Evangelical Adventists and EGW

[tall73]

Ellen White didn't have any visions of the IJ that are obviously wrong.

Yet every time you say you are going to give revolutionary new light on the subject you disappear for a bit.

If you want we can bump your thread and you can try again.

But the issue is not limited to the IJ. She had visions of those who turned away from their Millerite experience falling off the path. That deals with the sanctuary. And if Christ went into the MHP at ascension then that is a false vision.

The IJ is just part of the issue, and didn't come about completely until some time after 1844. James rejected it at first.

Even the most ardent SDA defenders among our scholars note that He inaugurated the sanctuary, which would require going into the MHP to fulfill the type.

Your view of the Day of Atonement being that Christ offers His blood before the Father is obviously wrong.

Jesus, the High Priest, going into God's presence, by means of blood, specifically compared to the earthly high priest going in once for year, making "cleansing" for sins--Sure sounds more like the day of atonement than the EGW version where Jesus is going over books.

There are no books mentioned in Lev. 16. There is no investigation of the blood. There is CLEANSING by blood brought into the MHP into the presence of God.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is interesting, as I don't label my self evangelical because of it's emphasis upon substitutionary atonement, I am not really who the question is directed to. However since I know someone who in most ways is very traditional but is struggling with the EGW question I will make a few comments. What this person does is think that EGW said some good things and some things that were clearly wrong. He picks and chooses what he thinks are messages from God e.g. agree with as Night says the Word of God. That I think is the first step to occur when reality shines it's light on EGW, that is people begin to say well some things just don't work so we will discard those things. The Traditionalist may discard those things as well but they will still believe they were inspired by God for at least someone. So they redefine things so that it is ok to have bicycles and photographs. But that does not work on the more spiritual aspects of what she says. Like Jesus pleading my blood my blood before the Father so God will save Christians. Or the stuff about some taking days to weeks to be consumed by God at the end of time. Those become far more difficult to say they were to someone at the time she was writing them.

So it seems reasonable to discard what is silly and hold to what you think makes sense. however EGW does not give us that option. She says it is either all from God or all from Satan. Because God does not work in partnership with Satan. True it was a foolish statement for her to make but she is consistent in making those statements. She says some say this is simply the opinion of Sister White and she proclaims that no it is not the opinion of sister White but the precious rays of light God has revealed to her.

Which paints her into a corner, by her own words she can be nothing other then a false prophet yet we know that there is actually a lot of Christian material in her writings. And that is not simply based upon some traditionalist Adventist understanding. Walter Martin acknowledged her as a good Christian writer. He did not apply her own words to her and declare her a false prophet rather a deluded Christian woman. Which would be my view also, but then I like Martin do not think the office of prophet continues past the New Testament time, or rather after or during the time of the Apostles. Prophecy is not tied to the office of prophet. Which again goes against EGW's views but we are all forced to pick and choose what we hold to in EGW's work to some extent, some far more then others but it appears to be something that all Adventists have done.

There appears to come a time when people have to look at things and allow their God given reasoning powers to interpret what God is trying to say rather then assume that we must simply listen to a prophet. Which ultimately means we have to use the same reasoning when we examine what the Bible is trying to say. And that scares a lot of people, maybe because we would have to develop a reasoned faith and actually have to acknowledge there are going to be different interpretations. And that is a truth that we don't like to believe because our tradition has been to proclaim we have the truth and that is what all the denominations before us also did so it is very uncomfortable to realize what we don't know and what we do know.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Two words: shut door.

Whomever invented that whole "close of probation" nonsense will certainly have some explaining to do at the Throne concerning that millstone around his (or her) neck and all the little ones drowned upon it (mixed metaphor, we know).

Take this, toxic soteriology:

 

[Mankin]

Two words: shut door.

Whomever invented that whole "close of probation" nonsense will certainly have some explaining to do at the Throne concerning that millstone around his (or her) neck and all the little ones drowned upon it (mixed metaphor, we know).

Take this, toxic soteriology:

I've only briefly touched on the subject of closed door. It sounds like complete nonsense to me.

 

[Mankin]

I recently read a 70 page book on EGW. It is riduculous how many times she contradicts the Bible. I'll post a link to the book in just a bit. I don't think she is a prophet persay, but she has some level of inspirartion.

 

[Mankin]

Here's the link to the book. http://www.exadventist.com/book/


Note: I am not an ex adventist. I am still an adventist.

 

[NightEternal]

Hey guys, go easy. I'm certainly not justifying any of EGW's blunders, nor am I making any sort of case for accepting her inspiration.
Tall wanted to know what my take was, so I shared that.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Sorry Night.
*sneaks out of thread*