Omelas

[NightEternal]

Do I think a person can stay and support the Adventist church after learning the truth? Bob Dylan sang "we all gotta serve some body the devil or the Lord".

Adventtruth, with all due respect, I do not buy this idea that very, very few people in Adventism know the gospel. I know many who have read Luther and the reformers like I have and we know the gospel of salvation!

Neither do I appreciate ultimatums, nor do I appreciate the implication that I have somehow 'sold out' or that I have no integrity for staying even though I DO know the gospel! And to claim that I am serving the devil just because I do choose to stay borders on absolute demonization and paranoia of all things Adventist.

You would think we were discussing the church of Satan the way you guys are carrying on!

And I served God by speaking the gospel to some. But I myself was dying. I continued to spread the gopsel, but was not hearing the gospel...not in church aleast. I listen to sermons on CD and the net, read books, and read my bible, but I was not in the fellowship of those who knew the gospel, I was not hearing the gospel from the pulpit. And I knew this.

I can discern when there is a convoluted understanding of salvation being presented from the pulpit. I can see when salvation by law-keeping is being put forward and I can see when justification by faith is being polluted with righteousness by works. It isn't hard to detect when you know Luther and Paul.

I just keep what is good and discard the rest. I also consider the source if the pastor is TSDA.

Furthermore, I have heard many nonTSDA Adventist preachers get it right or at least very, very close. To say that every single pulpit in Adventism is barren of the knowledge of the gospel-that's just...I mean come on, that is just Collen Tinker FAF rhetoric and it's a highly absurd claim!

Sorry, but my own personal understanding of the salvation gospel and my own theological knowledge is not dependent upon what is being said from the pulpit or what some preacher's opinion happens to be.

Some one told me It was not enough to teach it, and not hear it. I needed the fellowship of it. This is when the compelling power of God began to move on me. The more I thought about it, the more I was compelled to move so I did. So for me I could no longer stay. I told those who would listen the gospel.

This just has not been my experience, flat-out. I have socialized with many SDA's who have a handle on the gospel. They understand justification is a work done totally outside and apart from anything we do.

I just don't know where this is coming from. How can it be maintained that there is no fellowship of the gospel ANYWHERE in Adventism?

It's just not true. I don't know what else to say.

 

[NightEternal]

Guys, you are pushing too hard, too much and too fast with me, I telling you right now. Think of what it took for you to get to the point you are at right now!

I am not there. I may never get there and I may die in this church. The bottom line is that I am feeling pressure to leave.

I have put myself and my forum reputation on the line and went to bat for the formers with the Trads when they have claimed your agenda was to try and convince others to leave the church. That is no small thing when you consider the vindictiveness they are capable of if you cross them.

But these last few threads and posts from you guys....

This business of there being no other option for me but to leave the SDA church as well as reject EGW in totality, as if there was absolutely no redeeming value to be found in either...it's just too extreme, it's too much for me.

I'm just saying, be careful, because you are running the risk of proving what they claim as correct even though it may not be.

You may not be overtly trying to convince me to bail, but it sure feels like those undercurrents are present.

Please prove me wrong.

 

[BGMCFAR]

Do I think a person can stay and support the Adventist church after learning the truth? Bob Dylan sang "we all gotta serve some body the devil or the Lord".

Adventtruth, with all due respect, I do not buy this idea that very few people in Adventism do not know the gospel. I know many who have read Luther and the reformers like I have and we know the gospel of salvation!

Neither do I appreciate ultimatums, nor do I appreciate the implication that I have somehow 'sold out' or that I have no integrity for staying even though I DO know the gospel! And to claim that I am serving the devil just because I do choose to stay borders on absolute demonization and paranoia of all things Adventist.

You would think we were discussing the church of Satan the way you guys are carrying on!

And I served God by speaking the gospel to some. But I myself was dying. I continued to spread the gopsel, but was not hearing the gospel...not in church aleast. I listen to sermons on CD and the net, read books, and read my bible, but I was not in the fellowship of those who knew the gospel, I was not hearing the gospel from the pulpit. And I knew this.

I can discern when there is a convoluted understanding of salvation being presented from the pulpit. I can see when salvation by law-keeping is being put forward and I can see when justification by faith is being polluted with righteousness by works. It isn't hard to detect when you know Luther and Paul.

I just keep what is good and discard the rest. I also consider the source if the pastor is TSDA.

