1888 the real issue that is not being discussed

[Adventist Dissident]

1888 has been a real sticking point for SDA's. Why? the reasons given for the problem are that it has been law vs grace., New guard vs old guard Adventism, 1st generation vs 2nd generation the question must be asked why did the old guard resist the new guard was it the teaching or was it something else. If you say it was the teaching then you are left with a problem. 1st generation Adventist were people who were willing to change there theology at the drop of a hat. They all left denominations to form a new denomination. So it make no sense to say that they are resistant to changing, there must be another factor. What is that factor. It may come as a shock to you but EGW herself was the problem. Right now, I imagine, many adventist reading this are either smoking mad or dropping through the floor passing out. How might you say that EGW was the problem or the factor to resistance of the 1888 message. In his New book "W.W. Prescott -The forgotten giant of 2nd generation Adventism" (availabel through the ABC) Gilbert Valintine state on page 82-83 "Uriah smith had a hard time accepting the message not so much because of the message, but because he thought he remembered EGW opposing it in a vision in 1856, when Waggoners father brought it up. "That was the real reason for the oppsition to the 1888 message, most of the people who opposed Jones and Waggoner did so on the basis of EGW'S prophetc minstery and the statments made by her in 1856 not on careful study of the scriptue.

Evidence supporting this ideas
J.h. waggoner, preached righteous by faith in 1856, but was convinced to give it up, for the belife that righteousness comes through the Law. How do we know this? An eximantation of his writings and his sons, E.J. Waggoner's writings show that they are in complete agreement. The problem is, when E.J. Waggoner was questioned about his father's beliefs, said that his father believed differently from him. How could J.H. Waggoner beleve prior to 1856 in righteousness by faith, but his son say that he believed something completly different?Why? Unlesss He had been influened to give it up. J.H. remained a lifelong SDA . During this peroid1856-1888, the SDA chuch "taught the Law unilt the chruch was drier then the hills of Gilboa", according to EGW. EGW also states "God sent a most precious message through brothers jones and waggoner", because of the teaching of righteous by the Law. This is the real story at Minneapolis in 1888 and the real source of the problem. why did EGW say onething and then reverse herself.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html]http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html

The Uriah Smith-Ellen G. White Misunderstanding

Uriah Smith was distressed when this "mother in Israel" took E. J. Waggoner's position on the law in Galatians. He had expected her to take the same position she did in the similar controversy with Waggoner's father in 1856. Her apparent about-face astonished him. What is more, Mrs. White had sent a testimony telling J. H. Waggoner he was wrong.


There is another interesting aspect to this matter. In her February 18, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, written from Basel, Switzerland, Mrs. White said the dispute over the law in Galatians was an unimportant side issue which should not disturb the unity of the church. But when she actually heard Waggoner on this disputed matter in 1888, she thought it was worth risking a denominational revolution.

A little over a year after Minneapolis, Uriah Smith wrote a letter to Mrs. White on the issue of the law in Galatians. He expressed considerable surprise at the change in her position. He reminded her of the 1856 debate over J. H. Waggoner's position, of her part in silencing him and of her testimony to J. H. Waggoner stating he was wrong. Smith stated that E. J. Waggoner's articles in the Signs of 1886 had seemed to him then, as well as at the time of writing in February, 1890, to directly contradict Mrs. White's counsel to J. H. Waggoner.

According to Smith some had tried to make it appear that Mrs. White did not have J. H. Waggoner's stand on the law in Galatians in mind when she said his position was wrong. Smith was adamant, however, that the only issue involved in 1856 was whether the law which Paul said was "added" was the moral law. (32)
Mrs. White, however, was not as clear on the subject as Smith appeared to be. In her February, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, she said:

I have been looking in vain as yet for an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown that his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statement I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years....

I have sent repeatedly for my writings on the law, but that special article has not yet appeared. There is such an article in Healdsburg, I am well aware, but it has not come as yet. I have much writing many years old on the law, but the special article I read to Elder Waggoner has not come to me....

