Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Statement

BobRyan · Oct 14, 2021

tall73 said:
Agreed!

So can you explain how Ellen White's writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture?

Maybe I pressed send too early on my post - if you check it out now it should have that included

tall73 · Oct 14, 2021

BobRyan said:
Maybe I pressed send too early on my post - if you check it out now it should have that included

I looked again. I don't see an answer as to how her writings correct inaccurate interpretations.

Perhaps you could spell it out further.

BobRyan · Oct 14, 2021

tall73 said:
I looked again. I don't see an answer as to how her writings correct inaccurate interpretations.

Perhaps you could spell it out further.

as noted here...

BobRyan said:
My guess is that if Ellen White had an opinion on something she kept it to herself (as she said many times) but when God told her something she "relayed the message".

Even so it does not change the test of a prophet for each individual. Individuals must give an account for themselves - not for someone else. And that test includes comparing what the person says God is teaching with the actual Bible to see if any contradictions are found in what the person claims God has said.

She made every effort to keep her opinions to herself as noted above. Especially when it came to differences between members in understanding a given text

================ examples

f. When There Was No Light: I have no light on the subject [as to just who would constitute the 144,000].... Please tell my brethren that I have nothing presented before me regarding the circumstances concerning which they write, and I can set before them only that which has been presented to me.—Quoted in a letter by C. C. Crisler to E. E. Andross, December 8, 1914. (In White Estate Document File, Number 164.) {3SM 51.2}

I am not at liberty to write to our brethren concerning your future work.... I have received no instruction regarding the place where you should locate.... If the Lord gives me definite instruction concerning you, I will give it you; but I cannot take upon myself responsibilities that the Lord does not give me to bear.—Letter 96, 1909. {3SM 51.3}

I would enjoy attending the camp meetings if God said Go. I have no light as yet to go. The pillar of fire is here yet, when it moves I would move also. I want to follow it....At present His will is to tarry in California and make the most of my time in writing. I shall be doing more for the cause in this than in going across the plains to attend camp meetings. I hope you will keep well. {Lt4-1876.9}

com7fy8 · Oct 14, 2021

Whatever is God's divine message needs to be lived the way God means it and has us living His word. And God is infallible in how He understands and has us living His word. And so we need, then, not only correct beliefs but also how the Holy Spirit has us becoming in our character and loving.

So, I can see why Jesus says not to have some one person be called your "teacher". But we are family; we help each other >

"that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the Head---Christ---" > Ephesians 4:15.

So, if we speak in God's "love", we minister for one another to "grow up in all things into Him who is the Head---Christ---". We do not only teach each other correct words and ideas, but we minister for one another to become the correct way, in our character in sharing with Jesus.

"Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing." (1 Thessalonians 5:11)

Comforting and edifying is not just giving each other correct words and ideas. But God's grace ministers comfort and edification in how Jesus is and loves. This is the infallible effect of grace in us; and our Father has all of us His children ministering this grace >

"As every one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

tall73 · Oct 14, 2021

BobRyan said:
as noted here...

She made every effort to keep her opinions to herself as noted above. Especially when it came to differences between members in understanding a given text

================ examples

f. When There Was No Light: I have no light on the subject [as to just who would constitute the 144,000].... Please tell my brethren that I have nothing presented before me regarding the circumstances concerning which they write, and I can set before them only that which has been presented to me.—Quoted in a letter by C. C. Crisler to E. E. Andross, December 8, 1914. (In White Estate Document File, Number 164.) {3SM 51.2}

I am not at liberty to write to our brethren concerning your future work.... I have received no instruction regarding the place where you should locate.... If the Lord gives me definite instruction concerning you, I will give it you; but I cannot take upon myself responsibilities that the Lord does not give me to bear.—Letter 96, 1909. {3SM 51.3}

I would enjoy attending the camp meetings if God said Go. I have no light as yet to go. The pillar of fire is here yet, when it moves I would move also. I want to follow it....At present His will is to tarry in California and make the most of my time in writing. I shall be doing more for the cause in this than in going across the plains to attend camp meetings. I hope you will keep well. {Lt4-1876.9}

Another example of her not giving a statement to settle a matter would be the law in Galatians, though in that case some alleged earlier statements had given a position.

