Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Tropical_Man > Meriam's Guy |
|
Seventh Day Adventist Experience It's been a long journey from where I began. To preface this story, I am not a Seventh Day Adventist. Quite the contrary, in fact. I am a Christian (Saved! Saved, wonderfully saved), raised in a southern Baptist church. My first encounter with Seventh Day Adventism was with a friend from my college. I didn't understand why she would prefer to not go to church at all, rather than to go to church on Sunday with the rest of my friends. I remember that summer trying to read up on Adventism, but it was all very confusing. I took my friend at face value, and thought nothing more, nothing less. cont...... |
|||
|
The summer of my junior year in college I was crushed - completely. I had applied for a missions trip to Kenya: a medical missions trip for students, and was declined. I had also applied for a travel award for creative writing, I had hoped to go visit the Isle of Capri where Pablo Neruda was exiled to from Argentina. I was also rejected from that avenue also. I remember sobbing alone in my room. Disappointed by all my vain plans, I couldn't understand what God possibly had in store for me. Returning home, I realized that it was the perfect time for me to take my MCAT, I had the summer to prepare and I enrolled in a prep course, not trusting my own skills to prepare for the test. That same day I entered class and looked looked around. Talking to a newfound friend I whispered to her, "Some people in this class are *old.*" Old construed of one thirty year old man, one actual nineteen year old that just looked old because of facial hair, and one twenty four year old. I became acqainted quickly with two of the "old" people in the class. I still remember meeting him, the twenty four year old. Why? Because he became my boyfriend, my first love. His name was Andy, and he was, in short my golden boy. I don't know why I ascribe this term to various guys in my life. One of my good guy friends from my freshman year I privately called a golden boy also. Anyhow. When he smiled, his eyes would get all crinkly. Of course, this could also stem from the fact that he was old  . We caught each other's eye in class whenever a funny remark was made and somehow would turn that laugh into something shared. I went home that day and told my mom and sister a guy in my class thought I was cute. It didn't take long for Andy and I to casually lag behind or fortuitously place ourselves in each others way to talk more during break or after class. Once we sat on the trunk of his big old car because we enjoyed talking so much that we didn't want to leave. The day of the first diagnostic I didn't see him. My neck cranned around the room trying to capture of glimpse of him. Later he told me that he had gone to Riverside to take the diagnostic on Sunday because he went to church on Saturday. That same week, as we were leaving class, walking out to the parking lot and this shiny red eclipse pulls up to the curb with a young woman in it and suddenly Andy said, "That's my ride, bye!" Standing there, a bit bemused, I went home that day, threw myself on the bed and cried. I still ascribe some of that grief to the initial practice score I had gotten on a diagnostic test, however, I just cried and cried not really understanding why I was so disappointed. The next day, however, due to some of my practicing of being "receptive" I mentioned in Andy's vicinity that I had no one to study with, that no one wanted to spend long hours studying in the summer except for MCAT people. Andy immediately jumped to the opportunity, "I'll study with you." "Great." I thought that everything was falling in with the plan. We went to the cafe because I thought it would be a good place for us to study. Andy, Arash, and I went and over cool drinks we talked more about why we were studying for medicine. I'm sure that Arash suddenly felt left out because the moment that Andy said that he was studying medicine to become a medical missionary, I thought something was cosmically clicking because as I said aloud that day that I wanted to become a medical missionary too. After studying the next day together, Andy invited himself to the movie I was watching the next day. Then, that Saturday, he invited himself to my church also, on Sunday. I was displeased. I knew if I took him to church that everyone would know about him and remember him. I didn't want to take him unless I knew he was going to have a semi permanent position in my life. Anyhow, coerced into it, I invited him. That Sunday, I could not believe how wonderful it felt to have him at church worshipping with me. From then on I knew exactly why I choose to not date nonChristians because I would be missing out on that. We went to lunch, and studied the next day, chatting often on the computer. It was during this time my interest in Seventh Day Adventism peaked. So, I took to the internet and read up on everything on Adventism that I could find. To my interest, I had typed in Ellen G. White and came up with one of the anti-Ellen G. White pages by accident. Wanting to know all positions on this church, I read those pages and came up with some disturbing conclusions. Andy had directed me to the 27 fundamental beliefs, and immediately I had concerns. I e-mailed him several questions about Sabbath, Ellen G. White, state of the dead, Jesus' sinful? nature, the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel His reply to me was sketchy. We talked on the computer about some of the things like Sabbath, and Ellen G. White (whether he thought she was a prophet or not), and I thought we had resolved things because I saw that the contrary doctrines the SDA church held were from EGW's writings and Andy had told me that he and his brother were the "biggest critics" of Ellen G. White, and that yes he did believe that worshipping God was about the heart and not about what day you go on. He also continued going to church with me on Sundays and started to take the diagnostics on Saturdays. I thought that he didn't believe in those different doctrines because he himself was criticizing Ellen G. White, and Ellen G. White was the author of those beliefs. So, we blissfully continued falling in love. I had read some things on the internet that said that Adventism was not a cult, but rather a heterodoxical christian denomination. That settled things for me, Christian was Christian. I was so happy I found someone that loved God. Andy later told me that he felt like that summer was the happiest time of his life. I felt similarly, however I did feel weighed down by anxiety about the MCAT. Soon into the relationship I wanted to make things clear to Andy. I told him that I was never planning on becoming an Adventist, and that I didn't want to raise my children Adventist. I knew that it sounded like I was jumping the gun, but I wanted to make things clear because if he had a problem with these things then we should break up. He was angry he told me that he didn't say that he wouldn't raise his children Baptist. I told him I had no problem with that because I was hoping to raise my children nondenominational because I felt that denominations are very divisive in very shallow ways at times. Other than that, we were also dealing with figuring whether we would stay together after the summer since I was returning to college out on the East Coast and he was headed to China for a year as a student missionary. I continually grew uneasy about Adventism, especially after learning that every single member of this family on both sides were Seventh Day Adventists. I had several moments of discomfort meeting his family. First of all, we went to lunch at a sandwich place, and everyone ordered the same sandwich without turkey. I ordered it with turkey, and although no one said anything, the way I stuck out was quite obvious. Increasingly I became aware of how much his family would prefer him to date an Adventist. My family was content with my explanation that yes he was a Christian and that no, he didn't believe in the contrary stuff. My mom has always prayed for me that I'd end up with a godly man, a real spiritual leader. Despite my uneasiness about the situation, it was easy not to discuss it because our relationship turned into long distance after the summer. During winter break, I visited him in China and we went to his church on Saturday. We spent the afternoon reading quietly at the Seventh Day Adventist hospital. Little did I know that I was observing Sabbath the way Adventists define observing the Sabbath. Everyone was really nice, I enjoyed meeting the several staff there including a medical missionary couple, and a nurse and several others. Going to China seemed to cement our relationship even more. It was an extremely painful parting at the end of my vacation, and we were back again waiting through the time we had to be apart until when we would be together again. I think we both went into the long distance part of our relationship expecting to come back together at the end of it for a relationship that would take place in the same state. At the end of the summer Andy asked me if he should schedule his plane ticket back into L.A. He's from the Pacific Northwest, and well, it honestly sounded like a commitment. When we were saying goodbye he asked me if I was worried that we wouldn't make it through the year of long distance. I told him I wasn't sad because I thought we wouldn't make it, I was sad that we would have to be apart. Winter came and went, I went to a dynamic presenation by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter and she talked about the agape table about reaching across the difference to love each other. I was struck, and I went home and I asked Andy if he wanted us to promise that we wouldn't break up over our religious differences. We both promised solemnly, and it was like a burden was lifted off our relationship. After China, Andy told me he didn't want us to ever be so far apart ever again. Specifically, he said to me that he didn't want us farther than fifteen minutes apart, as opposed to the farthest apart a long distance relationship could get with him in China and me on the East Coast. My heart sommersaulted. We then began planning to live near each other the next year with him in medical school at Loma Linda, and me getting a job somewhere around there. He even offered to have me live in the same apartment complex that his family was planning on purchasing. Everyone at school saw how happy I was about the relationship. At the end, he came back from China and stayed with me for two weeks before he went back to his home. We were happy, but strained, very strained. Finally the subject had come up of how we would find a church. We had never explicitly addressed why going to an Adventist church was so important to Andy other than observing the Sabbath. I didn't want to attend an Adventist church, from reading about it there were several things that I was unhappy with. The sabbath issue was key, I knew that to God the most important thing was the heart. That's why He chose David, wasn't it? Also, I was uncomfortable with the different doctrine that Ellen G. White espoused, and while I thought Andy didn't believe in them (turns out he believes in all of them), I wasn't sure what exactly the Adventist church would preach. A week short of our one year anniversary, he broke up with me on the phone. It wasn't unexpected. During the time he came to California we fought one night. I don't know how, but we ended up talking about the education of our future children. I had been through both public school and private school. Andy however, had only attended Adventist schools from when he was very little to graduate school. He said that he definitely wanted his children to have the same education as he did. I couldn't understand. I graduated from one of the finest institutions of education and I was still spiritually sound. In fact I thought it was great because I had a variety of friends: Christian and nonChristian. I explained to him that I felt that going solely through the Adventist system of education didn't provide a wide world view and offered only one perspective. I rehashed the conversation we had the last summer. "I told you that I wasn't going to become Adventist, and that I wasn't going to raise my children Adventist." I told him it was pretty clear that was the only way he could see things for his children. "Why are you still with me?" I asked painfully. He said he couldn't see a way for us to work out, and I thought we were then. I cried that night heart wrenchingly, thinking we were completely over. However, he still held me, and when we said goodbye that night we both said we wanted us to work out. Once he returned to his home, he was increasingly distant. I grew uneasy, so with that free time I had instead of talking to Andy, I spent it reading up on Adventism more. I built my case against the need to observe the Sabbath still, and Andy grew increasingly angry that I needed to dispute the matter. Meanwhile, he was telling me about an Adventist family that his family was spending more time with. He told me they had three girls and that they were pretty cool. Still assured of his love, I didn't think anything of it. Retrospect is always clearer. It was one of those three girls, that a week after our break up that he disclosed to me that he was talking to about her moving down to California to be with him. And then later again, he disclosed to me that she was still in a five year relationship with her boyfriend when they started talking about being together. Heartbroken, I read more about Adventism than I had ever done during the relationship. I kept sending Andy e-mails about how Adventism's theology clashed against mainstream Christianity's theology. I wrote and read and studied every single day trying to keep the heartache at bay. Maybe because it felt like I had some semblance of control. I was so confused and bewildered. I knew that Christians should be able to fellowship together, to worship God together. I couldn't understand why things weren't workable. Christians were Christians right? Unity in the church. I just couldn't understand. The more I read about Adventism and the more I asked Andy about his beliefs, the more it became apparent to me that he did believe in all the things Ellen G. White had written about, and that he could never marry anyone who wasn't Adventist because no other Christians had the same set of theological beliefs as rigidly as the Seventh Day Adventist church. When I asked him about his remark about being a critic he said, "I didn't mean a negative critic." Then, when I asked him about when I had told him I wouldn't raise my children Adventist, I asked, "What, then you didn't know for certain that you wanted to raise your children Adventist and you know now?" Of course nothing had changed. He told me he didn't tell me because he knew we wouldn't be able to have a relationship. He told me that he thought that all of our differences would disappear because he thought once I heard about the things in Adventism that I would become Adventist. My disbelief was extreme. I couldn't believe that he went into the relationship planning to "convert" me from Christian to Adventist. I went back to read our conversations and he kept emphasizing that the doctrinal beliefs we had were only slightly different. When we found out the extreme differences between our faiths, I was upset. He said that he knew the entire time the difference between our faiths that I just didn't know. I railed at him, "How could you keep this from me when your faith is so important to you and you didn't tell me?" Finally, he returned to California and we talked in person. I made an outline asking what he believed on Ellen G. White, hell, soul sleep, Jesus is Michael the Archangel, Investigative Judgement,Sabbath etc. He told me that breaking the Sabbath was a sin. I was upset, I asked, "you mean when you came to church with me on Sundays and you took diagnostic tests on Saturdays you were sinning? I was leading you into sin?" The more we talked, the more it became apparent of how angry he got about discussing these issues when I would use the bible and outline what I believe on this issues that were contrary to Adventist beliefs. He in turn would try to refute my cases, or not acknowledge my points about the issues, with the chain verse method. The method where you take one verse out of context and then take another verse out of context. I saw it in his bible myself. Right under the verse would be penned in another reference, not a cross reference, but something he thought proved his case. "What do you think of Adventism now?" asked Joel, a friend who had formerly predicted the doom of our relationship. I hesitated. More and more in my mind I was finding Adventism aberrant. I still hesitated to say anything. We went to a talk by Desmond Ford about his 999 page dissertaion on how Investigative Judgement is not in the Bible. That the Adventist church preaches something entirely unbiblical. Andy didn't seem too fazed by the talk. I was particularly pleased because I had come across Desmond Ford's website on how unbased in Scripture Investigative Judgement and the Day of Atonement is. Still, the Adventist church does not brook any criticism and disfellowshipped (kicking people out of the church) Desmond Ford after a massive General Conference. To me this is representative of how the Adventist church deals with criticism of its doctrine and Ellen G. White. One thing I kept asking Andy was if Adventism was so ok, then why were there so many bitter former adventists? Why did so many people feel deceived about Adventism? Why are there "Former Adventist" at all? Andy always brushed off those cases with, "Oh they're from other churches, just some backwards Adventist churches." I didn't understand why Andy *had* to go to an Adventist church. I was a Christian, I could go to a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, etc church and it would be fine. I could be with someone who had different views on certain issues of doctrine, but I was in no way insistent that I had to go to one certain church, or that my children had to go solely through one route of education. My family couldn't afford private school when we were growing up. It didn't do us any damage. We all are still following God. Finally, two months later, I began to understand. It was like scales were falling from my eyes. The reason why talking to Andy about spiritual things was so difficult was because he always felt like he was being attacked. I couldn't understand that at all. I've talked to plenty of people about how I believe in Creationism and never thought people were attacking me for wanting to discuss it. When Andy and I ended up talking about hell he said in no way he could ever be with anyone who ever thought that hell was eternal. Taken aback by that statement, I couldn't understand why that would be such a pivotal point for him. He did end up saying he did think Ellen G. White was a prophet. That was a far leap from what he had said originally. All for the sake of the relationship I guess. I felt so deceived. Reeling from the discussion we had I laid it down for awhile. I started reading posts on the former Adventist forum, maybe they could help me understand. A few people on the site had stated outright that they felt that Adventism was a cult but I always shied away from defining Adventism that way. They were, after all, Christian, weren't they? I ended up asking Andy about his personal testimony. He didn't have one. He told me that he constantly made the decision to follow God, and that he probably made a commitment to be a Christian around six or seven, and that he had been baptised. I was puzzled because that's not Biblical at all. In every instance someone was saved in the Bible it was a particular point in time when the angels rejoiced. I asked him earnestly, "when for you did the angels rejoice in heaven over your salvation?" I couldn't believe that I hadn't know he didn't have a personal testimony. For two people that claimed to love God so much, how could I have overlooked that part? I started reading stuff on restrictive religious groups. From what I had learned about Adventism, it seemed like a lot of do not's. Do not break the Sabbath, do not eat meat, do not wear jewelry, do not date nonAdventists, do not go to nonAdventist churches, do not go to nonAdventist schools. That in turn lead me to pages on cults. Cults to me were like Mormonism with clearly aberrant doctrine, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. But Seventh Day Adventism a cult? I read the following bellow Identification Marks of a cult: (a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT - everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD’S WILL - everyone else is in apostasy. 1. Their leader/s may claim a special, exclusive ministry, revelation or position of authority given by God. 2. They believe they are the only true church and take a critical stance regarding the Christian church while at the same time praising and exalting their own group, leader/s and work. 3. They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members loyal to their ranks. This could be in the form of threats of dire calamity sent by God if they leave; certain death at Armageddon; being shunned by their family and friends etc. This is a vital part of the mind control process. 4. Members will be expected to give substantial financial support to the group. This could be compulsory tithing (which is checked); signing over all their property on entering the group; coercive methods of instilling guilt on those who have not contributed; selling magazines, flowers or other goods for the group as part of their “ministry”. At the same time bible-based cults may ridicule churches that take up free-will offerings by passing collection plates and/or sell literature and tapes. They usually brag that they don’t do this. This gives outsiders the intimation that they are not interested in money. 5. There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its teachings. The lives of members will be totally absorbed into the group’s activities. They will have little or no time to think for themselves because of physical and emotional exhaustion. This is also a vital part of the mind control process. 6. There will be total control over almost all aspects of the private lives of members. This control can be direct through communal living, or constant and repetitious teaching on “how to be a true Christian” or “being obedient to leadership”. Members will look to their leaders for guidance in everything they do. 7. Any dissent or questioning of the group’s teachings is discouraged. Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission. This is vigilantly maintained. 8. Members are required to demonstrate their loyalty to the group in some way. This could be in the form of “dobbing” on fellow members (including family) under the guise of looking out for their “spiritual welfare”. They may be required to deliberately lie (heavenly deception) or give up their lives by refusing some form of medical treatment. 9. Attempts to leave or reveal embarrassing facts about the group may be met with threats. Some may have taken oaths of loyalty that involve their lives or have signed a “covenant” and feel threatened by this. Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by other members with coercion to get them to return to the group. Paranoid - We Are Being Persecuted Any time you say anything negative about the group, whether justified or no, it is regarded as “persecution”. Any criticism of the individual is also seen as persecution only because they are the “true Christian” or “enlightened” one - not because they, as an individual, have done the wrong thing. However, at the same time they will feel free to criticise whatever you believe, say and do because they are “the only ones who are right”. They are made to feel guilty of everything they did before entering the group and are to strive to be “good” and “worthy” for “eternal life”. Misdemeanors are made into “mountains” so that members are in a constant state of guilt for infringing even the most minor rules. Guilt comes because they aren’t doing enough; entertaining doubts or questions; even thinking rationally for oneself. This guilt is piled upon pile with new rules constantly being laid down about what is sinful and what is not. Illness may be seen as lack of faith - more guilt. Emotional illness may be seen as proof of sin in your life - more guilt. 1. Ellen G. White 2. sabbath, special truths, "remnant church" 3. losing salvation if you don't keep the sabbath? this is an iffy one. leaving the church is apostasy. 4. heavy emphasis on giving 5. adventists are nothing but loyal 6. adventist education system is a good example of this 7. can you say "disfellowshipped?" 9. visits by the pastor after trying to leave? pleadings by the family members A light dawned in me. The article on cults was saying that cults aren't brainwashing places, just places that offer an alternative world view. That cults closeness functioned more on the an elitist club attitude. That they had special truths therefore they were better Christians than everyone else. That they were given special truths and need to tell other people about it. I understood completely then. I understood why it was so difficult to even broach the subject about what church to choose because I never had a problem with going to church on a different day than Sunday. It says in the New Testament let no man judge you according to which day you observe. It was difficult for Andy because Sabbath is one of the "special truths" that makes Adventist special. You can't give that part up because that would be criticizing the church, and according to cultic thinking that is wrong and bad and you're not supposed to do that. I thought that Andy's attitude was characterized by fear because leaving Adventism would be leaving everything he has ever known. His parents, his siblings, his education, his future profession. I couldn't figure out why there was such a prominent separate social system that operated solely on Adventism. But now I see why because Adventism is a cult. There, I have finally said it. It all makes sense now. When I realized it was a blindness that Andy possessed when it came to discussing doctrine, because within the scope of the message of the bible, which is salvation, the things he believed in were not consistent with a proper understanding of salvation. However he could not see it even when I could explain to him in the context of the bible, historically, and in the Greek and Hebrew. He couldn't even contemplate that he espoused false doctrine. Every time I would ask him about another facet of his faith, he would delve into scripture to gain a greater "understanding" of the doctrine. A disclaimer at this point in time. I do not define Adventism as a cult in the destructive sense of the word that they can't be Christians. To the contrary I do believe that some Adventists are Christian. But I define Adventism in the sense of a cult in the way they deal with criticism, the way they hold their special truths, the way that they see the world as "Adventist/NonAdventist." No other Christian group is so exclusionary. Of course Andy could never marry me because I wasn't an Adventist. It makes SENSE. That is why all those former Adventists felt so deceived and so hurt and were alienated from their friends and family. In one instance a wife was divorcing her husband because he no longer was Adventist, he was still Christian, but he wasn't Adventist! You see, I was a Christian and I could marry a Christian that makes sense, right? But Andy could only marry an Adventist. Because I didn't believe in "Adventist truths", (that then must certainly be of a higher understanding known only to Adventists) we must not be equally yoked. The saddest part is he told me a story about his mother dating a non Christian and how his mother didn't marry him and what a relief. The sad part is that he meant that I would be like the non Christian in our relationship. I didn't realize it at the time, but a Christian who is not Adventist is as bad as a nonChristian! Even worse! The ironic part is that he is probably more like the non Christian than I am. Because I understand God's love. God's love isn't divisive, it's unifying. And if there's anything that the Adventist church is, it is divisive: by its Sabbath observance, by its health message, by its own private school education system, by its communities. At the end of our talks, Andy asked me if there was a Sunday Law would I convert to Adventism. For those that don't know about Adventism, Ellen G. White, their prophet, predicted that they would abolish worshipping on Saturday and those that worshipped on Sunday would be marked with the mark of the beast. This sounds far out to any Christian, except for Adventists. This is only one example of many of the Scriptural Twisting methods cults use. Lastly, Andy told me he broke up with me because I couldn't accept him as a mainstream Christian. That was my breaking point. I said that he was *not* a mainstream Christian. All he had to do was see what a chasm there was between our doctrines and that is why he was not a mainstream Christian. I wanted him to try telling everyone from the onset that he thought Jesus was Michael the Archangel (a belief also held by Jehovah's Witnesses), and that he thought that there was going to be a National Sunday Law. How many Christians would feel that he was a mainstream Christian then? The truth is, that Adventism will never be a mainstream Christian denomination as long as it holds on to its different doctrine. But it's not even the clinging to the doctrine that makes Adventism a cult, it is the entire attitude fostered within the community. And it's just too bad because Adventists are really nice people but how many times have you heard of people drawn into cults because of the really nice people that were loving and accepting in a way they never felt before. Perhaps the members of the Adventist church to realize that the love is conditional because the moment anyone leaves the Adventist church people pray for those people that leave the Adventist church as if they have lost something. I'll tell you contrary to that, they have gained much, they have gained freedom. Although Adventism hasn't been so foolish to say that if you leave Adventism you aren't a Christian (which is a clear sign of a cult) but they make you think you're not a very good Christian if you leave it. This is a way they tell disillusioned Adventists to "not throw out the baby with the bathwater." but if you are in the Adventist church, for the love of God, GET OUT! It's been two months since Andy and I broke up. Now it seems like an eternity. I know so much more than I did then and I'm grateful. Within the community of former adventists I've been greeted with things like, "you are so lucky you found out now." and I am lucky. If Andy had seen fit to keep mum about his actual beliefs we would have went forward, deeper into a spiritually dissonant relationship. A moment of embarrassment passed over me. I was supposed to a spiritually mature Christian. How could I have not known earlier? The simple truth is that Adventism is deceptive. Not only was I deceived about its nature, so was Andy. He thought naturally that Adventism was the right way and that it could be proved through the bible. I proved that it wasn't naturally proven in the Bible. I wonder what Andy thinks of that. He probably thinks that I'm the blind one. If the Adventist church would only open up to other theologians and other scholars of the Bible they would find themselves scrutinizing their doctrines much more closely than they do now, with much less narrow mindedness, and limited perspective. But with the way the SDA church deals with dissonant voices it leaves no room for other opinions. When they asked scholars who knew Hebrew to prove that Investigative Judgement came from Daniel, they couldn't. They honestly couldn't say that it came from the Bible. But did they speak out? No. Because the Adventist environment isn't such that an honest criticism can be promulgated without severe retribution. Does this sound like a church filled with the Holy Spirit? I don't think so. I pray for all of the people I know that are in the Adventist church daily. Especially for Andy. Many Adventists, including my ex, and others have criticised my research of Adventism because I read anti-Adventism pages along with Adventism pages. However, as a diligent student it is necessary to view all angles of the matter, pro and con. My personal opinion is that they do not like my research including pages against Adventism because they themselves are afraid to read them. Also, the cult factor, being unable to react to criticism without hostility or fear. Thanks for listening to my story. Feel free also to check out former adventist forum where I've found great enlightenment and wonderful people. Other links to read. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- reactions common among former Adventists and also other cult members: It Hurts when you learn that people you trusted implicitly - whom you were taught not to question - were “pulling the wool over your eyes” albeit unwittingly. It Hurts when you learn that those you were taught were your “enemies” were telling the truth after all - but you had been told they were liars, deceivers, repressive, satanic etc and not to listen to them. It Hurts when you know your faith in God hasn’t changed - only your trust in an organization - yet you are accused of apostasy, being a trouble maker, a “Judas”. It hurts even more when it is your family and friends making these accusations. It Hurts to realize their love and acceptance was conditional on you remaining a member of good standing. This cuts so deeply you try and suppress it. All you want to do is forget - but how can you forget your family and friends? It Hurts to see the looks of hatred coming from the faces of those you love - to hear the deafening silence when you try and talk to them. It cuts deeply when you try and give your child a hug and they stand like a statue, pretending you aren’t there. It stabs like a knife when you know your spouse looks upon you as demonised and teaches your children to hate you. It Hurts to know you must start all over again. You feel you have wasted so much time. You feel betrayed, disillusioned, suspicious of everyone including family, friends and other former members. It Hurts when you find yourself feeling guilty or ashamed of what you were - even about leaving them. You feel depressed, confused, lonely. You find it difficult to make decisions. You don’t know what to do with yourself because you have so much time on your hands now - yet you still feel guilty for spending time on recreation. It Hurts when you feel as thought you have lost touch with reality. You feel as though you are “floating” and wonder if you really are better off and long for the security you had in the organization and yet you know you cannot go back. It Hurts when you feel you are all alone - that no one seems to understand what you are feeling. It hurts when you realize your self confidence and self worth are almost non-existent. It Hurts when you have to front up to friends and family to hear their “I told you so” whether that statement is verbal or not. It makes you feel even more stupid than you already do - your confidence and self worth plummet even further. It Hurts when you realize you gave up everything for the cult - your education, career, finances, time and energy - and now have to seek employment or restart your education. How do you explain all those missing years? It Hurts because you know that even though you were deceived, you are responsible for being taken in. All that wasted time ... at least that is what it seems to you - wasted time. The Pain Of Grief Leaving a cult is like experiencing the death of a close relative or a broken relationship. The feeling is often described as like having been betrayed by someone with whom you were in love. You feel you were simply used. There is a grieving process to pass through. Whereas most people understand that a person must grieve after a death etc, they find it difficult to understand the same applies in this situation. There is no instant cure for the grief, confusion and pain. Like all grieving periods, time is the healer. Some feel guilty, or wrong about this grief. They shouldn’t - It IS normal. It is NOT wrong to feel confused, uncertain, disillusioned, guilty, angry, untrusting - these are all part of the process. In time the negative feelings will be replaced with clear thinking, joy, peace, and trust.
| ||
|
if you wanna cut the chase and not read the whole story (typical deception story) here are the links that will let you jump right in: aberrant doctrine cult reading for adventists more reading for adventists
| ||
|
Aberrant Doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventist Church (not consistent with Evangelical Orthodoxy) 1. Ellen G. White is a Prophet 2. Observance of Sabbath 3. Health Message 4. Jesus is Michael the Archangel 5. Soul Sleep 6. Hell is Annihilation 7. Investigative Judgement/Day of Atonement One thing I cannot emphasize enough with a solid understanding of Scripture, this issues become clear. Merely reading the apologetics against Adventist doctrine will not be clear unless you understand Salvation, what the whole Bible is about.