Furthermore, I have heard many nonTSDA Adventist preachers get it right or at least very, very close. To say that every single pulpit in Adventism is barren of the knowledge of the gospel-that's just...I mean come on, that is just Collen Tinker FAF rhetoric and it's a highly absurd claim!

Sorry, but my own personal understanding of the salvation gospel and my own theological knowledge is not dependent upon what is being said from the pulpit or what some preacher's opinion happens to be.

Some one told me It was not enough to teach it, and not hear it. I needed the fellowship of it. This is when the compelling power of God began to move on me. The more I thought about it, the more I was compelled to move so I did. So for me I could no longer stay. I told those who would listen the gospel.

This just has not been my experience, flat-out. I have socialized with many SDA's who have a handle on the gospel. They understand justification is a work done totally outside and apart from anything we do.

I just don't know where this is coming from. How can it be maintained that there is no fellowship of the gospel ANYWHERE in Adventism?

It's just not true. I don't know what else to say.

Hey Night Iwonder something and don't take this wrong, but who are angry at My Goodness I've read alot of your posts and I"M soory , but it seems your angry with someone or something Where you a PK (preachers kid) cause some of your Posts sound like it. Ilived were there was a lot of them. God Bless if you are causeI know the struggle thata lot of them had to deal with

 

[NightEternal]

The post you quoted was a reaction to gross generalizations being made concerning Adventism. I was not angry with Adventtruth, just frustrated. The reasons should be obvious from where I explained myself in the quoted post.

No, I am not a P.K.

As for other posts I have made, yes, there is anger and hostility there. That would be due to my negative experiences with conservative TSDAism and some insidious aspects of thier doctrine which are emotionally damaging.

Perhaps this post will shed some light on the situation for you BGMCFAR:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=39001352&postcount=202

 

[tall73]

Guys, you are pushing too hard, too much and too fast with me, I telling you right now. Think of what it took for you to get to the point you are at right now!

I am not there. I may never get there and I may die in this church. The bottom line is that I am feeling pressure and I don't appreciate it.

I have put myself and my forum reputation on the line and went to bat for the formers with the Trads when they have claimed your agenda was to try and convince others to leave the church. That is no small thing when you consider the vindictiveness they are capable of if you cross them.

But these last few threads and posts from you guys....

This business of there being no other option for me but to leave the SDA church as well as reject EGW in totality, as if there was absolutely no redeeming value to be found in either...it's just too extreme, it's too much for me.

I'm just saying, be careful, because you are running the risk of proving what they claim as correct even though it may not be.

You may not be overtly trying to convince me to bail, but it sure feels like those undercurrents are present.

Please prove me wrong.

I do not base my discussion on charges by trads. I am not writing this so you will leave. But if you leave it will not hurt my feelings either. I am trying to look at the issues in the Adventist church that caused me to leave. And I want to know how folks think about the issues and how they make decisions to stay or leave. I am trying to find out whether there is any point in fighting from the inside rather than the outside. I am trying to figure out whether spending your time on a cause is better than spending your time in another church in ministry. These are very real questions to me right now.

Nor have I claimed that there is no fellowship in the gospel in Adventism. In fact, you may recall that I have said I was not a legalist even as an Adventist. But there are a lot of legalists. And there are parts of the church DNA that promote it.

I don't think your decision to stay is a decision to serve satan. I think you are serving God either way. But I do want to discuss leaving or staying. I do want to discuss what has dominated my life for the last two years. I want to know whether Adventism is a cause that good men should be spent on over and over again with no result. I want to know if there is a better approach to take. I want to know if it is better to just witness to those who are lost with no hope in Christ and hope the Adventists catch on from all those leaving. Now some on here obviously have a different perspective. I am wondering why.

Now on the issue of EGW, I think it is a bit different. I think your actual position on EGW is fine. But the way you state your position sounds like you are attempting to put a good face on and no one is buying it.

To accept EGW as pastoral is to reject what makes her important to Adventists. So if you say that you are accepting her but the trads are still upset, I see what they are getting at. You do not accept her in any way that they would call acceptance. You do not accept her as a prophet or more than a prophet, etc. Now does that make you wrong? No. But I think you would be received better if you just said that you do not accept EGW in the usual way rather than making a point of saying you haven't rejected her. As far as those who would worry about you accepting or rejecting are concerned, you have rejected her.