But that speaks to what she didn't say.

Can you please explain how her writings--what she did say--correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture?

BobRyan · Oct 14, 2021

tall73 said:
Another example of her not giving a statement to settle a matter would be the law in Galatians, though in that case some alleged earlier statements had given a position.

But that speaks to what she didn't say.

Can you please explain how her writings--what she did say--correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture?

Well since you bring up Galatians ---

“The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ". {1SM 234.5}

In a secondary sense one might think of the ceremonial law that points to Christ - through shadows and types - also leading us to Christ - but I think the moral law fits better in Gal 3

tall73 · Oct 14, 2021

BobRyan said:
Well since you bring up Galatians ---

“The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ". {1SM 234.5}

In a secondary sense one might think of the ceremonial law that points to Christ - through shadows and types - also leading us to Christ - but I think the moral law fits better in Gal 3

Thank you, and how do you see this correcting? Do you want to spell out the history?

BobRyan · Oct 14, 2021

tall73 said:
Thank you, and how do you see this correcting? Do you want to spell out the history?

I think some folks in Early SDA history thought of Gal 3 as just pertaining to the ceremonial law -- and of course there is a sense in which the shadows and types lead mankind to the Messiah. So it is valid to note that sort of application is possible. But the text most certainly has to apply to the moral law of God.

For me Ellen White's statement emphatically pointing to the moral law of God is a more accurate fit with the sense of the text. The text says "when faith came" and that is about an event in each individual's life when they go from being lost to being saved.

bbbbbbb · Oct 15, 2021

BobRyan said:
I think some folks in Early SDA history thought of Gal 3 as just pertaining to the ceremonial law -- and of course there is a sense in which the shadows and types lead mankind to the Messiah. So it is valid to note that sort of application is possible. But the text most certainly has to apply to the moral law of God.

For me Ellen White's statement emphatically pointing to the moral law of God is a more accurate fit with the sense of the text. The text says "when faith came" and that is about an event in each individual's life when they go from being lost to being saved.

The problem, of course, is that nowhere in the Bible is the "moral" law given. Not a single commandment of God is described as being "moral" or "immoral" or "ceremonial" or "civil". These distinctions must be read into the text to lead to the desired end.

SabbathBlessings · Oct 16, 2021

bbbbbbb said:
The problem, of course, is that nowhere in the Bible is the "moral" law given. Not a single commandment of God is described as being "moral" or "immoral" or "ceremonial" or "civil". These distinctions must be read into the text to lead to the desired end.

A lot of scholars separate the laws in the Bible, this is not unique to SDA’s. Doing so helps better understand which laws are being referred to especially from Paul’s writings as many confuse the moral Ten Commandments laws with the ceremonial laws. Here is an example from an early scholar:

This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.
—JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222.

bbbbbbb · Oct 16, 2021

SabbathBlessings said:
A lot of scholars separate the laws in the Bible, this is not unique to SDA’s. Doing so helps better understand which laws are being referred to especially from Paul’s writings as many confuse the moral Ten Commandments laws with the ceremonial laws. Here is an example from an early scholar:

This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.
—JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222.

All kinds of folks have played all kinds of games with the scriptures. One of the constant refrains I hear from SDA posters is that the SDA is not like those folks, but goes by scripture only. The fact that Ellen White retained much flawed theology from sources such as John Wesley (who, BTW, was not an Early Church father) hardly makes it right, does it?

You cannot show anyone where the "moral" commandments are written in the Bible, can you? The simple reason is because the Bible itself does not chop the Law into bits and pieces for our personal consumption.

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2021

bbbbbbb said:
The problem, of course, is that nowhere in the Bible is the "moral" law given. Not a single commandment of God is described as being "moral" or "immoral" or "ceremonial" or "civil".

Thank God that is not true and the Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations on BOTH sides of the Sabbath Commandment topic admit to it.

Moral law of God defines what sin is "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

Hence we have Paul contrasting ceremonial law with moral law of God in 1 Cor 7:19 -- the very distinction your post claims - cannot exist.