| ||
|
Ellen G. White Contradicts the Bible. Now, HOW does the SDA church support a woman who contradicts the Bible and call her a prophet? Spiritual Blindness seems to be the only answer, and the money that the estate makes off her heinous writings. the more I read EGW (as my ex eagerly suggested me do) the more I get angry at the woman. but anyway, she got hit on the head at a young age. that'll do some things to you. WIGS CAUSE "RECKLESSNESS IN MORALS," BALDNESS, "HOPELESS INSANITY," SAYS PROPHET ELLEN G. WHITE “The artificial hair [wigs] and pads covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain. The head should ever be kept cool. The heat caused by these artificials induces the blood to the brain. The action of the blood upon the lower or animal organs of the brain, causes unnatural activity, tends to recklessness in morals, and the mind and heart is in danger of being corrupted. As the animal organs are excited and strengthened, the morals are enfeebled. The moral and intellectual powers of the mind become servants to the animal. “In consequence of the brain being congested its nerves lose their healthy action, and take on morbid conditions, making it almost impossible to arouse the moral sensibilities. Such lose their power to discern sacred things. The unnatural heat caused by these artificial deformities about the head, induces the blood to the brain, producing congestion, and causing the natural hair to fall off, producing baldness. Thus the natural is sacrificed to the artificial. “Many have lost their reason, and become hopelessly insane, by following this deforming fashion.” Ellen G. White, “Words to Christian Mothers on the Subject of Life, Health, and Happiness ‒ No. 2” [pamphlet], p. 121. Quoted by Ronald L. Numbers in Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White [book] (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p.148. Ellen White Vision. Spiritual Gifts, Vol 2. I was shown the company present at the Conference (May of 1856). Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Check out Testimonies for the Church Vol. 1 pp 131-132. It is another version of this vision. Prophecy of Ellen White, Jerusalem would not be built up. Early Writings, pg. 75. Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error of believing that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes... I saw that Satan had greatly deceived some in this thing... I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time. IS ELLEN WHITE A PROPHET? EGW-Spiritual Gifts PG 232, 233, 234 I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was His design to arouse the people and bring them to a testing point, where they should decide for or against the truth. Thousands were led to embrace the truth preached by William Miller. EGW- REVIEW AND HERALD 1850-11-01 The Lord showed me that the 1843 chart was directed by his hand, and that no part of it should be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them. That his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until his hand was removed. THE 1843 "TRUTH" BECOMES THE 1844 "TRUTH". EGW-Spiritual Gifts VOL.1 PG 139 Those faithful, disappointed ones, who could not understand why their Lord did not come, were not left in darkness. Again they were led to their Bibles to search the prophetic periods. The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake was explained (SO GOD DECIEVED US). They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and that the same evidence they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844. Light from the word of God shone upon their position, and they discovered a tarrying time.--If the vision tarry, wait for it.--In their love for Jesus' immediate coming, they had overlooked the tarrying of the vision, which was calculated to manifest the true waiting ones. Again they had a point of time. Yet I saw that many of them could not rise above their severe disappointment, to possess that degree of zeal and energy which had marked their faith in 1843. AND AS YOU KNOW HE DID NOT COME IN 1844 EITHER. BIBLE-DEUT 18:21 And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken? 22 when a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him. You are, at best, only under probation to see if you are worthy of eternal life. Testimonies. Volume 1p.199 From the Spalding and Magan collection, page 21 and 2 MR #153, page 300... From the "inspired" pen of Ellen Gould White. "Slavery will again be received in the southern states, for the spirit of slavery still lives. There it will not do for those who labor among the colored people to preach the truth as boldly and openly as they would be free to do in other places. Even Christ clothed His lessons in figures and parables to avoid the opposition of the Pharisees." "There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written." E.G. White Letter 329a, 1905 "When the judgement of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgement must not be maintained, but must be surrendered." (Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 3, p.492). "A physician who has the moral courage to peril his reputation in enlightening the understanding by plain facts, in showing the nature of disease and how to prevent it, and the dangerous practice of resorting to drugs, will have an up-hill business, but he will live and let live. He will not use his powerful drug medication, because of the knowledge he has acquired by studying books. ... drugs are too often promised to restore health, and the poor sick are so thoroughly drugged with quinine, morphine, or some strong health-and life-destroying (word illegible), that nature may never make sufficient protest, but give up the struggle; and they may continue their wrong habits with hopeful impunity." The Paulson Collection, p. 22 Before the development of synthetic drugs, quinine was a "miracle-drug" that was used to treat malaria. Unfortunately, Adventist missionaries apparently took Mrs. White's extreme counsel to heart and paid for it with their lives: A row of graves in Africa mark the site of the first SDA missionaries. They were told by authorities to take quinine, but as Adventists they got their marching orders from a higher source. They knew that quinine was valueless: they trusted Mrs. White that she had been shown this by God, and as a result they died. (Gregory Hunt, M.D., Beware this Cult, chapter 4, "Ellen White and Medicine") Mrs. White claimed that sexual union between man and animals resulted in the production of new species of half-human, half-animal creatures: "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75 "The present enfeebled condition of the human family was presented before me. Every generation has been growing weaker, and disease of every form afflicts the race. Thousands of poor mortals with deformed, sickly bodies, shattered nerves, and gloomy minds are dragging out a miserable existence. Satan's power upon the human family increases. If the Lord should not soon come and destroy his power, the earth would erelong be depopulated." (Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 304) The Bible and Ellen G. White
| ||
|
1) Was the Plan of Salvation made before or after the Fall? BIBLE: Before Who hath saved us, and called us ... according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus *before the world began.* (2 Timothy 1:9) EGW: After The Kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of Man ... (GC 347) 2) WAS ADAM DECEIVED? BIBLE: No Adam was not deceived ... (1 Timothy 2:14) EGW: Yes ... Adam also was deceived. (GC 352, 1885 ed.) 3) How Many of Each Kind of Clean Beast went into the Ark? BIBLE: 14 Then the Lord said to Noah, "...Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate." (Genesis 7:1-2 RSV) EGW: 7 [The unclean beasts came] two and two, male and female, and clean beasts by sevens. (3 SG 67) 4) WERE 14 OF EACH KIND OF BIRD TAKEN INTO THE ARK? BIBLE: Yes "... and seven pairs of the birds of the air also." (Genesis 7:3 RSV) [No distinction between clean and unclean; seven pairs of each kind.] EGW: No [Birds of every description] came flying to the ark, two and two, male and female, and the clean birds by sevens. (3 SG 67) 5) WERE SOME KINDS OF animalS NOT TAKEN INTO THE ARK? BIBLE: No And God said to Noah, "Of every living thing *of all flesh* you shall bring two of every sort into the ark." (Genesis 6:13, 19 RSV) EGW: Yes Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The *confused species...were destroyed*. (3 SG 15) 6) DID EVERYTHING OUTSIDE THE ARK DIE? BIBLE: Yes And God said unto Noah, "... Every thing that is in the earth shall die." (Genesis 6:17) EGW: No God by His miraculous power *preserved a few of the different kinds of trees and shrubs.* (1 SG 77) 7) WAS NOAH ALLOWED TO EAT EVERY KIND OF MEAT? BIBLE: Yes And God said to them [Noah's family], "... Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you..." (Genesis 9:1, 3) EGW: No Now that every green thing had been destroyed, He allowed them [Noah's family], to eat *the flesh of the clean beasts ...* PP 107  Was Babel Built After the Flood? BIBLE: Yes These are the families of the sons of Noah ... *after the flood* ... And they said, Go to, let us build a city and a tower. (Genesis 10:32, 11:4) EGW: No This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel. (3 SG 301) 9) Did Pharaoh's Magicians turn Rods into Serpents? BIBLE: Yes Aaron cast down his rod... and it became a serpent ... The magicians of Egypt, did the same. Every man cast down his rod, and they became serpents. (Exodus 7:10-12 RSV) EGW: No The magicians ... did not really cause their rods to become serpents, but ... made them appear like serpents ... (3 SG 205-206) 10) Does God Approve of Drinking? BIBLE: Yes And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth ... (Deuteronomy 14:26) EGW: No The Lord has given special directions in His word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced His prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings. (Te 42) [No such Bible passage exists.] 11) Does Our Obedience and Faith reconcile us to God? BIBLE: No For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in His sight, without blemish and free from accusation. (Colossians 1:21-22) EGW: Yes "Man, who has defaced the image of God in his soul by a corrupt life, cannot, by mere human effort, effect a radical change in himself. He must accept the provisions of the gospel; he must be reconciled to God through obedience to His law and faith in Jesus Christ" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 294) 12) Was the man Jesus Christ also truly God? BIBLE: Yes "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) "Look, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of Him. So shall it be! Amen. 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1  - "Therefore God exalted Him (Jesus) to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name." (Philippians 2:9) EGW: No "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty" (Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129). 13) Will Obeying Commandments Earn God's Favour? BIBLE: No All our righteous acts are like filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6) Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.' (Galatians 3:11) EGW: Yes To obey the commandments of God is the only way to obtain (earn) His favor. (Testimonies, vol.4, p.2 14) Did Samson Disobey God when he married a Philistine? BIBLE: No "Samson said to his father, 'Get her for me. She's the right one for me.' (His parents did not know this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines.) ..." (Judges 14:3-4). EGW: Yes "A young woman dwelling in the Philistine town of Timnath engaged Samson's affections, and he determined to make her his wife ... The parents at last yielded to his wishes, and the marriage took place ... The time when he must execute his divine mission -- the time above all others when he should have been true to God -- Samson connected himself with the enemies of Israel. ... He was placing himself in a position where he could not fulfill the purpose to be accomplished by his life ... The wife, to obtain whom Samson had transgressed the command of God, proved treacherous to her husband" (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 562, 563). 15) Were the Ten Commandments written on both sides of the tables? BIBLE: Yes And Moses turned, and went down from the mountain with the two tables in his hands, tables that were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. (Exodus 32:15 RSV) EGW: No In the ark was... the tables of stone which folded together like a book. Jesus opened them, and I saw the ten commandments. (EW 32) 16) Did the Israelites die of gluttony? BIBLE: No While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed ... the Lord smote the people with a very great plague ... (Numbers 11:33) EGW: Yes God granted their desire, giving them flesh, and leaving them to eat till their gluttony produced a plague. (CDF 14 17) Did Jesus die to give us a second probation? BIBLE: No "I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2). "How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?" (Hebrews 2:3) "Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him" (Hebrews 9:27-2 . NOTE: The Bible clearly teaches that there is no second chance for salvation. Everyone living before Christ was saved exactly the same way as everyone living after Christ -- during their lifetime everyone accepts either God's gift of salvation through Christ or is excluded from eternal life. Jesus death on the cross was not an afterthought, not a second probation and not a second chance. EGW: Yes "Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave His life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation" (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 134). 1 Was the Atonement for sin completed at the cross? BIBLE: Yes "When He had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, He bowed His head and gave up His spirit." (John 19:30) "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His blood." (Romans 3:21-25) "Since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through Him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Romans 5:9-11) "Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Romans 5:11 NIV) EGW: No "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." (Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 5 "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." (Early Writings, p. 253) NOTE: The Bible totally rejects EGW's idea of the 2300 days and an investigative judgment in the heavenly sanctuary beginning in 1844. Notice how the Bible texts quoted above were all written less than thirty years after Jesus' resurrection, and all clearly state that Christians living then were already fully justified, redeemed, sanctified and reconciled to God through Christ's death on the cross. As cult-watchers, Martin and Barnhouse stated: "The (SDA sanctuary doctrine) is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history! We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position. And we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable." 19) Did Satan tempt Jesus at the end or at the start of the 40 days? BIBLE: End And when He had fasted forty days and nights ... the tempter came to Him... (Matthew 4:2-3) EGW: Start As soon as Christ began His fast, Satan appeared. (Christ Our Saviour, p. 45) 20) Are we reconciled to God by Obedience to the Law? BIBLE: No God hath reconciled us unto Himself by Jesus Christ ... (2 Corinthians 5:1 We were reconciled to God by the death of His son ... (Romans 5:10) EGW: Yes He [man] must be reconciled to God through obedience to His law. (4T 294) 21) Did Paul receive the gospel independently of the apostles? BIBLE: Yes But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of Me ... I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it ... I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me ... (Galatians 1:11-12, 16-17) EGW: No Paul must receive instruction in the Christian faith ... Christ sends him to the very disciples whom he had been so bitterly persecuting, to learn of them ... (3T 430) 22) Does Christ's blood cancel sin? BIBLE: Yes ... He took away our sins through the blood of His Son. (Ephesians 1:6 L  Jesus suffered and died outside the city, where His blood washed our sins away. (Hebrews 13:12 L EGW: No The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin. ( PP 357) 23) Can we attain a sinless state? BIBLE: No If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves ... If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar. (1 John 1:8-10) ... there is no man which sinneth not. (2 Chronicles 8:36) EGW: Yes In order to let Jesus into our hearts, we must stop sinning. (ST 3-3-189 24) Were Our Sins Blotted out at Calvary? BIBLE: Yes For God was in Christ, restoring the world to Himself, no longer counting men's sins against them but blotting them out. This is the wonderful message He has given us to tell others. (2 Corinthians 6:19 L EGW: No In 1844 began the work of blotting out sins. (Christ in His Sanctuary, p. 122) 25) IS CHRIST'S HEALING GIVEN FREELY TO ALL? BIBLE: Yes When the even was come, they brought Him many ... and [He] healed all ... (Matthew 8:16 RSV) ... multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all. (Matthew 12:15 RSV) EGW: No Prayer for the sick: We should first find out if the sick one has been withholding tithes or has made trouble in the church. (UT quoted in HL 237) 26) Is it a sin for married couples to have sex? BIBLE: No Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled ... (Hebrews 13:4) EGW: Yes Because you are married you think you commit no sin. (2T 473) 27) Is it proper to stand for a prayer? BIBLE: Yes And when ye stand praying ... (Mark 11:25) EGW: No Where have our brethren obtained the idea that they should stand upon their feet when praying to God? ... As I beheld him standing ... my soul was stirred within me to give him an open rebuke. Calling him by name, I said, "Get down upon your knees. This is the proper position always." (MS 84b) [Elder D.E. Robinson, a secretary to Ellen White from 1902-1915, reported: "I have been present repeatedly at camp meetings and General Conference sessions in which Sister White has offered prayer with the congregation standing, and she herself standing." Letter, March 4, 1934] 2 IS THE SABBATH "THE SEAL OF GOD"? BIBLE: No You were marked in Him [the Holy Spirit] with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 1:13) Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30) EGW: Yes The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord's memorial of creation. (Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 117) The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God. (GC 640) 29) Can ministers eat meat? BIBLE: Yes And when the hour was come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. And [Jesus] said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover [lamb] with you ... (Luke 22:14-15) EGW: No Let not any of our ministers set an evil example in the eating of flesh meat. (CDF 399) 30) Did God provide flesh as food for man? B IBLE: Yes And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying ... These are the beasts which ye shall eat ... (Leviticus 11:1-2) ... thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee ... (Deuteronomy 12:15) EGW: No God did not provide for the flesh of dead animals to compose the diet of man. (CDF 410) 31) Does a meat diet make a person less spiritual? BIBLE: No Commanding the crowd to sit down on the ground, [Jesus] took the seven loaves and the fish, and ... gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. (Matthew 15:35-37) ... [Jesus] said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-43) EGW: Yes The more largely flesh composes the diet of teachers and pupils, the less susceptible will be the mind to comprehend spiritual things. (CDF 395) 32) ARE EGGS GOOD TO EAT? BIBLE: Yes If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?...Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father .... (Luke 11:11-13) EGW: No Eggs should not be placed upon your table. They are an injury to your children. (2T 400) 33) Is cheese good to eat? BIBLE: Yes Now Jesse said to his son David, "... Take along these ten cheeses to the commander of their unit. (1 Samuel 17:17-18 NIV) They also brought wheat and barley, flour and roasted grain, beans and lentils, honey and curds, sheep, and cheese from cows' milk for David and his people to eat. (2 Samuel 17:28-29) EGW: No Cheese is wholly unfit for food. (CDF 36 34) IS BUTTER GOOD TO EAT? BIBLE: Yes Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat ... (Isaiah 7:14-15) EGW: No ... spices, butter, cheese...do their work of deranging the stomach ... and enfeebling the intellect. (3T 136) 35) Is it a sin to take the lives of animals to eat their flesh? BIBLE: No He said to Simon, "Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch." [Jesus ordered the disciples to kill these fish] ... And when they had done this they enclosed a great shoal of fish...and filled both the boats. (Luke 5:4-7 RSV) EGW: Yes What man with a human heart...could look into their eyes ... and willingly devour their flesh? (MH 316) ... the selfishness of taking the lives of animals... (UT, Aug 30, 1896) 36) Are we not to taste or touch certain foods? BIBLE: No Since you died with Christ and this has set you free from following the world's ideas of how to be saved -- by doing good and obeying various rules -- why do you keep right on following them anyway, still bound by such rules as not eating, tasting, or even touching certain foods? Such rules are mere human teachings, for food was made to be eaten and used up. These rules may seem good, for rules of this kind require strong devotion and are humiliating and hard on the body, but they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person's evil thoughts and desires.* They only make him proud. (Colossians 2:20-21 L EGW: Yes The Lord would bring His people into a position where they will not touch or taste the flesh of dead animals. (CDF 380) [* Dozens of EGW statements assert that abstaining from meat (particularly ham) has an enormous effect in purifying one's thoughts and desires.] 37) Can meat eaters enjoy the company of angels? BIBLE: Yes ... [Jesus] said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them... And He led them out as far as to Bethany, and He lifted up His hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. (Luke 24:41-43, 50-51) EGW: No How can those who are seeking to become pure and holy that they may have the companionship of heavenly angels ... take the life of God's creatures that they may consume the flesh? (CDF 380) 3 Will God command us to abstain from meat in the latter days? BIBLE: No Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith ... commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. (1 Timothy 4:1-4) EGW: Yes Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat eating will eventually be done away. (CDF 380) 39) Will we know when Jesus will come? BIBLE: No But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only ... Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. (Matthew 24:36, 42) EGW: Yes As God has shown me in holy vision...we heard the voice of God ... which gave us the day and hour of Jesus' comin
| ||
|
"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? . . . One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord." (Rom. 14:4-6) "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath." (Col. 2:16) Matt 19:16-18 now a man came up to Jesus and asked, 'teacher, what good thing must i do to get eternal life?' jesus answered, "why do you ask me about what is good? there is only one who is good. if you want to enter life obey the commandments." "which ones? the man inquired. Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adulter, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother and love your neighbor as yourself." (notice no sabbath observance).
| ||
|
Is Sabbath the Seal of God? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EGW: Yes The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord's memorial of creation. (Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 117) The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God. (GC 640) BIBLE: No You were marked in Him [the Holy Spirit] with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 1:13) Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30) Crucial for Understanding and Deconstructing Beliefs of Adventists
| ||
|
The Ten Commandments are Part of the Old Covenant the ten commandments are part of the law of moses. HOW do we know that? Well, Moses brought 'em down. Therefore, the big ten are part of the law of Moses. The law of Moses is part of the Old Covenant. In other words the 613 commandments that Jesus needed to keep in order to live a pure life. Noting the number of the 613 commandments shows that the Law is much more complicated than just the ten. Not only did Israel need to keep the ten, but a whole mess of other commandments ennumerated in Leviticus, and Deuteronomy and maybe Numbers also. when Jesus came was He only to obey the Ten "Moral" Commandments? NO NO NO. He was subject to all 613, which meant he wore tassels and He probably wore those headpiece thingies modern Orthodox Jews like to wear. Jesus was subject to the Law. and here is where you cannot deny that the ten commandments are part of the law. if Jesus was subject to the Law, and had to obey the TEN, then the TEN are part of the Law. simple, that. in fact, if you called the ten commandments, the ten laws, people might look askance, but they would realize what you're talking about because they are synonyms. the ten commandments are part of the law of moses. the law of moses is part of the old covenant. in an SAT analogy question, it would be posed as this: ten commandments: law of moses law of moses: ??? ??? would be old covenant. Adventist try to use Revelations to "prove" that we still need to keep the fourth commandment. let me again reiterate that the 10 given on stone are part of the Law. it says so here in romans 13 8-10. the passage belows states that if there is ANY COMMANDMENT, including the ones mentioned, that they are summed up in Loving your Neighbor, and that Love is the Fulfillment of the Law therefore, from this point onward you cannot deny that the ten commandments are part of what the New Testament refers to as Law. Romans 13:8-10 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. why we so vehemently argue against hallowing the Old Covenant (inclusive Sabbath, unclean meats, circumscion) is because there is no room for the light and grace of Salvation to shine through. Our Salvation is NOT about obeying commandments. it's about our INABILITY to obey commandments, and the grace of God that covers that inability in Jesus Christ. that beautiful verse in Revelations shows us that saints, the ones that are faithful follow the commandment of love. in which the Law is fulfilled. it really makes me mad when some try to make living a godly life about "observing the sabbath" and "not eating unclean meat," or even "not wearing jewelry." The contention of the saints keeping commandments of God is quoted to try show that we still need to observe the sabbath. however, saved Christians are already observing the sabbath because Jesus has given us Sabbath Rest every single day/moment of our lives. only those that see the law of Moses with a veil think we still need to observe it physically according to the precepts written in the OT. 1 Corinthians 3:12-16 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. this is the same chapter about writing on hearts instead of tablets. this is what i think most SDA’s are in danger of: seeing the old testament with a veil over it. notice that what they were trying to look at was fading away. in the sda baptismal thingy, they make you say that you will abstain from unclean foods (as per listed in OT), but they totally neglect the passages where it says not to let anyone judge you what you eat or drink, and the passage that Jesus teaches that it is not eating with an unclean hand that makes you unclean but what is within you makes you unclean (sin). it is only when we turn to God's plan of salvation do we fully understand the law of moses and the ten commandments and the entire old testament. what happens if we view the old testament the law of moses with an unveiled face? 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. we have liberty and are transformed . how's that for reading the old testament in light of Salvation . 2 Corinthians 3:1-5 1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone (ten commandments) but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. 4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, it's not that the "ten commandments" have no place in Christianity, but they do need to be put in proper context. now that no one can dispute that the ten commandments, including the SDA's fourth commandment is part of the old covenant (part of the law of Moses, part of the Old Covenant that Jesus fulfilled) The new testament several times says that the New Covenant is BETTER than the Old Covenant. who could dispute that? under the old covenant we would have had to obey the law which is the 613 commandments, make animal sacrifices for our sins and never would be fully atoned for. under the new covenant we have Jesus as our sacrifice once, and it was finished. Old Covenant/New Covenant in the words of Jesus (parable form) regarding the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant: Matt 9:16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." in the eloquent words of Paul: Hebrews 8:6-13 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant (the new covenant) that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. there you have it, the old covenant is obsolete, and there's no denying those commandments writ upon stone are part of that old covenant which the Paul says that he made the first obsolete Galatians 4:21-31 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage (what came from Mount Sinai? the ten commandments written on stone), which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. doesn't that just make your heart want to burst out with joy? To me Adventist tend to argue keeping the Sabbath, being founded in keeping the law given to Moses. But I wish they could see that they are 'desiring to be under the law' by their Sabbath ordinance, and their health message, and their non-jewelry wearing, non-alcohol drinking policies. things SDA neglect: the laws written on stone were given specifically to the nation of Israel. how do i say this? Ro 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, see here? Gentiles, read all us non Jewish people were not given the Law (including the ten commandments) the same way the nation of Israel did. Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law (nation of Israel, the Jews, Paul, himself), but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham (all Christians), who is the father of us all, see how Paul made a distinction between those of the law (the jews), and those of the faith (believers}? in Acts 15, there is an interesting debate about Jewish people trying to make the new Gentile believers follow the Law of Moses (Judaizers) which included circumscion. notice in that passage that they wrote to them about not worshipping idols, and not drinking blood, but they didn't write to them about keeping the Sabbath (which I have now proven that it was given to the nation of Israel, included under the title of 'the law of Moses') In fact they were saying that the uncircumsized were less righteous and even James and Peter were starting to withdraw from those who were not circumsized. It also follows that the Judaizers were probably saying that Gentile believers should abstain from “unclean” meats and observe Sabbath days, which is why Paul had to address it in Colossians. also another fact to note: when Adam and Eve were created they couldn't "covet" another person's wife , there was no neighbor's wife to covet . so these "big 10" were not in place at Creation. basically, Adam and Eve were not under the law. think of that. they were not under the law. then Paul says again to those who desire to be under the law that they are children of the slavewoman. the author of Hebrews speaks scornfully to those that desire to be under the law. think of the definition of the fourth commandment, what does it point to? Rest. restrestrestrestrest. this is why sevey's (borrowed from an aussie) go hiking on Saturdays or sit around and read quietly. i dunno, "restful" things. why does God want us to rest so badly? or, more Biblically accurate, why did God want Israel to rest so badly? because of respite from the physical toll? That doesn't seem to have much to do with the central message of the Bible: Salvation. the physical rest is not what God wanted the emphasis on, He wanted the physical rest to symbolize the rest from labour we have in Christ by Salvation. Adam and Eve didn't have to toil until they were cast out of the Garden. God wanted the nation of Israel to know that He was going to give them Ultimate Rest, kinda like the Ultimate thirst quenching drink of Salvation, huh. now, you're going to ask me what about the other 9. well, you'll find several times in the Bible that the summation of all law is love. Romans 13:8-10 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. law - nomos nomo? from a primary nemo (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Definition anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command of any law whatsoever a law or rule producing a state approved of God 1a by the observance of which is approved of God a precept or injunction the rule of action prescribed by reason of the Mosaic law, and referring, acc. to the context. either to the volume of the law or to its contents the Christian religion: the law demanding faith, the moral instruction given by Christ, esp. the precept concerning love the name of the more important part (the Pentateuch), is put for the entire collection of the sacred books of the OT fulfill - pleroo from (4134) Definition to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally I abound, I am liberally supplied to render full, i.e. to complete to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim to consummate: a number to make complete in every particular, to render perfect to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise of matters of duty: to perform, execute of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment NAS Word Usage - Total: 87 accomplish 1, accomplished 1, amply supplied 1, approaching 1, complete 1, completed 3, completing 1, elapsed 1, fill 3, filled 16, fills 1, finished 1, fulfill 20, fulfilled 20, fully carry 1, fully come 1, fully preached 1, increasing 1, made complete 2, made full 5, make...full 1, make...complete 1, passed 2, supply 1 the purpose of the law: Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested (in Jesus Christ, the Salvation), being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Note: the Law saves no one. Ro 3:27 Where then is boasting ? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. what is the purpose of a law, anyway? to be fulfilled . Jesus kept the whole law therefore fulfilling it. Matthew 22:37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." See the ten commandments in the context of the MAIN IDEA of the Bible. Salvation. Paul tells us the Law was given so that Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, The Law was given to show us how we could never be Holy, never could be righteous. no one could keep those 613 commandments (the torah) except Jesus. and in there, is that niggling commandment that sevey's like to make such a hullaboo about. it was a shadow, just like the animal sacrifices could never atone for our sin, likewise the physical sabbath rest could never give us true rest of the Garden. but! there is a light at the end of the tunnel satisfying both sevey's and nonsevey's Hebrews 4 -10 7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before , "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. when are we to have Sabbath rest? everyday that is called "Today" notice how the languages says, He again fixes a certain day. notice the replacement of the Seventh Day ordinance to the Today ordinance . We are to have Sabbath Rest everyday? What is Sabbath Rest? A restoration to the our state before the fall, before "work" before even "law" existed. in short, Salvation. in Salvation the concept of the Sabbath - which is rest, was fulfilled, and given to us INTERNALLY. The word in Greek is sabbatismos meaning: rest given to God’s people, a keeping sabbath. therefore, everyday we are able to keep the fourth commandment because we are saved . within our Salvation, Jesus has given us what the Sabbath was pointing to: rest. some verses Adventists use to argue for Sabbath This is called Chain-verse bible study. you can read more about the method at this link Scripture. Adventists also use chain-verse to support their belief that Jesus is Michael also, and IJ/Day of Atonement. basically what this is is taking verses from different parts of the Bible and putting them together to substantiate an idea without regards to the context the verses are in the Bible. in short, a bad way to study the Bible. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day and forever". (Heb. 13: I certainly have no argument with this passage from the Bible but there is no indication here that God is limited by what we think He should or should not do. There is no indication here that God cannot do any specific thing such as change the law or a requirement. This verse is just a reassurance to us that Jesus Christ remains constant. It should instill security in His followers since He is 'the Rock'. It is important to note that this reassuring statement about Jesus Christ is followed by a warning not to follow those who teach that items of the diet have something to do with our salvation. God changing rules within the framework of the same covenant concerns revenge. At the time of Moses one was to exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but Jesus changed this to the dismay of the legalists of His day. "You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Mt. 5: 38,39) As slaves in Egypt I suspect the Jews would pay back an injury by killing the offender. As a step towards reform at the time of Moses, God insisted on an eye for an eye but not a life for an eye. At the time of Jesus the Israelites were expected to have progressed even further to the point where they would accept injury and forgive rather than demanding revenge. Here we see God changing His rules as circumstances allow and actually insisting on improvement, of interpersonal relationships from one generation to another "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." (Mt. 15:8,9) They like to extend this passage to try to cover the sabbath day. They would like everyone to believe that they are worshipping on Sunday due to a commandment from the pope. They attempt to get at Protestants this way, trying to arouse guilt feelings about not keeping God's commandments but following the dictum of the pope. When Jesus spoke these words there is no doubt the sabbath day was still in effect. These words were directed at the Pharisees who were trying to pervert God's law concerning the commandment "Honor your father and your mother". These people were using the excuse that they had given so much of their money to God that they no longer had to carry the responsibility of looking after their parents. Jesus pointed out that they were warping God's laws and indicated that Isaiah had prophesied this would happen. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with the Sabbath day. Protestants do not follow the commandments of the pope in worshipping on Sunday. More about this pope Sunday deal later. Another passage which supports this notion is the sabbath day commandment as it appeared in a repeat list of the ten commandments in Deuteronomy. "You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day." (Deut. 5:15) Here God tells the Jews they are to keep the sabbath day to remember His freeing them from bondage in Egypt. Again it appears from this passage that the Jews knew nothing about the sabbath day prior to their exodus from Egypt. Isn't it rather strange that we see no pronouncements against anybody for not keeping the sabbath day prior to the book of Exodus? If the sabbath day was a requirement previously, why did God not mention it in His judgment against the people just before the flood? He mentioned all kinds of sins at the time of Noah and certainly He would have included the profaned sabbath days if they did exist at that time. This is a forceful argument that the requirement to keep the seventh day sabbath did not exist prior to the Jews delivery from Egypt. There is an example of one that we should follow Jesus' example. Adventists like to extend that principle to the sabbath day also. They point out that Jesus kept the sabbath day and claimed that He was Lord of the sabbath. This is all very true but Jesus was a Jew, and as such, He was required to keep all of the law including the law of Moses. This included the sabbath day, the passover, circumcision, annual sacrifices, and all the other rituals of the law. It was His duty to do this, fulfill the law and remain sinless so that the sacrifice of one who was innocent would be acceptable to pay the penalty for all of us who are guilty. Of course Jesus kept the sabbath, the Old Covenant was in force during His lifetime and His death ushered in the New Covenant. "For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before Me says the Lord; so shall your descendants and your name remain. From new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before Me says the Lord." (Isa. 66:22-23) Adventists will tell you that these verses give evidence that the sabbath day will be kept when God has created new heavens and a new earth. Just by reading this Bible passage it is evident that God does not mean what Adventists say He means. God is simply stressing the fact that the Jewish race shall never become extinct. The people of Israel will survive just as surely as it is a fact that God will make new heavens and a new earth. The last part of the quotation concerning "From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath" can in no way be taken to mean that a sabbath day will be in effect in the new earth. If Adventists insist on this interpretation they will have to agree that new moons will be celebrated in the new earth also. I am sure they are quite willing to admit that celebration of new moons ended at the cross. Why must they insist that the sabbath day was not ended at the cross? Now let us consider some of Paul's specific exhortations protecting Gentiles, "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? . . . One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord." (Rom. 14:4-6) It seemed there was some dispute here as to whether some people should be observing special days; almost certainly a question involving the sabbath. "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath." (Col. 2:16) It is very plain from this scripture that Paul is specifically addressing the question of Jewish laws. Included here is the sabbath day and he insists that judgment cannot be passed on someone because of the sabbath. In studying a little further in this passage it becomes obvious that Paul is pointing out all these things were nailed to the cross at the time of Jesus' death when the Old Covenant came to an end. In the last quotation the term 'a sabbath' in Greek the word is 'sabbaton' is used indicating a singular form. This translation is taken from the Revised Standard Version. It differs from the King James Version which is preferred by Adventists because its mistranslation suits their purpose nicely. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days." If one looks at this verse in the King James Version it is noted that the word 'days' is in italics. That indicates this word has been added by the translators and was not there in the original text. If that word 'days' is stroked out the meaning of this passage. becomes very clear. Paul is indicating that the sabbath has been nailed to the cross. It is interesting to note here just one more of the many inconsistencies of Adventists. The sabbath is spoken of in 60 places in the New Testament. In all other 59 places Adventists will admit that this means the seventh day sabbath. But in this sixtieth instance they insist that it refers to the plural form of sabbath days. Adventists like the translation 'sabbath days' as they will insist that the other sabbath days were nailed to the cross, but not the seventh day sabbath. However, in the Bible there is more than one kind of Sabbath: weekly, monthly, yearly. In the Bible they are always mentioned either weekly, monthly, yearly, or yearly, monthly, weekly. In this passage festival refers to the yearly celebration, new moon refers to the monthly, and sabbath day to the weekly. Therefore you cannot say that we do not let anyone judge us for not keeping monthly and yearly sabbaths without saying that we do not let anyone judge us for not keeping weekly sabbaths. Do you know any Adventists who keep the seventh day sabbath? Do they actually keep it holy? Do they follow any of the rules set down in the Old Testament as to how one should keep the sabbath holy? Nor have I he
| ||
|
Health Message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adventists like to use Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to prove that vegetarianism is the way. i kinda chuckle at this because my vegan friend used SDA's to try to show me that Jesus was vegetarian. obviously false. well, let's look at it from several angles: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Romas 14:1-3 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. who are you to judge the servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 2. "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink ..." Col 2:16 3. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them (Pharisees). Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes in the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean' for out of the heart come evil thoughts, muder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. these are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' Matt 15:16-20, Mark 7:15, 18-19 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' 'are you so dull he asked, don't you see that nothing that enters a man from thte outside can make him unclean? for it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach and then out of his body." (in saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean") 4. 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience for 'The earth is the Lord's and everything in it.'" Spiritual Health, Physical Health? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul was unhealthy. He had a 'thorn in his flesh' which many people believe to be a physical ailment. Did a unhealthy body mean he was unwell spiritually? no, not at all. oh, I see, my Bible is the incorrect translation, the Great Commission reads: "Go therefore and make vegetarians of all nations, baptising them in the name of Ellen G. White." yet, Adventist persist in including a health message with other doctrine. is the health message a doctrine in the Bible? no. in fact it says that physical exercise is useless compared to spiritual fitness: verse this all goes back to Law, and the Adventist's underlying beliefs about Salvation. To be honest, Adventists are still under law and still long to be under law, whether it is eating heathily, exercising, or resting on Saturdays, or not drinking alcohol. John the Baptist ate locusts, insects are not vegetarian. not quite. Here I pause to sigh again. It doesn't matter if SDAs choose to be vegetarian and choose to exercise often, or choose to rest on Saturdays. What matters is what is going on in the heart, and what is the basic driving force behind them. like I quoted in the Sunday page: 1 Corinthians 8:9 "let not this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those that are weak." maybe some Adventists understand that diet and exercise have no direct influence on your spiritual life, but the practice of such is misleading other Christians, other Adventists into thinking that they are becoming more righteous by observing these "laws." end lesson, don't rely on yourself to make yourself holy, only God can do that
| ||
|
Is Jesus Michael the Archangel? Emphatically NO. EGW is egregiously wrong on the subject of Michael: what EGW says on Michael: Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 164, paragraph 2 Chapter Title: Spiritual Gifts Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." Patriarchs and Prophets, page 761, paragraph 5 Chapter Title: Appendix AGAIN: CHRIST IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD. JOHN 1:1-3. HE IS SO CALLED BECAUSE GOD GAVE HIS REVELATIONS TO MAN IN ALL AGES THROUGH CHRIST. IT WAS HIS SPIRIT THAT INSPIRED THE PROPHETS. 1 PETER 1:10, 11. HE WAS REVEALED TO THEM AS THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH, THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST, MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL. A Word to the Little Flock, page 12, paragraph 4 The Lord has shown me in vision, that Jesus rose up, and shut the door, and entered the Holy of Holies, at the 7th month 1844; but Michael's standing up (Dan. 12:1) to deliver his people, is in the future. Jude 1:9 Yet *Michael the archangel*, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. please look at the Bible passage yourself. nowhere does it say that Jesus resurrected Moses. (but that does go along with SDA's concept of soul sleep). I'll repeat this one more time, "durst" means "tolmao" in Greek, which always means when paired with a negative that they "did not dare in fear of retaliation" Jesus Christ is God, there is no great controversy where Jesus and Satan are on equal par. Who created Satan? God, Jesus is God also, and in this incident, if Michael were Jesus He wouldn't have the incarnate part on Him yet either. God never fears Satan. my ex tried to use Zechariah to disprove my exegesis of Jude 1:9 Zec 3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the *angel of the LORD*, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? This is not a duplicate event. these are two separate incidents. if it was a parallel passage I might lend credence, but it is not. One is talking about Michael the other is talking about the Angel of the Lord. It does not say in the bible that Michael is the Angel of the Lord. Never. All we have are extrapolations because sometimes Jesus is referred to as an Angel of the Lord, that since Michael has part of his category 'archangel' that those two can be equal. Also, one passage refers to the contention of Michael the Archangel contending for the body of Moses, and the other of Joshua. These are not parallel passages. A good use of parallel passages is my exegesis showing that hell is eternal . check it out . the word "LORD" in verse Zechariah 3:2 means: hwhy from (01961) Transliterated Word TWOT Entry *BigChurch* 484a Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech yeh-ho-vaw' Proper Name Definition Jehovah = "the existing One" the proper name of the one true God unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136 now in Jude 1:9 Michael means this in Hebrew and Greek: *micael* of Hebrew origin (04317) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Michael None Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech mikh-ah-ale' Noun Masculine Definition Michael = "who is like God" the first of the chief princes or archangels who is supposed to be the guardian angel of the Israelites *lakym* from (04310) and (the prefix derivative from) (0358 and (0410) Transliterated Word TWOT Entry Miyka'el None Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech me-kaw-ale' Proper Name Masculine Definition Michael = "who is like God" one of, the chief, or the first archangel who is described as the one who stands in time of conflict for the children of Israel also to note, that in the Zechariah verse, Jesus shows no fear of Satan unlike Jude 1:9 and as my ex had so nicely pointed out that Satan was highest of all the angels and likely more powerful than Michael. Zechariah uses Jehovah. Jude uses Michael. Jehovah is clearly God, Michael is not. Jesus means: "Jehovah is salvation" Michael's name 'who is like God' never says he is God, just like Him. first there is no disputing that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ, because Joshua and his men worshipped Him. However, it is said as Angel of the Lord, and never Archangel. two very different terms. one thing i'd like to add is that Jesus is never referred to directly as Michael. most of the evidence is extrapolated from passages, but are not kept in the context of what we already know about Jesus. Daniel 10:13 But for twenty-one days the spirit prince of the kingdom of Persia blocked my way. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the spirit prince of the kingdom of Persia. the word "one" as in "one of the chief princes" means this in Hebrew: 'echad TWOT - 61 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ekh-awd' Adjective Definition one (number) one (number) each, every a certain an (indefinite article) only, once, once for all one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one first eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal) one adventist's page tried to claim that this was saying that this was a foremost chief prince or whatever, anyway. look at the word 'Principalities' it is exclusively used for Angels (including demons), the word principalities comes from the word prince. so, there you go, princes, angels. my ex's defense: >The reference to Michael as one of the chief princes probably alludes to the Trinity, with Jesus being one part of the triune Godhead. God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ have clear designations and clear names. God the Father, Jesus: Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God. Nowhere in the Bible does it substantiate calling all three of the Trinity: princes. Most interpretations think that 'one of the chief princes' is referring to that there is probably more than one archangel. >1 Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the *archangel*, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (2 Th 1 NIV) "and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels." Joh 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. Joh 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, i was looking at these verse b/c my ex showed them to me. obviously it is only by God's power that the dead are raised. the way I see the format of 1 Thes 4:16 is: the Lord came with a, with b, and with c. a. a shout b. voice of archangel c. trumpet now i'll say that i think that the shout belongs to the Lord, in context of those other verses, but look at 2 Thessalonians 1 . the Lord Jesus Christ comes with angels. also, seeing that Michael is one of the foremost angels, it would be logical to conclude that he would be with Christ at rapture, look at what this commentary has to say about it: Question: Why is Michael heard at the rapture? Answer: Because Israel comes back into God's prophetic program with the 70th week commencing, thus leaving only seven years until Christ sets up His Kingdom on earth. Michael is Israel's protector (in the Bible there are different kinds of angels): Michael is mentioned five times in the Bible, always warring against Satan's forces: 1. He helps a lesser ranked angel break free from the evil angel Prince of Persia to answer Daniel's prayer: "But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me;" Daniel 10:13,21. "There is none that holdeth (supports) with me in these things, but Michael your prince." Daniel 10:21. We see here that: a) Michael is one of the chief princes, which implies that there may be other archangels. b) Also we see that Michael is Israel's prince guardian angel, assigned to Israel. c) We also see that Satan assigns evil angels to increase the evil and corruption in a nation, as in the case of the evil angel called the Prince of Persia (a Principality), who is assigned to Persia. d) "I remained there with the Kings of Persia" (10:13) shows angelic "thrones" referred to as the "Kings of Persia". 2. Michael will stand up to protect Israel in the future seven year Tribulation, as their guardian angel: "At that time shall Michael stand up, the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble...." Daniel 12:1. Rev 12 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. :8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. :9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. >Wasn't Lucifer the highest angel before he was cast out? Yes he was, so how then if Michael is just an created angel be stronger than Lucifer himself to throw him out! Answer: *Because Michael is none other than Jesus Himself Just another symbolic title given to our beautiful Lord and Saviour. *please note that I do not support this positions, this is my SDA ex being quoted, hopefully one day he will be and ex-SDA instead of my SDA ex (heehee). anyway. yes, lucifer is probably stronger than Michael, outranking Him, however, notice that it is not just Michael fighting, it is Michael and his angels. Plus, whenever the Lord is on your side, you win. Just like when that one guy (i forgot who) had to keep his arms raised, and as long as they were raised they would win the battle. Just so like Michael and his angels will win coz God will be with them, not that God is Michael. my ex tried to use this passage to say that Jesus is Michael, but nowhere in this verse nor the passage does it show that Jesus is Michael. without any presuppositions we see that Michael the archangel and his angels (not archangels) fought together and threw Lucifer out of heaven. as we know that Michael is sort of like a military commander. a fighting angel. 1. angels have different jobs: protectors (like Michael), guardians, defending God's holiness (seraphim), showing God's holiness (cherabim) 2. angels are called collectively 'principalities' so they can be called princes 3. true, angel means messenger. but in no way has Angel of the Lord ever been confused with Archangel as interchangeable terms 4. when Jesus comes back He'll come back with angels. to account for the voice of the archangel 5. Michael is heard then b/c he's the protector of Israel and the 70 week thing is going to happen and Israel will go through God's plan, he's happy b/c he is Israel's protector 6. Zechariah uses Jehovah. Jude uses Michael. Jehovah is clearly God, Michael is not. 7. Jesus means: "Jehovah is salvation" Michael's name 'who is like God' never says he is God, just like Him. Historically, the belief came from the influence of the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses who not only believe Jesus is Michael, but that means that to them Jesus is a created being and not God. If one is going to use Michael as alternate to Jesus because it means "like God", what of the angel Gabriel that also means mighty like God ? Does this make him Jesus too, since Jesus is called the mighty God in Isa.9:6 ? What about Micah whose name also means "who is like Yahweh" The names don’t give a parallel but beg a question. Who is like God? Obviously no one. If Jesus is Michael than who are the other angels, are they God too? Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, dirst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said the Lord rebuke thee. (Jude 9) Jesus has never been afraid of rebuking Satan. However, Michael couldn't rebuke him in his own name, but did in God's name. the word "dirst" means "dare not for fear of retribution" Jesus would never be afraid of retribution from Satan. Explanations of the angel of the Lord were used. Such as in Gen.22 and Ex.3:2,6. While there is an agreement on this being called an angel to be THE Messenger of the Lord (Yahweh himself) nowhere does it hint it is Michael, nowhere is his name called Michael, instead it is always Yahweh (Malach Yahweh).