Finally, do we push the trads too fast and too hard? Have they had time to ask these questions? Maybe we do. . But they are all questions we face at times. And right now I am facing them and trying to process what has happened. For me I want to discuss it. You don't have to if you can't at this time. If it is too fast for you then just don't post. That is what we tell the trads too. And sometimes I have told Stormy or Senti that I am just not interested in certain discussions because they are totally off my radar. Usually this is because they involve a different view of inspiration.

But I want to discuss this now. You don't have to. And if you don't want to that is fine.

 

[tall73]

Just edited that....

 

[NightEternal]

Tall, If you guys want to present your case and deal with the issues, I have no problems with that. But if this thing is going to turn into a Tinker/FAF hatefest of Adventist paranoia (which is the impression I strongly gathered from Adventtruth's last post) than I am not interested and will bow out. I hope you will agree he has made some wildly absurd generalizations about the church.

Next we will be hearing how EGW is a demonic witch who should have been stoned like Jeremy from FAF claims or some of the vitriol I have read on CARM against her.

Moreover, since I do not subscribe to the Trad's all or nothing, black and white approach to EGW, I do not care in the least what the Trads think about my position on EGW nor do I care if they think I have rejected her for all practical purposes.

What I do take issue with is thier claim that legitimate questioning and analyzation equals rejection. That is pure baloney, and I will call them on it every chance I get.

Finally, the Trads are saying the same thing about Graeme Bradford and Alden Thompson, so I consider myself in good company. You may not buy thier understanding either, but I find it makes perfect sense.

I have not rejected her. I am following in the wise counsel of the early pioneers who maintained we should not make the SOP a test of fellowship, we should not place her authourity equal to the Bible and we should not use her to interpret Scripture or as an exegete.

So it is the TRADS who are going against the ideal that was set forth with this 'Prophet' thing from the very beginning.

The church admin is welcome to violate these principals all it wishes and rape Sola Scriptura by continuing to publish the EGW Study Bible and The Clear Word. I do not have to agree with it and many other SDA's don't agree with it either, including George Knight.

 

[BGMCFAR]

Tall & Night I can appreciate both of your situations I left20 some odd years ago couple ofyears ago I went back to church and did not recognize the church I grew up in and each person has to decide what fits for them to me I come from 5 generations SDA. and I guess what made me leavewas this sheltered little world SDA 's live in with it seems know touch with the real world. Example Someone new joins the churchand the first thing they tell the person is you have to do is tell you employer yyou can"t work on Saturday anymore.What if that persons job requires that they work on Sat. Is that person supposed to give up there job. Will the church support the person till they find another job I don't think so.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

To accept EGW as pastoral is to reject what makes her important to Adventists. So if you say that you are accepting her but the trads are still upset, I see what they are getting at. You do not accept her in any way that they would call acceptance. You do not accept her as a prophet or more than a prophet, etc. Now does that make you wrong? No. But I think you would be received better if you just said that you do not accept EGW in the usual way rather than making a point of saying you haven't rejected her. As far as those who would worry about you accepting or rejecting are concerned, you have rejected her.

This is the flaw in much of people's understanding of Adventism. They accept what was not historical as being an historical fact. In other words they have accepted the traditionalist understanding of EGW as prophet when for much of her career she was viewed far more as Pastoral. Toward the end of the 1880's through the early 1900's the leadership began to take her more as Prophet rather then Pastor with many even going so far as to believe in her verbal inspiration. It is this portion that the Traditionalist gathers for their historical tradition period. They don't see the tradition of examination and questions and research on religious subjects.

So with the use of the Traditionalists assumptions by both traditionalists and others when people like Bradford, Sam B. and Desmond Ford point to errors in EGW's views and that that does not fit with prophet but fits with pastoral view they are going against assumptions.

The average member of the SDA church does not study EGW they are more like the average Roman Catholic that just follows what the Hierarchy of the church put forward. As long as it is not too contrary to their common sense. So as the American Catholic does not stop using birth control the average Adventist does not forbid games and entertainment or follow the host of eating prohibitions.

So right now we are at the point where her theological positions are still in place but they are now being examined like never before in the last 100 years. The concept that the SDA church will never change is wrong because it has very much changed from the SDA church of the 30's -50's when it was at it's most legalistic. Even with the Ford debate in the 1980's the SDA church changed it's emphasis on the investigative Judgment from the examination of the books as put forth by Uriah Smith to a demonstration of God's correct actions to the universe. Those are huge differences.

