SDA Is it time for the church to remove Ellen White from fundamental beliefs

[tall73]

Well, I myself really like some creeds, all of which were also traditionally chanted in the Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions. Specifically, the Nicene Creed, the hymn Ho Monogenes, the hymn Te Deum Laudamus, the Greek and Russian (or more broadly, Eastern Orthodox) version of Quincunque Vult, and the Apostle’s Creed. If someone can sing or say all of those, there can be no doubt as to their Orthodoxy.

I understand the value to those Churches. However, for the Seventh-day Adventist church which claims to go by Scripture, rather than the traditions of men, and which has historically been ant-credal it seems odd that they have such a spelled out list of fundamental beliefs that they also require one to believe to be a member--except in churches where they don't.

 

[BobRyan]

I understand the value to those Churches. However, for the Seventh-day Adventist church which claims to go by Scripture, rather than the traditions of men, and which has historically been ant-credal it seems odd that they have such a spelled out list of fundamental beliefs that they also require one to believe to be a member--except in churches where they don't.

They ran into the problem early on of ex-millerites-turned-Adventist (and others) running around claiming they were "Adventist evangelists" or pastors or ... and then teaching every odd doctrine one could name as they did it. The church needed less "total chaos" as its method of ensuring a consistent message that reflected the views of the denomination as a group.

So they came by this solution honestly enough.

The "chaos" element still exists -- For example - I know of some folks on the west coast that would like to stick faith in evolutionism, and LGBTQ related beliefs into our set of doctrines "if they could".

 

[tall73]

This is a very odd post. I’m not sure why you would not post this in the Traditional Adventist forum and why it would have relevance to anyone who is not an Adventist.

I posted it here so everyone can weigh in. Others are restricted from posting in the Traditional Adventist Forum. Moreover, the Progressive Adventist forum is where you are going to find more people who would be impacted by the fundamental beliefs including Ellen White's writings speaking with prophetic authority. But this allows for all to post, whether traditional, progressive, non-Adventist, etc.

And apparently there is interest for non-Adventists, since they are posting and reading.

If anyone is interested in discussing scripture and how it relates to what EG writes, PM me or we can open a new thread that will be more conducive to the Adventist truth. God bless!

Have you read a lot of Ellen White? It didn't sound like it from two posts I saw where you indicated you might read some of her books once you finished reading the Bible.

They could just post here and we can discuss it.

 

[Leaf473]

You are of course free to critique them as you wish.

Yes, and I understand that some people will look at Ellen's writings and say that this was God's messenger, while others will say Not.

This is true, of course, about any Christian writer today as well. My thinking is that unless something is outright unbiblical, to not divide over the person.

So we were talking about baptismal vows. Is it possible for a person to be baptized in an Adventist Church without becoming a member of that church at the same time?

That is, can you just be baptized into Christ or do you have to become a member of the church at the same time that you are baptized?
(Open question for anyone.)

 

[BobRyan]

So we were talking about baptismal vows. Is it possible for a person to be baptized in an Adventist Church without becoming a member of that church at the same time?

That is, can you just be baptized into Christ or do you have to become a member of the church at the same time that you are baptized?
(Open question for anyone.)

Typically no, because we feel strongly that baptism is more than accepting Christ as your Savior. (We don't teach baptismal regeneration). So we believe that they are already a saved born again believer at whatever point they accept Christ during the bible studies given for the person wanting to be baptized. The New Birth - salvation event in their life is not waiting on their baptism.

We view baptism as a public confession of an already existing fact of one's new birth - and ALSO affiliating with the Body of Christ - joining a local congregation.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

They ran into the problem early on of ex-millerites-turned-Adventist (and others) running around claiming they were "Adventist evangelists" or pastors or ... and then teaching every odd doctrine one could name as they did it. The church needed less "total chaos" as its method of ensuring a consistent message that reflected the views of the denomination as a group.

So they came by this solution honestly enough.

For example - I know of some folks on the west coast that would like to stick faith in evolutionism, and LGBTQ related beliefs into our set of doctrines "if they could".

Understandable. I mean, a lot of churches who do witnessing and things have stuff like what was posted in the OP and subsequent quotes from the same source for the same reason. Without it, allowing someone to go out using the name of a church but spouting off things that the church doesn't agree with would look bad on the church in question.

Likewise, a lot of what God gave Paul and the writers of the New Testament to write was due to misunderstanding and instructions on conduct. I commend the SDA for doing this and writing what they've wrote to make everything more streamlined. I may not agree with their doctrine, but it is good to see them doing that and attempting to make an official stand on who White really was in reference to the SDA movement.

 

[tall73]

They ran into the problem early on of ex-millerites-turned-Adventist (and others) running around claiming they were "Adventist evangelists" or pastors or ... and then teaching every odd doctrine one could name as they did it. The church needed less "total chaos" as its method of ensuring a consistent message that reflected the views of the denomination as a group.

So they came by this solution honestly enough.

The "chaos" element still exists -- For example - I know of some folks on the west coast that would like to stick faith in evolutionism, and LGBTQ related beliefs into our set of doctrines "if they could".

Then if you are going to restrict people by creed you should not have liberal churches accepting people who do not believe Ellen White's writings speak with prophetic authority. Or you should change the fundamentals to reflect what you and I both alluded to--accept her historic role in the church, whether or not you agree with the inspiration of her writings.

 

[BobRyan]

Then if you are going to restrict people by creed you should not have liberal churches accepting people who do not believe Ellen White's writings speak with prophetic authority.

As a denomination our position is that we as a denomination affirm Ellen White as one that had the spiritual gift of prophecy mentioned in 1 Cor 12 for the church and seen in 1 Cor 14. And we believe that some of our members do not have that same conviction. Among a number of "differences" between members that one might find in a given congregation.

As you know - even without that topic there are "members" that differ on other points with some latitude allowed within the group. We don't disfellowship for those differences - but we do tend to not ask someone who has a wide degree of differences to serve in the role of pastor.

As you also admitted - the Bible affirms the fact that prophets speak with prophetic authority - to delete that would be to delete our entire position that Ellen White had the true 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy.

The fact that some people join the church by accepting all of our doctrines but not convinced that Ellen White was a prophet does not mean they will not continue to study the topic and then accept this fact a few years later.

 

[Leaf473]

Typically no, because we feel strongly that baptism is more than accepting Christ as your Savior. (We don't teach baptismal regeneration). So we believe that they are already a saved born again believer at whatever point they accept Christ during the bible studies given for the person wanting to be baptized. The New Birth - salvation event in their life is not waiting on their baptism.

We view baptism as a public confession of an already existing fact of one's new birth - and ALSO affiliating with the Body of Christ - joining a local congregation.

I agree with the value of associating with a local congregation.

But imo that is separate from being baptized. I don't think a baptism should be contingent on affirming a particular local group's beliefs, since as people grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus their understanding of what the Bible says often changes.

It is a good idea for Christians to do many different things, like meet regularly with other Christians, daily Bible reading, ongoing prayer. But I wouldn't include an affirmation to the value of daily Bible reading as part of someone's baptism. That's how I see it.

 

[Leaf473]

Then if you are going to restrict people by creed you should not have liberal churches accepting people who do not believe Ellen White's writings speak with prophetic authority. Or you should change the fundamentals to reflect what you and I both alluded to--accept her historic role in the church, whether or not you agree with the inspiration of her writings.

This idea of liberal SDA churches is something I hadn't heard of before this thread.

I currently attend a United Methodist Church, though I hardly think of myself as a Methodist.

But a similar situation is happening there, some local groups are very conservative, some liberal. It's hard to have a single organization that will include that much diversity. People start to wonder what the organization actually stands for, in my experience.

 

[Blade]

I could say a good move yet back when they were say sinking she helped bring them back. She tended to run with just the vision not making sure to back it up by the word and many other things she believed I disagree with .

 

[tall73]

As a denomination our position is that we as a denomination affirm Ellen White as one that had the spiritual gift of prophecy mentioned in 1 Cor 12 for the church and seen in 1 Cor 14. And we believe that some of our members do not have that same conviction.

And yet acceptance of the fundamentals is required for membership, and the prophetic authority of her writings is part of that.

As you know - even without that topic there are "members" that differ on other points with some latitude allowed within the group. We don't disfellowship for those differences - but we do tend to not ask someone who has a wide degree of differences to serve in the role of pastor.

The churches you are in may not disfellowship for differences on fundamental beliefs. But some do. In fact, the church manual states the valid reasons for church discipline. The first one is:

1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel, and in the fundamental beliefs of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.

Now we agree that in some places they are less likely to be concerned with differences in regards to the fundamental beliefs. But that is not everywhere.

In fact, when I was discussing with the conference ministerial director my concerns over the investigative judgment, and my conviction that unless resolved I would have to resign from the ministry, he indicated in passing there were places (conferences) where that would not be a big concern. I didn't pursue that as I thought it dishonest. But I was not the only pastor in my own rather conservative area that did not accept all 28, including the IJ (and its related rejection of many statements from Ellen White). But such urged me to just not say anything.

This was also true of professors at my college, who I wrote for feedback.

If they removed everyone who questioned a fundamental belief they would be removing quite a few. So yes, from an overall perspective they have been reluctant to disfellowship apostates. However, it does still happen.