| ||
|
The state of the dead Soul Sleep There are numerous references in the Bible strongly suggesting the inaccuracy of the doctrine of soul-sleep and also the traditional Adventist view of Hell. Here, we will examine some of the passages that jumped out at me regarding these issues. NIV: Mt 22:32 31 But about the resurrection of the dead–have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." Here is evidence suggesting that we are consciously taken to Heaven upon our death. Taking Jesus’ argument one logical step further, if soul-sleep were valid, then God would still have needed to say either "I was the God..." or "I will be the God..." If Jesus uses this argument to prove that there is a resurrection, then it seems likely from the grammar used that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now in His presence. Furthermore, Jesus says "He is not the God of the dead but of the living." If there be a soul-sleep, then He would again be the God of the dead–until they were resurrected, when He could resume being "the God of the living!" NIV: Lk 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus 19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in [immediate and continuing] torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 "But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 "He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 "Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 "‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’" I see no feasible way of arguing one’s way out of the truth in this matter. One of the last possible stunts I can see Jesus pulling is to use bad theology and doctrine to make a point! If Jesus Himself describes the afterlife in this manner, then I believe it is incumbent upon me to accept it at face value–unless there is some biblical reason not to–and there isn’t, as far as I can see. This passage very clearly establishes the biblical position of an immediate ascension to Heaven (or Abraham’s bosom prior to Christ’s resurrection) upon the death of the saints. Jesus is telling a story (differentiated by some from a parable because He used names) about two men who die and are taken to their rightful reward. The rich man is sent to hell because of his lack of concern for the needs of his fellow men (let that be a stern warning). He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them–so they have gone to their respective places while the rich man’s brothers are still alive upon the earth! Also, the rich man is begging Abraham to send Lazarus to come and ease his agony–indicating an immediate and enduring period of misery. As contrary as this runs to my deeply entrenched system of beliefs, it is terribly important not to just discard this passage because it does not happen to fit with my established pattern of thinking. These are Jesus’ own words here! NIV: 2 Co 5:6-9 6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. This passage certainly seems clear and definite that there is no middle ground–if we are absent from the body, then we are at home with the Lord. There is no interim period of "resting in the ground" suggested. Where it says we are "away from the body and at home with the Lord" cannot, I think, possibly be referring to after the resurrection–then we will have our new, perfect, resurrection bodies. That could not be referred to as being "away from the body"! Also, "So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it." If we merely sleep in the ground after we die, there can certainly and absolutely be no pleasing (or displeasing for that matter) the Lord. Only the neutrality of non-existence. We can only perform acts and deeds, make decisions, show love and adoration when we are conscious! But this text clearly suggests an ability to please the Lord–even when we are dead, or away from the body. NIV: 1 Th 4:13,14 13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. In spite of the metaphor does this indicate non-soul sleep? How can Jesus bring people with Him whose totalities (except their breath) lie in the ground of the earth He is returning to? NIV: Philipians 1:20-25 20 I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, I don’t know how anything could be more clear from this passage than the certain fact that Paul looked forward to dying...so that he could go–immediately–to be with Christ! This passage cannot be referring to Christ’s return and the resurrection, as there would then be no "choice" involved–no decision to be distressed over. He declares he was torn between his duty to stay and help the fledgling church and his burning desire to depart so that he could see and be with his Saviour! "I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far". I do not think any sane person, unless life was nothing but sheer torture, would ever feel that to merely decompose in the ground while sleeping the years away could be "better by far" than living–even just in this life. Paul had much to live for here. He was doing a tremendous work and seeing so much fruit from his labours. That must have been a blessed existence! Sure, he had more than his share of trials and problems–but I cannot believe he would have preferred oblivion to his earthly life. No, it must have been the grander and higher calling of seeing Jesus and personally fellowshipping with his Redeemer that were tugging at Paul’s loyalties.
| ||
|
Hell --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hell is a very serious topic. Also the way the Bible describes Hell is your worst nightmare. if anyone has ever seen "Ghost" with Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore, the way Hell was depicted with groanings (biblical) and dark shadows that sucked you into the netherworld (unbiblical) totally freaked me out and reminded me why Salvation is so awesome and life saving, and why I should keep trying to witness to people. EGW quote: The Great Controversy, page 674, paragraph 1 Chapter Title: The Controversy Ended "I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Revelation 21:1. The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, page 49, paragraph 2 Chapter Title: Separation from the Church She answered: "The Bible gives us no proof that there is an eternally burning hell. If there is such a place, it should be mentioned in the Sacred Book." this is the basis for Adventist belief Hoekema's view on Annihilation which is consistent in refuting the concept of Annihilation with hell etc. Jesus taught more on hell than heaven this is also a true statement don't believe me? start reading your Bible
| ||
|
to put this in a proper context, which authority should we heed over all others? Jesus, of course. Jesus is God and God is omniscient (all knowing) therefore, the one Person to listen to as an authority of life after death is only Jesus Himself Matthew 25:46 "They will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life" the word used in greek for eternal is: ainos meaning forever. if you will agree that the rigteous go into life eternal, you have to agree that the goats will go into eternal punishment. random thought: goats and sheep. goats, to me are characterized by their stubborness, sheep by their stupidity. still, since God wants us to be sheep, we are sheep. sheep are so stupid that they will lie down and suffocate themselves. To contend with EGW let us discuss: The seriousness of God's wrath I think the seriousness of hell speaks more to us about the gravity of sin rather than God's mercy. God's mercy is demonstrated in His plan of Salvation. His Wrath, and He does have wrath, is demonstrated in hell. God is in Hell too, except those in hell will not be experiencing God's other attributes. an exegesis: now i can conceive the whole adventist thread: 1. since the soul sleeps, this means (somehow) that death is total death the soul and body are one, the spirit returns to God (like in star wars: the life force  ) 2. because of this, this proves that the soul is not eternal, and that God will annihilate the wicked. 3. this also is good because if you reject salvation after you are saved THEN you don't have to face eternal torment (God wouldn't be that cruel), you just wink out of existence. one falls, they all start to fall. again I'd like to emphasize that our concept of the soul should stem from a holistic approach to the Bible. SDA's mainly rely on the Old Testament for their support of soul sleep, but as you'll see, the OT people did not have a very clear understanding what the after life was like. (who could know?) in my reading of soul-sleep, I read that in Psalms, the Israelites did not have a complete picture of what death was aside from the obvious that it was the opposite of life. there they mourned in the Psalms that they could no longer praise/thank God, and a Hebraist said that it means they could no longer praise God in the public congregation of the living. so that accounts for Psalms. it's talking mostly about the mortal life, the physical death consequences. they also thought that the death of a righteous man was much better than the death of a wicked man. Ecclesiastes is talking about how everything is useless without God. One person noted that Ecclesiastes is poetry and not intended for theological support of death. Ec 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. (so I'm not distinctly articulate on the subject yet, but i'm working it out, ok?) in psalm 146:4 it says the thoughts will perish when they die, but it's also translated as plans will perish. I think it's talking about the mortal life, the physical body not being able to complete plans or have thoughts any longer, but not the soul. so, the bottom line there that there is reward after death as we do know (Matt 5:12, 1 Cor 3:14, Rev 22:12) we do know that souls remember things because in Revelations 6:9-10, the souls of the martyrs are crying out to God for vengeance and this is before the second coming. or something, hm. anyway, they sure seem like they do remember. also, we know that Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, these saints are the ones that are already with Him in heaven. anyway, there is a soul and not soul sleep, otherwise Paul would not have yearned so deeply to be with God 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. of course Matt 10:28 is a pivotal verse: Matt 10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable * to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. And a parallel passage: Luke 12:4-5 "I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no * more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes , I tell you, fear Him! dear friends, the term: destroy both soul and body in hell is the same idea as casting into hell. Here we see that destroy does not mean annihilation, but is a metaphor: to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell. the word destroy is also used by demons howling encountering Jesus: Luke 4:34 "Let us alone ! What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth ? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are--the Holy One of God !" cross referencing: Mt 8:29 And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time ?" so destroy here means to torment. i find it particularly interesting that the demons already know their fate is to be tormented. TORMENT: Basanizo 1:561,96 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech bas-an-id'-zo /cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0928g/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0928g Verb Definition 1. to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal 2. to question by applying torture 3. to torture 4. to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment 5. to be harassed, distressed 1. of those who at sea are struggling with a head wind DESTROY: Apollumi 1:394,67 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ap-ol'-loo-mee Verb Definition 1. to destroy 1. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin 2. render useless 3. to kill 4. to declare that one must be put to death 5. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell 6. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed 2. to destroy 1. to lose in this we can see that: a. there is no soul sleep. because i. God says not to fear one who can destroy the body. if body/soul/spirit were one (and the body died therefore all of it died then you would have a lot to fear, because someone could kill your soul. ii. hell is torment, not annihilation. the verb destroy means the same as casting into hell. also destroy is used as a synonym for torment iii. if Paul desired to be absent from the body 2 Cor 5:8, did he desire to be absent and unconscious? or to be completely dead? no, he desired his conscious soul to be with God iv. also there is no soul sleep because of the martyrs crying out for blood beneath the altar in Revelations, and that Enoch (a very godly man, I might add) said that ten thousands were coming back with him at the 2nd coming. also, there is the "Today, you will be with me in Paradise." as Jesus said to the thief on the cross beside Him. now, my ex contends that it's just an expression like: "Right now, I tell you that you will be with me in Paradise (eventually)." Do you SEE the contortions he needs to go through to come up with that definition? another case study of scriptural twisting (or gymnastics as I like to call it). also there is the passage where those that are saved go on into eternal life, and those not into eternal hell. the greek word is ainois, which my ex contended meant 'to the end of the age' which is true in some contexts, but if you believe that eternal life is for forever, then you have to believe that eternal hell is for forever also. more verses on hell: job 24:21-26, psalm 49:10-15, daniel 12 romans 8:1-16, 2 Thessalonian 1:3-12, Jude 5-13, Revelations 20:11-14, Jude 17-23
| ||
|
Investigative Judgement/Day of Atonement Truth or Hoax? From God or a Blatant Cover up? Historical Notes: In 1844 the Seventh Day Adventists predicted the end of the world. When it didn't come, they called it the Shut Door Prophecy. Then Uriah Smith concluded something else. i haven't written much about IJ b/c i studied it extensively before to a very exhausting level (driven by grief/sorrow/heartache/confusion/bewilderment) so, gist: no return at 1844, so then Adventists said, "oh, oops, it wasn't the end times, it was actually Jesus starting to atone for our sins, based on Daniel 8:14" so they believe this wacky thing that Jesus waited 1844-33 years to start atoning for our sins. weird. i know. well. the problem about discussing IJ is that it doesn't exist in the Bible at all. which is to be expected knowing the circumstance of the origin of its birth. anyway if you look at Daniel, you'll see that it says morning and evenings, referring to actual days not years. morning and evenings referred to the sacrifices made at those times of day. anyway, to shut down this doctrine all one has to do is read the verse in the passage. it says the little horn defiled the sanctuary, or the holy of holies. so basically upon Adventists belief of IJ this means they think that Jesus defiled the sanctuary because it was the little horn that defiled the sanctuary. this will make more sense to adventists. it makes little sense to me as it is notable is Desmond Ford a former Adventist evangelist that spoke out against IJ, writing a 999 page dissertation on how it is not in the bible. well the GC defrocked him. they tried to contact scholars that could read Hebrew within their universities to prove IJ was valid and none of them could, or wanted to, substantiate it. it's not in the bible so don't believe it. although the thing is that Adventist hold IJ as one of their 3 angels msg which i don't entirely grasp yet either. oh well. bottom line, unbiblical. here are som links about ij: chronology EGW wrote about it: "God's hand covering it up." 1844 Daniel 8:14 more Daniel 8:14 read more on ellen Day of Atonement refutation 2300 days? more 2300 waggoner egw what i don't understand and maybe adventists can explain this. if egw was a prophet from God why didn't she know that there were no End Timesin 1843 or 1844. God does not give His prophets lies, He gives them truth. also if Sabbath is so important then why did God wait until 1846 to tell his people (Christians) to start obeying it? doesn't seem like the way God operates.
| ||
|
Gilbert Cranmer's Personal Experiences with Ellen White From the Autobiography of Gilbert Cranmer, as told to M.A. Branch -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this time the doctrine of the advent as taught by William Miller was sounded. I, with many others, became interested and enlisted my energies in what was afterward called the Advent movement of 1844. . . . I sincerely believed it. Even the day was set for the Lord to come and those who believed and took part in the work, expected to go and meet the Lord. Many did not accept the doctrine...and when the time came in which to expect the Lord to come we repaired to a schoolhouse where we were to remain all night or until He should come. ...but the night passed and the morning came and we were disappointed. We went home amid the jeers and smiles of our neighbors. ... It was a great disappointment; some had sold their farms and given the proceeds to help in paying the expense of publishing the doctrine of the Lord's coming. About this time the visions of Mrs. Ellen G. White were first introduced. Some thought they were from the Lord; others doubted. She claimed while in vision, that the Lord had shown her the travels of the Advent people. Her position was that the figures [prophetic calculations of William Miller] were correct. She said, "I saw that they were correct in their reckoning of the prophetic periods; prophetic time closed in 1844 and Jesus entered the Most Holy to cleanse the Sanctuary at the ending of the days." Their mistake consisted in not understanding what the sanctuary was and the nature of its cleansing. "I was shown what did take place in heaven at the close of the prophetic period in 1844, viz., Jesus entered the Most Holy place 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, and thus to cleanse the Sanctuary." They taught that Jesus rose up and shut the door of the Holy Place and opened the door into the Most Holy. Many also believed and taught that the door of mercy was closed against sinners in 1844. In fact, the position taken by the body of Advent believers in 1844, William Miller included, was that the work for the world was finished, that there was no salvation for sinners after 1844. So firmly was this believed that some who had a desire to unite with the body of Advent believers, who had not been in the '44 move, were rejected. ... Among other subjects, the seventh day Sabbath was being investigated. My attention was first called to it by an article in a paper called the Midnight Cry written by J.C. Day of Ashburnham, Massachusetts. S.C. Hancock of Forestville, Connecticut also advocated the doctrine the same year. They strongly urged the doctrine at the time, but I did not become fully established in the Sabbath truth until the year 1845. ... About this time I made the acquaintance of elder Joseph Bates. He too commenced the observance of the Sabbath. Others began to fall in line. The Sabbath truth was gaining ground and became quite prominent among the Adventist believers. In 1846, James White received the Sabbath truth from elder Joseph Bates. ... The "shut-door" doctrine formed a part of the doctrine of the church; that is, Mrs. White had seen in vision that the day of salvation for sinners was past, and those that fully believed in her visions as coming from God, also accepted that doctrine. I did not believe the doctrine nor teach it; no line had been drawn in the church up to this time and the visions had not been made a test. But they were fast becoming popular and some began to press them quite strongly; but matters ran quite smoothly as far as I was concerned until on Sabbath while I was preaching at Otsego. Among other things, I stated that I had no evidence that the door of the Holy Place had been closed. This did not meet the mind of some present. One of the brethren called my attention to the visions. I said, "This may be evidence to you, but it is not to me."