I have wanted to get out articles in regard to the law, but I have been moving about so much, my writings are where I can not have advantage of them.... But I did see years ago that Elder Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. (33)

About seven weeks later Mrs. White wrote Butler and Smith, reiterating her deep concern over the loss of the article she had read to J. H. Waggoner. She said:

I am troubled; for the life of me, I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were, that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. (34)

Mrs. White's ambivalent recollections on this matter make us wonder whether she told J. H. Waggoner that his views were wrong or whether she was only trying to caution him against agitating differences among the brethren. Smith, however, wrote to Mrs. White, saying:

My recollection on that is quite distinct, and if I was on oath at a court of justice, I should be obliged to testify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, that was the only point then at issue [whether the law in Galatians 3 was the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic law system]; and on that you [Ellen G. White] said that Brother Waggoner was wrong. (35)

In a letter written in response to Mrs. White's rebuke for his Signs articles of 1886, E. J. Waggoner added to the apparent confusion when he said:

I will say also that I had never heard of your having read a testimony to my father in regard to the law. I did not know that you had ever spoken on the subject. If I had known that, the case would have been different.

He then added: ]"I may state, however, that the view which I have taught is quite materially different from that which father held. I do not know whether or not he now holds the same view." (36) However, an examination of J. H. Waggoner's book, The Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, shows that he and his son took substantially the same position on the law in Galatians 3. (37) Why then did E. J. Waggoner plead that his position differed from his father's? Was it to protect himself from the charge of guilt by association? Or was it a wish to be judged on his own merits? Furthermore, what happened to the testimony Mrs. White wrote to father J. H. Waggoner, saying he was wrong? No one seems to know.

here is the source
www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html]http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html

 

[Jimlarmore]

I'm not too sure about all of this, it sounds confusing in many ways because the books I have read the Great Controversy and the Desire of Ages clearly teaches righteousness by faith. Obedience by the Grace of Christ is the main theme of the Bible and these two books as well.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I'm not too sure about all of this, it sounds confusing in many ways because the books I have read the Great Controversy and the Desire of Ages clearly teaches righteousness by faith. Obedience by the Grace of Christ is the main theme of the Bible and these two books as well.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Both of those were written or revised after 1888

 

[OntheDL]

You either do not understand the real 1888 issue or unwilling to accept the true Righteousness by Faith message. Because it is a rebuke to those living in sin. We are justified also by works, not by faith alone.

1888 message was but a smoke screen, a jumping bridge to the new theology/new view that righteousness by faith and faith alone without keeping the law.

Here is an article from Pippenger on the 1888 issue.
http://cherrypicker.tripod.com/Adv-New-View.pdf

You are saying EGW changed her view this after 1888. But her own statement stated the otherwise:

"I have had the question asked, What do you think of this light which these men [A.T. Jones and EJ. Waggoner] are presenting? Why, I have been presenting it to you for the last forty-five years—the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds."--- Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 142.​

I have not seen you present any quote from her writing that says righteousness by works.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

You either do not understand the real 1888 issue or unwilling to accept the true Righteousness by Faith message. Because it is a rebuke to those living in sin. We are justified also by works, not by faith alone.

1888 message was but a smoke screen, a jumping bridge to the new theology/new view that righteousness by faith and faith alone without keeping the law.

Here is an article from Pippenger on the 1888 issue.
http://cherrypicker.tripod.com/Adv-New-View.pdf

You are saying EGW changed her view this after 1888. But her own statement stated the otherwise:

"I have had the question asked, What do you think of this light which these men [A.T. Jones and EJ. Waggoner] are presenting? Why, I have been presenting it to you for the last forty-five years—the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds."--- Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 142.​

I have not seen you present any quote from her writing that says righteousness by works.

And you probally won't since that is not the point of this post.

you miss the point of the post. I am not saying that she changed her opinion AFTER 1888, URIAH SMITH claimed she said one thing in 1856 and then changed her view when hearing jones and waggoner in in the 1880's. that is a fact, not my opinion. In fact EWG does say that the Law was preached until we were drier then the Hills of gilboah so God set a "precious" message.

Try looking at this pro-advetist sight.
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html%5Dhttp://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7day...enttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html

 

[Adventist Dissident]

[QUOTEYou either do not understand the real 1888 issue or unwilling to accept the true Righteousness by Faith message. Because it is a rebuke to those living in sin. We are justified also by works, not by faith alone.

I understand righteousness by faith very well probally better then most people.

