Question for NightEternal

[foofighter]

Dear Night,

I'm new here and this may have been addressed in the past, but being a former myself, was in the SDA church for 25 years, my husband a multi-generaltional SDA, worked for the church for 25 years, what about Adventism would you like to see changed and what to hold onto. I just don't see the point of Adventism that was started in error and has never changed the error or even acknowledged it. I'm just curious how you view a future SDA church and why one is even needed.

Thanks,

Carol

 

[NightEternal]

Wow, that's a tall request! :o

Can you be a little more specific? What area do you want to address? EGW, doctrinal, lifestyle issues? There needs to be reform in all three areas and it would take me forever to spell all of them out in detail here right now.

I have to go right now, but I will be back to address this in more detail. In the meantime, have a gander at my list of 'reforms' that I plan to nail to the door of the GC!

(Tongue-in-cheek for those who still don't get it!)

Here are my list of demands for a reformed SDA church :

THE IJ

* The IJ will no longer be considered a testing truth in the denomination. Any minister, scholar or teacher that has been fired or pressured to resign over this issue will be reinstated and will be given a full apology as well as full backpay and compensation.

* Desmond Ford is to be issued a full apology and reinstated, his credentials returned as well as provided full compensation and backpay. Every single minister who was sacked at the time of Glacierview is to be re-instated and thier credentials returned to them along with a full apology.

* A full apology is to be issued on behalf of Raymond Cottrell.

* Those who wish to believe in this doctrine are free to, but it will go on official record that there is no Biblical support for it and the denomination will repudiate it as merely a devising of the pioneers.

EGW

* EGW is no longer considered to have doctrinal authourity nor the authourity of the OT prophets, nor the authourity of the apostles. She is to have pastoral authourity only. Those who assert she is equal to the Bible will be fired, disfellowshipped and sued for blasphemy against God's Holy Word.

* Belief in her inspiration is no longer a requirement and such statements are to be removed from the baptismal vows immediately. Belief in her is to be totally optional and left to the conscience of the individual.

* The EGW Estate is to be shut down and all staff fired on the spot. Those who are responsible for withholding and suppressing information will have legal action taken against them and thier salary and benefits are to be cut off. There is to be no severance pay given under any circumstances.

* All of EGW's books, with the exception of Steps To Christ and Desire Of Ages, will be removed from all institutions, churches and schools, to be replaced with the writings of Luther and the Protestant Reformers.

* There is to be full and total disclosure in regards to EGW in all matters, and this information is to be widely distibuted to the general lay membership so they can decide for themselves concerning her.

HEALTH MESSAGE

* The clean/unclean distinctions are to be abolished. Anyone is free to eat what they want according to thier conscience, and the only criteria for abstaining from any food will be health-related, not salvific or moral.

* The church is to go on record that abstinence is not taught anywhere in Scripture, but rather moderation.

* Real wine will be served at communion.

28 FB's

* The 28 fundamental beliefs are to be abolished and replaced with just the basic Christian fundamentals.

BAPTISMAL VOWS

* The baptismal vows are to be abolished and candidates are to be baptized in Christ alone, not the organization.

INDEPENDENT/ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE MINISTRIES

* Every single one of the right-wing ministries is to be shut down and all employees and staff fired on the spot. The leaders and founders of these ministries are to be taken to court for defamation of the SDA organization by pandering to and encouraging the cult label.

* All ultra-conservative websites will be shut down and thier owners and founders disfellowshipped and sued for defamation of the Adventist organization.

* Those who insist on proffering sinless perfection or the sinful nature of Christ or any other right-wing heresy will be fired, disfellowshipped and sued for defamation of the Adventist organization.

SCHOLARS

* Our scholars will no longer be held under the control of administration. They are free to do thier own research and come to thier own conclusions on theological issues without an EGW straight-jacket.

FORMERS

* A full letter of sincere apology is to be written and read, broadcasted world-wide, to every single former who has had thier spiritual lives ruined by the Adventist church.