| ||
|
David DePinho's Testimony -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July, 2001 INTRODUCTION My name is David W. DePinho. I am a chaplain serving on active duty with the United States military. Prior to that I was a civilian pastor in the state of Indiana. In both situations I was serving in the capacity of a Seventh-day Adventist ordained minister. I am no longer a Seventh-day Adventist minister. I now serve as a chaplain for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), a 35 million member umbrella organization for small denominations and independent non-denominational churches. As I begin, I want the reader to know that during my years as an Adventist pastor–as both a local civilian pastor and a military chaplain–I have appreciated very much the SDA Church leadership with whom I have worked. Most recently the Endorsing Officer for Adventism was the perfect gentleman and dealt with me in as kind and Christian a way as anyone could hope. I believe him to be a true Christian man. When I was working for the Indiana Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (SDA’s) from 1990-1997, I likewise had the most positive relationships with the administration. They were fine people and I still consider them as friends. Much the same could be said of my Adventist undergraduate and seminary professors at Andrews University (an Adventist denominational school). I do not have a bad word to say about anyone in the SDA Church that I ever had the pleasure to work with or under. In my experience they are good folks trying to do right as they see it. In addition to my good relationships with leaders of the Church in the past, in my recent studies of issues relating to Ellen White and some of the SDA doctrine which eventually led to my leaving the SDA church, persons with whom I dealt gave me the utmost respect and courtesy. I continue to respect these men, and will for the rest of my life. Not just one or two, but every one of them were "tops" in dealing with me. I write the above paragraphs so you, the reader, will sense my spirit and intention as I write about my journey out of the SDA church. I left reluctantly and I left with remorse that my decision would disappoint leaders who have stood with me at each juncture of my ministry. My professors were there when I came to them as a young man just out of the Marine Corps. They helped me through the maturing process, as my personality softened under the influence of the spirit of Christ. They were there at my ordination, they supported me through the trials of the ministry to my local churches and they were there supporting me as I entered the military to serve as a chaplain. Please do not misunderstand, my reluctance and remorse in leaving Adventism are not because I do not stand by the integrity and Biblical correctness of my decision. I do, very much so. But the reason I make mention of this remorse is because I know many of the people I respect within Adventism will reason that I left because I fell away from the Lord to one degree or another. After all, since Adventists believe the SDA church represents the best presentation of Biblical truth on earth, they must reason that I left the "truth". So Adventism has done a great deal of good in my life. My professors, for the most part, taught me biblical Christianity. So you might be asking, "What’s the problem? You liked the leadership and truly found Christ?" I would answer that that is correct. I did. But in life, and in the area of religion, it is possible to find Christ in spite of our contortions of the Word of God. Jesus remarked to the religionists outside Jerusalem, if the people did not praise God, the very rocks would cry out. God is big enough to use even a church that was founded on false doctrine. And God used Adventism to reach me, but God never leaves us where He finds us. That I found Christ in Adventism does not provide a "pass" for a church that teaches false doctrine. The system of Adventism must bring itself fully into line with the Bible. Many others have fallen victim to the false teachings of Adventism and as a result teach and believe lies of legalism and other heretical teachings of Mrs. Ellen White. KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING ADVENTISM: Adventism is a unique system of beliefs held together by one idea more then any other. That idea is that Adventism is "right", that Adventism represents "truth". It is an idea that has a powerful influence on church members. If challenged, Adventists will digest and interpret information about doctrine with the premise that: "Adventists are right". I have to admit that for years that idea, that I was "right" and had the "truth," kept me from really reading to "understand" the perspectives of those who would question Adventist beliefs. Rather then reading to understand, I read to defend Adventism, I read to find the faults in the arguments of my "foes," as I saw them. I suppose its all part of the human condition; we are naturally defensive with regard to our beliefs. But I have come to believe that this tendency is exploited foundationally from early Adventist teaching. For the many years I was an Adventist I saw myself as a person with an open mind. I kept reading the opposition’s material but with each new book or article that I read, I felt comforted to conclude that the writer was wrong, and that Adventists were right…again! Lucky for the SDA church, most books and articles that seek to critique or attack Adventism simply do not understand the workings of Adventist thinking. So my thinking went largely unchallenged. As I said, the human mind is wired to defend itself against change. When an important belief is challenged and someone makes a credible point against the validity of an Adventist doctrine, the Adventist believer thinks of another Adventist doctrine in which they "know" themselves to be right and also "know" the author is "wrong", thus trumping any validity to the point made by the critic. For instance, if a writer is perceived to be "wrong" on the State of the Dead, then he can not be trusted to rightly evaluate the Adventist understanding of the "Investigative Judgment." But more then that, most Adventists would simply not even read the author. The Adventist will refer back to other things they believe the author is wrong about. Simply put, Adventism is an "Us versus Them" construction. Usually, Adventists do not deal with one issue at a time because they see churches as "wholes", as systematic doctrinal schemes. In Biblical terms, Adventism believes itself to be the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, the true Church of God (Rev. 12). Members of other denominations are simply "non-Adventists." Catholic believers are represented as those who are following the woman who rides the beast, and Protestant churches are the harlot daughters of the beast. (Some Adventists do not hold these views, particularly the more mature members who see past these ideas and hold a more Christian understanding of Bible prophecy.) As a result, those who would detract from the validity of Adventism do so with a tremendous handicap. Adventists see the body of doctrines that is "Adventism" to be "the truth" as a whole, or if not all truth, at least the best exposition of truth that exists. Adventists could only expect or accept a valid attack to come from someone who is right on all points of doctrine, and have a clear system of "truth". Since other churches are seen to be tainted with error and represent the "chaos" of spiritual Babylon it is unlikely that anyone will be accepted as having the credibility to break down these presuppositions. Of course, the truth is that no person or denomination has every piece of truth perfectly figured out. We will all be learning and discovering our infinite God throughout eternity. As a side note, Adventism also heightens the importance of issues that are secondary in nature with regard to human salvation, while at the same time maximizing the importance of issues that are heretical and undermine the core message of salvation. Early Adventism demonstrated this clearly when it taught the Arian doctrine (the belief that Jesus is not God but a created being like humans) while making the practice of the Sabbath a testing truth for salvation. Thus the doctrine of the trinity was perverted and the Sabbath was taught as a saving truth. Another problem is that it is not possible for critics to deal with the 27 doctrines of Adventism at the same time. As a result, Adventists will just mentally remind themselves that the critic who makes a good point in one area is wrong about a doctrine that is not under discussion in another area. It is a kind of Catch 22 for anyone seeking to find the cracks in the armor of Adventism. Conceptually, Adventism sees itself as a "ship" on a journey to the second coming of Jesus. The ship is similar in concept to Noah’s ark. If an Adventist leaves the denomination they are leaving the ship. To them, other ships (denominations) are false ships, or at best, sinking ships. Adventists believe, on this basis, that they are in great danger and will most likely be "lost" as a result of leaving Adventism. So this last emotional issue combines with the other intellectual issues to make Adventists slow to change. This operates as a powerful deterrent to discourage those who might otherwise honestly question or challenge what they have been taught. To the credit of those who dealt with me, this was never mentioned. HOW DID I BREAK THROUGH THAT KIND OF THINKING? If Adventist believers are reluctant to deal with doctrines "one by one" and therefore will not evaluate doctrines individually, what is to be done? How can an honest Adventist really come to a fair and honest evaluation of his or her belief system as it is taught in the Adventist Church? I think my experience will be helpful to the reader. I remember when my thinking began to change. I have to admit I did not expect to change, or want to change, with regard to Adventism. I was very content as an Adventist. I had supportive denominational leaders, who I consider friends to this very day. I have a good marriage, great kids and am doing well as a Chaplain. It is somewhat of a paradox that it was my contentment with life and with Adventism that ultimately led me to leave. Since things were going so well for me I was ready for another challenge. I remembered my old friend from college, Pastor Clayton Peck, now, no longer an Adventist pastor. Clay is the pastor of a non-denominational church called Grace Place located in Berthoud Colorado. I thought, "If I take my time with him and see what’s going on with his thinking, I might be able to bring him back into the church. I reasoned he probably was emotionally hurt from battling the Adventist church over contemporary worship issues. "Clay is a good man and a serious Christian, He will come back. After all, every honest person will have to conclude Adventists are right!" And thus, from my world of contentment and harmony, I e-mailed Clay and began a dialog. For weeks we talked about the Sabbath, the Sanctuary and Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment and I made arguments I was proud of and felt were logically sound. Clay was a gentleman in every respect. He was patient, kind and respectful, he stayed with the issues consistently. I remembered why I liked him so much in our school days. Then one day Clay said, "Dave, would you do something for me? Would you read about the Shut Door doctrine in early Adventism? And before you do, read the story of Israel Dammon on the www.ellenwhiteexposed.com site on the internet." He continued, "I believe Ellen White is an issue that has to be settled before we can really talk productively about issues of Bible doctrine. If EGW has doctrinal authority as an inspired prophet of God, then she holds the trump card on any theological discussion we might have. You have to somehow end up where EGW was on all the major issues. On the other hand, if she does not have doctrinal authority, we can go back and objectively study the Bible." I felt his request was reasonable, I also felt that this would be a good opportunity to share some of Ellen White’s material that I felt would be persuasive in reclaiming him for Adventism. I believed wholeheartedly that Ellen White was a prophet and now I could prove it. I have a double major in religion from Andrews University and a Master of Divinity from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary. I graduated Magna Cum Laude from undergraduate school, and while seminary had no such recognition program, I had a respectable Grade Point Average there too. So I felt that I understood the issues and was well equipped to defend the truth. I did not know it then but Clay had asked me to evaluate the "lynchpin" of Adventism. An honest evaluation of Ellen White and her role in Adventism is absolutely essential before Adventists can honestly study Bible doctrine. Some wax eloquent about the beauty of "this doctrine" or "that" and its special meaning for Christians. Others speak about the freedom and the joy in Christ of being set free from "this regulation" or "that teaching". However, when it comes to Adventists, these issues cannot even be discussed intelligently until the issue of the authority of Ellen White is addressed. You ask why? Some of you reading this are saying, "I don’t need Ellen White to support my beliefs, I believe, teach and support everything from the Bible!" But hold it right there for a moment. I am about to PROVE that that is impossible. Two points make it clear that Ellen White is where we must start: First, looking at Ellen White (EGW) provides us an opportunity to deal with a "concrete" issue rather than a theological one. For instance, it’s easier for us to get a handle on terms, ideas and the application of those ideas. We can deal with actual events and happenings since there is a wealth of contemporary source material to test her work as a prophet. Second, EGW is a "doctrine" in and of herself within Adventism and that has a couple of serious implications. This must not be overlooked or down played. In the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual dated 1986 and issued by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists we find listed on page 28, doctrine number: 17. "The Gift of Prophecy". "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth, which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." (emphasis supplied) Adventists will often say they support their church doctrine because of the Bible alone and not EGW. I said it too, over and over again. But I can now see that that is impossible with the above doctrine. Logic dictates that if EGW is to be used for "guidance, instruction and correction", and she is an "authoritative source of truth", then Adventism has two truth sources. So the last statement in doctrine 17 above "the Bible is the standard" is a logical fallacy as long as EGW is doctrinally held to be an authoritative source of truth as well. As I wrote above, in the system of Adventist beliefs, EGW herself is a doctrine! While I know it is possible to support the doctrine of prophets living in the end of time by the Bible, it is not possible to test a person who claims to be a prophet (or a "messenger" which EGW said encompassed all the work of a prophet and more) without looking at the things they teach, wrote and said. Do not read further until you understand this paragraph. For those Adventists who still believe that the Bible is the supreme authority and are willing to really test EGW against the Bible, consider this. If EGW is not "biblical" and contradicts the Bible when she says "I saw" or "I was shown" or relates the scenes of a vision, then Adventism is teaching false doctrine in supporting her role as a prophet in the church. That is clear, isn’t it? Since Adventism is a system that is held to be truth, if acceptance of EGW as a prophet "falls" then all Adventist teachings must come under a fresh reevaluation, with the preface understanding that Adventism is wrong about EGW. This reevaluation, ultimately, was what led me to leave Adventism. I finally concluded that EGW could not be a divinely appointed prophet. As a result I began to look at Adventist doctrine openly and honestly for the first time. This was not because I expected my doctrine to be wrong. Remember, I held it because I learned it from the Bible. But when I stopped again to really look at my doctrinal beliefs, now without EGW’s writings to "clear things up", I had to admit that Adventism makes some very bold statements on some very thin evidence. As a matter of conscience, experience, and integrity, if you or I are going to make bold extraordinary claims, we had better have extraordinary evidence. Consider your personal life. If you are going to tell your friend their spouse is unfaithful, you had better be able to back it up with facts, witnesses, pictures or something. But speculation, feelings or rumors just are not enough to risk the kind of heartache that would be caused to your friend’s marriage if you were wrong. Never mind the damage to your own reputation if you did not have solid evidence for such a charge. The early Adventists knew that EGW’s living prophetic ministry, more than the Bible, was the one issue that gave Adventism the extraordinary credibility to say extraordinary things. James White (EGW’s husband) wrote: "Our position on the Testimonies [EGW’s writings] is like the keystone to the arch. Take that out, and there is no logical stopping place till all the special truths of the message are gone. ... Nothing is surer than this, that the message and the visions belong together and stand or fall together." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Aug 14, 1883 As I wrote earlier, EGW is the "linchpin" of Adventist teaching. James White calls her the "keystone". EGW never disagreed with these words of her husband. During the time Dudley Canright (one of Adventism’s oldest and strongest critics) was still an SDA pastor he said virtually the same thing years later, and again, EGW never refuted the idea. EGW said something similar when she penned these words: "If the Testimonies [her own writings] speak not according to this word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united."-- Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691. But be certain that this is not easy to do if you are considering remaining in the Adventist Church. Open questioning is often worse then silent conclusions in Adventism. Again we read from EGW’s own hand: "Some write to me, saying that God has revealed to them that Sister White is in error, that she is influenced by the leaders to believe some things that are not true, and to reject some things that are true. But the word comes again, "Heed them not; I have not spoken by them, nor given them any word or message. They have spun lying words, from the suggestions of Satan." Selected Messages Book 2, page 76, paragraph 2 While I do not want to make more of this statement than is warranted, it does seem to say that when it comes to "beliefs" or teachings EGW says she is not to be considered wrong. She flatly denies any of her core ideas are from others or that others influenced her beliefs or writings. In the course of your wider study you will be able to evaluate if this is true. EGW asserts that her writings are not to be filtered by men but to be accepted as she wrote them. Consider this statement that clarifies what I have just said. It is from Selected Messages Book 1, page 38, paragraph 1-3 or 4: Chapter Title: Ellen G. White and Her Writings, The Sacred and the Common March 5, 1909 "I am troubled in regard to Brother A, who for some years has been a worker in southern California. He has made some strange statements, and I am pained to see him denying the testimonies as a whole because of what seems to him an inconsistency--a statement made by me in regard to the number of rooms in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium. Brother A says that in a letter written to one of the brethren in southern California, the statement was made by me that the sanitarium contained forty rooms, when there were really only thirty-eight. This, Brother A gives to me as the reason why he has lost confidence in the testimonies. . . . "The information given concerning the number of rooms in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium was given, not as a revelation from the Lord, but simply as a human opinion. There has never been revealed to me the exact number of rooms in any of our sanitariums; and the knowledge I have obtained of such things I have gained by inquiring of those who were supposed to know. In my words, when speaking upon these common subjects, there is nothing to lead minds to believe that I receive my knowledge in a vision from the Lord and am stating it as such. . . . "When the Holy Spirit reveals anything regarding the institutions connected with the Lord's work, or concerning the work of God upon human hearts and minds, as He has revealed these things through me in the past, the message given is to be regarded as light given of God for those who need it. But for one to mix the sacred with the common is a great mistake. In a tendency to do this we may see the working of the enemy to destroy souls". (emphasis mine) So in the particulars regarding "common" things, EGW uses the information she has from human sources and we should not think she is claiming that God has told her these things. EGW says that it is only on theological matters that we should hold her to absolute "truth", or as she says, "light given of God" since these are the issues God himself has shown her. So if we find EGW taught false doctrine in Biblical matters we should remember that she believed it was shown to her in a vision or dream from God and that would qualify her as a false prophet. But it would not be fair to question her on issues about common things that do not have an impact on theology. Again EGW counseled pastors not to interpret her theological content but to allow it to be accepted as it is written. She wrote: "God has given me a marked, solemn experience in connection with His work; and you may be assured that so long as my life is spared, I shall not cease to lift a warning voice as I am impressed by the Spirit of God, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. I have no special wisdom in myself; I am only an instrument in the Lord's hands to do the work He has set for me to do. The instructions that I have given by pen or voice have been an expression of the light that God has given me. I have tried to place before you the principles that the Spirit of God has for years been impressing upon my mind and writing on my heart. "And now, brethren, I entreat you not to interpose between me and the people, and turn away the light which God would have come to them. Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. Do not feel that you can dissect them to suit your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united. For Christ's sake do not confuse the minds of the people with human sophistry and skepticism, and make of none effect the work that the Lord would do. Do not, by your lack of spiritual discernment, make of this agency of God a rock of offense whereby many shall be caused to stumble and fall, "and be snared, and be taken." Testimonies Vol 5, p. 691, written 1889 (emphasis mine) Once more: "At times I am carried far ahead into the future and shown what is to take place. Then again I am shown things as they have occurred in the past. After I come out of vision I do not at once remember all that I have seen, and the matter is not so clear before me until I write, then the scene rises before me as was presented in vision, and I can write with freedom. Sometimes the things which I have seen are hid from me after I come out of vision, and I cannot call them to mind until I am brought before a company where that vision applies, then the things which I have seen come to my mind with force. I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that He is pleased to have me relate or write them." Spiritual Gifts (1860), vol. 2, pp. 292, 293. Look at what it says on the next page: "In bearing the testimony which the Lord has given me for the last fifteen years, I have been opposed by many who became my bitter enemies, especially those whose errors and sins have been revealed to me, and have been exposed by me. Some of these have carried out their feelings of revenge, as might be expected, in attacking the humble instrument, and circulating unfavorable reports against me." Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2 p. 294, written 1860. EGW considers herself an instrument in God’s hand, who is not responsible for what God has her write or say. Notice the quote below which again is meant to impress readers with the point that the words EGW speaks or writes on theological issues are God’s words which are given as God would have them be related. "The question is asked, how does Sister White know in regard to the matters of which she speaks so decidedly, as if she had authority to say these things? I speak thus because they flash upon my mind when in perplexity like lightning out of a dark cloud in the fury of a storm. Some scenes presented before me years ago have not been retained in my memory, but when the instruction then given is needed, sometimes even when I am standing before the people, the remembrance comes sharp and clear, like a flash of lightning, bringing to mind distinctly that particular instruction. At such times I cannot refrain from saying the things that flash into my mind, not because I have had a new vision, but because that which was presented to me perhaps years in the past has been recalled to my mind forcibly." The Writing and Sending Out of the Testimonies, p.24. EGW is absolutely clear. She says her words should be taken as they are, if we find theological error, her role as a prophet should be rejected. She says that in relating her visions, God is in control. So Adventists must deal with EGW and decide if she is a true prophet or not. She cannot be ignored. If a person believes EGW to be a prophet, then to be honest, they must heed her instruction to investigate her, and accept or reject her on the basis of the conclusions reached. To do that we must read what she wrote. I will share some of the research I have done on an early doctrine of Adventism known as the "Shut Door doctrine". This is the idea that in 1844 Jesus moved to the throne of God in the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary just prior to the second coming of Jesus in glory. The idea that the door was shut to the lost was first taught by disappointed Millerites (but then it was the door of the parable of the 10 virgins) who soon (shortly after October 22nd 1844) rejected it. Many early Adventists who had not come under the influence of EGW rejected it like others, until EGW had a vision that assured them that the work for sinners was in fact, finished. Due to that false vision of EGW, work for the lost among Adventists would not begin again for nearly seven years. But that evidence will come later. Now watch out, if EGW is rejected then something momentous has happened. A doctrine of Adventism is seen to be wrong. A teaching of the SDA Church is seen to be a "false teaching". We could therefore say with complete honesty that Seventh-day Adventists teach at least one "false doctrine". Do you see why EGW is so important? I hope now you will study this question with a personal stake in it, to be honest with yourself, no matter what the conclusion. EGW represents a test case. If Adventists are wrong about her, then the next logical question is what else could they be wrong about. Perhaps Pastor Clay Peck knew that when he asked me to study the issue. This is not to say other doctrines of Adventism must be wrong, but that Adventists should reevaluate their beliefs without the smugness that comes from believing you have a recently living prophet verifying your conclusions and beliefs. There is one doctrine of Adventism however that must be wrong if EGW is rejected. That is the doctrine of the `Remnant’. Since EGW is 50% of the support for teaching that Adventism is the Remnant Church of Bible prophecy, if she goes, so too does this doctrine. So in agreement with Pastor Peck I went off to really investigate the issues surrounding EGW. I decided to look at both sides, to read the material "pro and con" and make my best defense. I was confident I would be able to see through the lies that sought to discredit this powerful woman of God, as I then saw her. I checked out the Ellen White Estate Web Site and the material at Andrews University on their web site. I looked at the detractors' (critics') material too. I read books, lots of them. I read Pro-Adventist books including the following: I read Messenger of the Lord by Dr. Herbert E. Douglass, Luke, a Plagiarist? by George Rice, Why I Believe in Mrs. E. G. White and Ellen White and Her Critics by Francis D. Nichol, I Was Canright’s Secretary by Carrie Johnson, The World of Ellen G. White Edited by Gary Land, The Ellen G. White Writings by Arthur L. White, Early Writings by Ellen White, Testimonies Volume One by Ellen White, The Great Controversy by Ellen White, The Desire of Ages by Ellen White, Steps to Christ by Ellen White, "Foundations…by Damsteegt and a dozen or so other pro Ellen White books. I also read numerous articles seeking to defend or promote the writings of Ellen White from hard copies I had in my library and those I found on the web sites. On the other side I read White Washed by Sydney Cleveland, Prophetess of Health: Ellen G. White by Dr. Ronald Numbers, The White Lie by Walter Rea, Life of Mrs. White by D.M. Canright, Visions of White by Snook and Brinkerhoff, and The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism by Dale Ratzlaff, as well as numerous articles from web sites critical to Adventism. Newer books such as Dale Ratzlaff’s The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism, written in 1996, are much more effective in breaking the assumptions of Adventist believers. Dale uses logic and Biblical truths accepted by Adventists of today to show that no matter what you think about today’s Adventism, when Adventism was formed it taught false doctrine. Think about what I just wrote. At the same time Adventism formulated the doctrine that it was the one true Remnant Church of Bible prophecy, I found that Adventism was teaching clear heresy that all Adventists would reject today, such as the Arian heresy (that Jesus is not eternally God) and the Shut Door in heaven which taught Adventists to stop sharing the Gospel to the lost. Dale gives evidence of such false teachings for readers to evaluate themselves. As a result, modern Adventists are able to imagine themselves rejecting the Adventist church if they had lived when it started because it was teaching heresy they could not accept today. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the same standards of truth for the people who lived at the beginning of Adventism would apply to us today. Error is error and truth is truth. This idea of obvious false doctrines in Adventism in the early years of the church really challenged me. Ellen White said that all those who rejected early Adventism (with it’s accompanying false doctrines) were lost! EGW said all the false doctrines of Adventism in the beginning were true, that they were present truth. Isn’t that an interesting proposition? If a Methodist or Baptist rejected the false teachings of early Adventism, EGW says they would be lost for not accepting present truth! Imagine if Adventists still taught the Arian heresy. If I were to say to a Christian who believes Jesus is fully God: "Join my church, we reject Jesus as God but we do teach the correct Sabbath." Right or not about the Sabbath issue the serious Christian would respond: "Sorry, Jesus is my God and Savior as the Bible says, I could not join a Church which rejects Jesus as God." Some Adventists today actually have the gall to say that the errors of the past were present truth at the time! Give me a break! Would you have rejected Adventism on the grounds I outlined? I would have. Which is more important, Jesus’ role as God and Savior or the teaching of the Sabbath? James White went to his grave teaching Jesus was a created being and was not fully God. Uriah Smith a major figure of early Adventism lived most of his life teaching the same. And EGW only "clarified" the issue on the side of the Trinity after her husband was long dead. I dialoged at some length with the university professor who taught the Ellen White class at my Alma Mater as well as the religion department chairman there. In that dialog I wrote an imaginary story that was no doubt lived out to some extent in the lives of early Adventists. I have altered it slightly for ease of reading in this testimony: My department chairman asked me: "Just which one of the key, mature teachings of EGW would you want to jettison? Can you accuse her of portraying a false Gospel in the final analysis? Has the over all tenor of her work been to lead people to the Lord, His Word, and a vision of Christian living, self-sacrifice and witness or not?" The professor who taught the Ellen White class also asked: "Just which of Ellen White's broader expositions of Bible truth do you want to throw out?" I responded: I am not able to look at these things as irrelevant just because they happened more then a hundred years ago. I have to say: What if these things were taught today? It was "today" to the founders when they taught that Jesus was not God. It was "today" when the founders taught that the Gospel was not to be shared with the lost. It was "today" in the lives of hundreds of early believers when all of this was happening that they said that Adventism was the true Church of God on earth and other Churches and their members represented the "lost" the "rejected of God" and "Babylon". I cannot say these things are small when I consider that they had a contemporary audience, that they applied these things to their witness for Christ and to their life. These false teachings were of fundamental importance and destroyed the Gospel message. EGW condemned the faithful pastors of non-millerites and later on, the faithful witness of non-Adventists. She says that God no longer listened to their prayers because they rejected Miller and his teachings and later her teachings. She says they are lost when they reject her false teachings about the gospel being closed to anyone who was not a part of the Millerite 1844 date setting fiasco and the subsequent teaching of the "Shut Door". We cannot explain these things away saying they were "Present Truth" (Adventism says false doctrines of the past were okay, since they were somehow true for that time!). No, they were errors, errors about salvation, errors about the Gospel, and just because change came to some of these things we cannot say that when error was taught in the name of God that it was not heresy. God does not lie. Not even to make His points. Imagine this scenario of those early events: It is the year 1844, and I am a young Brethren Church member. I am Arminian rather then Calvinist, (I believe it is possible to be lost having once been saved, as do the Methodists). I am a Trinitarian, I believe in adult believer baptism, and know salvation is by grace alone. My friend, who is with me, is a Seventh-day Baptist (SD , he likewise holds similar beliefs but also the particulars of the Seventh-day Baptists (for the purpose of this illustration I will not debate their rightness or wrongness). I tell my friend who is the SDB that I am drawn to the persuasive words and teachings of those who are preaching Mr. Miller's ideas. My pastor at the Brethren Church and my SDB friend remind me that no one can know the day or the hour of Christ's coming. They say that the Millerites, though persuasive and seeming to have Biblical reasons for their teachings, are still wrong. My friends quote from the Bible "The first to come forward and present his case, seems right until another comes forward and questions him". "These Millerites are teaching in direct opposition to the word of God," they say. "No man knows when Jesus is coming again". I refuse to listen to my friends. I respond that there is too much of "God" in this. I do not fully understand it, but "Miller is right!" I declare. I join the Millerites and expectantly wait for the Second Coming on Oct., 22 1844. But on the 26th of October 1844, a few days after my terrible disappointment, (since Jesus did not come as expected) my Pastor and my SDB friend approach me and say: "We are sorry Dave. We live and learn. Hopefully this experience will teach you to trust God’s word over the persuasive messages of preachers who disregard it's plain warnings." I can reply in one of two ways… I can say: "Yes, I see what you were trying to tell me now. If only I would have believed the Bible's clearest warning about ‘the day and the hour’ rather then following the complex numerical calculations of Mr. Miller." Or I might say: "Wait, it all worked out in the charts that Mr. Miller provided. We could not have been wrong. I must look for the true answer to this because it is very important for me, something must have happened on 22 October 1844!" If I reply the first way I can get on with my Christian living and the work of sharing Christ to the lost. If I reply the second way, another scenario develops. Let us see how that second scenario develops. I search for an explanation of the disappointment. Not getting beyond my past interpretation of Oct. 22, 1844, as a date of prophecy, I settle on the answers of James and Ellen White and those who stand with them. This time I proclaim, with the Whites: That we are among the "Remnant" (the last true followers of Jesus); Ellen White is God's special messenger or prophet; The door of salvation is shut to the wicked world (no new converts from among the unsaved). No more teaching of the Gospel to the lost; Millerites who have not continued trying to understand Oct. 22, 1844 are all lost; I look forward to Christ’s Second Coming in 1851, seven years of a "tarrying time" (a waiting time) have elapsed, along with the Whites and brother Bates, who likewise have accepted EGW's role as a prophet; The Sabbath is the Third Angels message of Rev 14 and it runs from 6pm to 6pm; I have given up the doctrine of the Trinity. There is only one God! Jesus is created. James White has assured me and his wife the prophet has not spoken to say he is wrong; I accept the Sanctuary message and the Investigative Judgment, learning that I must faithfully reproduce the character of Jesus to vindicate Jesus against Satan’s accusations; I am really feeling good now since I know these "truths". I reassure myself that there is safety in following truth. We were wrong in teaching that 1844 would be the Second Coming but we have grown in great light from God. All of those who have turned their backs on truth no longer have the light of God in their lives, this I know since EGW has informed me of this. God has truly smiled upon my willingness to follow truth wherever it leads. I try to live holy and I do not waste my time on unbelievers, since they are forever lost. My SDB friend visits me again. Since he has heard that I now believe in the Sabbath, we discuss it together. He tells me the Bible is clear, if I am going to keep the Sabbath it begins at sundown and should be kept as the Bible says or it is not being kept! I am wrong, he declares, to try to keep it from 6pm to 6pm. He tells me that salvation is in Christ and Jesus is fully God, it is only in Jesus "as God", he says, that he could provide for our salvation. He warns me again that there is no Biblical evidence for a seven-year tarrying time ending in 1851. He gently repeats to me that this is the same mistake that I made concerning 1844 and I am repeating it. He tells me that it is crazy to accept the teachings of people who are listening to EGW's "visions" which teach that salvation is closed for all the lost, including even the sincere Millerites who will not listen to the shut-door Adventists. Again he assures me that I am wrong, and shows from the Bible that salvation is open to all until Jesus returns. I reject his counsel. I have been with the Adventists for six years and I feel that they are "meeting my needs" and I find assurances that I am correct through the prophetic role of EGW. I ask myself, "Which one of the fallen Churches of Babylon who are prostituting themselves to the Beast have a living prophet?!" 1851 comes and goes, I am still on earth, I am a little disappointed again but I am O.K. with this "minor" disappointment, after all we were pre-warned by our Adventist leadership months ago that Jesus sets his own times. We are told Jesus might have come if we were more faithful. I feel guilty that I have not been more faithful. Was it my fault Jesus did not come? Some time in 1851 a man is converted to Adventism and the Whites accept it as a true conversion even though he was not part of the Millerite movement! How can this be? Boy, we are changing, but that is O.K., I have to admit I feel a bit relieved about salvation being open to the lost now, because I never felt comfortable with the teaching that everyone but Adventists were in "darkness" and lost. I feel bad I did not share my faith to my agnostic brother before he died last month. But I thought, what's the use, he’s lost anyway "the door was shut!" But I console myself; God is good, He knows what He is doing. 