1888 message was but a smoke screen, a jumping bridge to the new theology/new view that righteousness by faith and faith alone without keeping the law.

See DL that is the problem. why did they need New Theology in the first place? Why didn't God just tell the Prophet, "Hey you guys are wrong it should be this way" 30 yeas earlier? why let over 30 years go by and a lot of problems come up have a big fight that people are still talking about 120 years later? Why did Uriah Smith remember something completely different? Why do the writings of J.H. Waggoner and E.J. Waggoner match, but E.J. say his dad believed something different when asked after the 1888 conference. Why? Uriah Smith clearly remembers EGW writing JHW a testiomony telling him the exact opposite after a big debate on the issue in 1856 and to back down? See that is the problem, that is why there was a fight at Minneapolis not because of the message of Righteous by faith its self.

I have yet to see any explination on this.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

There is another interesting aspect to this matter. In her February 18, 1887, letter to Waggoner and Jones, written from Basel, Switzerland, Mrs. White said the dispute over the law in Galatians was an unimportant side issue which should not disturb the unity of the church. But when she actually heard Waggoner on this disputed matter in 1888, she thought it was worth risking a denominational revolution.

here is the problem she said it was a "SIDE ISSUE" and "UNIMPORTANT" until she heard it. then changed her mind and was will to "RISK REVLOUTION" so much for EGW teaching righteousness by faith and thing that it was important. Kinda shoots your theroy in the foot.



here is the source
www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html]http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/6.html

 

[OntheDL]

I understand righteousness by faith very well probally better then most people.

No. Not really.

See DL that is the problem. why did they need New Theology in the first place? Why didn't God just tell the Prophet, "Hey you guys are wrong it should be this way" 30 yeas earlier? why let over 30 years go by and a lot of problems come up have a big fight that people are still talking about 120 years later? Why did Uriah Smith remember something completely different? Why do the writings of J.H. Waggoner and E.J. Waggoner match, but E.J. say his dad believed something different when asked after the 1888 conference. Why? Uriah Smith clearly remembers EGW writing JHW a testiomony telling him the exact opposite after a big debate on the issue in 1856 and to back down? See that is the problem, that is why there was a fight at Minneapolis not because of the message of Righteous by faith its self.

I have yet to see any explination on this.

So far I have yet to see a quote of EGW's writing from you that says something to the effect we are saved by keeping the law by our own power.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

No. Not really.



So far I have yet to see a quote of EGW's writing from you that says something to the effect we are saved by keeping the law by our own power.

ok DL since you are the expert at righteousness by faith, why don't you explain it to every one.

Oh and by the way I never said that she endorse righteousness by the law or works, but said that she hinder the work of Righteousness by faith. there is a difference

 

[OntheDL]

ok DL since you are the expert at righteousness by faith, why don't you explain it to every one.

Actually the bible explains it quite plainly. But Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him.

Oh and by the way I never said that she endorse righteousness by the law or works, but said that she hinder the work of Righteousness by faith. there is a difference

Again, show her original quotes, hear-says have no merit.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Actually the bible explains it quite plainly. But Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him.



Again, show her original quotes, hear-says have no merit.

As I count it you have not explained Righteousness by Faith. yet again you have not offered any counter to my arguments. There has not been one ounce of Hear say. every statement is footnooted and refrenced. click on the link to find the reference. you do how to click, DL, just bend your finger and push.

DL you just don't like what is being said so you avoid it. Denial is you best defence, because you cannot defend it. I have never said she taught rightousness by works, I have said she hindered the trught of righteousness by faith in 1856. that is wll doumented . In fact the denomination even acknowledges it. Clifford Goldsteun in his book "Graffitti in the holy of holies" page 14 acknowledges this.
"I can accept that Ellen White ,even as a prophet, was fallible in both her LIFE and WRITINGS. Her prophetic ministry, in my thinking , is not diminished if she made mistakes grew in her understanding of doctrine and theological issues, even, at one point, had erronous views of the sabbath or of the LAW IN GALATIANS"

There an offical publication from the SDA chruch acknowledges that EGW had an erronous view on the LAW in Galatians. Now why can't you accept it.

it happended She had an erronous view on the Law in Galatians. The question is if she is making so many mistakes then where do yo draw the line of her being a prophet. How many mistakes Does EGW get before she is not a true prophet??
this is a valid question for discussion. most SDA'S won't even acknowledge that she made mistakes. Let alone discuss were the line is.
Until sept of 2006 I didn't even know these issues. this issue I have put together over the last 4 months. Since reading SDA publications.