GC

* All staff at the GC, including the president, are to be relieved of thier duties and replaced by a staff of strictly Evangelical and Progressive SDA's.

* Desmond Ford is to be elected the new president and Edward Heppenstall the new vice-president. George Knight will head the ministerial division.

If I think of more I will add to it. I plan on nailing it to the GC door soon.

Think it will sell?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=41066772#post41066772

 

[NightEternal]

Here are some of my views on what should change with EGW:

Bradford's book is pretty much how I also approach EGW Tall.

http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/index.htm

A.) As you know, I am well aware of the problems and issues facing EGW, so you know that I am not about to snowball you as an EGW apologist would.

I suppose the thing that continues to keep me believing in her inspiration are that I find she had some fantastic insight into the Bible that seems to venture beyond her limitations, and not just her virtually non-existent formal education. I suppose that could be chalked up to the sources she used for her ideas, but there must be pieces of her own original thoughts and ideas stemming from her own personal study of the Bible in that mass of material somewhere.

But probably the thing that keeps me hanging on the most is that there is just something I cannot explain about the events surrounding her ministry. There seems to be some miraculous inner-workings going on, assuming the eye-witness testimonies are not fabricated.

Certainly the physical manifestations that surrounded her visions give me pause, as I have not yet dealt with that element of the matter to my satisfaction and there really has not been any convincing evidence provided to prove they were not supernatural in origin.

B.) Honestly, I don't know how to answer this one. She always directed people to Christ and His word, so if she had deviated from that trajectory I would have to discard her.

I realize her works contain some pretty serious theological blunders, but I believe they were interpretations that she sincerely believed at the time. Certainly it is possible she misunderstood and misinterpreted what God had shown her.

The bottom line is the general tenor and trend of her works are in the right direction, notwithstanding some embarrassing tangents that deviated along the way.

In her final public address before she died, the audience was expecting a long discourse. She apparently stood up and merely held up the Bible with aged, shaky hands above her head and said; "I commend to you the Word." Then she sat down.

I can't argue with that.

EGW would be the first to admit she was not perfect, and did not handle things in the best way sometimes:

There were other times when she used her prophetic office to put people down and effectively end discussion. Such was the case with A F Ballenger and his ideas on the sanctuary. She said that he had gathered together a mass of Scripture and his application of these passages was misleading. She appears not to have attempted to show where he was wrong from the Bible rather she defended the traditional views on a basis of "the remarkable beginnings and the long history of the doctrine, and the confirmation of the doctrine given to her in her own visions."It is significant that she does not even try to exegete the passages of Scripture used by Ballenger rather she says this truth had been "sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle working power from the Lord." It is to her visions that she makes the final court of appeal.​

I truly believe she would be appalled and saddened to know that her works have caused so much apostasy, confusion, division and discord in the church today. If she were alive to see the what is going on today, I honestly believe she would admonish us to get rid of all her materials and go with the Bible alone. I don't believe for a second she would think any of this mess was worth it.

C.) I think Bradford summarizes this better than I can:

So what sort of authority does she have with the Adventist community? We know that some would want to give her formal authority. That is, her words are always taken to be true simply because she says so. To them she is the last word on the sciences of biology, geology and history, as well as theology. They would say she can tell you how tall was Adam, how old is the earth and what causes earthquakes. But that type of authority is now gone forever as more Adventists become aware of her sources in some of those areas. No longer can she speak outside of her culture as a timeless voice of authority.​

Many others in Adventism would say that they prefer to give her "internal authority." That is when she speaks we will listen to what she has to say and treat her words with respect as one so often used by God. However, when she speaks, they declare that they will weigh up the "intrinsic truthfulness" of what she has to say. They are saying that they will have to be convinced by the strength of argument that she presents. As such they are wittingly or unwittingly following Paul's counsel of 1 Corinthians 14: 29 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 21 where Paul admonishes believers to "judge" or "test" the ideas that come from prophets.​

In doing this they also follow the counsel of Ellen White herself who when rebuking those who took an inflexible approach to what she had previously written concerning the age children should commence school, said, "That is how it is, and my mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the idea, 'Why, Sister White has said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.' God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things."​