1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

There we have a clear example of contrasting ceremonial law with moral law of God.

Where the Commandments of God include the TEN having "'honor your father and mother' as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2021

bbbbbbb said:
All kinds of folks have played all kinds of games with the scriptures. One of the constant refrains I hear from SDA posters is that the SDA is not like those folks, but goes by scripture only.

A lot of denominations argue for accepting the "sola scriptura" practice of testing all doctrine by the Bible. Is this something you also do not agree with???

ozso · Oct 16, 2021

tall73 said:
The following is part of a statement regarding Ellen White's writings, which was voted by the General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventists Church in San Antonio, Texas, July 2-11, 2015.

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

This is the typical everyone else got it wrong from the very beginning forward until God anointed an American - Joseph Smith - Mary Baker Eddy - Charles Taze Russell - Ellen G White - in the 19th century of Christianity.

The writings of the earliest church fathers are nothing but tradition, human reason, personal experience and so on. But of course none of that pertains to the writings of the one and only true prophet EGW. Quite the opposite in fact.

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2021

MMXX said:
This is the typical everyone else got it wrong from the very beginning forward until God anointed an American - Joseph Smith -

Your views are kind of "different" -- Are you contributing to this topic?

MMXX said:
The writings of the earliest church fathers are nothing but tradition, human reason, personal experience and so on.

Are you in favor of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine - or --- opposed to it??

ozso · Oct 16, 2021

bbbbbbb said:
The problem, of course, is that nowhere in the Bible is the "moral" law given. Not a single commandment of God is described as being "moral" or "immoral" or "ceremonial" or "civil". These distinctions must be read into the text to lead to the desired end.

You have to understand that Christianity is supposed to be pseudo-Judaism.

BobRyan · Oct 16, 2021

MMXX said:
You have to understand that Christianity is supposed to be pseudo-Judaism.

So Jesus was or was not a Jew?
The disciples were - or were not Jews?

Paul was or was not - a Jew?

Rom 2:
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Do you really think that this is only agreed to by SDAs???

=========================

Rom 11:
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not want you, brothers and sisters, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved

ozso · Oct 16, 2021

BobRyan said:
So Jesus was or was not a Jew?

Jesus was and is God incarnate who was crucified by the Jews because of what He taught.

BobRyan said:
The disciples were - or were not Jews?

Paul was or was not - a Jew?

They practiced Judaism until they started practicing and teaching Christianity. Which resulted in them becoming an enemy of the Jews.

Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews. John 20:19

At no time, before or after, did the disciples ever practice Ellen White's pseudo-Judaism.

tall73 · Oct 16, 2021

BobRyan said:
I think some folks in Early SDA history thought of Gal 3 as just pertaining to the ceremonial law -- and of course there is a sense in which the shadows and types lead mankind to the Messiah. So it is valid to note that sort of application is possible. But the text most certainly has to apply to the moral law of God.

For me Ellen White's statement emphatically pointing to the moral law of God is a more accurate fit with the sense of the text. The text says "when faith came" and that is about an event in each individual's life when they go from being lost to being saved.

That is an odd choice to illustrate how Ellen White's writings correct inaccurate interpretation. Yes, Uriah Smith, George Butler, and most of the prominent folks in the early Advent movement thought Galatians referred to the ceremonial law.

They objected when E.J. Waggoner published the view in the Signs of the Times that it was speaking of the moral law.

This became a focus for some years, and led to some of the tensions in the 1888 GC session. Ultimately, Ellen White did seem to favor aspects of Waggoner's view. This article reviews much of the history:
1888--issues, outcomes, lessons

However, one of the reasons Smith in particular objected to Waggoner's view is that Ellen White had written to Waggoner's father opposing a rather similar view years before. Smith recalled this and could not understand why Ellen White seemed to then accept the younger Waggoner's view.

Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

Uriah Smith to E. G. White, Feb. 17, 1890

Letter, Uriah Smith to Ellen G. White
W C White Letter Book “I”, pp. 546-552
Battle Creek, Michigan
February 17, 1890

Dear Sister White:

Your communication of the 16th was handed me yesterday morning. I am very glad if the preface suits you. I wrote it under some disadvantages, and had many fears that it would not prove to be what was desired. But if it is satisfactory, that fully pays me for the attempt.