 

[tall73]

As you also admitted - the Bible affirms the fact that prophets speak with prophetic authority - to delete that would be to delete our entire position that Ellen White had the true 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy.

More to the point, this is related to the Adventist view of the Spirit of prophecy being a mark of the remnant church.

However, you could indicate that the church believes this, but that individual belief in her inspiration is not required for membership. That still preserves the belief, but makes plain what Ellen White herself agreed with, that members do not need to accept her writings to join.

The fact that some people join the church by accepting all of our doctrines but not convinced that Ellen White was a prophet does not mean they will not continue to study the topic and then accept this fact a few years later.

Currently she IS one of your doctrines. So just add a sentence as indicated above and that solves the problem.

 

[tall73]

It's hard to have a single organization that will include that much diversity. People start to wonder what the organization actually stands for, in my experience.

That has been a challenge for Adventists, but in a less pronounced way than the UMC.

There have been a number of voices which challenged the leadership, indicating they were compromising, especially when the book Questions on Doctrine came out some years back as a result of dialogue with Barnhouse and Martin, evangelical theologians.

There was again controversy, from the other direction, after Desmond Ford, a prominent theologian and professor of religion, had his credentials removed over his disagreement with elements of the investigative judgment doctrine.

There has been controversy over women's ordination for some time.

And throughout Adventist history these issues have come up.

I do think there is a balancing aspect to a lot of denominations in this regards. But some groups manage to allow for a great deal of diversity of thought. For instance, the American Baptists Churches USA have a whole range of views from the very conservative to the very liberal, both theologically and politically. The difference is what you spell out. They have relatively few essentials that are baseline for shared purpose. And being congregational in structure they have a lot less issues with upper leadership because they don't set the theological agenda as do more top-down structures like the UMC and the Seventh-day Adventist church.

The congregatoinal Southern Baptist convention trends more conservative, despite the congregational structure. And they tend to spell out a bit more.

 

[The Liturgist]

I understand the value to those Churches. However, for the Seventh-day Adventist church which claims to go by Scripture, rather than the traditions of men, and which has historically been ant-credal it seems odd that they have such a spelled out list of fundamental beliefs that they also require one to believe to be a member--except in churches where they don't.

Well I think the value of those creeds is to all Christians, which is why I use them as a Congregational minister.

 

[The Liturgist]

More to the point, this is related to the Adventist view of the Spirit of prophecy being a mark if the remnant church.

However, you could indicate that the church believes this, but that individual belief in her inspiration is not required for membership. That still preserves the belief, but makes plain what Ellen White herself agreed with, that members do not need to accept her writings to join.



Currently she IS one of your doctrines. So just add a sentence as indicated above and that solves the problem.

The idea of a Remnant Church is itself a serious problem with Adventist theology, and is the motivation behind many of the serious historical errors in the writings of Ellen White.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree with the value of associating with a local congregation.

But imo that is separate from being baptized. I don't think a baptism should be contingent on affirming a particular local group's beliefs, since as people grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus their understanding of what the Bible says often changes.

It is a good idea for Christians to do many different things, like meet regularly with other Christians, daily Bible reading, ongoing prayer. But I wouldn't include an affirmation to the value of daily Bible reading as part of someone's baptism. That's how I see it.

I believe Christians should only be baptized once, as it says so in the Nicene Creed “I believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins and in the life of the World to Come.”

I further am a proponent of paedobaptism and paedocommunion, because these sacraments benefit infants noetically.

 

[BobRyan]

Currently she IS one of your doctrines. So just add a sentence as indicated above and that solves the problem.

Not technically correct - as I show here that someone can join and accept belief #18 in part yet not accept the spiritual gift of prophecy was given to Ellen White see post -- #61

 

[tall73]

Not technically correct - as I show here that someone can join and accept belief #18 in part.
#61

Yes, they can accept part of the belief. Why not change it so they could accept all?

Or are you fine with people having a line-item veto on the other beliefs?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, they can accept part of the belief. Why not change it so they could accept all?

That is a minority of the denomination and a lot of them accept the spiritual gifts given to Ellen White later. I don't think it is a good change in that regard given that those new converts are already not being stopped from joining and they already agree with our doctrines, so not much to gain by that change and it would be potentially misleading to non-SDAs to remove it.

And of course -- it is not up to me to change the entire denomination.

In any case the number of times that this comes up is next to zero - since those folks are already joining.

I frankly have never heard of anyone saying they accept all the doctrines of the SDA denomination but choose not to join because they don't agree with the number of spiritual gifts that Ellen White had - even though this is not a barrier for joining according to the denomination.