Accepting her prophetic authority does not involve laying aside our mind or personal judgment. It means that we will listen carefully to what she has to say and, guided by the same Spirit who gave her a prophetic ministry, we will make valued judgments as to the wisdom of the counsel as Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21.​

That's pretty much where I stand on that issue.​

Some other choice quotes:​

Fritz Guy is clear on this point: "The ministry of Ellen White does not define, control, or restrict an Adventist understanding of scripture. That is, what she wrote does not determine in advance the results of Adventist scriptural exegesis; nor did she ever intend her work to be so used. She did not suppose that scripture needed her explanation to make it intelligible; and she did not claim that her understanding was the definitive interpretation of the canonical text. She never said, 'Let me tell you what the Bible means.' She never claimed that her articles and books constituted the definitive commentary on scripture.'. . . A prerequisite to any serious exegesis is the recognition that one does not already know ahead of time what the text is going to say; and no Adventist should be embarrassed if a fresh, careful listening to scripture discloses something different from what it said to Ellen White a hundred years ago" (emphasis added).

Jon Paulien talks of Ellen White as an interpreter of the Bible in this way, "While more study needs to be done on this question, it is my opinion that Ellen White rarely uses Scripture exegetically (i.e. being primarily concerned with the biblical writer's intent). As was the case with the classical prophets of the OT, her main concern was to speak to her contemporary situation. This would generally cause her to use Scripture theologically and homiletically rather than exegetically. To say this is not to limit her authority. Her intention in a given statement should be taken with utmost seriousness. At the same time we must be careful not to limit the authority of the biblical writer, denying that writer's intention on the basis of a homiletical statement that Ellen White never intended to exhaust the meaning of the biblical text."

The big issue here is, "Are Seventh-day Adventists a free people? Are they free to go to the Scriptures and seek truth as did their founding fathers? Or are they locked into the traditional teachings of their past? With all the knowledge they have now at their disposal the current generation of Seventh-day Adventists have lost their innocence. Heppenstall has said, "Freedom belongs to man on religious grounds. Freedom is the gift of God. . . . The most troublesome thing is suppressed truth. It will not stay suppressed. . . . Religion that is afraid of investigation and scholarship tends towards superstition and emotionalism. . . . Blind credulity as to the truth one holds is the refuge of sluggish minds. It relieves the individual from real study of God's word. It settles all differences by silencing all opposing voices and denying the right to ask questions. This takes the meaning out of religion, leaving it ignorant, superficial, intolerant. . . . The Christian possess both love of the truth and love of his neighbour. As the man who is sure of his wife is free from jealously, so the man who is sure of the truth he holds can afford to be courteous and tolerant with others. . . . It is easier to abuse a man by charging him with error and wrong motives than to take time to find out what he actually does believe."

Seventh-day Adventism was meant to be a free, open, living, dynamic movement. While Ellen White was alive she fought for this, but the church slipped into the narrowness of Fundamentalism after her death. Her legacy, with the setting up of an education system, caused the church to become better educated and return closer to Evangelicalism. The struggle taking place inside Seventh-day Adventism today is caused by a movement striving to be what God always wanted it to be. The great issues of the Protestant Reformation are still being fought within Seventh-day Adventism. That is, the battle for freedom to go directly to the Bible and the Bible alone for doctrine and teaching. Only as the Seventh-day Adventist church consistently takes an evangelical stance toward the nature of the inspiration and function of Ellen White can this be possible.

If EGW endorsed a view repeatedly and had visions about it (IJ for instance), and it is wrong, then that is no problem for you?

Paul counseled the church not to despise prophecies, but to test them. However, even with the genuine prophet there is an expectation at times a mixture of "wheat and chaff" as we see the human element surfacing. I don't think we should necessarily reject as false prophets those who do not demonstrate infallibility in conveying their messages. I also don't believe that the judging of Christian prophets should be confused with the Old Testament rules about judging false prophets. The New Testament passages deal with judging the prophecies being delivered, and not the prophet themselves.

Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:29, Anthony Thiselton says, "The most significant Greek word for comment is diakrinetosan, let them sift . . . although many translate test (Barrett), NRSV follows Goodspeed's weigh, while KJV/AV and NT in Basic English have judge; Phillips has think over; and REB, exercise their judgment. However, as BAGD and other lexicographical studies make clear, the most frequent and most characteristic force of diakrino in the active voice is to differentiate or to distinguish between. . . . The authentic is to be sifted from the inauthentic or spurious, in the light of the OT scriptures, the gospel of Christ, the traditions of all the churches, and critical reflections. Nowhere does Paul hint that preaching or 'prophecy' achieves a privileged status which places them above critical reflection in the light of the gospel, the Spirit, and the scriptures. It is never infallible."

Judging what she wrote to see which part was inspired is one thing (though I don't think she actually supported that), but if she had a vision and then it was wrong...how do you reconcile that?

I think there is a difference between 'evaluating and separating' as opposed to 'deciding what is true or false'. It is a matter of deciding what is from God, and how it applies, and of separating this from what is merely human interference. The human element and human error appears to have always been present in an inspired writer's ministry. Paul warns the congregation, 'Do not despise prophecies, but test everything hold fast to what is good. Holding fast to that which is good clearly implies that there are elements that can be discarded. So, I have to assume, then, that prophecy in the New Testament is a mixed phenomenon.

In the New Testament we are told to evaluate prophecies. Apart from the authority given to prophets in the Old Testament and that of the apostles in the New Testament, prophecy is sometimes given a lower status in the New Testament.

Even prophets have only partial knowledge. To maintain the Trad verbal inspiration viewpoint, we would have to assume finite beings understand the mind of the infinite. The gift of prophecy is not the gift of omniscience. This is not true of prophets. A prophet, before all else, is a human. They are fallible. They may imperfectly understand the word that is spoken to them. They may lack the interpretive powers to make clear to others what they has seen. Finally, they cannot wholly divest themselves of the way of thought in which they have been brought up, nor can they seperate themselves from thier cultural and theological influence, wether it be Puritanism, Kellogg, Miller, Bates, Smith, Wesley or Smith.

God has reveals things to the prophet they can speak with confidence. However, there will be many situations where they will be merely giving their own opinion. And when they give their own opinion, they have no greater wisdom than anyone else. Inspiration is not a permanent attainment in the life of the prophet. They are informed in some areas of knowledge and poorly informed in others.

So, if she is wrong on a point of doctrine, yes it is a problem , but not enough of one for me to reject her totally and write her off.

http://christianforums.com/t6516109-evangelical-adventists-and-egw.html

 

[foofighter]

Thanks for the response Night. I agree with a lot of your points, but I just don't see Ellen as any source of anything. I really think that James was behind most of her writings for a time (maybe till he died) and of course thousands of sources and copyists and secretaries etc. I read somewhere that when she would get up in the middle of the night (which she did LOTS, the secretaries, or helpers of some sort, would pick them up in the morning and try to make sense of them. I don't know of any insights that are so remarkable, or that couldn't be found in other writings somewhere.

The weird thing, is the more I have read about the history of the Whites, from sources who were contemporaries of theirs, they really come off as spiritual dictators and iron-fisted despots. And when anyone disagreed with them, the visions etc., the ultimate threat was thrown at "the victim" as being of Satan, having spots on their garments or some such comments. I find that so despicable as to be the ultimate in Spiritual Abuse. Isn't that how most of these "prophets" handle things? Disagree with me and you are disagreeing with God. In fact, EGW actually says this quite a few times. Along the lines of if you fight " the Testimonies you are going against God or Jesus or some such blasphemy.

Another thing, that seems to come through to me, is that I don't think EGW actually studied the Bible. She tells others to do so, but I really haven't seen any evidence or writings about her actually studying. As I say, I think she parroted the what James, Joseph Bates and others. She was just the confirmer of their views and others, by the "visions" When reading Spiritual Gifts, Early Writings , it really just sounds so childish and ridiculous. If you can read the Testimonies and think that comes from a healthy spiritual place, I will be amazed. She bashes everybody!!!!