In regard to the principal subject of which you wrote, allow me freely to say a few words. It is not my wish that any one should allow my position on any question to decide his belief on that subject. I always say to one and all, “Examine the question and take only such a position as to you seems satisfactory.” I never yet said to anyone, “I have got the truth and you will have to come to the same position in the end,” nor that, “When you have examined the subject as much as I have, you will come to the same conclusion.”

Of course it has always been my purpose to move carefully and cautiously, and not take a position till I felt satisfied that it was from every point of view a tenable one. And then when everything looks plain and clear, I take my position firmly, and do not know how I could consistently do otherwise. And then I cannot be moved from that position till I can see some reasons which seem to me clearer and stronger than those that led me to take it. And then if others profess to see the matter in the same light, I cannot feel to blame them for that.

Now I want to say a word in regard to some things in the past, which as I understand it, have a bearing on the present situation. As it looks to me, next to the death of Brother White, the greatest calamity that ever befell our cause was when Dr. Waggoner put his articles on the book of Galatians through the Signs. I supposed the question of the law in Galatians was settled away back in 1856 when Brother Pierce came on from Vermont to have an investigation of the position which Brother J.H. Waggoner took in his first book on the law, namely, that the law in Galatians was the Ten Commandments. At any rate, from that time up to the appearance of the articles in the Signs there was, with a few individual exceptions, unity among our people on that question. But that unity was then broken. Many were thrown into confusion, and letters came pouring into the Review Office to know what that meant. I was surprised at the articles, because they seemed to me then, and still seem to me, to contradict so directly what you wrote to J.H. Waggoner on the occasion referred to above. You saw that his position was wrong.

And there was only the one issue then under examination: namely, whether the law in Galatians was the Ten Commandments as Brother Waggoner claimed, or was the Mosaic Law system as Brother Pierce claimed. My recollection on that is quite distinct, and if I was on oath at a court of justice, I should be obliged to testify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, that was the only point then at issue; and on that you said that Brother Waggoner was wrong. That has seemed to me ever since to be according to the Scriptures. And Brother White was so well satisfied on the subject, that, you remember, he withdrew Brother Waggoner’s book from circulation, and would not consent to another edition being published unless he would change his view set forth on Galatians. This Brother Waggoner would never agree to, and so the book was never published. The position that Brother Waggoner now takes is open to exactly the same objection. So you see two reasons why I can but look upon it with distrust; namely, because, first, it seems to me contrary to the Scriptures, and secondly, contrary to what you have previously seen. I do not mean his views on justification by faith, and righteousness through Christ, for those we have always believed; but his view on the law in Galatians, which he deduces as a conclusion from his premises on those other points.

The next unfortunate move, I think, was when the brethren in California met, just before the Minnesota Conference, and laid their plans to post up, and bring their views on the ten horns and the law in Galatians into that Conference. We were only informed of this by letter from California, a few days before it was time to start for Conference. I could hardly believe that it was so, but the report was soon confirmed after reaching that place. Brother Haskell came to me and asked how I thought those questions had better be introduced. I told him I thought they had better not be introduced at all; that they would only bring confusion into the Conference, and do only harm and not good. But he said the California brethren were decided on having them presented; and so they were introduced, and nearly ruined the Conference, as I feared they would. Had these disturbing questions not been introduced, I can see no reason why we could not have had as pleasant and blessed a Conference there as we have ever enjoyed.

The real point at issue at that Conference was the law in Galatians; but Brother Waggoner’s six preliminary discourses on righteousness we could all agree to; and I should have enjoyed them first rate, had I not known all the while that he designed them to pave the way for his position on Galatians, which I deem as erroneous.

I of course do not believe there is any necessary and logical connection between the two, but you know a truth may be used in such a way and with such an apparent purpose, as to spoil the pleasure we would otherwise feel in listening to it. He took his position on Galatians, the same which you had condemned in his father. And when you apparently indorsed his position as a whole, though without committing yourself on any particular point, it was a great surprise to many. And when they asked me what that meant, and how I could account for it, really, Sister White, 1 did not know what to say, and I do not know what yet.