1853(4) comes and the Sabbath hours are revised to "Even to Even"! I think back to my conversation with my SDB friend. He was right after all! "No matter," I say, I'm right now too. I feel troubled about these changes that reflect the beliefs of churches within Babylon, but I feel the Lord has led me. I am reminded by the writings of EGW that the only way I can really get into trouble "is to forget the way the Lord has led me in the past." It is now 1855; my old Pastor and friend see me at the grocery store. "Hello Dave," they greet me, "how are things going? I understand the Church has changed some of their doctrine again?" "Yes," I say, a little embarrassed, "We are following ‘Present Truth’, so we can expect to advance in the light as it comes to us." My friends are somewhat incredulous. "What?" they say. "When we presented these same truths to you a few years ago, you rejected them and called us Babylon! You said you were in the ‘Remnant’ church. You said we were rejecting true light as taught by the Adventists! Forgive us Dave, but now you wake up to the same things we were saying all along just because your leaders starting teaching it years after we told you so, and now you say it is ‘Present Truth’?! Give us a break!" "Forgive us," they continue, "but you are deceived Dave, and you have no credibility with us anymore." "The Adventists have been teaching false doctrine (as I now readily admit) for years, and Dave, you said they were right. You can't explain it away saying that `it was true for that time' when it was error for all time!!!! It now turns out that we `Babylonians’ were right all along and after these years how can you look at us with a straight face and say, you have ‘present truth?!?!’" I look to my friends and hang my head in embarrassment and shame. I have rejected all of their solid Biblical counsel for years because it did not come through those I trusted in "My Church". I go home to my wife and kids and quietly eat my dinner, ashamed to admit the truth--my friends we right all along. This is not an unreasonable scenario. In fact, to one extent or another it was most likely lived out in the lives of "hundreds" of early Seventh-day Adventists (I say hundreds and not thousands because most people did not join the Adventists with their many clear heresies until a decade or so passed between them and the memory of their worst anti-Gospel heresies). Adventism of today has a right, like any other Church, to defend its doctrines on the basis of Bible study. It cannot appeal to the leading of God in their church history. They readily admit that they were more wrong than the Seventh-day Baptists on the Sabbath issue (the rightness or wrongness of either group’s current position not being under discussion). As we can see from this story, error is never "Present Truth". In the light of hindsight, how can Adventism maintain that these things were true in any sense whatsoever? But EGW maintained either that: a. These teachings were true for their time b. She never taught these errors c. Others were distorting the Adventist positions. But the evidence reveals she did believe and teach these things, proclaiming that God validated these teachings through her visions and dreams as a prophet. She is therefore a false prophet for doing so. Her denials of what really happened are a secondary issue of integrity. Adventists regularly dismiss these particulars and appeal to the fruit of the ministry of EGW, supposing it to be good spiritual fruit. But that is not an easy sell to those who are versed in her first 40 years of "ministry" which can be demonstrated to be very, very bad fruit. At the most fundamental level, she taught a false Gospel. Only as she matured and accepted the doctrines of the Methodists, Brethren, and Seventh-day Baptists, who she had years earlier relegated to the roles of the lost, would she again speak with a more Biblical voice. If you or I were caught teaching the things I have spoken about, you would not hesitate to condemn me as wrong, wouldn’t you agree? Adventists feel justified in saying that the Bible writers did similar things to what we find in EGW. But friend, NONE of the Bible writers ever had a vision that taught heresy as truth. Some of the Bible writers may have been hypocrites at times and all were sinners, but scripture never teaches hypocrisy and error as truth! Some Adventists appeal to personal experience. But as biblical Christians, we cannot appeal to personal experience because although experience is valuable, it is not enough. The experiences of dozens of false movements with "prophets", so called, demonstrate that. Adventism can only test prophets and test itself by the Bible. I hope that the reader can see that I am not, and I was not, looking for perfection. Perfection is not reasonable to expect from humanity. I do not look for it even in God’s prophets. If Ellen White had stolen cars, committed adultery and murder, I could say, well, we all sin. After all, King David did some very terrible things. So, no, I am not looking for perfection in the life of EGW. The things I am outlined are "damning" not just "damaging" to early Adventist credibility. EGW was teaching error in the name of God and claiming her visions were the source of that error. Biblical writers have never said "God showed me..." and then had what they prophesied turn out to be error. Never. Cases such as Jonah’s prophecy to Nineveh and Isaiah with Hezekiah demonstrate contextually their conditional nature. Adventists who point to these Bible stories to mitigate the charges against EGW are unable to point to similar EGW documentation to show her predictions are conditional. When EGW speaks she says that she is not only led by God in the receiving of the visions and dreams but also in the relating of them. So, they are just as God would have them to be delivered with no mention of conditionality in historical context or in the "testimonies" of EGW themselves. EGW says: "At times I am carried far ahead into the future and shown what is to take place. Then again I am shown things as they have occurred in the past. After I come out of vision I do not at once remember all that I have seen, and the matter is not so clear before me until I write, then the scene rises before me as was presented in vision, and I can write with freedom. Sometimes the things which I have seen are hid from me after I come out of vision, and I cannot call them to mind until I am brought before a company where that vision applies, then the things which I have seen come to my mind with force. I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It is impossible for me to call up things which have been shown me unless the Lord brings them before me at the time that He is pleased to have me relate or write them. Spiritual Gifts (1860), vol. 2, pp. 292, 293. After she says this in unequivocal terms, her defenders, in light of her clear teaching of error on things such as the Shut Door must say, "Well, she must have misunderstood the visions she received". What is so difficult for EGW to understand when she reads (or as she claims, sees in vision) about the simple Gospel message? How does the message of universal salvation to all the repentant world get turned around to the degree that EGW is able to say God told her the Gospel age is over in 1844!? The answer is that God did not speak to her. Mrs. White did understand what she wrote. That is the point in the above quotation. I will share the content of the Shut Door visions below for you to evaluate yourself. EGW says that when God was ready for her to relate a point, then that point was brought to her mind with force! But Adventists want so badly to salvage her they say she misunderstood it. The Bible says: 2 Peter 1:20 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation". So if we were to accept the defender’s explanation, we would have to accept that EGW misunderstood what God was saying and then taught that error in the name of God. EGW would teach what she thought God was saying even when she did not really know by providing her own interpretation, so her quote (see above) would amount to little more than a bold faced lie. This, then, would serve as another evidence she is a false prophet. This all adds up to one unavoidable conclusion. Adventist history does not show Adventism to be the "Remnant" of Bible prophecy. Adventism is severely flawed doctrinally; even more than the Protestant churches that Adventism wants to label "Babylon". But there is one important difference: Adventism cannot admit its errors or grow out of them as long as they hold to the teaching that EGW is a prophet of God. EGW was right in one important statement that went like this: "Believers are in great danger if they forget the leading of the Lord in the past." SO WHAT ABOUT ADVENTISM NOW, TODAY? On paper, in their doctrinal statements, Adventists continue to be very heretical legalists. And that is why they struggle with the "Historical Adventists" who seek to faithfully reproduce early Adventism with its associated heresies. Historical Adventists are clearly legalists. Other Adventists, Adventists who read their Bibles and do not spend a great deal of time in the writings of the church and EGW are often true Christians because they neglect Adventism’s particulars which they probably do not understand or care to understand. They embrace the clearer Bible message about salvation by grace. I wrote to a member of the staff at the Ellen White Estate and it carries such an orderly form I have decided to reproduce it for the reader much as I sent it out to that staff member. It demonstrates the extent of the denial of the real issues concerning EGW. Here is that e-mail response. I have added some clarification in parenthesis. The Ellen White Estate Staff member (name omitted), wrote: Was she (EGW) human and hence fallible? Of course. But do these failings warrant classifying her as a false prophet? No. Moses killed an Egyptian; he also disobeyed God by striking the rock twice. Should we therefore declare him to be a false prophet and discard the Pentateuch? No. This would be "flyspecking (nitpicking)." David committed adultery, murdered, and lied. Should we therefore discard the Psalms? Of course not. Then what should we say about Ellen White, whose ministry has led thousands to Jesus? I responded: When I read that I wondered if we were talking about the same subject. I have no problem with EGW's humanity. I have a problem with her saying "God showed me" when God did not show her. This is very different then having a problem with her sins. He wrote: If Ellen White were alive, we could ask her to explain what she meant by "I was shown" or "I saw" in various instances. And I am sure we would receive a clear, satisfying answer. I responded: When she was alive many of these questions were put to her. Some by Adventist Doctors, and she never answered them. They asked her, "how could God show you about the sins of an individual when those sins never happened?" EGW was given the opportunity to explain many of these things. She chose not to answer, there is no record she every responded to these questions. That leaves us with the responsibility to answer them for ourselves as responsible Christians. He wrote: I feel very comfortable with the fact that Ellen White did not at first understand the meaning of what God showed her. God does the best He can with the instruments available to Him. I responded: In essence you feel comfortable laying the responsibility or blame for these heretical teachings at the feet of God. Preaching and teaching the nearness of the Second Coming of Christ as did the Bible writers is not the same as preaching a timetable and a date for the Second Coming. The Bible tells us this is NOT to be done. The chart that William Miller used to preach that Jesus would come in 1843 was stamped with divine approval by EGW. How could the chart showing biblical evidence for Jesus second Coming to earth in 1843 be in any sense "true"? That is a clear heretical teaching which contradicts the clear word of scripture. It is the responsibility of the communicator to communicate. If EGW "misunderstood" her visions then God is responsible. He wrote: You say that EGW "is a head injury victim." The brother in Canada diagnosed her as having temporal lobe epilepsy. A large committee of specialists in this field examined this charge several years ago. The substance of their carefully worded statement in response was, "No way." My own response is, "If temporal lobe epilepsy can have such a positive effect on a person as it did on Ellen White, may God give us more people with the affliction." I dismiss the charge as having no merit. I responded: I raise this as a ‘possible’ defense for EGW's false teachings. It is my honest attempt to defend her from charges of "knowingly perpetrating evil". If you disregard this possibility we are left with no reasonable answer than to say EGW was knowingly deceiving God's people, as you will see below in further responses. He wrote: Other churches that grew out of the Millerite movement --for example, the Advent Christian church--are virtually inconsequential today, and as F. D. Nichol once remarked (in substance) to one of their church leaders who attributed the remarkable vitality and growth of the SDAs to "better leadership," "No, my brother, the difference was that from the beginning God gave the Spirit of prophecy to a frail young woman in New England (EGW)." I responded: I don't think size is a valid measure of success when it comes to "denominationalism". The issue is "Christianity". In other words, other groups that grew out of the Millerite heresy and died as believers went back to Christian Churches who did not hold to Millerism and their descendents are in those groups. A topically dedicated denominational edifice like "Seventh-day Adventist" is not required to gauge positive impact. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations with prophets have done relatively well. Does their success equate to truth or that God's will is being accomplished? I think you are correct however in that EGW is the reason Adventism and its denominational identity have remained intact. Without her role as a "prophet" within Adventism, the false teachings of Adventism's early years and subsequent lingering differences from evangelical Christianity would have caused us to rejoin with the larger Bible believing community. Adventism has largely changed its modern ‘presentation’ with regard to things like the Investigative Judgment and the Sanctuary to bring them more into harmony with the evangelical world. Generally, as they are currently understood and taught by pastors such as myself and the Adventist Chaplaincy Endorser for instance, they are not heresy. But as long as Adventism supports EGW’s role as a prophet it will forever be assailed by those purists who wish to teach the doctrine as presented by EGW and early Adventism such as is currently the case with those who call themselves "Historical Adventists". If EGW's statements were available and read by the masses of the Adventist Church, we would see more of the heresies of the "Historical" Adventists. Make no mistake about it; the abuses of the Historical Adventists originate from a faithful application of EGW's own words. Just as in her own time there was a church congregation which burned their photos in response to EGW's comments that photos were idolatry, only to have EGW chastise them for applying her words as they were written! He wrote: With regard to the statement EGW made about some who lived in her time living to see Jesus come and others who would be "food for worms". To me, this comes within the framework of conditional prophecy. God wanted to have the gospel message, in the context of the three angels' messages, carried to the world soon after 1844. His people did not rally to the extent necessary. Christ's coming has been delayed further by insubordination. Should we blame the prophet or the people? If the prophet, what shall we say about statements such as "Behold, I come quickly" and "Surely I come quickly" (Rev. 22 , 20)? And shall we call Paul a false apostle because he said, "Yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry" (Heb. 10:37)?"I responded: Preaching the nearness or the sureness of the Second Coming is very different from fixing a time or window of time for the event. Again, you feel comfortable blaming God for this and suggest that God misled biblical prophets in the past. Further, in an effort to defend EGW you repeat a defense she was fond of--you blame the people of the church. This attempt to defend EGW by creating guilt and laying it at the feet of the people is offensive. Her statement was neither general as in the instances you just cited, nor was it conditional as was Jonah's. She said nothing about conditionality and the people present report nothing conditional about her statement. In the Bible’s abbreviated story of Jonah the response of the people to humble themselves is contextual proof that the prophecy was delivered conditionally. Nothing in scripture even remotely equates to the false teachings of the "Shut Door" doctrine where EGW proclaimed an end to the Gospel age! Nor is there anything similar to the EGW "food for worms" error under discussion. He wrote: As we know from epistemology (the study of the nature or grounds of knowledge), one best gains new knowledge by connecting it with the familiar. But what if you have no adequate frame of reference for the new knowledge? You may need time and new information to get it right. In Mrs. White's case, the Holy Spirit kept working with her until the truth became clear. Ellen White rightly acknowledged her full dependence on the Holy Spirit both in giving her a vision and in explaining it. But that did not mean her understanding was infallible. I responded: I must take decided issue with you here. The historical record indicates that there was a clear "framework" for EGW to understand and teach truth "if" it had been revealed to her by God. Joseph Turner (an early Millerite Adventist) first taught the "Shut Door" as EGW would later teach it. What is more, Adventists were beginning to teach the door of salvation was open to sinners for repentance shortly after the 1844 disappointment, only to have EGW stop them "cold" and hold them in error for an additional 6-7 years! The issues were abundantly clear. The early Adventists were even identified as being "Sabbath and Shut door" people. Clearly the framework for understanding was overwhelming. Either folks outside the Millerite movement could be saved or they could not. This was not rocket science or brain surgery. God’s words says: "Go therefore and preach the Gospel to all nations…" What possible framework was lacking for EGW to misunderstand God's word as it is written and instead proclaim: "My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of souls for sinners as used to be. I LOOKED BUT COULD NOT SEE IT FOR THE TIME FOR THEIR SALVATION IS PAST. Dear Brother and Sister, I have now written the vision God gave me. I am tired sitting so long. Our position looks very clear. WE KNOW WE HAVE THE TRUTH, THE MIDNIGHT CRY IS BEHIND US, THE DOOR WAS SHUT IN 1844 AND JESUS IS SOON TO STEP OUT FROM BETWEEN GOD AND MAN." Letter 5-1849, White Estate, (March 24-30, 1849) He wrote: Regarding EGW and the Shut Door. Ellen White maintained, and the evidence supports, that, while she and others believed for a time that no more sinners would be converted after 1844, she was never instructed in vision that the door of salvation was shut for the world. I responded: This is simply not true. EGW said she did not teach it from vision, but the evidence is overwhelming that she was either forgetful or knowingly lied about what she said and taught from her visions. EGW did teach "from her visions" that the door was shut. EGW wrote: "The light behind them (Millerites who did not become Adventists) went out leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected." Ellen G. White, A Word to the Little Flock, p. 14. Again: (my comments are capitalized) Under date of May 30, 1847, James White wrote: "When she (EGW) received her first vision, Dec. 1844, she and all the band in Portland, Maine, (where her parents then resided) had given up the midnight-cry, and shut door, as being in the past (NO LONGER TO BE BELIEVED). It was then that the Lord shew her in vision, the error into which she
| ||
|
WHY? Cherie Stark, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was born to good SDA parents. All my family were SDA's. All of them for generations back. I became SDA generation number 6. Every Sabbath I was taken to church. I loved my Sabbath School teachers, the memory verses and Jesus songs. When I was old enough off I went to Kindergarten in an SDA school. I attended the same school from Kindergarten through 12th grade. I loved my teachers, especially my first grade teacher and my high school Bible teacher who made God real to me and taught me the art of true Bible study. In a very real way I owe my relationship with my Savior to my Bible teacher. He taught me to think out of the box. I am glad for my SDA education and the influence of my family and friends. I appreciate so much the sacrifices and efforts my parents made to raise me to love God. They often went without things for themselves, and my father worked two jobs for years, so my brother and I could attend church school. They were very dedicated people and I love them for it. I was not raised in an overly strict family. Just a normal one. We ate ketchup and sugar, eggs, milk and cheese and we watched too much TV. We didn't spend a lot of time reading Mrs. White. In fact I often wondered as a child why, if she were a prophet, we did NOT read her writings. All of my family were SDA's. All my friends were SDA's. I had no problems with God or my church to speak of growing up. In fact as I look back I only have love and fondness for it and everyone in it. I have no ax to grind. I was baptized when I was 12 after an evangelistic meeting. I wanted to follow Jesus and do whatever He wanted me to do. I agreed to all the church beliefs. I agreed to never drink alcohol, smoke, do drugs, drink coffee, tea or anything with caffeine, never to wear jewelry, never to attend a movie at a movie theater and never to eat ‘unclean’ meat according to the directions given by God in the Old Testament. I agreed to worship on Sabbath and to believe in Mrs. White. That was fine. I knew no different. I had been taught these things since I was knee high to a grasshopper and I thought by doing all these things I was following Jesus. It was what I wanted to do. But by the time I was 16 I had begun to rebel. It was a funny thing though. My rebellion was really not religion based. It was due to completely different issues. At that time I felt very unloved and the way I relieved my pain was to disregard what the people who were hurting me had taught me. It started out by simple things - caffeine, nail polish and movies and by the time it ended I was eating pork, drinking and not attending church and worse. But, like I said, this rebellion was not against God Himself and I never let go of Him. I always knew He was with me. That is what is so cool about God. He does not judge us by our actions but by our hearts. He knew my rebellion was really a cry for help. This rebellion lasted until I was about 26. During this time I married my husband who was also raised SDA. He had his own issues and at that time he would not have anything to do with God. Also during this time our son was born. When our son was two years old my grandfather died. He was a sincere and godly man and I loved him. As I sat in his funeral I realized that if I did not stop my rebellion I would not ever see him again because he would be in heaven and I would not be. I realized also that my son was two and if I did not start to train him in the ‘way of the Lord’ he would not be saved either and it would be my fault. I determined right then and there that I would study and find out what the Lord required of me in order to be saved. And so I started to study. I studied the Bible. I started to go to church again on a regular basis. I started to study the Prophet. After all, if Mrs. White was a prophet then she must have special instruction to me from God. I was frustrated because my parents had not put into practice the 'instructions of God' that she taught. I wanted to do better. I wanted to be a good Christian, a good mom, and a good wife. I read and prayed and searched and studied. It is hard to describe the journey of the next five years. I found many things I was doing or not doing that were ‘wrong’. One by one I began to change those things. I felt if I did not do the things the prophet said I would ‘stand condemned before a Holy God’ and I didn’t want that. I wanted to please God. I wanted to be saved. But the more I did the more I found that I had to do. Every time I got one thing ‘conquered’ I discovered another thing I had to ‘conquer’. I became very strict with myself in everything I said and did because I did not want to ‘disobey’ God. I became very strict with my son because I wanted him to be ‘good’ so he could go to heaven. I became very exacting with my husband because I wanted him to be saved also. As you can imagine this was very hard on our marriage but I knew I was ‘following the Lord’. God must come first. My first loyalty must be to Him. Loyalty to God was shown by keeping all the rules. And so I continued. I began to eat like Mrs. White told us to. I ate no ‘unclean’ meat - in fact I became entirely vegan. I drank no caffeine, ate no chocolate, eggs or cheese, drank soy milk instead of real milk, ate no sugar - only honey, ate only things made from whole grains and ate no processed food if it could possibly be avoided. No black pepper was allowed, no spices, only flavorings from herbs. Vinegar was also out along with anything with vinegar in it like ketchup, mayonnaise or pickles. I made almost everything from scratch. After all, there was sugar or casein or some other dreadful thing in almost everything you could buy! The only solution was to do it yourself. We even started eating only 2 meals a day. I began to change the way I dressed. I wore no jewelry or make-up. I got rid of a lot of very nice clothes because they did not meet the approval of the prophet. I discarded every book, movie or music that was not about nature or God (including Winnie the Pooh). Even ones that had sentimental value. After all, was the book or movie more important or was God more important? Of course God was and He wanted me to get rid of them, didn't He? Those movies and books didn't meet with the prophet’s standards, after all. I even got rid of all the competitive games we owned. After all, if one couldn't play chess, checkers or sports because of the effect competition had on a person’s character, then other competitive games would certainly have the same detrimental effect, would they not? I became very judgmental of anyone who was not making the same ‘effort’ to ‘follow God’ that I was. I felt they were weak and did not have the devotion to God that I did. I felt that if I associated with them some of their 'bad habits' might rub off on me or my family. And so I began to be very selective of my friends (they had to be like me) and taught my son to do the same. I became so judgmental that I even felt at times that I had to 'shelter' my son from family members because they did not see things the way I did and they might 'allow' my son to do something of which I did not approve. I did many other things also. I did these things because I thought that this is what God wanted from me. I thought that to do these things made me acceptable in God’s sight and that if I did not do them I would ‘stand condemned’. I believed I had to be perfect to be saved. But God gave me a most wonderful husband. Despite the terrible HELL I put him through he stuck with me (which I consider no less than a miracle) and he was there the day I collapsed in a sobbing heap on the bed from spiritual exhaustion. He held me as I cried and cried because I realized that I couldn’t do it all. I couldn’t do all the things I thought that God required of me. He listened patiently as I cried that I wasn’t good enough to go to heaven, that God couldn’t save me and that I knew I was going to hell anyway so I might as well give up now and have fun on the way. I would have given up on God entirely right then and there but my husband, with tears in his eyes, told me that none of us are good enough. That there is nothing we can do to earn salvation. That God’s grace is what saves us. That was my first glimpse of the grace of God and I hung onto it with the desperation of a drowning man. Over the next four years many things happened. It was a rocky road but our marriage healed and I made many necessary adjustments in my parenting. The church rules were still there but I did not adhere to them as strictly as I had. I began to trust Jesus to make up for my lack. We both became very involved in church. My husband became a deacon and later on an elder. I was a deaconess, leader of one of the children’s divisions and Personal Ministries Secretary. I also had many other jobs and leadership positions. We both sat on the church board. We were both highly respected and loved by our church family. I finally began to feel that I had found spiritual peace. Then one night last November that façade of peace was shattered. My husband, unbeknown to me, had been struggling spiritually. There were some things that persistently haunted him. If Mrs. White was a prophet, and if what she said was sent directly from God, then if you did not obey her in every detail weren’t you in reality disobeying God? Why and how could a person just 'choose' which of her commands were important and must be followed and which ones were not important and could be disregarded or explained away? What about statements like that when we vote we become 'partakers with them of the sins which they commit while in office.' Christian Education page 475; and 'I saw the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, coffee.' Testimonies Vol 1, p. 20-24 (when did Jesus ever say 'I will help you if'?); and 'All true followers of Jesus will have sacrifices to make. God will prove them and test the genuineness of their faith. I have been shown that the true followers of Jesus will discard picnics, donations, shows, and other gatherings for pleasure. They can find no Jesus there, and no influence which will make them heavenly minded and increase their growth in grace.' Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 288; and 'Am I practicing true temperance in all things? Is my diet such as will bring me in a position where I can accomplish the greatest amount of good?' If we cannot answer these questions in the affirmative we stand condemned before a holy God'. Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 10, 20; and especially 'Those who accept the Savior, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved.' Christ's Object Lessons, p.155. My husband was struggling with this. He had no assurance of salvation. There is no assurance of salvation in fear. There is only fear where there is condemnation. He was ready to throw his hands up in despair and give up on God entirely because he knew he would never be ‘good enough’ to be saved. For two weeks he pleaded with God to give him something, anything, some assurance that he would be saved. As he pored over his Bible verses kept jumping out at him. Verses he had read a million times, verses he had memorized, verses the meaning of which had not ever really registered. Verses like “. . . whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life,” and “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him,” and “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” I was totally unaware of his struggle. But that night last November my husband came home, opened his Bible and asked me what all these verses meant about believing in Christ and being saved. He showed me other verses which spoke of Christ being the ‘end of the law to all who believe’ and verses about the ‘kingdom of heaven not being a matter of food and drink but of love, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’. I gave him all the answers I had been taught. “Yes, we believe Jesus saves us but . . . “ and “The only laws that Christ fulfilled were the sacrificial laws . . . “. He simply said, “That’s not what it says. Show me where in the Bible it says that the only laws Christ fulfilled were the sacrificial ones and that more than believing is required for salvation”. He made me promise to use the Bible and the Bible only for my answers. No prophet. I thought ‘No problem’. So I began my search with confidence. I had been taught the answers to these questions all my life and had been taught that they had Biblical backing. I knew the answers I was looking for were there . . . somewhere. For weeks I pored over my Bible armed with nothing but a concordance. I studied every verse I could find about laws and salvation, believing and faith. I cross-referenced every verse. The more I studied the more confused I got. I began to see a lot of inconsistencies between what I had been taught all my life and what the Bible actually said. Then I came, quite by accident, across the covenants. I began to realize that there was a New Covenant and an Old Covenant. This was something new to me and I didn’t know what to make of it. What was this covenant thing anyway? It was something I had never heard spoken much of and I knew nothing about it. I looked up every verse I could find that spoke of covenants. A picture began to emerge for me and it terrified me. I realized that the Old Covenant with all it’s regulations, including the 10 Commandments, pointed forward to Christ and that at the cross Christ fulfilled that Old Covenant in it’s entirety ending all it’s requirements. He then established a New Covenant replacing the Old. The New Covenant requires faith in Him. When we believe we receive the Holy Spirit. I began to realize that it is not what we do or don’t do, it’s not what we eat or don’t eat, that makes us right with God but only that we believe in His Son, Jesus. I began to realize that my ‘being good’ or ‘doing good things’ is only what naturally happens because the Holy Spirit is living in me. Loving my neighbor is only a natural reflection of God’s love to me. I realized that my salvation, instead of being ‘faith plus works’ was ‘faith alone’ from beginning to end. For the first time, I began to see the magnitude of what Christ did for me on the cross. I realized that He took not only my sins on Himself but also the very thing that condemns me as a sinner ‒ the law! I saw for the first time in my life the true gospel! I brought the subject up to my parents. I asked them about the covenants. They didn't know anything about them. I told them what I was discovering and they got very upset. They thought that I was being deceived and led away by Satan. I was hoping they would study with me and help me find the answers to my questions. I was disappointed. I showed one trusted friend what I was finding. She said, 'You're wrong. I don't know why you're wrong, I just know you're wrong.' I was hoping that she would study with me and help me find the answers to my questions. I was hoping she would help me figure it all out. She wouldn't. I was on my own again. I continued to study asking myself every conceivable question I could think of to find my mistake. I knew all the common explanations and theories of the SDA church and quite a few uncommon ones to support our beliefs. I'd studied all our doctrines out before - thoroughly. I was a good SDA. I thought for sure that I must just be missing something. I thought that there must be some Bible passage that I hadn’t found yet that would be the missing link. Something that would bring all the verses together so that everything would make sense again. Something that would make me say, ‘Oh! I get it! This is why we do what we do and believe we believe.’ I studied every verse I could think of that we used to support our SDA theories and beliefs that contradicted what I was understanding the Bible to say, and every verse I looked at I found to be used out of context. This really bothered me! It wasn't long before I realized that, like it or not, I had to test the prophet. I was seeing a lot of major contradictions between Mrs. White and the Bible. Either I was majorly misunderstanding what the Bible was saying or she was not a prophet! I didn't want to be misled. It's a big issue to reject any true prophet of God. It's also a big issue to accept as a prophet someone who is not one - a false prophet. So I tested her carefully and prayerfully by the tests given in the Bible for true and false prophets. She failed every one. The realization that so many things that I had been taught all my life were false made me sick. There were times when I felt so physically ill that if I had had food in my stomach I would have lost it. There were times I would have panic attacks and would feel as if I could hardly breathe. I couldn't get a full night's sleep for months because I would wake up in the wee hours of the morning crying out to God to hold me tight. There were days I could hardly eat anything at all. I cried almost every day. I became very depressed. How could the very things I had been taught be wrong? How could the things I had spent so much time carefully teaching my son be wrong? How could the things that I had governed my life by be wrong? How could the church I loved so much be wrong? I was terrified! I knew well what SDA doctrine taught. And it wasn’t what I was finding in the Bible. I knew that what I was finding went against Mrs. White. I knew that to be an SDA and not believe in Mrs. White was unacceptable. I knew that what I was finding in the Bible hit at the base of many of our church doctrines - ie belief in Mrs. White as a prophet, Sabbath being the seal of God's end time people, Sabbath observance being a salvational requirement, clean and unclean foods being a salvational requirement, the investigative judgment, the sanctuary doctrine and 1844, the purpose of the law in our lives, the purpose of Christ's mission on earth and what He accomplished, and the basic gospel. I knew that what I was finding went against almost everything that I had been spiritually taught. And I knew what it would cost me if I said anything. Everything. I knew I had two choices. Stand on Christ and the Bible alone, or stand on the teachings of Mrs. White and let her interpret the Bible for me. I couldn't do both. My husband and I had a lot of questions! We showed our findings to my husband's sister and her husband to see what they thought. It freaked them out and they started to study these things out also. (They have a powerful testimony.) After some weeks my husband, myself, my husband's sister and her husband took our findings to my husband's parents to see if they could set us straight and everything could get back to 'normal'. They tried hard to be understanding but it really just upset them. They felt we were going against the church and we were being deceived by Satan. It got to be February. My husband decided to do some exploring to see if there were any other churches anywhere who believed and taught the covenants the way we were understanding them. Anyone who has ever been an SDA knows what a big issue it is to explore another denomination. The teaching is that when God comes whoever has not accepted the 'truth' as they see it will be lost. Their special mission from God is to 'save' other Christians by bringing them into their denomination. Thus there is salvation only in the SDA church. So for a SDA to go somewhere else to church is to be ‘walking in Satan's territory’, putting themselves 'at his mercy and under his influence' and thereby they set themselves up to be 'deceived'. For him to go searching shows how unsettled we were at this point. So one Sunday morning my husband set off to visit a church. He didn’t know which one he was headed to but he ended up at a nondenominational church. I believe to this day that God led him to that church because as he sat in his first service he noticed that some classes were starting on that very day. And one of them was on the Covenants, the very thing we were studying! He attended the class. He was so excited when he came home! The next week I went with him and as we attended the classes over the next few weeks we started to think that maybe we weren’t crazy after all! That there were other people who understood the covenants and the Bible the way we were understanding them! It was such an encouragement to us to have found someone who understood things as we did! And the regular services were so Spirit-filled! It was like cool water washing over my parched soul! Every service we attended seemed tailor made for us. There was none of the formalism, none of the traditional pomp, no judging or haughtiness, just simple Christian worship to a Awesome, Powerful Jesus who loved me UNCONDITIONALLY! UNCONDITIONALLY! I had not felt God loved me unconditionally until then! Suddenly I saw Jesus as HUGE! BIGGER than laws and rules, BIGGER that my screw-ups, BIGGER than my fears, BIGGER than my sin! I knew He saw the depths of my soul and He LOVED ME THE SAME! I now realized that I had no business holding leadership positions at the SDA church. I had too many unanswered questions. I resigned from my position as Personal Ministries Secretary, resigned from church board and requested that they find a replacement for me in the Kindergarten class by the end of May. I also planned to drop my name from the school board at the end of the school year. My husband also felt he needed to drop his position of being elder. But we told no one why. We had been attending the SDA church on Saturday and the non-denominational church on Sunday for about two months. The contrasts between the two churches in worship and beliefs were staggering. It became increasingly hard to go to SDA church on Saturday and hear verses used out of context. On Sunday they read the Bible and took it for exactly what it said. Saturday we went to church with people who felt they knew all the right answers and anything that deviated from those answers was certainly false. Sunday we went to church with people who didn't claim to know it all, who studied to learn something new and were eager to hear another person's view even if that view happened to be different from their own. Saturday we went to church with people who put on their plastic smiles and plastic faces and pretended they were perfect inside and had it all together. Sunday we went to church with people who openly admitted and shared their personal issues and struggles, were unconditionally loved and accepted in spite of them, and were supported, prayed for and encouraged by others who openly admitted to their own struggles. On Saturday we went to church with properness and formalism. Sunday we went casual-come-as-you-are-the-way-God-made-you, and praise-Him-because-He-made-you-that-way. Saturday we went to church to hear about all the rules that you had to do to be right with God and receive God's blessing and favor. Sunday we went to hear that we are saved by grace in spite of our failures and that God's love and grace to us is unconditional. I knew my studies had brought me to the point where I had to take a stand one way or the other. I knew I couldn’t continue to do things both ways. They were too vastly different. But I didn't want to be wrong. I wanted to do whatever the Bible taught. I only wanted to follow Jesus wherever He was leading me. So I gathered my study notes together and my husband and I shared our questions with the pastor, three other SDA pastors we knew, the elders of our church and our families. I still desperately wanted one of them to show me what I had missed so everything could get back to normal. I still couldn't quite fully accept the idea that almost everything I had been taught and that I believed in could possibly be false! But as we presented our questions and the verses to support them, instead of being showed our error from the Bible, we were accused of building a theory on one or two verses, making excuses and rebelling, and we were told by our pastor that NO one believed the covenants the way we were seeing them and that if we believed like that that we would have to start our own church. Our friends were told by the pastor not to talk to or associate with us. The pastor met with us one time. It was more like a trial than a Bible study. We were allowed ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers and were not given time for explanations or discussion. The second time he met with us he tried to force us to resign our names from church membership by telling us we could either resign voluntarily or everything would be taken to the church in business session in detail and we would be voted out. We were basically told we were going to hell and taking our son with us. None of the elders tried to study our questions through with us. We did not receive sound Biblical answers to any of our questions. Only accusations, twisted texts, threats and excuses. One pastor, from another town, actually sat down with a Bible and tried to study through our questions with us. He actually agreed with us on many points and tried to encourage us in our studies but even he had to rely on Mrs. White for some of his answers. But he did actually try and made an honest effort to address our issues and questions and I love him for it. We suddenly found ourselves being treated as if we had some terrible disease. Of all our friends ONLY ONE and his wife came to us and asked what was going on. They asked to study with us (to set us straight). They told us they loved us and assured us that we would ALWAYS be friends NO MATTER WHAT. No one will ever know what that meant to us at that time! After almost a year of intense study and over five months of debate with our church leaders my husband and I have taken a final stand. In August my husband and I asked that our names be removed from SDA church membership. I have found true freedom in Christ! I am free to read the Bible and take it for what it says instead of having a church or a prophet interpret it for me and tell me what God's will is for my life. I am free to put my faith in my Savior not in a checklist of rules. I am free from the nagging worry if I have been good enough and from the fear of some long ago forgotten sin that I have not confessed. Some sin that will condemn me in the judgment. My righteousness now comes from Christ, it is not a righteousness of my own doing, and I know I am COMPLETELY covered. I can rest assured that Jesus will get me to heaven, not because I am worthy, but because He loves me and has paid the ransom price for my soul. I will be saved because He promised that if I believed in Him I would be saved. I am free to take Him at His word. I now consider myself as belonging to Christ and Christ alone. On October 23, 2005 I was baptized into Christ. My baptismal vows say that I am a sinner, that I believe that Christ is my Savior, and I believe that there is nothing I can do to earn my salvation. That I am saved by grace, not works. I was baptized into Christ, not a church denomination, not a list of rules and regulations, not allegiance to a prophet. I was baptized into the true gospel, not a false gospel. I am standing on Christ and the Bible alone and will not have a person, organization or prophet interpret the Bible for me or tell me what God's will is for my life. My husband also was baptized along with my husband's sister, her husband and her daughter. My son is also considering it. It has been a very difficult journey. I have taken a stand for Christ against a false gospel of ‘faith plus works’, against an entire church denomination and against 37 years of false religious indoctrination. I have lost almost all my friends, my reputation and my dignity. I have lost a lifetime of church family and relationships. I have had to deny the faith of my childhood and hurt extended family ties. I have removed my name from the membership of the church in which I was raised and which I dearly loved. But it is like Paul says. “Whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ ‒ this righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.” It has been an interesting journey. It has been painful but it is worth it all to gain the peace and rest I have found in Christ. I know the journey is not over. It has only begun. I have met a God, a Jesus, a wonderful Savior that I never knew. I've so much to learn. I've barley scratched the surface. I don't care where this journey takes me or what happens along the way as long as my Jesus is with me. And I know He is with me because He promised he would be. "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Update: The friends who wanted to study with us have done so. They are now discovering the same things in God's word that we have discovered. They are now asking their own questions. They have reached out in turn to others of our friends who were previously afraid to talk to us because of what our pastor had told them. Our study group is growing. Pray that they too will find freedom in Christ.