A good place to read the papers and letters from people who knew the Whites's from the beginning is (oops don't have enought posts yet to post a site), Perhaps I will in a few more posts. I would highly recommend it. Also Canrights books, SDA's Renounced and The Life of EGW. These titles are not exact, don't have time to look, getting ready to go out of town

I just think you have to go beyond what the SDA church folks say even the more liberal or middle of the road. I watch the Mormon channel (BYU) and their scholars, as well, sit around and discuss Joseph and his writings. I'm thinking, "How can you be so blind?" It is so obvious that he is false. Sorry to say, so is EGW.

I would be interested in your comments after reading some of the above. I know we all have limited time and whenever you get around to looking at that site.

Just one last comment, for now. The way James and Ellen treated people and thoroughly smeared men's characters is so unChrist-like and hateful, I think that is a HUGE red flag. The sad thing is, it has continued all through SDA history. Don't discuss the issue, just demonize the person who dares to question. Destroy the persons character and you have destroyed their ability to say anything. Nice huh?

Search some more, there is a very ugly side to the White's and the visions.

 

[NightEternal]

I really think that James was behind most of her writings for a time (maybe till he died) and of course thousands of sources and copyists and secretaries etc. I read somewhere that when she would get up in the middle of the night (which she did LOTS, the secretaries, or helpers of some sort, would pick them up in the morning and try to make sense of them.

I am aware of all of this. I have been in the church over 20 years and this is nothing new to me. I know she had help with her materials.

The weird thing, is the more I have read about the history of the Whites, from sources who were contemporaries of theirs, they really come off as spiritual dictators and iron-fisted despots.

I am aware of the stories and am familiar with all of them. Canright and Ballenger, in particular, were treated poorly by the Whites.

And when anyone disagreed with them, the visions etc., the ultimate threat was thrown at "the victim" as being of Satan, having spots on their garments or some such comments.

I am aware of this.

I find that so despicable as to be the ultimate in Spiritual Abuse.

I agree.

Isn't that how most of these "prophets" handle things? Disagree with me and you are disagreeing with God. In fact, EGW actually says this quite a few times. Along the lines of if you fight " the Testimonies you are going against God or Jesus or some such blasphemy.

Yup, that's what she said on many occasions. I am aware of this.

Another thing, that seems to come through to me, is that I don't think EGW actually studied the Bible. She tells others to do so, but I really haven't seen any evidence or writings about her actually studying.

I won't comment on this as I do not know either way. I was not there when she was alive and did not see her study habits.

As I say, I think she parroted the what James, Joseph Bates and others. She was just the confirmer of their views and others, by the "visions" When reading Spiritual Gifts, Early Writings , it really just sounds so childish and ridiculous.

I agree this happened to a certain extent.

If you can read the Testimonies and think that comes from a healthy spiritual place, I will be amazed. She bashes everybody!!!!

I agree with you and I am aware of all you have shared. That is why I told you this not very long ago:

I believe she was inspired, but my understanding of inspiration is not the same as the Trad understanding. I believe she is subject to the apostles and that her authourity does not extend beyond pastoral. She does not have the authourity of the OT prophets nor does she have doctrinal authourity.

I am not going to be one who whitewashes and tries to defend the indefensible. The fact is, she plagiarized, didn't practice what she preached in the area of meat-eating, believed in sinless perfection theology, crushed many of her opponents, had racist tendencies, contradicted herself, took conflicting stands on many issues, made mistakes and got things wrong. Her testimonies can be psychologically damaging for those not prepared to handle the guilt-inducing fear-mongering they contain.

But even in spite of these flaws, God still used her.