Goldstien says that he can accept EGW as prophet even thought she make mistakes. I can accept EGW in her life made mistakes,she is human, I can even accept EGW may have written some bad advice. I CANNOT accept her IN VISION being wrong. VISIONS ARE FROM THE LORD AND THE LORD IS NEVER WRONG, unless you have a rational explaniation for it from scripture or circumstance. That is an offical communication from the throne of God. You never Samuel, or Noah or Joanah, give wrong advice while giving an "offical statment". Nathan the prophet when he gave david wrong advice God corrected him. You don't see that in the wrightings of EGW and she WAS WRONG.

 

[reddogs]

Icedragon101,

You've yet to describe the issue and it is your thread, set the a complete description of the issue, get to the heart of the matter, then just state your point that you believed, I will take the liberty to guess it is the grace issue in which you try to do away all of Gods Law, precepts, commandments and testimonies and we can begin from there.........

 

[OntheDL]

As I count it you have not explained Righteousness by Faith. yet again you have not offered any counter to my arguments. There has not been one ounce of Hear say. every statement is footnooted and refrenced. click on the link to find the reference. you do how to click, DL, just bend your finger and push.

DL you just don't like what is being said so you avoid it. Denial is you best defence, because you cannot defend it. I have never said she taught rightousness by works, I have said she hindered the trught of righteousness by faith in 1856. that is wll doumented . In fact the denomination even acknowledges it. Clifford Goldsteun in his book "Graffitti in the holy of holies" page 14 acknowledges this.
"I can accept that Ellen White ,even as a prophet, was fallible in both her LIFE and WRITINGS. Her prophetic ministry, in my thinking , is not diminished if she made mistakes grew in her understanding of doctrine and theological issues, even, at one point, had erronous views of the sabbath or of the LAW IN GALATIANS"

There an offical publication from the SDA chruch acknowledges that EGW had an erronous view on the LAW in Galatians. Now why can't you accept it.

it happended She had an erronous view on the Law in Galatians. The question is if she is making so many mistakes then where do yo draw the line of her being a prophet. How many mistakes Does EGW get before she is not a true prophet??
this is a valid question for discussion. most SDA'S won't even acknowledge that she made mistakes. Let alone discuss were the line is.
Until sept of 2006 I didn't even know these issues. this issue I have put together over the last 4 months. Since reading SDA publications.

Goldstien says that he can accept EGW as prophet even thought she make mistakes. I can accept EGW in her life made mistakes,she is human, I can even accept EGW may have written some bad advice. I CANNOT accept her IN VISION being wrong. VISIONS ARE FROM THE LORD AND THE LORD IS NEVER WRONG, unless you have a rational explaniation for it from scripture or circumstance. That is an offical communication from the throne of God. You never Samuel, or Noah or Joanah, give wrong advice while giving an "offical statment". Nathan the prophet when he gave david wrong advice God corrected him. You don't see that in the wrightings of EGW and she WAS WRONG.

When I first joined the SDA church, I never cared if EGW was a prophet or not. It just has impressed me along the way as I study the doctrines of Adventism that the writings magnified the bible and the bible come alive to me. These writings have a special message for God's endtime people.

Having come from the other side of being an atheist, and then an evangelical christian, I understand these writing are problematic for the other movement: the ecumenical movement.

As you and few others here have followed the path of the alpha apostasy to omega: attempt to discredit and destroy these writings as the testimonies of Jesus Christ, you have to do a better job of presenting your arguments to those whose faith is not found on quick sand.

So far I haven't seen anything consequential or remotely contradictory to the bible from the accusations made here.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I have described the situation, but I will do it again.

The REAL reason there was a problem at Minneapolis in 1888 was EGW herself. Smith and Butler could not accept the new light from Jones and Waggoner, Because of what EGW her self said in 1856 whe the issue was brought up. She said 'in vision" that the Sr. Waggoner (J.H.) was wrong. His son E.J. come along 32 years later and says the same thing and then she endorses it. that is the problem at Minneapolis? Why? Why the about face. It calls into question her prophetic ministery. A prophet in vision CANNOT be wrong. CANNOT!!! How do you explain this problem? the chruch even acknowledges this. so what is the explination. Show me a prophet from the scripture , that IN VISION is Wrong and I will show you a false prophet. How does this NOT disquallify her???