| ||
|
Elder W. C. White Sanitarium, Napa County California Dear Brother White: I appreciated your letter of March 12 and I thank you for your message of sympathy concerning my father's death. I have noted what you have said about your mother s condition, although you neglected to enclose the statement which you mentioned. When I see these early believers, like your mother, my father, and Elder Olsen passing away so rapidly, and then think of how little has really been accomplished in seriously warning the whole world of the impending second advent, I am led to wonder whether any of us now connected with this movement will, after all, live to see the consummation. It is a serious question. It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use our books as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things which we know to be untrue. I cannot feel that this is right. It seems to me that we are betraying our trust and deceiving the ministers and people. It appears to me that there is much more anxiety to prevent a possible shock to some trustful people than to correct error. Your letter indicates a desire on your part to help me, but I fear that it is a little late. The experience of the last six or eight years, and especially the things concerning which I talked with you, have had their effect on me in several ways. I have had some hard shocks to get over, and after giving the best of my life to this movement, I have little peace and satisfaction in connection with it, and I am driven to the conclusion that the only thing for me to do is to do quietly what I can do conscientiously and leave the others to go on without me. Of course this [is] far from a happy ending to my life-work, but this seams to be the best adjustment that I am able to make. The way your mother's writings have been handled and the false impressions concerning them, which is still fostered among the people, have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books, and that no serious effort has been made to disabuse the minds of the people of what was known to be their wrong view concerning her writings. But it is no use to go into these matters. I have talked with you for years about them but it brings no change. I think, however, that we are drifting toward a crisis which will come sooner or later and perhaps sooner. A very strong feeling of reaction has already set in. It has been very quiet here for a few weeks, as many of the brethren are in the field. The weather has been quite cold and we had about five inches of snow last Sabbath, but it is more like spring today. My mother is quite feeble, although she bears up full better than I really expected. She misses Father very much. They lived together more than 67 years. The work of the office seems to be prospering, and we are all very busy trying to meet the demands upon us. I should be glad to hear from you at any time. If you can properly do so, I would be glad to have you express to your mother my sympathies for her in her affliction. Yours faithfully, W. W. Prescott
| ||
|
Mr. E. S. Ballenger, 4138 Mulberry Street, Riverside, California. Dear Ballenger: I have your letter of December 30. Mrs. White ate meat and plenty of it. The next day after she arrived in America on her return from Scandinavia. I took dinner with her at the house of a mutual friend near New Bedford, Massachusetts. A large baked fish occupied the center of the table. Mrs. White ate freely of it as did all the rest with the exception of the hostess and myself. From this circumstance I think Mrs. White began the use of meat during the several years she spent abroad, chiefly In Switzerland and Scandinavia. She visited the Sanitarium frequently during the years that intervened before she went to Australia. When there she always called for meat and usually fried chicken. Dr. H. F. Rand was then the cook at the Sanitarium and had became an ardent vegetarian and he on more than one occasion said to me, "It goes very hard on me to have to prepare fried chicken for Mrs. White." In those days we had a liberal table at the Sanitarium where we served meat to friends of patients who insisted on having it, although we did not prescribe it for patients. At the annual meetings of the General Conference, which were always held in Battle Creek, we used to give the Conference a banquet. Most of the members were members of the Sanitarium constituency. We thought we owed them that courtesy. At these banquets they expected us to serve meat. In those days practically all Seventh-Day Adventist ministers ate meat. They knew that Mrs. White ate it and with not more than two or three exceptions they all ate chicken or mutton stew that was usually served them. On the day of Elder White's funeral, his, brother, who attended the funeral, and his two sons, J. E. and W. C., took dinner at the Sanitarium. They ate the liberal table and both ate meat within an hour after their father was buried. After Mrs. White return from Scandinavia she visited many camp meetings at some of which I was present. She was then in the habit of eating meat and the fact must have been generally known. I heard J. E. on one occasion, standing in front of his mother's tent, call out to a meat-wagon that visited the grounds regularly and was just leaving, "Say, hello there! Have you any fresh fish?" "No was his reply. "Have you got any: fresh chicken?" Again the answer was "No," and J. E. bawled out in a very loud voice, "Mother wants some chicken. You had better get some quick." It was always lay suspicion that he was the one who was hankering for the chicken and that Mrs. White ate it also and that it was then her habit. I am surprised that Elder Star should state that Mrs. White did not eat meat in Australia. He must have been acquainted with the fact that she ate it regularly. She was eating meat when she went there and continued to eat it for several years until she got rheumatism so bad she was not able to walk and had to be wheeled about and sat in a chair while she talked. After a while she gave up the use of meat and wrote me about it. She said that one of her addresses on Christian temperance was attended by a Catholic woman who was president of the W. C. T. U. and happened to be a vegetarian. After the lecture she called on Mrs. White and thanked her for the lecture and remarked, "Of course you do not eat meat, Mrs. White." Mrs. White replied she did sometimes, whereat the lady dropped upon her knees and with tears streaming down her face besought Mrs. White never again to allow a morsel of meat to pass her lips. Said Mrs. White in her letter to me, "I thought it was about time me to begin my own teaching." So who said, "I have stopped the use of meat myself, but I still serve it to my workers." Fanny Bolton was with her at that time. A year or two later she returned to Battle Creek. She left Mrs. White who incorporated in one of her books something she had herself written and without giving her credit. She said Mrs. White was in the habit of doing this, copying from various other books, so that she and Mary Ann Davis had to go over the material and transpose sentences and change paragraphs and in other wise endeavor to hide the piracy. She spoke to Mrs. White about it and objected to having her own manuscript used without credit. Mrs. White was very angry and slapped her face. She mentioned the circumstance to one of the preachers and was forthwith dismissed from Mrs. White's employ and came back to America. I do not remember the name of any minister who was advised by Mrs. White to eat meat, but I do remember clearly that she did advise some persons to eat meat. The fact is many people were injured by the practice of what they called health reform in those days which was not soundly based. The principal fault was in discarding butter which eliminated vitamin A and lowered the vital resistance and I think led to tuberculosis in many cases. Many people were doubtless suffer from the lack of fat especially fat containing vitamin A as does butter fat and also tallow and suet. When George I. Butler was in the presidential chair of the S. D. A. denomination meat was freely used and served in the provisions stands at all the camp meetings. There had been a universal backsliding on health reform. The backsliding probably saved a good many lives, for the people were suffering for lack of vitamins, not because they did not use meat, but because they did not use butter. With reference to Fanny Bolton's story about Mrs. White eating oysters, Fanny told me that the first time she net Mrs. White was in Chicago in a restaurant. She had been informed that Mrs. White was eating her dinner at a certain restaurant and went there and found she was eating stewed oysters. Mrs. White I think was not so much to blame for eating meat oysters etc. as the people associated with her. They made her believe that she needed meat and ought to eat it. When I visited the Grand Rapids camp grounds, one of the first camp meetings held, I found in the provision stand conspicuously displayed whole codfish, large slabs of halibut, smoked herring, dried beef and Bologna sausage. I found some of the same things at all the camp meetings I visited. After a few years I succeeded in getting these things cleared out. On one occasion in order to clean up the provision stand I paid what the whole stock of meat, strong cheese and some detestable bakery stuff cost, which was fifteen dollars, and ordered it thrown into the river. I was assured that this would be done, but learned afterwards that it was put away and after the camp meeting was Over was divided up among the preachers of the Conference. This was in Indiana. I received information concerning its disposal from Elder Covert who was President of the Conference. The health reform that was taught in those days was badly mixed with error and it probably did more harm than good and it is a shame to lay the responsibility on the Almighty. Of course I do not want to have my name used in this connection at all. I am not fighting the Seventh-Day Adventists for two reasons: I think that on the whole they are doing good and I do not want to hinder any good cause. Their errors I regret and repudiate as much as you do, probably more so. My job in the world is to create and to build up and not to destroy. I have nothing to say as to what is the duty of other people. With best wishes, I am Sincerely yours, (Signed) Harvey Kellogg
| ||
|
A.T. Jones' Letter to Mrs. E.G. White -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Battle Creek, Mich., April 26,1909 Mrs. E.G. White, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. Dear Sister White: In April 1906 you sent out a communication dated March 30th, 1906 in which are the following words: "Recently in the visions of the night I stood in a large company of people. There were present Dr. Kellogg, Elders Jones, Tenny and Taylor, Dr. Paulson, Elder Sadler, Judge Arthur and many of their associates. I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and to make plain that which seems to be intricate. "Let those who are troubled now place upon paper a statement of the difficulties that perplex their minds, and let us see if we cannot throw some light upon the matter that will relieve their perplexities. . . . .Let it all be written out, and submitted to those who desire to remove the perplexities. "I ask that the leaders in the medical work at Battle Creek, and those who have been associated with them in gathering together criticisms and objections to the testimonies that I have borne, shall open to me the things that they have been opening to others. They should certainly do this, if they are to be loyal to the directions God has given. . . I am now charged to request those who are in difficulty in regard to Sister White's work to let their questions appear now, before the great day of judgment comes, when every work shall be made to appear with the motive underlying it, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made known, and every thought, word, and deed shall be tested by the Judge of the whole world, and each one will receive sentence according as his works have been. I present this before you all." That appeal presents the solemn consideration of "loyalty to the directions God has given" and "the great day of judgment," as considerations requiring that the men named should write to you: and it is upon that consideration alone that I do write this to you. For when in view of' loyalty to God and the great day of judgment, you call upon me to write upon these things, I do not want to appear in the Judgment as disloyal to God through having failed to do what ought to have been done by me. Therefore again, I say, it is upon this consideration alone that I now write this to you. For there has come to my attention now a matter which, in view of' "the great day of Judgment" which you have cited, ought to be brought to your consideration: and which in justice to other people, ought to be corrected and counteracted. Therefore I write this in the interests of justice and truth, and also somewhat to speak on God's behalf." And first, of all it is proper for me to state why I have not written before: 1. 1 never received from you, nor in any way by your instructions, any copy of that communication. 2. It was a long time before I obtained a copy. And only then did I get a copy from a brother who had never received any copy from you, although he was named in it; and he had obtained his copy from yet another brother to whom you had sent a copy though he was not named in it. 3. Before I obtained a copy of it, the word came to me that you had called on certain ones, and me amongst them, to write out what difficulties might be perplexing their minds concerning your writings, in order that you might explain, etc., and thus it was only that special point that came to my attention: But upon that consideration I would not write, and never would have written: and this is for the reason that such a proposition in itself surrenders at once the whole ground of the claim in behalf of your writings as the word of God, or as given by inspiration of God. For if the writings were really the word of God - a. They need no explanation. b. If the writings to be explained were not the word of God, then I would not want any explanation of them; for I would not care any more for them than for any other writings that were not the word of' God. Further I knew that the things that could be written, you simply could not explain; and that any explanation would be worse than no explanation. And the event has fully justified this view. For when in honest response to your call, Brother Sadler and Brother Paulson wrote to you in all sincerity their difficulties, in a communication dated June 3rd, 1906, you wrote the following words: "Sabbath night, a week ago, after I had been prayerfully studying over those things, I had a vision, in which I was speaking before a large company, where many questions were asked concerning my work and writings. " I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds. When Brother Sadler had his letter to you all written and ready to send, he read it to me before he sent it. And then I said to him, "My Brother, you will never get an answer to that. Any answer would be worse than no answer." And just so it turned out. To this day Brother Sadler has received no answer to his letter: though in acknowledging the receipt of his letter you promised that you would answer. This promise you made it, a letter dated June14, 1906, in the following words: "As soon as I can I will clear up, If possible, the misunderstanding regarding the work God has given me to do." To Brother Paulson's letter you did make somewhat of an attempt at an answer on just one point, and this most largely by quoting from "Great Controversy" and from the printed Testimonies, matter with which he was already familiar. That as relates to Sadler and Paulson: but it is even worse as relates to Dr. Stewart: To Dr. Stewart there was sent a copy of your communication calling for a writing out of doubts, objections, etc., though he was not named in the communication. In response to that call Dr. Stewart wrote a letter to you presenting just what you called for. This letter he sent to you alone, in the confidence of a personal letter. At the same time he sent a letter to W.C. White, your son, in which he asked that an answer should be made to his letter, and that this answer might be received by him within thirty days. The next thing that Dr. Stewart heard from his letter, it was in the hands of Elder A.G. Daniells in Takoma Park, Washington, who was then making public use of it to the effect that "Here is a manuscript of seventy-eight pages of objections to the testimonies," etc.; with no intimation that you had written or sent to the author of the manuscript and others a communication calling upon them to do just what he had done; but conveying the impression that the whole thing of the manuscript was, on the part of the author, only a willful and voluntary attack upon the Testimonies. And that is the only kind of an answer to his letter that Dr. Stewart has ever seen or heard of. Neither from you nor from W.C. White has he ever received a word in answer to his letter. Now Sister White, you wrote in the name of God, and appealed to men's Christian integrity, and in the presence of the judgment, that they should state to you their perplexities: "Let it, all be written out." And you put God under pledge for answer–"The Lord will help me to answer these objections." That communication was sent personally to Dr. Stewart. He accepted the communication as honestly intended, and wrote accordingly: then, in the presence of all that, can you think, or can you expect any Christian man to think, that the Judgment of God will justify or vindicate as fair, true, and Christian, the course that was pursued with Dr. Stewart's letter? Now in the presence of the Judgment, it is only fair that I should believe and recognize the probabilities are that you never saw Dr. Stewart's letter, and never even had a chance to see it, for your sake it is only fair to suppose that the probabilities are altogether that W.C. White received the letter and read it, and then without ever giving you a chance to see it, posted it off to Elder Daniells at Washington. That in fairness to you may be considered the probability. Nevertheless the question still recurs: Will the Judgment vindicate as fair, true and Christian such treatment of a man in the name of God? And will the Judgment vindicate as fair, true and Christian, the public use of Dr. Stewart's letter to you, with the impression that it was a willful attack upon you and your writings, while concealing the fact made perfectly plain in Dr. Stewart's letter itself, that it was only and altogether in response to the call that you had made in the name of the Lord, which call itself was copied in the very letter of Dr. Stewart's that was being used? And then the public use of his letter has so advertised it that there was such a call for it that another man published it, then again Dr. Stewart was charged with attacking the Testimonies and warring on you. Will the Judgment of God vindicate as the righteousness of God such dealings as that? Can anybody who knows God or has any respect for Him, believe of Him that He would sanction any such procedure as all this? Thus the whole case as your communication calling for the writing out of doubts and perplexities concerning your writings, as that case has been worked out, requires that we shall think of God things that are impossible. Now please let me say a word on Gods behalf: In your communication of May 30th, 1906, calling upon certain men by name to place upon paper the statement of the difficulties that perplexed their minds, you wrote the following words: "In the visions of the night ----- I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the Testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and to make plain that which seems intricate .... Let it all be written out." After having received in answer to that call what some brethren had honestly written, you wrote under date of June 3rd, 1906 the following words: "I had a vision in which I was speaking before a large company, where many questions were asked concerning my work and writings. I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds." Both of these communications profess to be as from God. As representing God, therefore, they present the impossible situation as to God, in truth, that God asked certain men by name that they put in writing a statement of all their difficulties, etc., with the promise of an answer, and then, after He got the statement, refused to answer. I repeat, therefore, that as to God in truth, and to any mind that has ever received the revelation of God, that presents an impossible situation. For no person that knows God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, can ever believe it possible of God that He would call men personally by name to Him, only that they should receive a slap in the face, or to be condemned. Didn’t the Lord know what responses could be made to that call? Didn't He know what response might be made? Yea, didn't He know what responses would be made? Accordingly didn't He know before these statements were written, that there was to be no answer? And He knowing all that, then can anybody except sensible Christian men ever to believe of God that He would deliberately resort to an unworthy trick of mere child's play with sober, well-meaning, manly men, believers, in His own Son? Let us set these two statements of yours side by side: "Recently in the visions of the night I stood in a large company of people .. I was directed by the Lord to request them and any others who have perplexities and grievous things in their minds regarding the Testimonies that I have borne, to specify what their objections and criticisms are. The Lord will help me to answer these objections, and to make plain that which seems intricate... Let it all be written out and submitted to those who desire to remove the Perplexities." "I had a vision in which I was speaking before a large company where many questions were asked concerning my works and writings. I was directed by a messenger from heaven not to take the burden of picking up and answering all the sayings and doubts that are being put into many minds." Sister White, can you or anybody else believe it possible for any person who knows God or has respect for him to accept both these statements as coming from God? Can you or anybody else expect that Christian men will believe of God that He will act like that, or that He will treat men in any such way as that? Can you or anybody else expect that Christian men will accept any view of inspiration that involves the holy, just and good God in any such a slim and unworthy trick as that? Are we to believe of God that he is such an underling and so irresponsible of Himself, that He can be pledged to a thing that utterly fails? That He can be pledged and under pledged? That when under pledge He can be whiffled about, as the workings out, of this case show, so that His pledge shall be worse than nothing? And all this in order to be loyal to the Testimonies?" Why, Sister White, to believe that and such as that, of God, the God of the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, would be nothing short of the utmost limit of irreverence. Again: In those letters you were asked these questions: 1. "Do you approve of sending personal testimonies which the Lord has given to men, broadcast to other people?" 2. "Is it not a Bible rule that when we have any criticism of a brother, it shall be presented to him personally, then afterwards to two or three, and then if he rejects it, to the church?" These are vital questions. It is the truth that copies of the Testimonies to individuals are sent to the officials of the denomination, at the same time, or even before, they are sent to the individuals to whom they pertain. It is the truth that Testimonies to individuals are sent to others than the ones most concerned, and are made public use of, and are even used in print and published everywhere, without their ever having been received, or seen or heard of, by the individual or the ones named in the Testimonies. When Brother Tenney was cast out of the church, there was read and used against him, as a basis and authority for casting him out, passages from a Testimony that he never saw and that he never knew anything about until it was used against him in that meeting. In the controversy over the Battle Creek Sanitarium, Testimonies that the Sanitarium Board never saw or heard of, have not only been published and used against them; but have been printed and spread broadcast, before the Sanitarium people ever know were such communications in existence. Also myself: I have received letters from different, parts of the country stating that in the camp meetings Testimonies concerning me have been read, or quoted from, or referred to; but Testimonies that I had never seen. That is exactly the case of your communication of February 4, 1907, to Bro. Russell Hart in which I am twice mentioned by name, saying that I would "work in every way possible to get possession" of the Tabernacle. That was used by men (not by Brother Hart) as a "Testimony" to denounce and decry me, and yet I never saw it, nor knew of any of its contents till February 20, 1909)– more than two years after it was written. Now does anybody expect me or anybody else to believe that in the Judgment I or any other man will be condemned, or held in any wise accountable, for something we never knew and never had a chance to know: that we will be held accountable for disregarding Testimonies that we never saw or even heard of? In the Bible the Lord has directed that when a brother trespasses or is overtaken in a fault he is to be gained and restored: not condemned and denounced: and that in seeking to gain and restore him first of' all he is to be told his fault: "between thee and him alone." If that fails, then he is to be told a second time in the presence of' "one or two more." These two steps must be taken before it shall be told even to the congregation of which he is a member. And when it is told to the congregation of which he is a member, then that congregation is to seek to gain him. And only when all these efforts have failed to gain and restore him–only then is it to be known before the public. This is the word of the Lord directing us how we are to do toward the one that is overtaken in a fault, or who has trespassed. But in the use of your Testimonies this order has been and even disregarded altogether. A man's fault is published to the world in print, or told to everybody but himself. And he is condemned and denounced, without the thing having been told him at all, much less told to him in Christian kindness a second or a third time. And this way is taken by you in the Testimonies and their use as the way of the Lord: and all are expected to conform to it or else be counted in rebellion against God, apostates from the truth, and be excluded from heaven because of such rebellion and apostasy. This again presents an impossible situation as to God. For it makes it appear that God goes directly contrary to His own word: that while calling and requiring us to be followers of Him strictly according to His word in the Bible, yet in the Testimonies and their use He, Himself, is made to set us the example of going directly contrary to the way that He requires us to go in His word in the Bible. I repeat that this is impossible as to God. For it is impossible for God to go thus contrary to His own word. And it makes it impossible for us to be followers of God while He requires us to go one way and He goes the opposite way. And in the Judgment I would far rather risk the consequences of following strictly Gods word in the Bible in telling to a brother his fault "between thee and him alone," and then telling it to him a second time in the presence of "one or two more", and then telling it to the congregation of which he is a member, with the purpose to gain and restore him, than to risk the consequences of the Testimonies and their use in telling the faults of a brother not to "him alone" at all, but telling it to everybody but him, and in publishing it to the world, and this be the first that he knows of it. But there is more that should be said of that communication of February 4, 1907, to Brother Russell Hart in which I am twice named. September 7, 1907, this communication was copied with the usual filing marks "Sept. 7, 1907-8 . . . H. 38 07." It is only fair to suppose that at least seven of these indicated "-8- " copies were sent to as many different persons and places, and that they have been diligently used to publish and emphasize what is said in the communication concerning me. Yet I never saw it till February 20, 1909; more than two years after it was written. I saw it then only because a brother told me that Brother Hart had a copy, and that others had a copy and were using it. Then when I met Brother Hart I said to him that I had heard that he had a copy of a Testimony in which I was personally mentioned; but that I had never seen it nor known that it was in existence and that I thought it only fair that I should have a chance to see it. He thought so too and let me take it. The passages that mention me are the following: "I must act in accordance with the light that the Lord has given me; and I say to you that Brother A.T. Jones and Dr. Kellogg will make every effort possible to get possession of the Tabernacle, in order that they may present their doctrines. We must not allow that house to be used for the promulgation of error. The Tabernacle was built by the Seventh-day Adventist people. It is their property and their loyal representatives should control it. On this question I will stand firm, and if you and others will take a decided stand with us, you will be doing that which God requires of you at this time. "We must make sure the control of the Tabernacle; for powerful testimonies are to be borne in it in favor of the truth. This is the word of the Lord to you and others. Elder A.T. Jones will work in every way possible to get possession of this house, and if he can do so, he will present in it theories that should never be heard. I know whereof I speak in this matter, and if you had believed the warnings that have been given, you would have moved understandingly." Now in all kindness, with no feeling of resentment whatever, but with perfect good humor I say to you, Sister White, and to everybody; and I say it solemnly before God to be met in the Judgment as the truth: that those statements concerning me are not true. They were not true when they were written, they have never been true at any moment since they were written, and they will never come true in any sense whatever. I not only never did "all" that I possibly could, to get possession of the Tabernacle, I never thought on it, nor thought of it. This I know in the same way that I know that I am alive, or that I am here this moment writing this to you. It cannot be said that the communication prevented me from doing what is there said that I would do: for I did not know that the writing was in existence, for more than two years after it was written; nor until after the Tabernacle had passed into the sure possession that "safe-guarded" it against all possibility that I could ever have gotten it. And all this time of a year and a half or more after it was copied while the communication was being used far and wide to warn the people of my great wickedness, apostasy, and antagonism, there was I going quietly along totally ignorant of any such thing being in existence, and at the same time as innocent of what it charged as was any child in the world. Yet in that communication you say: "I know whereof I speak." In respectful reply, and in all kindness, I say: Sister White, you did not know whereof you spoke; for there is not a vestige of truth in it; and neither you nor anybody else can know what is not so. And while I cannot absolutely know of another, as I know of myself, yet I do firmly believe that what is said of Dr. Kellogg is just as completely untrue, as I know to be untrue what is said of me. Further there stand the words; "In accordance with the light the Lord has given me ... I say to you that Elder A.T. Jones and Dr. Kellogg will make every effort possible to get possession of the Tabernacle." There stand the words: "This is the word of the Lord to you and to others. Elder A.T. Jones will work in every possible way to get possession of this house." Sister White, the simple truth is that that is not light at all for it is not true at all. And the Lord never gave it to you, for the Lord does not give nor tell what is not true. This is not "the word of the Lord" at all; for it never was true: and I know that the Lord never says what is not true. Besides, if that were truly from the Lord, it would have been given to me first of all, instead of to everybody but me, and never at all to me. Do you suppose that I am going to believe that the Lord disregards His own word and takes a course directly contrary to that laid down for us to take that we may "follow in His steps?" That is impossible. The Lord knows perfectly well that I never made any effort at all; that I never worked in any way at all; and that I never thought at all to get possession of the Tabernacle. And the Lord knows perfectly well that I and Dr. Kellogg never acted together, nor spoke together, nor thought together, to any such purpose as getting possession of the Tabernacle. Yet, Sister White, none of that, nor all of it, has done any harm whatever to me. In it you have not injured me at all. Those who have read that to the people to expose me and to warn the people against me, have done no harm at all to me. This because it is not true: and what is not true can't harm me. But all of this has harmed other people for they believed it, and so have been deceived. And since it has been publicly used; and since the only effect of it could be to deceive; then it will be perfectly proper that I should tell publicly what I have here told, to relieve as far as possible those deceived ones from that deception. Also Sister White, you may remember that this is not the first time that I have been placed by you under the necessity of telling you that what you had said was not at all true. The other time was in July 1903 in your home at, "Elmshaven" when you had called me at the Sanitarium to come down to your house. You began very positively to talk to me. When I had listened with some surprise for a considerable length of time you may remember that I halted you and, looking straight into your eyes, said: "Sister White, there is not a particle of truth in what you are saying." Upon this you instantly dropped that strain and turned the conversation to another subject. You may remember that I called your attention to this fact at your house at "Elmshaven" July 31, 1908. And I say to you now what I said then: The Judgment will confirm the truth of that occurrence as I have stated it. The Judgment will confirm also the truth of what I have said on what you have stated in that communication of February 4, 1907. At Berrien Springs, Michigan, in the time of the Lake Union Conference in 1904, speaking of the book "Living Temple," you said publicly to the congregation in the assembly hall: "I never read the book; but Willie sat down by my side and read to me some of the most objectionable passages. And I said to him, 'Willie, that is just what was back there in New England,' etc., ect.," Now, Sister White, I said then, and I say now, and I shall say forever, that I have not a particle of confidence in Willie's inspiration to select and read to you "the most objectionable passages" of that book, or any other writing, as a basis for your denouncing the book or writing a Testimony on the subject. I know that John Huss and Jerome were burned at the stake, and Wickliffe and Luther were pursued and persecuted to their graves, solely upon "some of the most objectionable passages" of their writings selected and read by opposing and prejudiced people. I know that Willie presented to me some of these "most objectionable passages" of his selection. And I know that the objectionable meaning which he put into the passages to make them "objectionable passages" was directly contrary to the meaning that stands in plain passages in the plain printed words. There has been published a communication from you in which I am reproved for what I did at the Lake Union Conference in Berrien Springs, Michigan in 1904. Since in view of the Judgment you have called upon we to write, it is proper that I should state the facts and the history of that matter. In the six months preceding the Conference at Berrien Springs, in the Union Conferences that had been held from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back again, Elder W.W. Prescott had given addresses in which he set forth his views of "Pantheism" and some other things. In 1902 there had been printed a leaflet sermon of mine on "The Revelation of God." I had been informed that in his addresses in these Union Conferences, Brother Prescott had taken a single sentence from this sermon of mine and had read that single sentence in with passages from books that he said were "Pantheistic" (and books not one of which I ever saw) in such a way as to make it appear that I was teaching " Pantheism" equally with those others. This information I made no use of in any way. But as I was to be at the Lake Union Conference, I made up my mind that if Brother Prescott should take up that thing there, I would answer him on it, and I went to Berrien Springs with the material in my possession with which to answer him if he should take that thing up there. On Friday morning in the midst of that Conference session, you gave to your son W. C. White Testimony to take to Brother Prescott, in which Brother Prescott was instructed not to take up in that meeting the discussion of this question of "Pantheism," etc., that it was not good to make prominent before the people these erroneous things even for the purpose of exposing or refuting them. But instead of this to dwell only upon the truth, etc. Though you gave this testimony to W.C. White on Friday morning to deliver to Brother Prescott, Brother White kept it in his possession and did not deliver it. And on the same Friday evening Brother Prescott did enter upon the discussion of that very subject as he had in the other Union Conferences. I took notes of his sermon for the purpose of replying to him. That same Friday morning you had sent to Elder Daniells the Testimony addressed to him and Elder Prescott, in which they were instructed to stretch out their hands to Dr. Kellogg as Christ was doing. A copy of that Testimony came into my hands on Sabbath forenoon. But I was surprised to find the whole days passing with no token whatever of their stretching out their hands to Dr. Kellogg or their taking any other move in the direction indicated by the Testimony. That Testimony said that the same words were to be given to the others at that meeting, for them to carry to those who were not at the meeting. But after the Testimony had been received by Brother Daniells, days had passed without the Testimony having been made known. Under these circumstances of this Testimony and Brother Prescott's sermon, I concluded that it would be proper to make known the Testimony as well as my answer to Brother Prescott's sermon of Friday night. But even then I waited a whole day and a night, in which time I prayed earnestly to God for guidance as to whether or not I should really do it. And late in the night before I did it; the last thing that I did was to pray concerning that and to say to the Lord in prayer that I had no personal choice in the matter; that indications were that I ought to do it; but if He should in any way show me otherwise I would not do it. And then I said to the Lord that on the next morning when the early morning meeting should be opened if anything should occur to occupy the time of the meeting I would take that as evidence that I should not say anything; but that if when the meeting should be opened nothing should occur to occupy the time, that I should take that as an indication that the way was opened for me. The next morning Elder Daniells opened the meeting and then said, "Brethren the meeting is yours" and sat down in the audience. Everything was quiet. Nobody said anything nor did anything; there was no sign of anybody's doing anything; until I arose and stepped to the front and did what I did. And what I did that day did undoubtedly stop, in those meetings at least, Brother Prescott's discussion of that question of "Pantheism," etc. Now, Sister White, when it was of such importance that the discussion of that subject should be stopped; and when the Lord so wanted it stopped; that He would have you write a Testimony to stop it; and when you sent that Testimony by W.C. White on Friday morning, in ample time to have stopped it; and when it was not stopped just because Brother White chose not to deliver that Testimony; then was not my action that did stop it, directly in line with that Testimony? And was not my action that did stop it, the fulfillment of the purpose of the Lord? in sending the Testimony to stop it? but which failed because W.C. White did not deliver the Testimony? When it was the will of the Lord, expressed in the Testimony, that that discussion should be stopped, then in the Judgment will I be reproved for having done what did stop it? And will W.C. White at the same time be justified in withholding from Brother Prescott the Testimony that would have stopped it? If Brother White had delivered that Testimony at any time on Friday, it is safe to say, and I believe, that Brother Prescott would not have spoken at all on the subject. If he had not spoken on the subject, I should not have had a word to say on the subject. Then when what I did was only because of what he did, and when what he did was because of Brother White's not delivering the Testimony that would have prevented it all, then in the Judgment will I be condemned for doing just what the Lord wanted done? but which could not be done in the Lord’s first chosen way, because of W.C. White's intentional withholding of the Lord's message that would have done it? Knowing all this, Sister White, can you wonder that I have never felt at all sorry what I did? And have never been ready to confess that I was wrong in doing what I did that day in the Lake Union Conference at Berrien Springs? In the former part of this letter I said that to this day Brother Sadler has never received from you any answer to his letter. This is the truth. In your letter to Dr. Paulson June 14, 1906, you did say: "Now I must respond to the letters received from you, Elder Sadler, and others." But in truth and in fact you did not respond to Brother Sadler's letter; not to a single thing written in it- unless it be in these words: "To some of the questions you have asked, I am not to answer yes or no. I must not make any statements that can be misconstrued." This can be verified by anyone who will read the two letters. Yet one of the questions asked by both Doctors Paulson and Sadler, while not worded exactly the same by both, was in effect this: "Is everything that you speak and write inspired of God and to be received as the word of God?" Under all the circumstances this is one of the most important questions that could be asked of you. Yet the only thing from you that can even be construed into an answer to it, is the words: "I am not to answer yes or no. I must not make statements that can be misconstrued." Sister White, do you intend that to be your answer to that question? If it is claimed that your letter to Dr. Paulson, June 14, 1906, is an answer to his and Dr. Sadler's letters, then that will have to be held as your answer to that question. But if you were to answer "Yes" how could it be misconstrued if it were true? If you were to answer "No" How could that be misconstrued if it were true? Sister White, plain yes or no simply never can be misconstrued if it be true. Then since to the question, "Is everything that you speak or write inspired of God and to be received as the word of God?" you are not to answer yes or no because either, statement "can be misconstrued," then it plainly follows that: "Yes," would not be true because some things that you speak and write are not inspired of God and are not to be received as the word of God, and it would be a misconstruction to say that they are. "No", would not be true; because some things that you speak and write are inspired of God and are to be received as the word of God, and it would be a misconstruction to say that they are not. Upon analysis, therefore, of the only words that you have given that can even be construed into an answer to that question, it stands as the inevitable and unescapable consequence that the one straight and true answer to that question is the simple and easy word "no." Yet that is exactly what I hold. It is the truth. And, Sister White, do not you know full well that this is the plain truth? But more than this: In the Judgment, in the presence of which you called me by name to write- in the Judgment, Sister White, your plea that if you should answer truly in the word "No", it would "be misconstrued," and some would "take advantage of the answer," will not be sufficient. In the Judgment nothing will stand but the truth. You have been standing as one who is a mouthpiece for God. As such it is your place to tell the truth, and bear witness unto the truth. You have nothing whatever to do with what people make of the truth that you have to tell. It is your place to tell the truth. In the Judgment it will be the part of those people and not you to answer for whatever misconstruction or wrong use they make of the truth. And whatever the wrong use that a few perverse minded people might make of the truth, will not in the Judgment prove a sufficient counterbalance to the willing if not known deception of thousands upon thousands of innocent, confiding, and honest-minded people, the Judgment will certainly settle. But meantime it is an issue that is certainly and justly open to Very serious question and doubt in Christian minds. And upon that issue now, Sister White, I assure you that I would far prefer to see you write the plain and simple truth in that plain and simple word "No" which I have reason to believe that you well know is the truth, than to see you longer risking the awful decision of the Judgment upon the alternative and the consequences of your refusal to write the pure truth in that simple word "No", which is the unescapable consequence of your refusal to say either yes or no, because either could be misconstrued. And what a world of relief would be given to a deplorable situation by your writing the truth, that I am sure you must know is the truth in that word "No". Infinite good and no possible harm could alone come of it. It is true that many people would be disappointed and others would be considerably perplexed. But is it not far better that they should be allowed to awake to that disappointment and perplexity now, while there is time to get their true bearings, than to awake to it all when it will be forever too late? Then everything would stand only in the truth; and would be received and known only in and by "the Spirit of truth." Therefore, even yet, before it shall be for you too late, will you not, Sister White, write that truth in that word "No" to that honest, pertinent, and very important question?" Now, Sister White, I bring this letter to a close. In view of your communication calling upon me by name to write a "statement of difficulties," etc., those things that I have here written have seemed to me of sufficient importance for me to state to you. Other items might be mentioned but I have no disposition at all to heap up matters. Also, Sister White, allow me to assure you that I am not opposing you, and have not opposed you, and do not intend to oppose you. When in view of "the great day of Judgment" and by my "loyalty to the directions God has given," you call upon me to write to you on these matters, it cannot fairly be counted as opposing you when in answer, to that call I wrote what I have written. I respect you as a sister in Christ and in the truth of God. I honor you for the truth you have told and that you have written and maintained all these years. I do not deny that you have divine enlightenment. I do not deny that you have the Spirit of prophecy. But I do deny that everything that you have ever written is of the divine inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy. I do deny that you are infallible, and I do deny that everything you have written is the infallible word of God. And, indeed, you in reality deny all this yourself in your refusal to say either Yes or No to the plain question, because either word could be misconstrued or taken unfair advantage of. Then, why cannot I be allowed to agree with you in this and follow the directions of the Scriptures to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good." Another thing: Please Sister White, do not blame Dr. Kellogg or anybody else for anything that I have here written. Please do not connect Dr. Kellogg or anybody else in any way with this that I have written. Not a soul in the world knows that I have written it, but the stenographer who has taken it down and written it out. Not a soul knows that I have sent this copy to you; and nobody but the stenographer and myself knows that it is in existence. But will this copy that I send to you ever reach you? Will you ever have a chance to read it? Or will my letter be treated as was Dr. Stewart's and the next thing I hear from it, it will be in the hands of Bro. Daniells, or someone else, exhibited before an audience as so many "passages of objections to the Testimonies?" Will this letter reach you so that you will have a chance to read it yourself, or will Willie sit down by your side and read to you "some of the most objectionable passages?" However this may be, it will not affect me personally. In view of the Judgment you called upon me to write: Because of that, and in view of the Judgment, I have written. And there I personally leave it. Whatever others may do in view of the Judgment or not, just as they choose; for there only will they have to answer, and not to me. And now wishing you only all blessing and all good from the Lord in all things always, and only all of Romans 15:13 forever, I remain, (Signed) Alonzo T. Jones. (Note: This letter was never answered by Mrs. White)