I do not accept her as the final authourity on any and every area of life. I believe she grew in her understanding of many things and that both culture and environment influenced her views heavily. She interpreted some things God showed her quite badly and, in some cases, flat-out wrong. We should use our God-given judgment, discernment and common sense when dealing with her views, just like we would with any other inspired writer. She was also heavily influenced by Uriah Smith, William Miller and John Kellogg.

Test all things and hold fast to that which is good. Discard the rest. That is my personal approach to her whether the Trads like it or not.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41965600&postcount=16

A good place to read the papers and letters from people who knew the Whites's from the beginning is (oops don't have enought posts yet to post a site), Perhaps I will in a few more posts. I would highly recommend it. Also Canrights books, SDA's Renounced and The Life of EGW. These titles are not exact, don't have time to look, getting ready to go out of town

I have read Canright's books. Don't know why you assume I have not. In fact, I own them. They are in my library along with Ballenger, Ford, Rea and Ratzlaff.

I just think you have to go beyond what the SDA church folks say even the more liberal or middle of the road.

I have done this. Why do you assume I have not? Much of the research I have done on EGW, about 85%, came from unoffical, non-denominationally approved sources.

Trust me, I am not one who stays within the SDA framework. There is no box that will hold me when I am on the search for the truth on a subject.

I watch the Mormon channel (BYU) and their scholars, as well, sit around and discuss Joseph and his writings. I'm thinking, "How can you be so blind?" It is so obvious that he is false. Sorry to say, so is EGW.

That is your conclusion and you are entitled to it. I have not arrived at that point. I still think God as able to use her in spite of the problems that are obviously there.

I would be interested in your comments after reading some of the above. I know we all have limited time and whenever you get around to looking at that site.

You have them!

I hate to deflate your enthusiasm if you think you are sharing new information with me. I am well aware of all of this and have already found out about the glaring problems with EGW many years ago.

I know the White Estate suppresses information. I know the church has withheld things from us that they don't want us to know concerning her. I know you have to go beyond denominational sources to get the real story. I know about the corrupt Arthur White and his active editing pen at the EGW Estate.

Walter Martin exposed that little gem years ago.

Just one last comment, for now. The way James and Ellen treated people and thoroughly smeared men's characters is so unChrist-like and hateful, I think that is a HUGE red flag.

I agree, it was. But I don't see it as a red flag. God can use flawed human beings to do His work. He has done so with flawed, fallible, sinful men and women throughout history.

The sad thing is, it has continued all through SDA history. Don't discuss the issue, just demonize the person who dares to question. Destroy the persons character and you have destroyed their ability to say anything. Nice huh?

You are dead-on accurate. It is happening on this very forum. I have fought it here for almost a year now and in the church for over 20 years. It has not and will not ever get any better. Anytime the truth gets too close to the surface, the EGW apologist hackles go up and the claws come out.

Most Trads have no choice but to admit there are problems with EGW if they are honest. However, they definitely do NOT want any specific examples.

They can fire, disfellowship, character assassinate and drive people out of the church until the cows come home. There will always be more that will rise up to take thier place and carry on the questioning process regardless.

It will never stop and they cannot stop it no matter how hard they try.

Search some more, there is a very ugly side to the White's and the visions.

I have searched for years and I am aware of the ugly side. I haven't always liked the things I have discovered, believe me.

The search continues though.

 

[mva1985]

I still think God as able to use her in spite of the problems that are obviously there.

It is interesting that you make this comment. Allowing for God to use her in spite of OBVIOUS problems.

Yet EGW specifically says that her writings are either the work of God or the enemy. She does not allow for a gray area.

I'm surprised the progressives don't take this opportunity that she gave them to say that they are the work of the enemy - oh but wait a minute that really is in essence what you are saying.

By saying that there are obvious problems you dilute the effect of the testimonies and introduce picking and choosing what you want.

 

[StormyOne]

It is interesting that you make this comment. Allowing for God to use her in spite of OBVIOUS problems.

Yet EGW specifically says that her writings are either the work of God or the enemy. She does not allow for a gray area.

I'm surprised the progressives don't take this opportunity that she gave them to say that they are the work of the enemy - oh but wait a minute that really is in essence what you are saying.