The 2 interpretations :
1. For example Uriah Smith says in Daniel and the Revelation (old interpretation):

..."In 1844 the days ended. Since that time the final work for man's salvation has been going forward. This work involves an examination of every man's character, for it consists in the remission of the sins of those who shall be found worthy to have them remitted, and determines who among the dead shall be raised. It decides who among the living shall be changed at the coming of the Lord, and who of both dead and living shall be left to have their part in the fearful scenes of the second death. All can see that such a decision as this must be rendered before the Lord appears." (p. 220)

2. The book SDA's believe... says (newer interpretation):
"Why then a pre-Advent investigative judgment? This judgment is not for the benefit of the Godhead. It is primarily for the benefit of the universe, answering the charges of Satan and giving assurance to the unfallen creation that God will allow into His kingdom only those who truly have been converted. So God opens the books of record for impartial inspection. (Dan. 7:9'10) (Seventh-day Adventists Believe... p.325)

 

[tall73]

I have not rejected her. I am following in the wise counsel of the early pioneers who maintained we should not make the SOP a test of fellowship, we should not place her authourity equal to the Bible and we should not use her to interpret Scripture or as an exegete.

As with almost everything involving EGW we actually see pioneers and she herself making counter claims on that point.

 

[tall73]

This is the flaw in much of people's understanding of Adventism. They accept what was not historical as being an historical fact. In other words they have accepted the traditionalist understanding of EGW as prophet when for much of her career she was viewed far more as Pastoral. Toward the end of the 1880's through the early 1900's the leadership began to take her more as Prophet rather then Pastor with many even going so far as to believe in her verbal inspiration. It is this portion that the Traditionalist gathers for their historical tradition period. They don't see the tradition of examination and questions and research on religious subjects.

There was a strengthening of claims. But again, if she makes the claim herself we can't fault the tradttionals for using that as evidence.
We see a development. They see statements that back their view.

Now when Ellen White says she is more than a prophet, to say she is just pastoral IS to reject the claims she made. And like I said, I can't fault anyone for that. I just think Night makes things needlessly confusing by saying he accepts her when that is not what most folks will think of as acceptance.

Nor by the way do I think that even in the earlier years they thought she was just pastoral. Perhaps they did not think she was verbally inspired as some later did (Jones, etc.) But they did think her messages were from God, and not just the same way as those of a pastor might be.

So with the use of the Traditionalists assumptions by both traditionalists and others when people like Bradford, Sam B. and Desmond Ford point to errors in EGW's views and that that does not fit with prophet but fits with pastoral view they are going against assumptions.

They are going against her own claims. Now granted, they are later claims. But they are HER claims. And they are still the accepted position of the church.


During the discourse, I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as
36
much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ. {1SM 35.6} My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people.--Letter 55, 1905. {1SM 36.1}

I am now instructed that I am not to be hindered in my work by those who engage in suppositions regarding its nature, whose minds are struggling with so many intricate problems connected with the supposed work of a prophet. My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend.--Letter 244, 1906. (Addressed to elders of Battle Creek church.) {1SM 36.2}

Or again, notice this claim regarding her words to a campmeeting gathering, from Testimonies Vol. 5:

When I went to Colorado I was so burdened for you that, in my weakness, I wrote many pages to be read at your camp meeting. Weak and trembling, I arose at three o'clock in the morning to write to you. God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne.
68
{5T 67.2}

 

[tall73]

The average member of the SDA church does not study EGW they are more like the average Roman Catholic that just follows what the Hierarchy of the church put forward. As long as it is not too contrary to their common sense. So as the American Catholic does not stop using birth control the average Adventist does not forbid games and entertainment or follow the host of eating prohibitions.

So right now we are at the point where her theological positions are still in place but they are now being examined like never before in the last 100 years. The concept that the SDA church will never change is wrong because it has very much changed from the SDA church of the 30's -50's when it was at it's most legalistic. Even with the Ford debate in the 1980's the SDA church changed it's emphasis on the investigative Judgment from the examination of the books as put forth by Uriah Smith to a demonstration of God's correct actions to the universe. Those are huge differences.