| ||
|
Uriah Smith's Letters to D.M. Canright -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LETTER 1 Battle Creek, Michigan, March 22, 1883 Dear Brother Canright: ... I was interested in your queries to Uncle George [Butler] on the omissions in ‘Early Writings.’ We have the Marion paper in exchange, and I had noticed the article. Under the circumstances I think it must have come down on him something like an avalanche; and I have a curiosity to know how he has answered it, as he put a note on the margin that he had answered it. I have no doubt the quotations [given in the Marion paper] are correct. I remember coming across the tract, ‘Word to Little Flock,’ when we were in Rochester, but I have not seen a copy since [i.e., in more than 25 years], and did not know but Experience and Views contained the full text of the early visions. It seems to me that the testimonies, practically, have come into that shape, that it is not of any use to try to defend the erroneous claims that are now put forth for them. At least, after the unjust treatment I received the past year, I feel no burden in that direction. Theoretically, the doctrine of Spiritual Gifts is clear enough, and I think all our people stand together on that. Bro. Littlejohn has preached on the subject here, treating it mostly from a theoretical standpoint. But that does not touch the question at issue among us at all. I presume you noticed in the Review of March 13 Bro. Waggoner’s extinguisher of the Mormon Gifts. But if the same reasoning will not apply somewhat to our own experience, I cannot see straight. The cases of Fuller, Cornell and Smith Sharp are stunners to me. If all the brethren were willing to investigate this matter candidly and broadly, I believe some consistent, common ground for all to stand upon, could be found. But some, of the rule or ruin spirit, are so dogmatical and stubborn that I suppose that any effort in that direction would only lead to a rupture of the body. I am sorry the meeting of the Michigan Ministerial Association has ignominiously fallen through this year. The two difficulties it had to contend against, as I view it, are first, a lack of literary taste on the part of many ministers. But this should be overcome, and I think could be, by practice and constant pressure. But second, the greatest I believe to be a fear on the part of the powers that be, of free thought and free discussion. So far as this is the case, it is a shame and a disgrace to us... Very truly yours, U. Smith LETTER 2 Battle Creek, Michigan, April 6, 1883 Dear Brother Canright: Yours of March 24 was duly received. I herewith return Bro. Butler’s letter, as you request, having read it, or spoken of it, only to Bro. Gage. Eld B. [Butler] writes to others making a very light matter of the omissions from ‘Early Writings.’ He write to Bro. M.C. Wilcox, now in this office, that if enough is made of the matter so that it call for an answer, if none of our ‘Great Writers’ see fit to reply to it, he will try his hand at it. In regard to writing for the Review, the plan is to send requests to some nineteen different persons, and if all should write more than from one to three moderately lengthy articles, there would not be room for them in the paper, so that limit was fixed as to length. We would like one from you sufficient to go through say three numbers. I intend to write for the next paper a synoptical article on that subject, but if I should, it would in no wise interfere with what you might say on the subject. I do not take the disconsolate view of our experiences that you seem to; for if the visions should drop out entirely, it would not affect my faith on our Biblical theories at all; hence, I should not consider my experience worthless, nor my life thrown away; for I am rooted and grounded in our doctrines. I believe the system of prophetic interpretation we present is sound, and that so far as we have been instrumental in presenting it to the world, we have done a good work. I did not learn any of these things from the visions, and they don’t stand on their authority. You ask if there is any way out. I do not know, or rather, while there must be some way through present difficulties (for God will carry on and bring through His own work) I do not now see what that way is. The idea has been studiously instilled into the minds of the people that to question the visions in the least is to become at once a hopeless apostate and rebel; and too many, I am sorry to say, have not strength of character enough to shake off such a conception, hence the moment anything is done to shake them on the visions, they lose faith in everything and go to destruction. I believe this state of things never would have occurred had the position of our people on this manifestation of the gifts been correct. If our people would come together and calmly, candidly, kindly, and freely deliberate upon this matter, I believe, as I have said to you and others, that a consistent position could be found, which would free the subject from difficulties, meet and satisfy the scoutings of an intelligent public, and not rob the gift of whit of the good it was intended to do. But there are too many doggedly bigoted and stubborn to offer any very flattering outlook in this direction. If the matter could be got along with without any violent disruption anywhere, it would be better. This is what I dislike, and fought against in our college troubles. I should like very much to see you and canvass together some of these questions. I may sometime accept your invitation and visit Otsego. You see by the Review that I get out occasionally. Tomorrow I go to Marshall - joint meeting of Marshall, Convis and Newton. A week from today I go to Hillsdale on the invitation of Bro. Lamson to attend their district quarterly meeting the 14th and 15th. The conception of a state of things that might exist among us occasionally flashes through my mind, when love and harmony would prevail; where there would be concert and union of action, a recognition of each other’s rights and a courage and inspiration to make the land echo with the sound of the glorious truth, as souls are pointed to the Savior as their hope and refuge. Let us live as near right as we can, be watchful against all devices of the enemy to destroy our spiritual life, and hope in God for his providence to guide us in these times of danger. Dr. Sprague [an Adventist Physician] joined the Presbyterian Church last Sunday, and I am informed that his mother and Sister Nelson are to join next Sunday. Yours truly, U. Smith LETTER 3 Battle Creek, Michigan, July 31, 1883 Dear Bro. Canright: Yours of July 28 is at hand. I have shown it to Bro. Gage as you request. It is true G.I.B. [Butler] has asked me to write something for the proposed Supplement [in reply to A.C. Long’s attack], and in the presence of Brn. Littlejohn and Fargo, has urged it hard; or rather they three together have urged me to it. But I have not yet made up my mind to say anything, because I do not know that I can say that will be of any particular help to them. I told these brethren so plainly. And my reason is that Sr. W. has herself shut my mouth. In the ‘Special Testimony to the B.C. [Battle Creek] Church,’ quoted in the ‘Sab. Advocate Extra,’ (both of which I suppose you have seen) she has published me as having rejected not only that testimony, but all the testimonies. Now if I say that I haven’t rejected them, I thereby show that I have, for I contradict this one. But if I say that I have, that will not do them any good that I can see, but will be saying that which I have not supposed to be true. Her attack on me seems to me most uncalled for and unjust. I told the brethren that I did not understand why she seemed so anxious, and in such haste, to publish me to the world as a disbeliever in the testimonies. She has forced me without cause into a very embarrassing position, because if I say nothing, of course it will be taken as a virtual acknowledgment of the correctness of the charges. But if I do say anything, I must speak my convictions, which will not be at all satisfactory to them. I have just written a letter to Bro. Waggoner on the subject giving my position quite fully. I am going to keep a copy, and if you would like to see it, I will send it out to you to read and return. I would like to have you see some correspondence I have had with Sr. W. ... In haste and love, Yours, U. Smith LETTER 4 Battle Creek, Michigan, Aug. 7, 1883 Dear Bro. Canright: Yours mailed yesterday is at hand. I enclose in this what I wrote to Bro. Waggoner on the question before us. The first part of the letter was on some criticism of Hebrew words which you would not care to see. I have concluded to write a little for the ‘Supplement’ for this reason: those who write in the ‘Advocate Extra’, most of them, manifest a spitefulness and bitterness of feeling which I cannot affiliate with, and do not wish to be considered as endorsing. In this I state, what I have told you, that I still hold that Sr. W. has been shown things in vision, and that this is a manifestation of Spiritual gifts; but they do not stand on a level with the Scriptures, and should not be made a test of fellowship. I close by saying that they should manifest ‘more of that charity which the apostle sets forth as more desirable than all gifts and without which even the best gifts are but a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.’ I am aware that what I have written will not materially help my case in regard to the testimonies; for it brings me into direct antagonism with what Sr. W. has last published about me, which the ‘Advocate’ of course will not be slow to pick up. But I think Bro. Green has prematurely set this ball rolling, and we shall not be likely to see so decisive steps taken at our next annual meetings as we should doubtless otherwise have seen. I should not have said anything, had not these men embarrassed the situation by rushing in and manifesting the spirit they do. Logically, my case cannot be let alone till I have acknowledged what Sr. W. Wrote in our School troubles, which I have no evidence was or is vision, and as I write to Bro. W., I know I have to discriminate between ‘testimony’ and ‘visions.’ Well, I think I know myself as well as Sr. W. knows me. And I leave all these things in the hand of God, determined to seek to do his will here, and find a place in his kingdom hereafter. Yours truly, U. Smith LETTER 5 Battle Creek, Michigan, Oct. 2, 1883 Dear Bro. Canright: Yours of the 28th was duly received. Should have been very glad to see you at the C.M. We had in some respects a most powerful meeting. A.N. Seymour and wife were present, Sabbath and Sunday, and even he acknowledged to Bro. Dodge that it seemed like 1844. Wish you could have been here. Both myself and Harriet have had a talk with Sr. W., and in many things wherein my mind was most severely perplexed, it has been relieved, which of course makes me feel quite differently. Then again, I have had opportunity to learn that quite a good many are disposed to be affected by my course in their relation to this cause. I am very vulnerable on the point of standing in another’s way. I would rather do almost anything than that. Of course, I would not think it would make so much difference, if others would go no farther than I go. But they do not stop there. Right or wrong, they have got the idea fast in their minds that the testimonies and the messages stand or fall together; and if they give up the former they give up the latter also. Now I would much rather a person would be radical on the testimonies, even if they are not all what they claim to be, than give up the present truth; for this latter I believe to be vital to our future well-being. So the best light I see for myself is to case my influence in so far as it will go, with the body, and wait further developments. Sr. W., is certainly doing a work which no other person seems fitted for doing, and which is of great value to this cause. So I will get along with my private trials and hold them in abeyance for the general good. Yours truly, U. Smith
| ||
|
Gilbert Cranmer's Open Letter Published in Hope of Israel, Aug. 10, 1863 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About ten years ago [1853] a Seventh-day Adventist minister, by the name of [Joseph] Bates, came to our town and advocated the whole Law, the gifts of the Spirit, and many other glorious truths. The gifts belonging to the Church, I had believed in for over twenty years. Hence I felt to rejoice, supposing I had found the people I had been so long looking for. He told me that the gifts were realized among them, that they had the gift of prophecy and the gift of healing the sick. But as long as I was with them I never knew of any being healed. I have known them to try but they always failed. In this I was disappointed. I also found the spirit of prophecy, with them, was confined wholly to a woman. By this time I became suspicious that I had gotten on board the wrong ship. I then commenced to giving her visions a thorough investigation. I found they contradicted themselves, and that they contradicted the Bible. My doubts concerning the visions I made known to the brethren. At once they gave me the cold shoulder, and I was held at bay. Not knowing any people I could unite with, I remained with them for years, hoping they would get sick of the visions of E.G. White, and that we could yet walk together in unity of spirit. But instead of rejecting them, as I hoped they would, they only drew the reins the tighter. At last I made up my mind I would not belong to a church that was ruled by a woman any longer. From that time the Bible has been my creed, with Christ at the head of the Church. I started alone, with my Bible in my hand. God has blessed my labors beyond my utmost expectations. We have some eight ministers and some hundreds of members in the state of Michigan. God has manifest His power among us in a wonderful manner. Gilbert Cranmer [founder of the Church of God (seventh day)]
| ||
|
Collection of Letters Regarding Ellen White LETTER 1 Myself and wife embraced the Advent faith in ’42 ’43, and passed through our experience with the Advent body up to the passing of the time; but could believe nothing less of our experience, than that it was of God. Our next move was to believe that the door of mercy was shut against all who did not believe in the Advent proclamation. The next step was "The Commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ." And by degrees the ‘testimony of Jesus Christ’ became the Visions of Ellen G. White, or the Visions of Ellen G. White became ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ We fully endorsed the ‘Visions’ as being of God; and, apparently, all things moved on safely until I received a paper called the ‘Messenger of Truth.’ At first I felt much hurt at the thought of daring to question Ellen’s visions being of God, but thought they would shine all the brighter for scouring them with an investigation. So at it I went, comparing the ‘Visions’ with the unerring ‘word,’ and with facts. And to my great astonishment, the visions of that much loved Sister White were ‘found wanting.’ I then confessed my errors, and wrote my confession to Bro. & Sr. White, requesting them to publish it. But they refused to do so, but have added error to error, and have not ceased to publish and brand me as wide as their circulation extends, as a bad and dangerous man. And yet they have not been willing to grant me a trial of any kind. Yet I never felt any unkindness towards them; for I always loved the name of the Advent people. And if they have erred, I can forgive them and still love them. But their organization I have no sympathy with. E.W. Waters Hubardsville, N.Y. (Hope of Israel, Nov. 16, 1864, vol. 1 no. 22) LETTER 2 I was a believer in the soon coming of the Lord, in 1843. But having emigrated from the East, and settled in the West, where there were not many believers in the doctrine of the Advent in 1843, I escaped the fanaticism through which the Adventists passed in the East, for which I feel thankful. In the Fall of 1851 I identified myself with the people called the ‘Review Adventists,’ and remained with them until something less than two years ago, altho’ I knew they held, and taught some views which did not harmonize with the Bible. Yet they adhered strictly to the commandments of God, which I loved; and thought them to be the nearest right of any people I could find. They professed to have the gifts of the Spirit among them, which I have ever been a believer in. But I have long since found that all the gifts of the Spirit which they have among them, are the Visions of Ellen G. White; and them I have investigated with candor, in hope to become settled in the belief that the ‘Visions’ were a revelation from God. But the more I investigated them, and compared them with the Bible, the less confidence I have had in them; and I have become perfectly satisfied that God has nothing to do with them and I believe the time will come when the candid will know it. But notwithstanding my want of confidence in the ‘Visions,’ perhaps I should have been with that people yet, had it not been for their making faith in the ‘Visions’ a test of Christian fellowship… W. Phelps (Hope of Israel, Oct. 28, 1863, vol. 1, no. 4) LETTER 3 In regard to the visions of E.G. White, we never could believe they were from God. We often tried to feel right about them, and tried to reconcile them with the word, but never could. We have been judged, condemned and rejected by those that we expected better things from on account of it. George and Jane Stults (Hope of Israel, Jul. 10, 1866) LETTER 4 I utterly reject Mrs. E. G. White's claims that 'in these days God speaks to men by the testimonies of His Spirit' through Mrs. White. I also regret Seventh-day Adventists' views of the atonement. I dare not believe that the blood of Christ had no real efficacy until 1844. I have found by observation that the views of the sanctuary placing the atonement of Christ at 1844 takes from the people their confidence in the perfection of the most glorious gospel of full salvation, made perfect by the offering of the blood of Jesus Christ once and for all. [You] yourselves know also that a minister in your connection would not be tolerated as such if he should express his unbelief in the plenary inspiration in every word of Mrs. White's writings. The same is true of the doctrine of discrimination between meats and drinks--commonly termed amongst us 'Health Reform.' The rigid rules of diet as a test in religious standing, and further, in being made a final test for heaven, are a very decided article of faith. Members have been turned out of the churches on account of their unbelief in these, in the sanctuary question, and other lines of creed. Elder S. McCullagh resignation letter, March 23, 1897 (Ellen G. White: The Australian Years 1891-1900, vol. 4, p. 280.)
| ||
|
From 16 Chapters of The Great Controversy by Russell Earl Kelly, PH. D. (8-2007) Section 1 of 3 The Great Controversy, is given the widest circulation of all Ellen G. White books. It has been renamed many times and has been translated into many languages. The Great Controversy is the definitive book of Seventh-day Adventism and is often distributed free at all SDA churches, evangelism meetings and is given free to all new members. Although the message of this book (and others) may be argued within the church, due to the nature of prophetic inspiration, the exact wording can no more be changed or deleted than can the original Hebrew and Greek words of Scripture itself. SDA theologians and teachers are urged to keep their theological classes and literature within the boundaries of what Ellen G. White has written. Therefore, rather than contend with scores of SDA theologians who offer very different explanations, I have chosen to focus on The Great Controversy. This is because critics of SDA publications are often dismissed by reminding them that only Ellen G. White’s inspired explanation of the Bible is equal in authority to biblical inspiration. While she appears to have a very rubber nose when comparing statement against statement, I have attempted to include many long statements which contain their best context. My copy of The Great Controversy is the most official hard-back red cover, Volume 5, Conflict of the Ages Series, by Pacific Press. The copyright page reads ACopyright 1888, 1907, 1911 by Mrs. Ellen G. White. This formal book is 678 pages long and does not vary because the page numbers are referenced in the indexes of her writings just as the Bible is quoted. Some reprints of this book even have the pages to this book bracketed for cross-reference. Strangely, there is an Appendix from pages 679 to 694 which reads “General Notes: Revisions adopted by the E. G. White Trustees November 19, 1956 and December 6, 1979.” Yet, rather than admit errors in the prophetic writings, these are presented as more detailed explanations. When SDA literature quotes The Great Controversy, the quotation is written “GC478” for page 478 with reference to their official page numbering system. For almost the first half of the book, The Great Controversy is written to impress the reader with church history beginning at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. There is little or no hint of the strange theology that will be revealed beginning on page 317. Although considered an inspired commentary, the book is full of quotations from non-biblical sources which are often named. It is evident that much of this material is drawn from the history books in her library between 1888 and 1911. This fact is mentioned in her Introduction which should be read. ............................................................................................................................................................ Introduction to The Great Controversy GCx: Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the scenes of the long-continued conflict between good and evil have been opened to the writer of these pages. From time to time I have been permitted to behold .... ERROR 1: EGW claims that the content of this book, The Great Controversy, has been “opened to the writer of these pages” “through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.” Yet the book is full of quotations from other writers, many of whom are not given credit. And the book is full of errors. GCxi: As the Spirit of God has opened to my mind the great truths of His word, and the scenes of the past and the future, I have been bidden to make known to others that which has been revealed B to trace the history of the controversy in past ages, and especially so to present it as to shed a light on the fast-approaching struggle of the future. ERROR 2: Again, the book is full of errors. Chapter 18, An American Reformer (William Miller), 317-342 GC320: Endeavoring to lay aside all pre-conceived opinions ... GC324-325: “Miller accepted the generally received view that in the Christian age the earth is the sanctuary...” ERROR 3: The first statement is wrong because the second one is correct. Most of Miller’s ideas were pre-conceived popular explanations within the historical school of prophetic interpretation of his own age. GC326-327: In the seventh chapter of Ezra the decree is found. Verses 12-26. In its completest form it was issued by Artaxerxes, king of Persia, 457 B.C. But in Ezra 6:14 the house of the Lord at Jerusalem is said to have been built “according to the commandment [“decree,” margin] of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” These three kings, in originating, reaffirming, and completing the decree, brought it to the perfection required by the prophecy to mark the beginning of the 2300 years. Taking 457 B.C., the time when the decree was completed, as the date of the commandment, every specification of the prophecy concerning the seventy weeks was seen to have been fulfilled.” ERROR 4: It is impossible to make an absolute statement that the 457 B. C. decree of Ezra 7 is the fulfillment of the beginning of the prophecy found in Daniel 9:24-25. Whereas EGW’s references only mention the rebuilding of the temple, the decree of Daniel 9 only mentions the rebuilding of the city. Thus, “every specification” was not met. ERROR 5: The context of Daniel 8:1-13 offers several much better beginning points for the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 than does Daniel 9:24, 25. ERROR 6: The very location of this remark is deceitful. It implies that William Miller discovered Ezra 7’s decree when he did not. This remark honestly does not belong in the context of this chapter about William Miller. GC328-329: Miller and his associates at first believed that the 2300 days would terminate in the spring of 1844, whereas the prophecy points to the autumn of that year. The misapprehension of this point brought disappointment and perplexity to those who had fixed upon the earlier date as the time of the Lord’s coming. But this did not in the least affect the strength of the argument showing that the 2300 days terminated in the year 1844, and that the great event represented by the cleansing of the sanctuary must then take place. ERROR 7: Omissions are deceitful. For 25 years, from 1818 until 1843, Miller preached that Christ would return between March 1842 and March 1843. The spring of 1844 was his third (of four) wrong predictions. ERROR 8: “The prophecy points to the autumn of that year” is another common absolute declaration from one claiming to be an inspired prophetess. The attitude is sinful. ERROR 9: There was no “strength of the argument” of Miller’s false prophecy that Christ would return in October 1844. EGW also ignores the obvious that Miller did not teach the Investigative Judgment at all. GC329: He [Miller] had devoted two years to the study of the Bible when, in 1818, he reached the solemn conviction that in about twenty five years Christ would appear for the redemption of his people. ERROR 10: Again EGW deceitfully hid the fact that Miller first taught that 1843 was the year -- not 1844. [1818+25=1843]. Yet, not once in The Great Controversy is Miller’s key 1843 date even mentioned. GC331: As Elisha was called from following his oxen in the field, to receive the mantle of consecration to the prophetic office, so was William Miller called to leave his plow and open to the people the mysteries of the kingdom of God.” ERROR 11: Elisha was a true prophet; William Miller was a false prophet. GC333: In 1833, two years after Miller began to present in public the evidences of Christ=s soon coming, the last of the signs appeared which were promised by the Savior as tokens of His second advent.... This prophecy received a striking and impressive fulfillment in the great meteoric shower of November 13, 1833. That was the most extensive and wonderful display of falling stars which has ever been recorded.... ERROR 12 : The 1755 [Lisbon earthquake] did not fulfill Revelation 6:12 as a sign of the soon second coming. ERROR 13: 1833 did not fulfill Revelation 6:13 as a sign of the soon second coming. ERROR 14: EGW mixed up a prophecy of the second coming with her own Investigative Judgment. EGW said that the 1833 meteor shower in New England was promised by the Savior as “tokens of His second advent” -- then applied it to the Investigative Judgment! GC334-335: In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest.... At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. ERROR 15: August 1840 was not a fulfillment of Revelation 9:15 by Turkey as a sign of the soon second coming. Revelation 9:15 reads, “And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.” Again the facts are wrong. Verse 16 says that this army had 200, 000, 000 horsemen. First, Turkish Muslim power and domination did not end in 1840; second, they did not have 200 million horsemen, and, third, the end of World War One in 1918 resulted in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire of Turkey. Yet SDA theologians dare not reinterpret Revelation 9:15, 16. Note: This argument is presented again in GC391 and GC410. GC335: William Miller possessed strong mental powers, disciplined by thought and study; and he added to these the wisdom of heaven by connecting himself with the Source of wisdom. ... ready to listen to the opinions of others and to weigh their arguments. ... his sound reasoning and thorough knowledge of the Scriptures enabled him to refute error and expose falsehood. ERROR 16: Miller was an uneducated stubborn Baptist farmer who only used the KJV and a small concordance. He refused to listen to the arguments of Hebrew scholars who disproved his 15 proofs leading to 1843 for the second coming of Christ. And, in GC430 EGW wrote that those who reject the Investigative Judgment message cannot benefit by it (which includes Miller). GC339: [God] sent chosen messengers to make known the nearness of the final judgment. GC339: As God sent His servant to warn the world of the coming Flood, so He sent chosen messengers to make known the nearness of the final judgment. And as Noah's contemporaries laughed to scorn the predictions of the preacher of righteousness, so in Miller's day many, even of the professed people of God, scoffed at the words of warning. ERROR 17: Noah was a true prophet of God; Miller was a false prophet. It is error to compare Noah’s true message to Miller’s false message. Miller was not a chosen messenger of God. Chapter 19, Light Through Darkness (William Miller), 343-354 GC352-353: Those [Millerites] who proclaimed this warning gave the right message at the right time. But as the early disciples declared, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand,” based on the prophecy of Daniel 9, while they failed to perceive that the death of the Messiah was foretold in the same scripture, so Miller and his associates preached the message based on Daniel 8:14 and Revelation 14 , and failed to see that there were still other messages brought to view in Revelation 14, which were also to be given before the advent of the Lord. As the disciples were mistaken in regard to the kingdom to be set up at the end of the seventy weeks, so Adventists were mistaken in regard to the event to take place at the expiration of the 2300 days. In both cases there was an acceptance of, or rather an adherence to, popular errors that blinded the mind to the truth. Both classes fulfilled the will of God in delivering the message which He desired to be given, and both, through their own misapprehension of their message, suffered disappointment.ERROR 18: Jesus’ early disciples were correct; Miller was wrong. In order to justify Miller, EGW declares Jesus= disciples were teaching error. “The time is fulfilled” in Mark 1:15 was spoken by Jesus, not by his disciples. ERROR 19: One cannot dogmatically state that “The time is at hand” is “based on the prophecy of Daniel 9.” ERROR 20: Jesus’ disciples did not “fulfill the will of God” by preaching error! GC353: Yet God accomplished His own beneficent purpose in permitting the warning of the judgment to be given just as it was. The great day was at hand, and in His providence the people were brought to the test of a definite time, in order to reveal to them what was in their hearts. The message was designed for the testing and purification of the church. ... The message was designed to enable them to discern their true spiritual state; it was sent in mercy to arouse them to seek the Lord with repentance and humiliation. ERROR 21: Blaming God for the work of Satan is called “blaspheme against the Holy Spirit” in the New Testament. This EGW statement is blaspheme! GC353-354: “The disappointment also, though the result of their own misapprehension of the message which they gave, was to be overruled for good. ... would they, in prayer and humility, seek to discern where they had failed to comprehend the significance of the prophecy? ... would they cast aside truths sustained by the clearest testimony of His word? ERROR 22: Was the false prophecy “God=s purpose and design” (as just stated) or was it “the result of their own misapprehension and failure to comprehend”? Both cannot be true! ERROR 23: “The clearest testimony of His word” is definitely a lie! Only SDAs interpret Daniel 8:14 as the Investigate Judgment beginning in 1844. There is nothing “clear” about it! GC354: This test would reveal the strength of those who with real faith had obeyed what they believed to be the teaching of the word and the Spirit of God. It would teach them, as only such an experience could, the danger of accepting the theories and interpretations of men, instead of making the Bible its own interpreter. To the children of faith the perplexity and sorrow resulting from their error would work the needed correction. They would be led to a closer study of the prophetic word. They would be taught to examine more carefully the foundation of their faith, and to reject everything, however widely accepted by the Christian world, that was not founded upon the Scriptures of truth. ERROR 24: The opposite was true. They exchanged the false prophecy of the second coming in 1844 for the greater lie of the Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844. ERROR 25: EGW and those who stayed with Miller were guilty of “accepting the theories and interpretations of men, instead of making the Bible its own interpreter.” Chapter 20, A Great Religious Awakening, 355-374 GC355: A great religious awakening under the proclamation of Christ’s soon coming is foretold in the prophecy of the first angel’s message of Revelation 14 [14 ‘The hour of his judgment is come’].ERROR 26: There is no “great religious awakening” seen in Revelation which began in chapter 14. The 144,000 and great multitude were converted in chapter 7. This is only a message of the wrath of God which falls in the following chapters. The un-saved curse God and refuse to repent. Revelation 14 is a final message of judgment, not salvation. ERROR 27: EGW and Adventists changed “Christ=s soon coming” to the Investigative Judgment which has already lasted over 160 years with no apology! ERROR 28: This statement erroneously opens chapter 20’s discussion of the nineteenth century’s evangelistic movements in the United States and Europe B with a lot of focus on the second coming (not the Investigative Judgment). ERROR 29: What have SDAs been doing for 160 years if the world is waiting on them to save it? This “great religious awakening” was, (SDAs teach) to be accomplished by the SDA Church becoming known to every person on earth since they had the mission to preach the “true” gospel. GC356: This period [1260 years] ended in 1798. ERROR 30: EGW is wrong to make an absolute declaration like this. Few others (if any) agree that the 1260 so-called “prophetic days” of Daniel and Revelation ended in 1798. SDAs teach that the “man of sin,” the Roman Catholic pope, began his reign in A.D. 538 and was “wounded to death” 1260 years later in 1798 during the French Revolution. Yet, even in the 1800s, most historical interpreters assigned different dates. My former SDA history teachers laughed at the 538 date as meaningless and unsubstantiated. Chapter 21, A Warning Rejected, All Except SDAs Become Babylon, 375-390 Chapter 20 ends with the Adventist disappointment that Christ did not return to earth in the spring of 1844. [Again, the first (1843) date taught by Miller for 25 years is totally ignored in The Great Controversy.] Chapter 21 covers the period between spring 1844 and the next disappointment when Christ failed to return in autumn 1844. Chapter 21 introduces the phrase from Revelation 14:8, “Babylon is fallen.” GC373-374: God designed to prove His people. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Adventists did not discover the error, nor was it discovered by the most learned of their opponents. ERROR 31: Blaspheme again! EGW blamed Miller’s human error on God Himself. She erroneously says that “God designed” the “mistake” of Miller’s false prophecy. ERROR 32 (19 : Those opponents of Miller who were Hebrew scholars had long disagreed with all of his 15 calculations which were taken out of context.GC375: In preaching the doctrine of the second advent, William Miller and his associates had labored with the sole purpose of arousing men to a preparation for the judgment. They had sought to awaken professors of religion to the true hope of the church and to their need of a deeper Christian experience, and they labored also to awaken the unconverted to the duty of immediate repentance and conversion to God. They made no attempt to convert men to a sect or party in religion. Hence they labored among all parties and sects, without interfering with their organization or discipline. ERROR 33: If this were true of Miller, then why was it not true of their subsequent church organization? If Miller could (as they claim) preach the Three Angels’ Messages the first time without an existing so-called “remnant church,” then why is an organization needed to preach those “same” Three Angels’ Message the second time? ERROR 34: Again, EGW’s attempts to change Miller’s second coming message into the entirely different Investigative Judgment. GC376: Those [non-Millerites] who sought to shut out the testimony of God=s word they [the Millerites] could not regard as constituting the church of Christ, ‘the pillar and ground of the truth.’ Hence they felt themselves justified in separating from their former connection. In the summer of 1844 about fifty thousand withdrew from the churches. ERROR 35: Miller was wrong and deserved ridicule as a false prophet. During Old Testament times he might have been put to death. The “pillar and ground of the truth” was actually in the churches who rejected Miller’s errors. ERROR 36: In the summer of 1844 the Millerites were still preaching the soon second coming of Christ. Yet EGW and SDAs still define the true believers as those who believed Miller’s prophecy and criticize those who rejected the lie as false Babylon. ERROR 37: The irony is that, when SDAs changed the Asecond coming@ to the AInvestigative Judgment@ they inadvertently defined themselves among those whom Miller called Afallen Babylon.