That a settled plan has been formed to urge these changes of doctrine upon our people till they shall come to be considered the views of the body, is apparent from movements since the Minnesota Conference; that is, to have them presented at all the camp meetings, at institutes, schools, ministers’ meetings, etc, kept right to the front, and put in at every possible place and opportunity. And when the point is gained, and when this change of base is accomplished, then how are we going to explain the past? I often find myself wondering if you are aware of the new views that are being projected, and to some extent already taught.

For instance. I am told that Brother A.T. Jones has taught here in the class this winter, that we have no sufficient evidence for the view we have so long taught that the papacy was established in 538, and there the 1260 years began. He don’t suggest any other date, or give proof for any other view, but simply teaches that this won’t stand. Then I would like to know where we are in the prophecies. The 1260 years is one of the most important periods, and the one most frequently brought to view, in the whole prophetic field, and if we are to be thrown into doubt on this, what can we do with Daniel 7, Matthew 24, Revelation 12, and Revelation 13? We are all afloat. As one of the ministers here said to me, it seemed like taking the heart right out of the message, and he did not know how he was going to present the prophecies. But he has since looked up the references in our books at the office, and has become satisfied that the view we have held is well sustained.

How can I believe that the Lord is leading Brother Jones in such teaching as that? I cannot, so long as I believe that such men as James White, J.N. Andrews, and J.H. Waggoner during the many years they wrote, preached, and published on these prophetic themes. As between the old and the new, my heart is with my former companions in labor. Take another instance: Brother E.W. Whitney imagines that he has discovered great light on Revelation Fourteen, namely, that the first message did not begin till after the time passed in 1844; that, consequently, the first and second messages have been given solely by Seventh-day Adventists. In a meeting a few weeks ago, it incidentally came out that Brethren Jones and Waggoner both indorsed this view.

But what special move has there been on the second message since 1844? And your writings, as you are aware, are full of allusions to the first message and the fall of Babylon in the experience of Adventists previous to the autumn of 1844. It is an astonishment to me that any one who professes confidence in your works should suggest such a view. But you can see as well as I, what the effect would be if such views were urged upon the people and to any extent accepted by them. Where then, would be their confidence in you or your works? We might as well look facts in the face, and see in what direction matters are tending.

I might mention many other points, but will not take the time. It is these things that trouble me. These are the things that I am opposing, and all that I am opposing so far as I know my position. I desire to be in the fullest union with you. I am never happier than when I feel that such is the case; and it is no agreeable situation to me when it is otherwise. But I have written freely in these pages, that you may see some of the perplexities that seem to be gathering around the situation. When views and movements crop out here and there which, I can see plainly as I can see anything, if they are carried out, will utterly undermine your work, and shake faith in the message, I can but have some feeling in the matter; and you can imagine that it must seem like a strange situation to me, when, because I venture a word of caution on some of these points, I am held up in public as one who is shooting in the dark, and does not know what he is opposing. I think I do know to some degree what I am opposing. I probably do not know the full extent of this work of innovation and disintegration that is going on; but I see enough to cause me some anxiety. I believe I am willing to receive light at any time, from anybody. But what claims to be light must, for me, show itself to be according to the Scriptures and based on good solid reasons which convince the judgment, before it appears light to me. And when anyone presents something which I have long known and believed, it is impossible for me to call that new light.

If any question, however familiar, can be set forth in a clearer light, I am as glad as anyone to see it done. But I will not weary your patience longer. If in anything I do not take a correct view of the situation, I shall be happy if it can be made to appear in a different light. I return your communication as you request.

Very truly yours,
Uriah Smith
Retyped from WCW Letters Book “I”
pp. 546-552
arr, Jan. 2, 1972

Ellen White remembered writing in opposition to the elder Waggoner's views, but could not remember the details, or produce the testimony sent. She indicated twice that she said his view was wrong, which agrees with Smith. But then in one statement suggested maybe she just didn't want it made prominent. In any case this is not an example of her visions correcting views, because she urged them to figure it out from the Scriptures, and criticized their attitudes, indicating she didn't want to settle the question and they should use the Bible to do so.