I agree there have been changes since the 50's. And I agree they are being studied more than before. But the church cannot lose its DNA unless it gets rid of the second source of authority. And though they find new ways to explain away things, or new twists on old truth, they are not willing to get rid of the second source.

The 2 interpretations :
1. For example Uriah Smith says in Daniel and the Revelation (old interpretation):

..."In 1844 the days ended. Since that time the final work for man's salvation has been going forward. This work involves an examination of every man's character, for it consists in the remission of the sins of those who shall be found worthy to have them remitted, and determines who among the dead shall be raised. It decides who among the living shall be changed at the coming of the Lord, and who of both dead and living shall be left to have their part in the fearful scenes of the second death. All can see that such a decision as this must be rendered before the Lord appears." (p. 220)

2. The book SDA's believe... says (newer interpretation):
"Why then a pre-Advent investigative judgment? This judgment is not for the benefit of the Godhead. It is primarily for the benefit of the universe, answering the charges of Satan and giving assurance to the unfallen creation that God will allow into His kingdom only those who truly have been converted. So God opens the books of record for impartial inspection. (Dan. 7:9'10) (Seventh-day Adventists Believe... p.325)

Of course James argued against Smith's position even in his day.

But again, I grant there have been changes So does Night. But a kinder gentler legalism, legalism light, is just easier to defend in soundbytes. It doesn't make it not legalism.

They have driven the more objectionable, indefensible elements from the spotlight. But they have not renounced the source of them.

Now the one fundamental change has been larger and larger pockets of liberals and progressives in the church. That, combined with lack of knowledge of EGW may eventually have an effect. But it is more likely to result in split than reform.

And we still disagree on the reason that many Adventist young people are not studying EGW. I think in a number of cases it is complacency. Complacency is not the basis of true reform.

 

[tall73]

Tall & Night I can appreciate both of your situations I left20 some odd years ago couple ofyears ago I went back to church and did not recognize the church I grew up in and each person has to decide what fits for them to me I come from 5 generations SDA. and I guess what made me leavewas this sheltered little world SDA 's live in with it seems know touch with the real world. Example Someone new joins the churchand the first thing they tell the person is you have to do is tell you employer yyou can"t work on Saturday anymore.What if that persons job requires that they work on Sat. Is that person supposed to give up there job. Will the church support the person till they find another job I don't think so.

So theological reasons were not the primary reason for you? Or am I misreading it?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The EGW/SDA 'gospel of health', as she put it. Not that living as healthy as possible isn't a good thing, but it's certainly not linked to salvation/spirituality/etc. as it comes across in her writings. And from what I've seen the core health issues she was 'right' about were written about by others prior to her anyway, so no 'divine' inspiration there. And some of her writings on health were just way out there, flat out wrong, and a few even dangerous to one's health.

I agree with your list.


Sabbath - if the covenants are 'openly' explored is resolved (BTW-it's not wrong to 'do church' on Saturday, or any other day ). Maybe drop the whole 'final test of loyalty to God', 'separating wall between the lost and the saved', and 'seal of God' act, and it certainly would be tolerated by the larger body of Christ.

State of the dead - systematic theology does not necessarily CLEARLY resolve this, but it does take the WHOLE Bible into account, rather than just using a few proof-texts to establish a preconceived agenda (either way). Wayne Grudem's 'Systematic Theology' is a good read (although it's about 1300 pages long!). It's fair in presenting the different existing beliefs, arguments for each and arguments against.

Second coming - let go of that one and you really sever yourself from Christianity and the promised return of Christ from his own mouth. Good one to keep!

If it's keeping a 'unique' identity among sectarian Christian groups, then I can see why each would be important to hang on to. But the first two don't have anything to do with salvation (and believing in the 3rd doesn't 'cause' one to be saved either).


I completely agree. Ultimately SDA evangelism has a bent toward getting all Christians to observe the Sabbath (or at least the SDA version of it). I've done it and seen it in every part of the world I've been involved with it (and I've circled the globe).

Bottom line: it still ALL comes down to Jesus Christ and whether his Spirit (God) lives in us (the true seal of God).