@ See GC430. GC376: About this time a marked change was apparent in most of the churches in the United States. ...in that year there were evidences of a sudden and marked declension in nearly all the churches of the land. ERROR 38: This is the error of judging those who disagree with you. Spiritual darkness actually fell on those who were wrong and rejected the truth [the Millerites], not on those who admitted their error and left the Millerites. GC379: The first angel’s message of Revelation 14, announcing the hour of God’s judgment and calling upon men to fear and worship Him, was designed to separate the professed people of God from the corrupting influences of the world and to arouse them to see their true condition of worldliness and backsliding. In this message, God has sent to the church a warning, which, had it been accepted, would have corrected the evils that were shutting them away from Him. Had they received the message from heaven, humbling their hearts before the Lord and seeking in sincerity a preparation to stand in His presence, the Spirit and power of God would have been manifested among them. The church would again have reached that blessed state ... ERROR 39: Remember, this chapter is about the events between the spring and autumn of 1844. Miller was preaching the second coming. Yet EGW still calls it the First Angel’s Message! ERROR 40: God does not warn his children with a false “message from heaven.” ERROR 41: The church did not miss a blessing because it rejected the false message of a false prophet. GC380-381: In refusing the warning of the first angel, they rejected the means which Heaven had provided for their restoration. They spurned the gracious messenger that would have corrected the evils which separated them from God, and with greater eagerness they turned to seek the friendship of the world. Here was the cause of that fearful condition of worldliness, backsliding, and spiritual death which existed in the churches in 1844. In Revelation 14 the first angel is followed by a second proclaiming: ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.’ Revelation 14:8. The term ‘Babylon’ is derived from ‘Babel,’ and signifies confusion. It is employed in Scripture to designate the various forms of false or apostate religion. In Revelation 17 Babylon is represented as a woman --a figure which is used in the Bible as the symbol of a church, a virtuous woman representing a pure church, a vile woman an apostate church. ERROR 42: The first angel’s message preached by William Miller at that time period was totally wrong. ERROR 43: God does not “warn” His church with a false message. ERROR 44: God does not “restore” His church with a false message. ERROR 45: God does not “correct” His church with a false message. ERROR 46: False Babylon best fits the SDA church. Its Investigative Judgment message is one of the best examples of “confusion” in all Christendom. GC389: The second angel’s message of Revelation 14 was first preached in the summer of 1844 ... The churches then experienced a moral fall, in consequence of their refusal of the light of the advent message; but that fall was not complete. ERROR 47: In the summer of 1844 Miller preached the second coming -- not the Investigative Judgment. Therefore, his was a false message to both the entire Christian world and also to later SDAs who changed it to the even worse Investigative Judgment. ERROR 46: Churches cannot fall “morally” because they reject false prophets like Miller. ERROR 49: There was, and is, no such thing as the “light of the [SDA] advent message.” GC390: Notwithstanding the spiritual darkness and alienation from God that exist in the churches which constitute Babylon, the great body of Christ’s true followers are still to be found in their communion. There are many of these who have never seen the special truths for this time. ERROR 50: EGW has completely changed the Second Angels’ Message. Between the spring and fall of 1844 Miller called the other churches “fallen Babylon” because they rejected his prediction of the return of Jesus in 1844. EGW’s completely different explanation is that the other churches are “fallen Babylon” because they have rejected the “special truths” of the Investigative Judgment, Sabbath, soul sleep, acceptance of EGW as a prophet, unclean foods and avoidance of jewelry. Chapter 22: Prophecies Fulfilled, 391-408 GC391: When the time passed at which the Lord’s coming was first expected,--in the spring of 1844-- those who had looked in faith for His appearing were for a season involved in doubt and uncertainty. While the world regarded them as having been utterly defeated and proved to have been cherishing a delusion, their source of consolation was still the word of God. ... Signs which could not be mistaken pointed to the coming of Christ as near. ERROR 51: EGW ridicules the many who returned to their former churches after Miller=s second (of three) false predictions for the second coming of Christ. “Yes,” they had been “cherishing a delusion” and “yes” they did deserve a certain amount of ridicule. ERROR 52: See GC333-335 and 410. The “unmistakable prophecies” included the 1755 “fulfillment” of Revelation 6:12, the 1833 “fulfillment” of Revelation 6:13 and the 1840 “remarkable fulfillment” of Revelation 9:15. GC392-393: [EGW quotes Habakkuk 2:1-4; Ezekiel 12:21-25, 27, 28 and Matthew 25:1-12 to prove that God’s Word taught a delay in Christ’s second coming.] ERROR 53: These texts say absolutely noting about the Investigate Judgment beginning in 1844. GC396: William Miller had no sympathy with those influences that led to fanaticism. ERROR 54: EGW is trying to justify Miller and free him from being the cause of any of the fanaticism. GC398: It was not the proclamation of the second advent that caused fanaticism and division. These appeared in the summer of 1844, when Adventists were in a state of doubt and perplexity concerning their real position. The preaching of the first angel’s message and of the “midnight cry” tended directly to repress fanaticism and dissension. ERROR 55: Both the spring 1844 and the autumn 1844 prophecies preached by Miller concerning the soon second coming were false prophecies. ERROR 56: In reality Miller’s false teachings from 1818 until 1844 were the cause of fanaticism. GC398: That which led to this movement was the discovery that the decree of Artaxerxes for the restoration of Jerusalem, which formed the starting point for the 2300 days, went into effect in the autumn of the year 457 B. C., and not at the beginning of the year, as had been formerly believed. ERROR 57: There is no proof that the decree in Ezra 7 and the Day of Atonement from Leviticus 16 both occurred on October 22, 457 B. C. which would last to October 22, 1844 (2300 years later). ERROR 58: Again, Ezra 7’s decree says nothing about Daniel 9:25’s “restoration of Jerusalem.” It focuses entirely on the rebuilding of the “temple.” ERROR 59: This chapter is still in the context of Miller’s preaching of the second coming of Christ in 1844 -- not the Investigative Judgment. GC400: Like a tidal wave the movement [that Jesus would return in October 1844] swept over the land. From city to city, from village to village, and into remote country places it went, until the waiting people of God were fully aroused. [Between the spring and autumn of 1844] Fanaticism disappeared before this proclamation like early frost before the rising sun. Believers saw their doubt and perplexity removed, and hope and courage animated their hearts. The work was free from those extremes which are ever manifested when there is human excitement without the controlling influence of the word and Spirit of God. ERROR 60: The opposite was/is true. Miller’s prophecies during these months about the second coming were false and were later totally re-interpreted by SDAs. (Thus they admit they were false.) ERROR: 61: EGW is guilty of blaspheme again; she credits the “work” with being “free from those extremes” because of the Acontrolling influence of the Spirit.” GC401: Of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles, none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan than was that of the autumn of 1844. ERROR 62: This is probably the stupidest statement in The Great Controversy! Nothing preached in this time period was correct! Even SDAs completely changed everything Miller taught! EGW is still referring to the Millerites who taught that Jesus would return and destroy the earth by fire on October 22, 1844!!! GC402: At the call, ‘the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet Him, the waiting ones arose and trimmed their lamps;’ they studied the Word of God with an intensity of interest before unknown. Angels were sent from heaven to arouse those who had become discouraged and prepare them to receive the message. The work did not stand in the wisdom and learning of men, but in the power of God. It was not the most talented, but the most humble and devoted who were the first to hear and obey the call. Farmers left their crops standing in the fields; mechanics laid down their tools, and with tears and rejoicing went out to give the warning. Those who had formerly led in the cause were among the last to join this movement. The churches in general closed their doors against this message, and a large company of those who received it withdrew from their connection. In the providence of God this proclamation untied with the second angel=s message and gave power to that work. The message, ‘Behold the Brindegroom cometh’ was not so much a matter of argument, though the Scripture proof was clear and conclusive. ERROR 63: Incredible! Read this paragraph again slowly for its full effect! It is still referring to Miller’s second coming message preached between the spring and autumn of 1844. ERROR 64: God does not send “angels from heaven” to help people receive a false message that Jesus was coming to earth in 1844!!! ERROR 65: Miller’s false prophecy did not stand in “the power of God.” ERROR 66: The churches should have closed their doors to “this FALSE message.” ERROR 67: It was not the “providence of God” to, once again, deceive thousands of believers into believing that Jesus was about to return to earth in 1844 and destroy it. ERROR 68: Miller’s use of “Behold the bridegroom cometh” was referring to the soon second coming of Christ B not the Investigative Judgment. ERROR 69: If the scripture proof were “clear and conclusive,” then Jesus would have returned in 1844 as William Miller predicted! GC407: God did not forsake His people; His Spirit still abode with those who did not rashly deny the light which they had received, and denounce the advent movement. ERROR 70: God’s people are not those who repeatedly follow false prophets who have already proven to be wrong several times. ERROR 71: It was not rash to admit that Miller had been wrong several times, return to your previous church and forget the wrong interpretations of Daniel 8:14. ERROR 72: They were not “denying light” from God; they were rejecting false teaching. Chapter 23, What is the Sanctuary, 409-422 [Why Miller Was Wrong] Chapters 23 and 24 explain the SDA reason that Jesus did not return to earth on October 22, 1844. The vast majority of Adventists, including Miller himself, admitted they were wrong and returned to their churches. However, a very small group which later became the SDA Church insisted that the Miller’s date and prophetic calculations which pointed to October 22, 1844 were correct, but the “event” was wrong. GC409: Many rashly cut the knot of difficulty by denying that the 2300 days ended in 1844. ERROR 73: They had been embarrassed by three false dates for the second coming of Christ (1843; spring 1844; autumn 1844). There was nothing “rash” about admitting error. The overwhelming majority of William Miller’s followers, including Miller himself, admitted error. GC410: To accept this conclusion was to renounce the former reckoning of the prophetic periods. The 2300 days had been found to begin when the commandment of Artaxerxes for the restoration and building of Jerusalem went into effect, in the autumn of 457 B.C. Taking this as the starting point, there was perfect harmony in the application of all the events foretold in the explanation of that period in Daniel 9:25-27. ERROR 74: Miller used 15 ways to prove 1843 B none of which were Ezra 7’s 457 B. C. SDAs themselves Arenounced@ all of the “former reckoning” of those 15 other ways. ERROR 75: The 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 actually began with the desolation of the Temple by the little horn of Daniel 8:9-13 which is totally ignored in The Great Controversy. The little horn did not desolate the Temple in 457 B.C. and neither did the saints!! GC410: In the midst of the seventieth week, Messiah was to be cut off. Three and a half years after His baptism, ERROR 76: This interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 is far from absolute. Many theories exist. GC410: Christ was crucified, in the spring of A.D. 31. ERROR 77: This is not the date accepted by most Christian experts. GC410: At the expiration of this period the nation sealed its rejection of Christ ... ERROR 78: This is only one of many interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27. GC410: The first 490 years of the 2300 having then ended, 1810 years would remain. From A.D. 34, 1810 years extend to 1844. ERROR 79: There is not proof that the 2300 days were prophetic years. Even if it were true, there is no proof that the prophecy of Daniel 9 provides the beginning point of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. ERROR 80: While implying that Miller began with 457 B. C. from Ezra 7, Miller actually used this reckoning (his seventh of fifteen points) to reach 1843. He subtracted 490 from 2300 reach 1810; he then added A. D. 33 to 1810 to reach 1843 ‒not 1844. GC410: All the preceding specifications of the prophecy had been unquestionably fulfilled at the time appointed. ERROR 81: This is SDA fantasy. They were wrong about (1) who defiled the sanctuary, (2) which sanctuary, (3) the 2300 days, (4) the type of cleaning required, (5) the event, (6) Daniel 9:25, etc, etc. next part 2
| ||
|
2 of 3) 8-2007 GC410: To deny that the [2300] days ended at that time [1844] was to involve the whole question in confusion, and to renounce positions which had been established by unmistakable fulfillments of prophecy. ERROR 82: Actually, denying this would have ended all “confusion.” ERROR 83: See GC333-335. The “unmistakable prophecies included the 1755 “fulfillment” of Revelation 6:12, the 1833 “fulfillment” of Revelation 6:13 and the 1840 “remarkable fulfillment” of Revelation 9:15. GC411: ... they found in the Bible a full explanation of the subject of the sanctuary, its nature, location, and services; the testimony of the sacred writers being so clear and ample as to place the matter beyond all question. ERROR 84: The truth about the sanctuary is “clear” to everybody except SDAs. The N. T. teaches that Christ fulfilled the one “day” Day of Atonement in one “day” on the cross (Heb 9:24-2 .GC414-415: The holy places of the sanctuary in heaven are represented by the two apartments of the sanctuary on earth. As in vision, the apostle John was granted a view of the temple of God in heaven, he behold there ‘seven lamps of fire burning before the throne.’ Revelation 4:5. He saw an angel ‘having a golden censer, and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.’ Revelation 8:3. Here the prophet was permitted to behold the FIRST APARTMENT of the sanctuary in heaven; and he saw there the ‘seven lamps of fire’ and ‘the golden altar’ represented by the golden candlestick and the altar of incense in the sanctuary on earth. ERROR 85: EGW says that John only saw the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. Yet the veil represented Christ who was in both rooms at the same time (Heb. 10:20). When Christ died on the cross, shadow met reality and the physical veil was no longer applicable (Mt 27:51). If all believers can, as priests since the cross, “come boldly to the throne of grace,” then, of course, Christ can also (Heb 4:16). Since Christ was/is the veil, then there is only one undivided “room” in the heavenly sanctuary. Also, John is clearly inside the Most Holy Place in Revelation chapters four and five. GC415: In the most holy place is His law, the great rule of right by which all mankind are tested. ERROR 86: This is a fundamental error in SDA theology. New Covenant man is tested according to his/her response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 16:9). ERROR 87: The Most Holy Place contained ALL of the Law and not merely the Ten Commandments. SDAs act as if the word, “Law,” is strictly the Ten Commandments. They themselves do not treat most of the ceremonial and judicial law as “the great rule of right by which all mankind are tested.” And they ignore the death penalty for violating most of Ten Commandments. GC417: And as the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 is fulfilled in this dispensation, the sanctuary to which it refers must be the sanctuary of the new covenant. ERROR 88: This is a fundamental error which completely ignores the context of Daniel 8:1-13 and, especially, the question it answers from Daniel 8:13. The sanctuary of the New covenant was inaugurated when Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father and began ministering there as a high priest. The one “day” Day of Atonement lasted one “day.” When SDAs admit that Christ has been ministering in the heavenly sanctuary since his ascension, they inadvertently admit that he inaugurated the entire sanctuary at that time. GC417: At the termination of the 2300 days, in 1844, there had been no sanctuary on earth for many centuries. Thus the prophecy, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” unquestionably points to the sanctuary in heaven. ERROR 89: This is only “unquestionable” in SDA ranks because one is not allowed to question Ellen G. White. She never explains how Daniel 8:14 answers the question posed in 8:13 and its context. No other church or system of theology has even suggested this conclusion. GC417: But the most important question remains to be answered: What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? That there was such a service in connection with the earthly sanctuary is seated in the Old Testament scriptures. ERROR 90: Actually there were three different times that the sanctuary/Temple was “cleansed”: (1) inauguration, (2) re-dedication/restoration and (3) Day of Atonement. EGW and SDAs confuse the actual “restoration” cleansing of Daniel 8:14 with the Day of Atonement cleansing of Leviticus 16. The Hebrew word for “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 is never associated with the Day of Atonement cleansing in Leviticus 16. GC417: In Hebrews 9 the cleansing of both the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries is plainly taught. “Almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:22,23), even the precious blood of Christ.” ERROR 91: The “cleansing” described in Hebrews 9 is NOT that of the Day of Atonement. Rather, it is that of the INAUGURATION of the Old and New Covenants to begin ministration. Compare Hebrews 9:13,14 with Exodus 24:3-8. GC418: But how could there be sin connected with the sanctuary, either in heaven or upon earth? ERROR 92: Fundamental error. Atoned sin never entered either sanctuary. Every aspect of both sanctuaries reflected the sinless holiness of God. The two sanctuaries are vastly different because the earthly sanctuary was located in the middle of millions of sinners, whereas the heavenly sanctuary is not B and could not possible contain sin in the Presence of God. See chapter 11 of my book, Exposing Seventh-day Adventism. GC418: This may be learned by reference to the symbolic service; for the priests who offered on earth, served ‘unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.’ Hebrews 8:5. ERROR 93: SDAs greatly exaggerate the words, “pattern,” “example” and “shadows.” The vast majority of items associated with and services performed in the earthly sanctuary have no counterpart in the heavenly sanctuary B such as daily sacrifices, the utensils, ordinary priestly ministry with blood sacrifices, replacing the bread, refilling the candlestick oil, etc, etc, etc. In fact, most of the book of Hebrews shows that Christ’s ministry CONTRASTS with that of Old Testament priests rather than following their pattern of worship. GC418: Day by day the repentant sinner brought his offerings to the door of the tabernacle, placing his hand upon the victim=s head, confessed his sin, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. ERROR 94: EGW and SDAs give the impression that all manner of sin was confessed and atoned at the sanctuary. However, normally only general sins and sins of ignorance were allowed to be atoned (Lev 4:2, 3, 12, 14; 5 1-5). There was no sacrifice prescribed for willful (deliberate, high-handed) sins which were handled by the judges who prescribed punishment (Ex 21: 17, 23-25; 31 14; Lev 20 2; 24:16). GC418: The broken law of God demanded the life of the transgressor. ERROR 95: This is why the judges (not the priests) put to death those who were guilty of deliberate (willful, high-handed) sin such as worshiping idols, cursing parents and Sabbath-breaking. Again, sacrifices were mostly for sins of ignorance. GC418: The blood, representing the forfeited life of the sinner, whose guilt the victim bore, was carried by the priest into the holy place, and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. ERROR 96: No! No! No! This is the greatest error of the SDA view of the sanctuary. No SIN entered the sanctuary through the atonement ritual!!! Sacrificial sin “cleans” or “washes away” sin! Sacrificial blood never “defiles” anything! Everything about the priest, his physical body, his clothing, his anointing, and his deportment within the sanctuary, must be holy and without blemish! Everything about the sacrificial animal must also be “most holy” or it would be rejected! The SDA doctrine insults the holiness of God and turns the Most Holy Place of the entire universe into the most DEFILED place with the accumulated atoned sins of every believer since Adam! (See Ex 33:22, 23; Lev 16:13; Isa 6: 3-5; Lev 6: 25-27; Numb 18: 9; Lev 4:20; 5:6; 6 ; 7:6; Heb 9:13, 14).GC418: In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place, but the flesh was to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron saying “God has given it unto you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.” Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary. ERROR 97: Fundamental error! Priests did not carry sins into the sanctuary. Anybody who defiled the sanctuary, especially priests, were to be put to death (Numb. 18:1, 7, 22). Just as a government attorney has the responsibility of prosecuting crimes and law-breakers, even so the priests “bore” the responsibility of ministering forgiveness through atonement. GC418: Such was the work that went on day by day throughout the year. The sins of Israel were thus transferred to the sanctuary, and a special work became necessary for their removal. ERROR 98: This is EGW and SDA cultic doctrine at its worst. The Bible does not teach that the purpose of the Day of Atonement was to remove forgiven sins which had been placed there via sacrificial atonement blood! GC418-419: God commanded that an atonement be made for each of the sacred apartments. ‘He made an atonement for the holy place [Most Holy Place] because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation [Holy Place] that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.’ An atonement was also to be made for the altar to ‘cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.’ Leviticus 16:16,19. ERROR 99: Fundamental error! EGW quotes Leviticus 16:16, 19 here but does not explain her inconsistency. The texts require that ALL of the sanctuary be cleansed on the Day of Atonement B not merely the Most Holy Place, but also the Holy Place and the Altar of Burnt Offerings. Yet SDAs teach (by ignoring the obvious) that the Holy Place did not require cleaning in 1844 because Christ had already been ministering there since His ascension. Yet, in reality, if any part of the sanctuary were defiled, then ALL of it was defiled and ALL of it must be cleansed at the same time. GC420: Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner=s behalf, but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. ERROR 100: No Bible texts are provided! Yet the phraseology “and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven” occurs in Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6 ; 19:22). Indeed, the sin was canceled because the debt had been fully paid.GC420: By the offering of blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. ERROR 101: This is another example of SDA theology at its worst. The perfect sacrifice had been brought and accepted; its life-blood had been shed; the atonement-redemption price had been fully paid; and the priest had announced “it shall be forgiven” (Lev 4:26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6 ; 19:22). Yet EGW erroneously says that the sinner was “not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law.”GC420: On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law to make satisfaction for its claims. ERROR 102: This was a general cleansing of the “un-atoned” sinfulness of Israel. It was not a cleansing of previously-atoned sins. Atoned sins are the only ones which do not defile! (See Lev 15:31; 18:28; Numb 5:2, 3; 19:13; 35:34; compare Lev 16:16-20, 30). GC420: Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself and bore them from the sanctuary. ERROR 103: See Leviticus 16 , 16-22. (1) The live goat never went beyond the door of the tabernacle. (2) The Bible does not say that the High Priest carried any sins “out of the Most Holy Place” B the “sins” were washed away by the blood of the sacrificial goat when it died at the doorway! (3) The sacrificial animal and its blood became “most holy” at the moment it was presented before the LORD (Lev. 6: 25-27: Numb 18:9). (4) The sin placed on the goat “for Azazel” were symbolic of removal. The person who handled the second goat was not considered defiled. (5) Since the New Covenant sanctuary in heaven is not located “in the midst of a sinful people,” then it does not require a later corresponding Day of Atonement ritual. The cleansing described in Hebrews 9 is comparable, not to the Day of Atonement, but to the inauguration to begin the new ministry. Compare Exodus 24:3-8.GC420: Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. ERROR 104: The Bible does not say “thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat.” EGW said that! Atoned sins never made it past the doorway! And the high priest certainly did not carry “sins” inside the sanctuary because he would have been defiled and unclean! He presented a visual demonstration to Israel that their sins were forever removed. “All these sins” refers, not to previously confessed and atoned sin, but to the general sinfulness of Israel. See Lev 16:16-20, 30. GC420: And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthly sanctuary is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly sanctuary. ERROR 105: See GC419, error 80. Fundamental error. The vast majority of items, persons, and activities associated with the physical sanctuary have no relevance to the heavenly sanctuary because Hebrews stresses CONTRASTS, not similarities. GC420: The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, “within the veil” which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His ascension. GC421: Thither the faith of Christ=s disciples followed Him as He ascended from their sight. Here their hopes centered, “which hope we have,” said Paul, “as an anchor to the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever.” “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 6:19, 20; 9:12.@ ERROR 106: See GC414-415. Fundamental error. SDAs are the only group who teach that Christ only ministered in the Holy Place (instead of the Most Holy Place) from his ascension until 1844. EGW takes the reference to “within the veil” from Hebrews 6:19 and makes it the outer veil instead of the inner veil. However, with one exception (Heb. 9:3), five of six references to “veil” in the New Testament refer to the veil between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place B not to the curtain separating the Holy Place from the courtyard (Mt 27:51; Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45). Also, the phrase, “within the veil (vail)” occurs six (6) times in the Old Testament and always refers to the Most Holy Place, particularly on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. See Ex. 26:33; Lev. 16:2, 12, 15; Numb. 18 . And the phrase, “without the veil (vail)” occurs four (4) times in the Old Testament and always refers to the Most Holy Place. See Ex. 26:35; 27:21; 40:22; Lev. 24:3. ERROR 107: The “holy place” from Hebrews 9:12 (except for SDAs) is universally understood by Greek scholars and Bible translators as referring to the Most Holy Place (NKJV and NIV) of “heaven itself” (9:24). Again, the context of Hebrews 9:12 is that of INAUGURATION of the New Covenant and not that of the Day of Atonement. Compare 9:18-21 with Moses’ inauguration in Exodus 24:3-8. GC421: For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued [only] in the first apartment of the sanctuary [the holy place]. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their SINS still remained upon the books of record. ERROR 108: This is an SDA oddity. While the Father and the Law are located inside the Most Holy Place, Christ was not there until 1844. ERROR 109: If Christ’s blood “secured their pardon and acceptance” before their cases were reviewed in the Investigative Judgment, then why are they in jeopardy again when their cases are reviewed? GC421: As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ’s work for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of SIN from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet [GC479; Dan. 7:9, 10], our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work B to cleanse the sanctuary. ERROR 110: The First and Second Angels’ Messages (“from God” EGW earlier wrote) preached by Miller have now been completely rejected by SDAs and replaced by a much worse false doctrine. Daniel 8:14 is now the cornerstone of Seventh-day Adventism. Yet previously-atoned sins were not removed from the sanctuary; the sanctuary had not been defiled as that of Antiochus Epiphanes; and Christ actually entered the Most Holy Place as his ascension. ***GC421: As anciently the SINS of the people were placed by faith upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the New Covenant the SINS of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. ERROR 111: Absolutely incredible! Carefully read this again. SDAs make Jesus Christ the greatest carrier of sins which defile the Most Holy Place in heaven! “Yes,@” they say, the atoning and purifying blood of Jesus Christ is also defiling blood which carries SIN into the holiest place in the Universe and pollutes it! GC421-422: And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the SINS by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the SINS which are there recorded. ERROR 112: At this point EGW does say “sins which are there recorded.” However, all of her other quotations plainly say “sins” which have “defiled” heaven. Mere “records” of sins would not defile, yet heaven is, according to EGW, defiled by sins of believers which were carried there by the blood of Jesus. The worst part is the SDA teaching that the Most Holy Place in the universe is defiled. GC422: But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. ERROR 113: Notice “to determine.” This cancels the previous statement that “pardon and acceptance” is already secured. Otherwise, there would be no reason to examine the lives of the faithful. GC422: The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation B a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every man according to his works. Revelation 22:12. ERROR 114: Fundamental error. This means that nobody has ever been absolutely saved before they died. ERROR 115: This error forced the doctrine of soul-annihilation into existence. GC422: Thus those who followed in the light of prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the MOST HOLY PLACE of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to his coming. ERROR 116: Only SDAs call this “the light of prophetic word” instead of their own pathetic interpretation. GC422: ...the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the SINS of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the SINS from the sanctuary, he placed THEM upon the scapegoat. ERROR 117: EGW does not say (as SDA leaders want to say) that only “Satan’s part” of the sins were placed on Satan. She clearly says “the sins” and “them.” Again, atonement blood is most holy and does not defile. GC422: When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the SINS of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place THEM upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. ERROR 118: Among Christians, only SDAs teach that the scapegoat was Satan. Also, EGW has ERROR 119. Christ’s blood both “defiling” and “cleaning” at the same time! Chapter 24, In the Holy of Holies (Investigative Judgment), 423-432 GC423: The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. GC423: It opened to view a complete system of truth ... ERROR 120: This false doctrine actually spawned many other SDA false doctrines, especially those of soul annihilation, Sabbath, unclean foods, exclusiveness, and salvation being determined after death. GC423: God’s hand had directed the great advent movement. ERROR 121: SDAs reinterpreted one set of fanatical false prophecy into a worse set of fanatical false prophecy. GC423: Light from the sanctuary illumined the past, the present, and the future. ERROR 122: This one false doctrine forced the Adventists to reject many orthodox doctrines and become a true cult which condemned everybody else as false churches in false Babylon. GC423: They knew that God had led them by His unerring providence. ERROR 123: Earlier in GC373-374 she said that God deliberately caused them to err by covering up the real meaning of the prophecy and that God “designed” for them to be wrong. Now she says the “knew.” GC423: Though, like the first disciples, they themselves had failed to understand the message which they bore, yet it had been in every respect correct. ERROR 124: This makes no sense. Miller taught for 25 years that Christ would return to earth in 1843 before changing it to 1844 after 1843 passed. GC424: Christ had come, not to the earth, as they expected, but, as foreshadowed in the type, to the most holy place of the temple of God in heaven. ERROR 125: The explanatory error was greater than the original error and much less believable. Although many have falsely set a time for the second coming, nobody but SDAs have exchanged the second coming for the Investigative Judgment. ERROR 126: Like a little god, EGW’s statement removed Christ from the Most Holy Place at his ascension and denied him full access to the Presence of the Father until 1844. GC424: Daniel 7:13 ERROR 127: Only SDAs interpret Daniel 7:13 as the Investigative Judgment. It is clearly a judgment of the little horn and not the sins of believers. GC424: Malachi 3:1: This coming is foretold also by the prophet Malachi. ERROR 128: This use of Malachi 3:1 to prove the Investigative Judgment stretches the imagination. Many see it as a prophecy of Christ’s first coming to cleanse the Temple in Jerusalem. Others see it as a reference to Nehemiah cleansing the temple in Nehemiah 13. Some say it is a dual prophecy. GC424: Both the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” and the first angel’s message, “Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come,” pointed to Christ’s ministration in the most holy place, to the investigative judgment, and not to the coming of Christ for the redemption of His people and the destruction of the wicked. ERROR 129: In its context, Revelation 14:6-12 does not cause anybody to accept Christ. It follows the seal and trumpet judgments. It immediately precedes the vial judgments and the second coming of Christ. There is no Investigative Judgment here. GC424: The mistake had not been in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, but in the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days. ERROR 130: Along with many others, the mistake had been made when the context of Daniel 8:14, verses 1-13, was totally ignored. GC425-426: Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. ERROR 131: EGW forgets that Christ is a priest-king and not just a king. He can forgive up until the very last moment of life. ERROR 132: EGW forgets that texts like First John 1:9 promise forgiveness of “all unrighteousness” when known sins are confessed. ERROR 133: Even with her Methodist background, EGW makes it much too easy to fall from grace. Here she begins to teach that sinless perfectionism is essential for those who are still alive when Jesus comes. GC425: Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. ERROR 134: This statement reeks with legalism: “grace plus works.” GC426: In the summer and autumn of 1844 the proclamation, ‘Behold the bridegroom cometh’ was given. ERROR 135: Once again we are reminded that the original decree that “Babylon is fallen” was made by Miller against those who denied the second coming of Christ in 1844. Therefore Miller included future SDAs among those “fallen” from God’s truth. Matthew 25 was used by Miller to explain why Christ had not come already. His explanation was definitely not that of the Investigative Judgment. GC427: (see GC429-430 below) At the appointed time the Bridegroom came, not to the earth, as the people expected, but to the Ancient of Days [Dan. 7:13] in heaven, to the marriage, the reception of His kingdom. ‘They that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.’ [Matthew 25:10] ERROR 136: Only SDAs interpret Matt. 25:10 as the Investigative Judgment instead of the second coming. If, as SDAs argue, Matthew 25 refers to the Investigative Judgment and the “door was shut” when the Investigative Judgment supposedly began in 1844, then it was logical for their detractors to accuse them of limiting salvation to SDAs who accepted that message. GC427-428: And all who through the testimony of the Scriptures accept the same truths, following Christ by faith as He enters in before God to perform the last work of mediation, and at its close to receive His kingdom B all these are represented as going in to the marriage. ERROR 137: This is cultic exclusivity. Salvation is now limited to those who accept the Investigative Judgment doctrine (and, later, other doctrines). This excluded Miller, most of the Millerites and all non-SDAs! GC428: In the parable of Matthew 22 the same figure of the marriage is introduced, and the investigative judgment is clearly represented as taking place before the marriage. ... [Matt. 22:1-13] ERROR: 138: Only SDAs interpret Matthew 22 as the Investigative Judgment instead of the second coming. GC428: WHEN the work of investigation shall be ended, WHEN the cases o all those who in all ages have professed to be followers of Christ have been examined and decided, THEN, and not till then, probation will close and the door of mercy will be shut. ERROR 139: EGW teaches that the chief reason that Jesus has not come back yet is explained by his prolonged work of investigative judgment which only began in 1844. The Omniscient Creator God does not require many decades to make his final decisions. GC429-430: But while it was true that the door of hope and mercy by which men had for eighteen hundred years found access to God, was closed, another door was opened, and forgiveness of sins was offered to men through the intercession of Christ in the most holy. One part of his ministration was closed, only to give place to another. There was still an ‘open door’ to the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ was ministering in the sinner’s behalf. ERROR 140: When Christ did not return on October 22, 1844, many Adventists (not Sabbath-keepers or SDAs yet) thought that the door of probation had been shut for all except their small group. They believed that Christ would only linger for a short time before returning to earth. This “shut door” theory is best seen in Ellen White’s book, Early Writings. Many think that she also at first believed and taught the idea. ERROR 141: As the Investigative Judgment doctrine replaced William Miller’s theories, the “shut door” was changed from the “door of probation” to the “door between the holy place and the outer court.” This illustration is illogical. Since the sanctuary had only one entrance, if that were shut, then nobody else could enter. Regardless of whether the INNER is open; if the OUTER door is shut, then entrance to the inner door is still limited to those already inside! The attempt to reconcile the initial “shut door” error resulted in this poor logic and compounded the error. ERROR 142: At the real marriage feast of the Lamb, the saints are all present (Rev. 19). However, saints are not actually present in the SDA version of the Investigative Judgment. GC430: It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of the atonement who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf, while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration are not benefited thereby. The Jews who rejected the light given at Christ's first advent, and refused to believe on Him as the Savior of the world, could not receive pardon through Him. When Jesus at His ascension entered by His own blood into the heavenly sanctuary to shed upon His disciples the blessings of His mediation, the Jews were left in total darkness to continue their useless sacrifices and offerings. The ministration of types and shadows had ceased. That door by which men had formerly found access to God was no longer open. The Jews had refused to seek Him in the only way whereby He could then be found, through the ministration in the sanctuary in heaven. Therefore they found no communion with God. To them the door was shut. They had no knowledge of Christ as the true sacrifice and the only mediator before God; hence they could not receive the benefits of His mediation. ERROR 143: Only those Millerites who later became Seventh-day Adventists by accepting the Investigative Judgment doctrine could be saved B “benefit thereby.” This limits salvation to SDAs and eliminates William Miller himself. It is cultic doctrine. ERROR 144: Like the Jews who rejected Christ, Christians who reject the Investigative Judgment doctrine are “left in total darkness” and “the door to them was shut.” Read EGW carefully again! GC430: The condition of the unbelieving Jews illustrates the condition of the careless and unbelieving among professed Christians, who are willingly ignorant of the work of our merciful High Priest. ERROR 145: Again, Christians (especially Millerites after the autumn of 1844) who willingly rejected the Investigative Judgment doctrine cannot be saved. Chapter 26, A Work of Reform (Sabbath Reform), 433-450 GC434: The law of God in the sanctuary in heaven is the great original, of which the precepts inscribed upon the tables of stone and recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch were an unerring transcript. ERROR 146: God does not require from eternity past the minutia in the Ten Commandments and Pentateuch which have no relevance to a sinless creation. GC435-436: Those who had accepted the light concerning the mediation of Christ and the perpetuity of the law of God found that these were the truths presented in Revelation 14. ERROR 147: This is an admission the Miller did not preach the true First and Second Angels= messages at all. Now SDAs reinterpret Miller’s messages to include the Sabbath. GC438: [The explanation of the 3rd angel’s message and the mark of the beast begins.] ERROR 148: This is a total change from what Miller taught. GC439: [Revelation 13:1-10 describes the Roman Catholic Church.] ERROR 149: This is the old historical school of interpretation and leftover speculation from the Reformers; it could refer to pagan Rome. GC439: [Revelation 13:11-18 describes the Unites States of America.] GC440: One nation, and only one, meets the specifications of this prophecy [Rev. 13:11-18]; it points unmistakably to the United States of America. ERROR 150: This is a total change from what Miller taught. ERROR 151: This conclusion is based on many false assumptions, primarily that the 1260 prophetic “days” of “years” began in A. D. 538 and ended in 1798. The 538 date for the beginning of papal Rome’s real power is not credible even among SDA historians. SDAs also teach that the papacy was killed, received a mortal wound, in the 1798 French Revolution.
|
×
×