The "Added Law."--I have something to say to you that I should withhold no longer. I have been looking in vain as yet to get an article that was written nearly twenty years ago [cir. 1867] in reference to the "added law." I read this to Elder Waggoner. I stated then to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect, and from the statements I made to him he has been silent upon the subject for many years. . . . {9MR 215.1}

I have not read Elder [G.I.] Butler's pamphlet or any articles written by any of our writers and do not mean to. But I did see years ago that Elder [J.H.] Waggoner's views were not correct, and read to him matter which I had written. The matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind yet. I cannot grasp the matter, and for this reason I am fully convinced that presenting it has been not only untimely, but deleterious.--Letter 37, 1887, pp. 1,2. (To E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, February 18, 1887.) {9MR 215.2}

I am troubled; for the life of me I cannot remember that which I have been shown in reference to the two laws. I cannot remember what the caution and warning referred to were that were given to Elder Waggoner. It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was great danger of disunion. . . . {9MR 216.1}

I have not changed my views in reference to the law in Galatians, but I hope that I shall never be left to entertain the spirit that was brought into the General Conference. I have not the least hesitancy in saying it was not the Spirit of God. If every idea we have entertained in doctrines is truth, will not the truth bear to be investigated? Will it totter and fall if criticized? If so, let it fall, the sooner the better. The spirit that would close the door to investigation of points of truth in a Christlike manner is not the Spirit from above. . . .A. T. Jones and Dr. Waggoner hold views upon some doctrinal points, which all admit are not vital questions, different from those which some of the leading ones of our people have held. But it is a vital question whether we are Christians, whether we have a Christian spirit, and are true, open, and frank with one another. . . . {9MR 217.1}

My cry has been, Investigate the Scriptures for yourselves, and know for yourselves what saith the Lord. No man is to be authority for us. If he has received his light from the Bible, so may we also go to the same source for light and proof to substantiate the doctrines which we believe. The Scriptures teach that we should give a reason of the hope that is within us with meekness and fear. . . . {9MR 217.2}

You speak of the affliction that came upon you because of the "way this matter has been pushed and urged by responsible men in the cause, and by your seeming attitude which has brought me to my present condition more than any other one thing." I have no knowledge of taking any position in this matter. I had not with me the light God had given me on this subject, and which had been written, and I dared not make any rash statement in relation to it till I could see what I had written upon it. My attitude therefore could not be helped. I had not read Dr. Waggoner's articles in the Signs, and I did not know what his views were. . . . {9MR 217.4}

He stretched out his arms toward Dr. Waggoner and to you, Elder Butler, and said in substance as follows: "Neither have all the light upon the law, neither position is perfect. 'Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart' (Psalm 97:11). There are hundreds that know not why they believe the doctrines they do."--Letter 21, 1888, pp. 6,7. (To G. I. Butler, October 14, 1888.) {9MR 218.1}

She was not the one who pushed forward understanding on the issue. She claimed neither had the right view, but didn't express a particular view or want her view to settle the issue.

If Smith is to be believed (and comparison of the two Waggoner's book), she may have held back the view that was eventually settled on for decades.

tall73 · Oct 16, 2021

Moreover, Ellen White's latest statement regarding the crisis in Galatia was in Acts of the Apostles, and seemed to focus on the ceremonial again. Here are some of the statements in chronological order:

Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 11 (1896)

“Sunnyside,” Cooranbong, New South Wales, Australia

June 6, 1896

Dear Brother:

The enclosed pages present a few points which were opened to Sister White last night, and which she wished sent to you. She has for some days been suffering from the effects of cold and overwork, and is today unable to read or write. The matter was written out as she presented it. We sent some copies of articles and letters by the S. F. mail, which Sister White desired you to read; but as we were not certain that you were in Battle Creek, they were addressed to Elder Tenney, with directions that he read and forward to you.
Yours in the work, [(signed) M. Davis]

*****

“The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” [Galatians 3:24.] In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord’s message through Brethren Waggoner and Jones. By exciting that opposition, Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world.

