Okay, I've been wondering what everyone's opinion on this. I hear a lot of people criticize Ellen G. White's writings as having some inconsistencies possibly with the Bible, and naturally this is the excuse some use to entirely disregard everything with her name on it. But my question, is this justified or is it ignorance? Just because a person lacks truth in a certain area means we are to discard everything else that they have said?
Martin Luther took great strides forward with the message of saved by grace and not works, yet he was a drunkard, health was unimportant, and naturally he never even mentioned the Sabbath issue. But did that mean the truth he did have was to be ignored?
Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?
I just came over from CARM, where I have a very good reputation. I say that not to brag, but to let you know that while I am a newbie here, I do know what I am talking about, for I have studied the SDAs from afar. BTW I an more apologetic in nature, so I will tone down things and be a good boy here
AK,
Your lament at the the way Ellen is treated is a common reaction, but those of us who push that issue due to the way the SDAs in general, and the official statements (Fund Bel 18) in particular say about her. It is almost like a veneration of Mary. Here's why.
Mary is considered sinless. I have seen no SDA on CARM or ChristiaNet criticize some of the wild things she wrote. ( (I choose not to list them or hijack the thread, but can we not all agree that there are things in her writings that cause controversy, and that do not conform to reality?) Why is that? I believe that it is because she is venerated as a SDA prophetess.
Then we take the qualifications for prophet in the OT, and then apply them to Ellen, saying "if you guys say she is a prophet, then here are the rules for prophets" However, the SDA apologists say to us. "You can't do that!!" but provide no consistent hermeneutic principle for making the exception. To us, it sounds as if you say, "Just listen to us on this one, OK? We are right, and Ellen is also."
Therefore to point out discrepancies is not ignorance, it is being a Berean, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and using more than the KJV or Clear Word.
And because FB 18 calls her writings "authoritative" and a "continuing source of revelation" it is a clear reference to 2 Timothy 3:16, we take the position that the official position of the SDA church is to make her writings equal to Scripture. Can you NOT see how irksome that position is to formers and nons?
Martin Luther also wrote some gross stuff, but calling him a drunkard and "not concerned with health or not a Sabbath observer" is over the top, and immaterial to the issue. Many of us, including me, see this as condescension to others because we do not follow the rules of EGW. Nor as another poster pointed out do Lutherans venerate him or his writings. They take the good stuff, laugh at the gross stuff, and ignore the irrelevant stuff. That does not seem to be the case with EGW and the SDAs. They seem to promote an all-or-nothing approach.
Your last paragraph is commendable.
Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?
It asks the essential question, but unfortunately, it also lacks direction. Rarely have I seen a SDA affirm an inerrant autographa. That is crucial, for if you claim nothing is inerrant (again the OFFICIAL SDA statement on Scriptures
limits infallibility to only "the revealed will of God, whatever that may mean) then you have no base on which to stand. And if you insist on using only KJV (it is not a perfect translation, sorry to say) or CW, then you are endorsing the teachings of Ellen as as authoritative as the Bible. Thus we see a faulty and circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not inherently evil if it has a firm premise on which to begin.
Therefore, because you guys do not play with the rules of Scripture consistently, especially as it pertains to EGW, we see you as hitting foul balls, and then trying to run the bases. The field of play is obvious, and there are definite rules.
Please do not balk.