I do not consider her a prophet..?

those type of words just cause confusion and pain.....they will focus on me....don't want to focus on me.....want others to grow in thier spiritual experience...to reach down deep and feel/understand the words about the woman, EGW...the messenger...she is not against them, but she is for them....

"prophet" sounds so shallow....spent many a year in Mormon country avoiding Mormons...not understanding what a Mormon was....Lot's of talk about a Mormon and their "prophet" both on the web and off the web....Lot's of prophets on ClubAdventist too...most not recognized for thier educational skills....most not recognizing the definition of a biblical "prophet" and a biblical "messenger".....a biblical messenger does sooooo much more. and the people don't recognize that.....EGW did..she warned us not to use her words......

The people confiscated her words and her wording....they took those words and made them into clubs...they hurt her and her cause and cause so many who were bruised and battered, grew to avoid her words..avoiding to get hurt...avoiding the pain..... people didn't understand people...and the evil in the relationships grew them apart ........they didn't understand..... but kindness was a way in...if you could do a kindness, people seemed to understand kindness....and food, a place to gather and share a meal...that seemed a kindness that all seemed to understand....and all the rest was a mess...that some didn't want to deal with....
 

EGW knew what a messenger was...She knew she was God's messenger...she also knew that she wasn't God prophet....because a messenger entail so much more subtle positive message in the delivering......more than a clumsy prophet reporting to a king...and everyone thought of themselves as  a king/queen....thought of themseves too important for God not to use them....

But what do I know?.....I'm old and considered a crank, and mean and a fool...and don't know what I'm talkin' about....But if you saw the glories that I saw, .....your mouth would be shut up....because I don't say much now....

[Bravus]

I think the 'she was either a prophet or a false prophet' formulation is unhelpful for at least two reasons:

1. Given how heavily Adventism is based on her work, it places people in the position of 'reject (some of) her work and reject your whole faith' - in my opinion an unnecessary dilemma.

2. It's too simplistic: what if her visions were true prophecy but her views on things such as the Shut Door were her own, non-prophetic views? As I said earlier in this thread, prophets are not infallible. What if she, or those around her, occasionally abused 'I was shown' for political purposes, but nonetheless her real prophecies were true?

'Take everything or leave everything' is beguilingly simple, but often too simple for reality.

 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Bravus

[Stan]

She never wanted to be a test of faith..  She did not like even being called a prophet.

 

She, later in life, corrected so many errors in her early life.  She was mature enough to admin she was wrong.

[LifeHiscost]

She never wanted to be a test of faith..  She did not like even being called a prophet.

 

She, later in life, corrected so many errors in her early life.  She was mature enough to admin she was wrong.

​

If we are led of the Spirit and follow what we read in the gospel, everything she wrote will fall into one or the other of the principles we learn are necessary.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[lazarus]

I think Bravus hit the nail on head. The church felt the need to give EGW a bulletproof persona but it has created for us a win lose scenario. On problem and the whole edifice becomes liable to collapse. I struggled with this question of EGW's fallibility early in my ministry until I happened to be reading about Samuel going Jesse's family to anoint the new King. Samuel was a prophet of God but he made a mistake in identifying the new king

^{1 Samuel 16:6} When they arrived, Samuel took one look at Eliab and thought, “Surely this is the Lord’s anointed!”

⁷ But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don’t judge by his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

God simply corrects Samuel and moves on. It occurred to me at that time that I was a victim of my own perception of what it means to be a nabi (one who bubbles up: speaks on behalf of God: a prophet). I was taught to see a prophet as perfect, infallible, and "always-on"in their dealings and pronouncements. I naively thought that everything is "prophetic". Clearly this is not so. Jonah ran away, Elijah ran away too and succumbed to depression and suicidal ideation, John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus to check if He (Jesus) was the one but yet he is the greatest prophet ever! God is gracious enough to use failing and faltering men and women as his mouthpieces.

Some of our pioneers saw problems with our position:

J. N. Anderson put the question clearly: “Can we hold something in the back of our head that we are absolutely sure about, and that most of the brethren stand with us on?—can we hold those things back and be true to ourselves? And furthermore, are we safe in doing it? Is it well to let our people in general go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies? When we do that, aren’t we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day? It seems to me that the best thing for us to do is to cautiously and very carefully educate our people to see just where we really should stand to be consistent Protestants, to be consistent with the Testimonies themselves, and to be consistent with what we know we must do, as intelligent men, as we have decided in these meetings.”

http://m.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=MOL&pagenumber=436

 

 

Edited June 11, 2015 by lazarus

[JoeMo]

 I was taught to see a prophet as perfect, infallible, and "always-on"in their dealings and pronouncements. I naively thought that everything is "prophetic". Clearly this is not so. Jonah ran away, Elijah ran away too and succumbed to depression and suicidal ideation, John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus to check if He (Jesus) was the one but yet he is the greatest

http://m.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=MOL&pagenumber=436

 

 

​Obviously, Jonah, Elijah, and John had character flaws that should have disqualified them from operating in the spiritual gifts (just kidding!)  God is perfectly within His rights to use whomever He wants - character flaws or not - to carry out His will.  EGW and the pioneers likely had some flaws; but God used them to unleash the "next" level of "present truth" on the world.  Somewhere in scripture it says something like God uses the lowly or foolish to carry out His will.  That doesn't mean that they got everything 100% correct.  Luther - who has been depicted as a beer-swilling Jew hater, unleashed that era's version of "present truth" in the Protestant Reformation.  He wasn't 100% correct, and he had some character flaws.  Yet God used him to unleash one of the greatest revivals in NT history.

I am trying to deal with the question of what is more important to God - walking in spiritual power or perfecting one's character- in another thread.

[Gregory Matthews]

God has to operate in a human world where we humans would not be able to comprehend a perfect representation of the divine.  This means that every aspect of God of which we are aware is contaminated by the imperfect human.  This applies to those whom God has used to accomplish HIs mission.

[Gerr]

Oxymoron, imho.

[Neil D]

It occurred to me.....If a person can be an Adventist and not believe she is a prophet, could a person believe she is a prophet, and not be an Adventist?

 

Of course, this is all academia....and somewhat humorous.....somewhat......