By saying that there are obvious problems you dilute the effect of the testimonies and introduce picking and choosing what you want.

christians pick and choose all the time... that is why disobedient children aren't stoned to death, it is why sabbath breakers aren't killed, it is why every 3rd yr the tithe is not given to orphans, widows and strangers.....

it is not as black and white as you want it to be MVA....

 

[mva1985]

christians pick and choose all the time... that is why disobedient children aren't stoned to death, it is why sabbath breakers aren't killed, it is why every 3rd yr the tithe is not given to orphans, widows and strangers.....

it is not as black and white as you want it to be MVA....

I didn't make it black and white she did.

As for the other things you mentioned we don't live in a theocracy, but the principles still apply.

 

[StormyOne]

I didn't make it black and white she did.

As for the other things you mentioned we don't live in a theocracy, but the principles still apply.

disobedient children stoned to death? when? tithe given to orphans widows and strangers? not the church you attend.... sabbath breakers put to death? not even.....

from the sounds of it you have elevated egw to godlike status... but hey, if it works for you...

when is alumni weekend at MVA this year?

 

[NightEternal]

You are dead-on accurate. It is happening on this very forum. I have fought it here for almost a year now and in the church for over 20 years. It has not and will not ever get any better. Anytime the truth gets too close to the surface, the EGW apologist hackles go up and the claws come out.

It is interesting that you make this comment. Allowing for God to use her in spite of OBVIOUS problems.

Yet EGW specifically says that her writings are either the work of God or the enemy. She does not allow for a gray area.

I'm surprised the progressives don't take this opportunity that she gave them to say that they are the work of the enemy - oh but wait a minute that really is in essence what you are saying.

By saying that there are obvious problems you dilute the effect of the testimonies and introduce picking and choosing what you want.

I rest my case.

MVA, why don't you go join an independent ministry and get it over with. Because they are the only ones who can truly lay claim to living by the Testimonies 100%. No mainline Adventist can do the same. None.

Of that small offshoot segment, those who truly do attempt to live by her counsel 100% in every area without question inevitably fall into one of two categories:

1.) They become anorexic, wacko, fundamentalist, extremist, fanatical freaks of nature who have time warped back to the 1800's, implementing educational, dietary and medical techniques that died out years ago. Most are truly unbalanced individuals who have lost touch with reality and the 21st century.

Uchee Pines or Hartland anyone?

2.) They become discouraged by the fact that it is impossible to live up to the ridiculous, perfectionist demands she makes of people and leave the group.

Pick your group and align with it. But please spare me the baloney that you or any other mainline Adventist follows her counsel 100%, because I assure you that is not the case.

You have already confessed to eating meat, so too bad, so sad, you're done. Condemned by the very words you claim to uphold in every aspect. Or do you believe eating meat wouldn't be an example of picking and choosing what to follow from the Testimonies?

Now, go read Martin Weber's testimony My Tortured Conscience and see what really happens to those who live and die by her infallible words. This is a man who actually determined to live by her counsel 100% and joined one of the most fundamental SDA independent groups out there. As a result, he lost everything and almost killed himself by his extreme diet.

Description

"I stopped at nothing in my quest for a Christlike character," Martin Weber writes. "My motive in self-denial was getting rid of anything that would deter me from depending on Jesus and becoming like Him. But it was Christ-center legalism. Instead of accepting Christ's accomplishments as my own, I competed with His righteousness. My hyperactive conscience, yearning to please God, robbed me of my friends, family, scholarships, dreams, health, and nearly life itself."

As a child, Martin Weber's concept of God was distorted by guilt and fear. For years he struggled to obtain perfection and God's acceptance, hopelessly trapped in a spiritual Siberia.

His story--compelling, painfully honest, and compassionate--reveals how God's mercy saved him just in time. It traces his spiritual metamorphosis from what he calls a "legalism by faith" experience to a relationship with Christ filled with joy and assurance. Share in his liberating discoveries about righteousness by faith and receiving a new heart.

http://www.lnfbooks.com/scripts/details.php?lbookid=MYT1991RH3RMW001

Look at it and look at it well. This is the inevitable result of those who take her words to their logical conclusion.