In Christ alone...

you know if some Evanglical mainline pastor would be willing to, do Chruch of sabbath for Sabbatarian I think there could be a serious impact on the SDA chruch. that is the only way is see it happening. I live near union college, can you imagane if an evenglical chruch with a good program and message had chruch on sabbath for the Adventist. if it were good SDA's would flock to it. then once they got out of the SDA system they could be taught the truth, about EGW, IJ 2300 DAYS THE 1000 YEAR REGIN. It would force the chruch to have to deal with it. The administration is only concerned about Membership and Money until something effects that they won't change, but if someone was willing to do this can you image the impact

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yes EGW has grandiose claims but then you can find big claims in many Christian writers from Luther to Spurgen and Moody. Claims about how what they were saying was the truth revealed to them by God. If you assume their claims as true then you would take them as prophets also.

by the way as the article I posted shows. it was James White that came up with the term investigative judgment. He was not at a disagreement with Uriah Smith after the doctrine was developed. And Uriah Smith's version is also the same as EGW's version. So these are not minor changes they are reinterpretations of EGW and historical Adventist views. Made very more obvious by the recent Lesson Study guides on the subject which had very little in it of the classical Adventist IJ.

the importance of a deceased person is only found in what kind of respect is given to that person by the living. And whether it is complacency or rejection of prophetic authority the result will be the same.

 

[freeindeed2]

Guys, you are pushing too hard, too much and too fast with me, I telling you right now. Think of what it took for you to get to the point you are at right now!

I am not there. I may never get there and I may die in this church. The bottom line is that I am feeling pressure to leave.

I have put myself and my forum reputation on the line and went to bat for the formers with the Trads when they have claimed your agenda was to try and convince others to leave the church. That is no small thing when you consider the vindictiveness they are capable of if you cross them.

But these last few threads and posts from you guys....

This business of there being no other option for me but to leave the SDA church as well as reject EGW in totality, as if there was absolutely no redeeming value to be found in either...it's just too extreme, it's too much for me.

I'm just saying, be careful, because you are running the risk of proving what they claim as correct even though it may not be.

You may not be overtly trying to convince me to bail, but it sure feels like those undercurrents are present.

Please prove me wrong.

How about this. It's not my job to convict you of ANYTHING. That's one of the works the Holy Spirit does in us. I'm not worried about you, even if you go to your grave believing EGW was a true profit/more than a profit/'messenger' inspired woman sent from God. It's not about your belief or lack of belief in EGW. It's still about Jesus, and I'll be here (or wherever I am) proclaiming the name of Christ alone.

IOW, I don't have to convince you. I'm just thankful we've shared this virtual part of life together. And that goes for everyone here. God is in control, not PROGS or TRADS or even just plain old SDA's. God is!

In Christ alone...

 

[NightEternal]

Thanks for that Free.

All I am looking for is some assurance that I did not make a fool of myself by claiming to the Trads you guys did not have an agenda to take anyone out of the church, a charge they have been throwing at you guys for months now.

As of now, I am fully convinced both you and Tall do not have that agenda.

I am not so sure about Adventtruth however.

 

[freeindeed2]

Thanks for that Free.

All I am looking for is some assurance that I did not make a fool of myself by claiming to the Trads you guys did not have an agenda to take anyone out of the church, a charge they have been throwing at you guys for months now.

As of now, I am fully convinced both you and Tall do not have that agenda.

Good. If God wants you to leave, he'll convict you to do so on his time table. In Christ you have absolute assurance (based completely on the merits of Christ!).

In Christ alone...

 

[BGMCFAR]

So theological reasons were not the primary reason for you? Or am I misreading it?

You are right it was not all thealogical its like they were out of touch with reality there were times when people would say well Sister White says this or that and come to find out after some research She may not of said what she supposedily said or well the Bible says and I couldn't find it anywhere I felt like I was being decieved about a lot of things.I'm still a Chirstian, but I use the Bible as my guide not some book written by some professor by someone else . All I know is the Lord takes care of me I communicate with him on a daily basis and I try to be kind to other people and try to encourage people and tell them how I love the LORD and how the LORD loves them. When I was a child I was taught a very simple song JESUS LOVES ME think about the words. Jesus loves me thats what its all about. Its not about doctrine or Ij If you have apersonal relationship with Jesus then what are people afaid of if you are one with the Lord nothing else matters

 

[tall73]

the importance of a deceased person is only found in what kind of respect is given to that person by the living. And whether it is complacency or rejection of prophetic authority the result will be the same.

That I can agree with.

So let me ask which is a better strategy for change in the church. Is it to highlight the issues with EGW or just let people forget her entirely?

Or will the GC efforts of promotion prevent the latter from happening?