As much as I want to accept her as a prophet, this would seem to rule her out. What is the explination of this? DL Up until october 2006 only 5 months ago. I had the utmost confidence in EGW'S writings AS A PROPHET. then I came accross some information that made me step back and say hey wait a minute. As I have come and tried to discuss these matters openly and frankly here and in other fourms. I have become more convinced by the manner of those defending EGW and The SDA doctrine and the substance of the defence that EGW and SDA church is cultic in nature. Some of the defences made by people in this forum in defence of EGW are convincing me that I have drawn the correct conclusion. Just look at the manner of the personal attacks and the discription of evil motive that people accuse you of, just because you want clear answers and to be certian about your faith. People expect me to just roll over and give up my mind because they say so even if it does not make sense. all logic is thrown out the window. When god says "let your reasonableness be see before all men" that is all I ask is a resonable explination. That a resonable person could accept.

 

[OntheDL]

I have described the situation, but I will do it again.

The REAL reason there was a problem at Minneapolis in 1888 was EGW herself. Smith and Butler could not accept the new light from Jones and Waggoner, Because of what EGW her self said in 1856 whe the issue was brought up. She said 'in vision" that the Sr. Waggoner (J.H.) was wrong. His son E.J. come along 32 years later and says the same thing and then she endorses it. that is the problem at Minneapolis? Why? Why the about face. It calls into question her prophetic ministery. A prophet in vision CANNOT be wrong. CANNOT!!! How do you explain this problem? the chruch even acknowledges this. so what is the explination. Show me a prophet from the scripture , that IN VISION is Wrong and I will show you a false prophet. How does this NOT disquallify her???

As much as I want to accept her as a prophet, this would seem to rule her out. What is the explination of this? DL Up until october 2006 only 5 months ago. I had the utmost confidence in EGW'S writings AS A PROPHET. then I came accross some information that made me step back and say hey wait a minute. As I have come and tried to discuss these matters openly and frankly here and in other fourms. I have become more convinced by the manner of those defending EGW and The SDA doctrine and the substance of the defence that EGW and SDA church is cultic in nature. Some of the defences made by people in this forum in defence of EGW are convincing me that I have drawn the correct conclusion. Just look at the manner of the personal attacks and the discription of evil motive that people accuse you of, just because you want clear answers and to be certian about your faith. People expect me to just roll over and give up my mind because they say so even if it does not make sense. all logic is thrown out the window. When god says "let your reasonableness be see before all men" that is all I ask is a resonable explination. That a resonable person could accept.

I'm afraid your problem did not begin in Oct 2006.

The fact still remains that you need to provide quotes from her writings that back up your claim.

 

[reddogs]

Thats as good as the Miami Herald gossip on Castro, they have him dead multiple times but yet he is still breathing, get the facts and document...
You need to do your homework before trying to execute your agenda........

 

[DarylFawcett]

Yes, clear cut quotes gives us something to go on.

No quote = No case.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

ok DL since you know when did I start questioning ellen white? since you know personally? it happened before that when was it?

And reddog
what spicifically is Gossip what is my adjenda and what am i lacking in my homework?

the 2 of you have never monuted any serious defence of any of the topics that have been discussed or have offered any credible explination off the issue. DL has openly stated he does not want to believe the infomation becaue it will invalidate the Advent experiance. That is the same as an Evloutionist saying he won't except information because it will invaladite his Theroy. Instead of offering resonable explainiation you have to attack. If you are what SDA's are about then the church is in sad shape.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Reddog
DL
and Daryl (hello)

what is not clear. if you are going to say there is a problem the point to a specific problem. what do you need to understand the issue. to accept the reality that this toop place.

2 denominational sources sy that it happened.
numers quotes have been given you what more do you need?

2. what would it take to convice you that this was a problem and that this is a serious shot to egw. If you say nothing will change you mind then you might as well just pack up and leave and don't bother responding to any post.

What is wrong with the posts that I have given already