 

[mva1985]

Originally Posted by NightEternal
You are dead-on accurate. It is happening on this very forum. I have fought it here for almost a year now and in the church for over 20 years. It has not and will not ever get any better. Anytime the truth gets too close to the surface, the EGW apologist hackles go up and the claws come out.

LOL... This cracks me up - you lone crusader!

 

[NightEternal]

Where did I say I was alone? Nowhere. There are many others. But in that specific comment I was referring to myself. That does not in any way negate the fact that others both here and in the church have dealt with the same nonsense.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Night, I have a question for both you and Foofighter,

It's quite obvious that you expend much time and energy finding fault with all of Adventism and expounding your views. It sounds like Foofighter may do the same.

Which brings me to this question; What, if anything, do you do to witness for Jesus Christ? Also how much time, if any, do you set aside each day, week, month, ect., for spreading the gospel?

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[NightEternal]

I have nothing to say to you and your false charges.

You cannot stop the search for truth. Don't even try.

 

[Mankin]

Oh just stop it doc. How much time to trads spend time studying EGW when they could be out evangelizing the gospel of Jesus instead of just handing out EGW books?

 

[thecountrydoc]

My, my, you do have an interesting response to a simple question Night.

A simple assement of how your general post come across as you present your views here on these borad's is hardly a fasle charge. As I had ask, please help me understand. Nor have I suggested in any way that you should not search for truth. I am also old enough and wise enough to know when not to to try to do the impossible, such as stopping you from doing anything, least of all your search for truth. However that still leaves ny original question unanswered. Maybe you could enlighten me about your witnessing activites and perhaps I could learn somthing new for outreach to others.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[thecountrydoc]

Mankin, to answer your question:

Oh just stop it doc. How much time to trads spend time studying EGW when they could be out evangelizing the gospel of Jesus instead of just handing out EGW books?]

I really have no idea how much time anyone, including "trads," may spend studying EGW and handing out her books instead of evangelizing the Gospel. The reason I say that is because I don't participate in either one of those activities. Nor do I know of others that do these things except for the "progs" who seem to enjoy arguing about EGW here on these boards.To me, long drawn out, discussions about EGW is like "preaching to the choir."

It would appear that you do not wish proffer an answer to my original question either. However I would still like to have an answer.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Night, I have a question for both you and Foofighter,

It's quite obvious that you expend much time and energy finding fault with all of Adventism and expounding your views. It sounds like Foofighter may do the same.

Which brings me to this question; What, if anything, do you do to witness for Jesus Christ? Also how much time, if any, do you set aside each day, week, month, ect., for spreading the gospel?

Respectfully,
Doc

Remember in the old days when the lay evangelism leader would collect information on what members did to spread the gospel. How many tracts did you hand out etc. I am glad those days are gone because spreading the gospel was never about handing out tracts or how many of you studied the quarterly. Spreading the gospel comes from real one on one contact with people. It comes by every one having an answer for the hope that they have. That is why the search for truth is so important, that is why having reasoned answers is so important. It is why Christianity is shrinking in the Western world...people thought their tradition was their religion and too late they find out that in the marketplace of ideas they have only been selling week old donuts that even the sugar has run off of.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Night, you don't have to explaine evangelism to me. Perhaps now, however since you have defined what you believe evangelism to be, you could apply that deffinition and answer my original question.

Respectfully,
Doc.

 

[NightEternal]

It's quite obvious that you expend much time and energy finding fault with all of Adventism and expounding your views. It sounds like Foofighter may do the same.

You have cast what I am doing in the most negative light you possibly could right of the bat and set the tone for the discourse.

I have nothing to say to someone who falsely charges me with having an agenda against the church or who considers questioning, searching and analyzing the issues of Adventism as merely 'finding fault' with the church.

If that's what you honestly think is going on here, there is nothing more to say to you.