*****

The law of Ten Commandments is not to be looked upon as much from the prohibitory side, as from the mercy side. Its prohibitions are the sure guarantee of happiness in obedience. As received in Christ, it works in us the purity of character that will bring joy to us through eternal ages. To the obedient it is a wall of protection. We behold in it the goodness of God, who by revealing to men the immutable principles of righteousness, seeks to shield them from the evils that result from transgression.
We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. The law is an expression of God’s idea. When we receive it in Christ, it becomes our idea. It lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. “Great peace have they that love thy law; and nothing shall offend them,”—cause them to stumble. [Psalm 119:165.] There is no peace in unrighteousness; the wicked are at war with God. But he who receives the righteousness of the law in Christ is in harmony with heaven. “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” [Psalm 85:10.]

11 LtMs Lt 96, 1896

Ms 87, 1900

Oakland, California
1900

I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of Ten Commandments.

Christ was the foundation of the whole Jewish economy. The death of Abel was in consequence of Cain’s refusing to accept God’s plan in the school of obedience, to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ typified by the sacrificial offerings pointing to Christ. Cain refused the shedding of blood, which symbolized the blood of Christ to be shed for the world. This whole ceremony was prepared by God, and Christ became the foundation of the whole system. This is the beginning of its work as the schoolmaster to bring sinful human agents to a consideration of Christ—the foundation of the whole Jewish economy. All who did service in connection with the sanctuary were being educated constantly in regard to the intervention of Christ in behalf of the human race. This service was designed to create in every heart a love for the law of God, which is the law of His kingdom. The sacrificial offering was to be an object lesson of the love of God revealed in Christ—in the suffering, dying victim, who took upon Himself the sin of which man was guilty, the innocent being made sin for us. In the contemplation of this great theme of salvation, we see Christ’s work. Not only the promised gift of the Spirit, but also the nature and character of this sacrifice and intervention, is a subject which should create in our hearts elevated, sacred, high ideas of the law of God, which holds its claims upon every human agency. The violation of that law in the small act of eating of the forbidden fruit, brought upon man and upon the earth the consequence of disobedience to the holy law of God. The nature of the intervention should ever make man afraid to do the smallest action in disobedience to God’s requirement. There should be a clear understanding of that which constitutes sin, and we should avoid the least approach to step over the boundaries from obedience to disobedience. God would have every member of His creation understand the great work of the infinite Son of God in giving His life for the salvation of the world. “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” [1 John 3:1.] When he sees in Christ the embodiment of infinite and disinterested love and benevolence, there is awakened in the heart of the sinner a thankful disposition to follow where Christ is drawing.

15 LtMs, MS. 87, 1900

The Acts of the Apostles

Acts of the Apostles

Published 1911

While tarrying at Corinth, Paul had cause for serious apprehension concerning some of the churches already established. Through the influence of false teachers who had arisen among the believers in Jerusalem, division, heresy, and sensualism were rapidly gaining ground among the believers in Galatia. These false teachers were mingling Jewish traditions with the truths of the gospel. Ignoring the decision of the general council at Jerusalem, they urged upon the Gentile converts the observance of the ceremonial law. AA 383.1

The situation was critical. The evils that had been introduced threatened speedily to destroy the Galatian churches. AA 383.2

Paul was cut to the heart, and his soul was stirred by this open apostasy on the part of those to whom he had faithfully taught the principles of the gospel. He immediately wrote to the deluded believers, exposing the false theories that they had accepted and with great severity rebuking those who were departing from the faith. After saluting the Galatians in the words, “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,” he addressed to them these words of sharp reproof: AA 383.3

In the Galatian churches, open, unmasked error was supplanting the gospel message. Christ, the true foundation of the faith, was virtually renounced for the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism. The apostle saw that if the believers in Galatia were saved from the dangerous influences which threatened them, the most decisive measures must be taken, the sharpest warnings given. AA 385.2

Their religion was made up of a round of ceremonies, through the performance of which they expected to gain the favor of God. 386.2

I don't think there is a problem with her referencing both, or noting it particularly refers to the moral law. However, it is strange that her latest statement didn't put focus on the moral, since it was such a big issue earlier.

Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Statement

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

✦

Junior Member

✦

Junior Member

✦

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency