Print
Grace and Judgment: An Orchestra, Not Just a Bugle
One of the best editors I ever wrote for frequently reminded me that I had a tendency – unfortunate from his perspective – to try to cover too many topics in one column. “Keep it simple, Thompson,” he would plead. “Focus on one point.”
Usually he was right. But sometimes I was rebellious and deliberately slipped into sin. This piece is another example of that since because I am so eager to see the grace/judgment theme become fertile soil for enriching Adventist dialogue, rather than being just a trigger for destructive argument.
So by way of introduction, let me suggest that the tension between grace and judgment reflects the age-old tension between those who stress human responsibility and freedom, on the one hand, and those who focus on divine sovereignty and grace, on the other. It is the tension between those who emphasize sanctification, the process of becoming holy, and those who focus on justification, God’s declaration of our right-standing before him in Christ Jesus.
And believe it or not, the often-maligned Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary can be seen as a wonderful resource for addressing this tension. We can draw a loose parallel with the last verse of 1 Corinthians 4: “What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?” (1 Cor. 4:21, NIV2011). If you need a thump to call you to responsible behavior, a view of the heavenly sanctuary can remind you of judgment; but if you function best with a vision of God’s grace, the heavenly sanctuary can point you to Christ’s ministry on your behalf.
But, grumbles the disenchanted traditionalist, how do you get around Ellen White’s stinging words that “we are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator” (GC 425)? Where’s the grace in that? One simple solution transforms that line from a threat into a promise in the light of John 16:25-27. In short, the time will come when we don’t need a mediator because we will understand that the Father himself loves us.
And, we might as well tuck in the other grumble here, too, the one linked with Ellen White’s statement that “When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own” (COL 69). Why not apply that line to a corporate experience rather than an individual one? In short, when God sees his people pooling their strengths as a community, then Christ will return.
But there are two more issues we must address if this pillar of Adventism is to be a spur to fruitful dialogue rather than simply a bone of contention. One is “diversity,” the other is Ellen White’s growth and development
Diversity. Many years ago a friend told me of a lively Sabbath School in Texas led by two remarkable teachers with sharply contrasting experiences. One was a former Baptist who found the Adventist emphasis on sanctification to be an exciting spark to the spiritual lethargy rooted in his Baptist once-save-always-saved experience. The other teacher had discovered the power and joy of Pauline righteousness by faith after nearly losing his soul from an overdose of Adventist legalism. My friend told me how refreshing it was to see these contrasting experiences result in stimulating “yes, but” conversations in Sabbath School.
From a biblical perspective, recognizing the widely diverse roles that human beings play in “judgment” can temper our inclination to quarrel with those whose experience differs from our own. The intensity of a particular experience can easily turn one aspect of “judgment” into a bugle call. How much better to hear the whole orchestra. And in that connection I am thinking of three strikingly different roles that Scripture identifies for humans who stand in judgment: The abused plaintiff crying out for justice, the accused culprit standing abjectly before the judge, and the eager witness who speaks in defense of a good friend. Here’s a brief look at each:
Abused Plaintiff. In Scripture one hears the disguised voice of the plaintiff at the flood when the whole earth was filled with “violence” (Gen. 6:11). Similarly, God told Abraham that the “outcry” against Sodom and Gomorrah was “great” (Gen. 18:20). In Revelation 6:10 the plaintiffs cry out from under the altar, “How long?” They are calling for judgment, no less. The confidence that God will respond positively to such cries is reflected in Psalms 96-98, three buoyant “judgment” Psalms.
Accused Culprit. The dominant evangelical emphasis on judgment sees the believer standing before God as the accused and guilty culprit. And here Paul’s famous declaration in Romans 8:1 is crucial: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” In 1 John we hear good news for the guilty who suffer under the threat of judgment: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1:9, NIV2011). And if we sin? “We have an advocate with the Father – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (2:1, NIV2011).
Eager Witness. A more subtle perspective on judgment appears in the form of witness for the accused. Surprisingly, in several instances God is the one accused. Thus, when Sodom faces judgment, Abraham turns witness, even challenging God to be a faithful judge (Gen. 18:25). Similarly, Moses challenges God to rescue his own reputation by saving his people (cf. Exod. 32:12). And perhaps the most remarkable example of all is Job, accused by Satan, but lauded by God as faithful (Job 2:3; cf. 42:7-9). And this is where we turn to Ellen White’s experience for some important perspectives on the “investigative” or pre-advent judgment.
Ellen White’s Growth and Development. I am convinced that Ellen White experienced a remarkable transformation in her own understanding of judgment, moving from the fearful experience of standing before God as the accused, to the joyful role of speaking for God as witness in a cosmic tribunal.
The more complete presentation of Ellen White’s transition was published in Westwind (Winter, 1982), the alumni journal for Walla Walla University [then Walla Walla College] as an addendum to the “Sinai to Golgotha” series that appeared in five parts in the Adventist Review in December of 1981, with a follow-up issue dated July 1, 1982. (See full series under “writings” at the following link: www.aldenthompson.com.) A quick synopsis of the two different emphases – Sinai and Golgotha – can illustrate the differing views of the investigative judgment.
From a Sinai perspective, the judgment accentuates the gulf between a holy God and a sinful people. The thought of standing in the presence of a holy God without a mediator brings terror just as it did for ancient Israel (cf. Exodus 20:18, 19).
By contrast, a Golgotha perspective emphasizes the union between God and believers. Believers have fully recognized their own status as sinners, but have also fully accepted the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf. As a result, believers no longer see God simply as Judge, but as Father; they no longer tremble in God’s presence as the accused, for they stand acquitted in Christ Jesus. The fear of judgment is gone. God has claimed them as his own.
No longer preoccupied with their own survival, believers now recognize that judgment has a much greater purpose, namely, the vindication of God and his law against the attacks of Satan. Believers now stand confident in court as witnesses to the goodness of God and his law.
In Ellen White’s experience, the roots of that more positive view of judgment go back to a vision of 1880. Its fruit appeared in mature form in Prophets and Kings (1917). We shall look at the details shortly, but the 37 intervening years raise a significant question, namely, why was the “better” explanation so long in coming? My own conviction is that the early Adventists would never have believed it. I would use a similar argument in explaining the long “delay” before God sent his Son. Among the ex-slaves at Sinai, the gentle man from Nazareth would have been trampled in the dust. Sinai had to come before Golgotha; the impact of sin made it necessary.
But a shift in emphasis in the understanding of the investigative judgment also requires a willingness to see God in a particular way, as a God who is not afraid to allow the universe to put his law and his government to the test. Now for some reason, I have had no great difficulty accepting the idea of God putting his law and government on trial before the universe. Yet, I have occasionally wondered why some Adventists, and very loyal ones at that, simply were not excited about the idea. I caught a clearer glimpse into that kind of thinking in connection with the Sabbath School lessons on Job while I was an exchange teacher in Germany (1980-81). Some of the believers were outspoken in their distaste for the way Satan talked to God (cf. Job 1:9-12; 2:3-6). Such talk was inappropriate and ought not to have been allowed! They firmly believed in the Bible but they did not know what to do with the book of Job.
Behind that kind of thinking lie two significant convictions that play a powerful role, especially in the lives of religious people: First, that sinners cannot exist in the presence of a holy God, and second, that created beings dare not question God. Both statements are terribly true, terribly dangerous, and very easily misunderstood.
The first statement has biblical support (e.g., Exodus 33:21-23; Deuteronomy 4:24; I Timothy 6:16; cf. Revelation 6:17) and expresses the fundamental truth that sin and holiness are ultimately incompatible. The second statement likewise has biblical support (esp. Romans 9:9-23; cf. Isaiah 45:9-11) and expresses the fundamental truth that God is the ultimate authority.
Why then are such statements so dangerous? Because a guilty conscience can distort them, imagining horrible things about God, things which the mind can come to believe as truth. Thus, the incompatibility of holiness and sin can be exaggerated to the point where God is seen as angry and disgusted with this race of rebels, annoyed that he has to have any contact with sinners at all, and demanding that every sin be fully punished.
As for God’s ultimate authority, an over-emphasis can lead to the total exclusion of human freedom. Thus God becomes, at best, a benevolent dictator, at worst, a cruel despot.
The natural results of sin tend to encourage both exaggerations. That is precisely why sin is so sinister and devastating. We see the first clear example in the experience of Adam and Eve where their own sense of guilt drove them to hide from God and even to blame him for their failure, though there had been no display of “divine wrath” (cf. Genesis 3:8-13). Even fully repentant sinners can have difficulty believing that God wishes full restoration as the cry of the prodigal son poignantly reveals: “I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants” (Luke 15:19, NIV2011). Most assuredly, sonship does not depend on worthiness, yet the adversary plays on the guilt feelings which naturally follow sin, tempting us to believe that God has turned his back on us in anger.
A key step in my search for a solution to the experiential difficulties connected with the investigative judgment came in the spring of 1980. After preparing a study document on the development of Ellen White’s theology, I commented to a colleague: “The only missing piece in the Golgotha picture is eschatology. That is one place where fear still lurks. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could see how Ellen White would re-write The Great Controversy if she had the chance?”
Of the five books in the Conflict series, The Great Controversy was the only one that was not written or totally re-written after 1888. The standard edition today (1911) differs only slightly from the 1888 edition, i.e., some historical quotations were changed and references were added. (See Arthur White, Ellen G. White, Messenger to the Remnant, Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1954, p. 58.) I suspected how Ellen White would have told the story, but was concerned how far we could go without prophetic authority.
And then I found it – with the aid of a student who wrongly quoted a passage from Prophets and Kings. In checking his quotation I suddenly realized that here was an entire chapter dealing with the investigative judgment: “Joshua and the Angel” (pp. 582-592). With great eagerness I read it through, looking for traces of the reluctant God. None. The whole chapter is the story of the investigative judgment written from the perspective of a loving God who wants to save sinners. Further research revealed some fascinating background.
The seed that was to bear such rich fruit was apparently sown in 1880. As told in Life Sketches, Ellen White inquired in vision, “Where is the security for the people of God in these days of peril?” In response, God referred her to Zechariah 3:1-2 and declared that Jesus was our security against Satan. “Jesus will lead all who are willing to be led” (Life Sketches, 324). Prior to this vision Ellen White apparently had not realized the significance of Zechariah 3:1-2 for the “Great Controversy” story. [The printed Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White lists no occurrences of the text before 1880.] But now God had sown the seed; it would be only a matter of time until it would germinate and bear fruit.
The Index to the Writings of E. G. White lists four passages where Ellen White comments significantly on Zechariah 3:1, 2; Testimonies, vol. 5, 467-476 (1885), Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 116, 117 (1896), Christ’s Object Lessons, 166-170 (1900), and Prophets and Kings, 582-592 (1917). All four of the contexts discuss the text in the setting of the “Great Controversy.” Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing (p. 117) states that Satan accuses us, not in some obscure courtroom, but “before the universe.” Christ’s Object Lessons (p.168) indicates that, not only is Satan accusing the believers, but God himself. Furthermore, when Christ speaks for his people, he confesses them, not before a reluctant Father, but “before the universe” (Christ’s Object Lessons, 170). Clearly Father and Son are united in their love for humankind and in their desire to rebuke the adversary.
But what I find most fascinating about Ellen White’s use of Zechariah 3:1-2 is the way she refines the article in the Testimonies for use in Prophets and Kings some 30 years later. In effect, she softens those aspects that could discourage and expands on those that encourage. The result is a masterful integration of the investigative judgment into the picture of a loving God. And it happens in her very last book. To put it very simply, the issue in judgment is no longer salvation, but theodicy, the justification of God.
When compared with the Testimonies article, the account in Prophets and Kings reveals one addition and one deletion that are particularly significant. The addition is found in Prophets and Kings (p. 589) as part of the Lord’s rebuke of the adversary. After claiming his people as his own, the Lord declares: “They may have imperfections of character; they may have failed in their endeavors; but they have repented, and I have forgiven and accepted them.” What an encouragement! We may slip and fall, but if we have given our hearts to God, he will rebuke the adversary. No reluctance here to save those who are still suffering growing pains; their hearts are with God and he claims them as his.
The significant deletion is a more delicate matter, for it is terribly true – but if seen from the viewpoint of Mt. Sinai it could so easily be misunderstood. Prophets and Kings omits two paragraphs from pages 471-72 of Testimonies, vol. 5. Both paragraphs admonish the Christian to strive to overcome every defect. That, of course, should be the goal of every Christian. But the one sentence that could cause problems runs as follows: “No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white” (p. 472). If that statement is seen as describing the Christian’s deep desire to obey Christ, then all is well. But if it is linked with a view of God which sees him looking for excuses to catch sinners, then the Christian who slips and falls will flee in terror. So even though the statement is certainly true, no doubt Ellen White’s heightened concern for struggling sinners led her to delete it when she was preparing the material for Prophets and Kings.
Once we recognize that God has justified us in Christ, then we can joyfully go into judgment prepared to witness for God and for his law. That joy, I have found, is the strongest motivation possible for obedience, for now I want to obey because He has saved me. It is no longer a matter of earning salvation or of simply avoiding punishment. Obedience is the fruit of salvation.
Now whenever I find someone struggling with the investigative judgment, I recommend without hesitation the chapter on “Joshua and the Angel” in Prophets and Kings. The “Great Controversy” story has come a long way since it was first published in 1858, but what a testimony it is to God’s care for his people. He was preparing the way for his people, not only to find acceptance in him, but also to demonstrate the goodness of God and his law to a skeptical world. No doubt God was eager to give the full message right at the beginning, but the beams of truth had to come gradually or his people would have turned away from the light.
Because of our fallen condition, God uses both commands and invitations, fear and love; but there is no question as to which he prefers. He has shown us his love “so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment” (1 John 4:17, NIV2011). “Perfect love drives out fear” (verse 18). In the sunshine of that love, even judgment is good news, for we stand no longer accused, but acquitted in Christ Jesus. Before the universe we are witnesses to the goodness of God.
Still not convinced? Then bring your bugle and I’ll bring mine and we’ll both join the Adventist orchestra. By God’s grace, the music will be heavenly.
User login
Recent
- Mike MacLennan Should Revival Begin at the Top?
- Pagophilus Should Revival Begin at the Top?
- George Tichy The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Rich Hannon Leaders Respond to the GC/NAD Conflict Over Equality for Adventist Women
- Fay Crombie Ellen White Remixed
- L Humberto Covarrubias Creation Care or Could Care-less?
- Aage Rendalen I have overcome the world
- Anonymous7 Leaders Respond to the GC/NAD Conflict Over Equality for Adventist Women
- John Allen Leaders Respond to the GC/NAD Conflict Over Equality for Adventist Women
- Tom Zwemer Should Revival Begin at the Top?
Newsletter
Adventist Forum Chapters
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Dear Alden,
There is much I really enjoyed in your piece (and it is an emphasis that we all need all the time!). But I do feel that I need to query some things you wrote too. I am wondering what to do with pages 471-72 of Testimonies vol 5? Your claim that White revised the Testimonies article into a kinder/gentler version as found in 'Prophets and Kings' (p. 589) appears to rest upon the premise that the earlier version represents an immature grasp of the scene in Zechariah which Ellen White eventually redrafts and improves some 30 years later in the 'Prophets and Kings' version. But is the 'Prophets and Kings' version the 'mature form' of that article, as you claim, or was it simply revised for a more general and even non-Adventist audience not yet ready to recieve the more confrontational/rebuking style of the 'Testimonies' series? As you may note, I have inverted your scale of maturity here-- suggesting that the more 'mature' article is in the 'Testimonies', since it takes a more mature readership to be able to read and not distort that version. The less 'mature' version might be found in 'Prophes and Kings' where the audience is protected from matter suitable only for spiritually mature readers.
I find it difficult to accept your thesis of textual evolution-- not because I entirely disagree with its cause, but because it rests on shaky premises. First, why should we assume that the 'Prophets and Kings' version is a re-draft of the 'Testimonies' article? The fact that the former was drafted some 30 years later does not necessarily mean that it was an attempt to consciously revise the material into a more 'gentle' or 'mature' content befitting White's progressive maturation. Nor can we assume that because it leaves out some pointed material regarding the danger of tolerating sin in the life that it is somehow more 'mature' in its outlook. Furthermore, by giving priority to the 'Prophets and Kings' version, we potentially denigrate the very important emphasis in the 'Testimonies' version which, as I read it, truly complements the 'Prophets and Kings' material. To be sure, a poor reader or a reader prone to neurosis might twist the 'Testimonies' version to their detriment (as you observe), but this hardly justifies your implication that the 'Testimonies' version is less mature in its emphasis, etc. (it seems, as I suggested above, that the very opposite might be the case-- although, I hesitate to suggest that Ellen White is the object of maturation here-- I think it likely that the potentially different audiences are really the main factors informing the editorial changes).
In short-- must we always be positing a developmental progression whereby those things that we find distasteful in Scripture get classified as immature or primitive or somehow less than fully inspired? I'm not as confident as you are that we really have reached some pinnacle of maturity such that we do not, individually and corporately, need some stark fear at times to remind us of just how deceitful sin can be in our lives. Be careful not to offer up to us just another brand of Adventist 'Perfectionism' in the guise of 'we are too mature to need any dire warnings...'. Indeed, while I love the text: 'Pefect Love banishes all fear', I would not want to insist that Love only be expressed in ways that do not frighten or offend me either. After all, we still live in a very dangerous world where extreme measures continue to apply when it comes to our ability to think we are saved when, in fact, we are not-- Cheers, Karl
Alden,
I appreciated your article. I often feel that "it is not what someone says that I often have difficulty with but what they don't say."
God is indeed loving, merciful, longsuffering and not willing/desirous that any should perish....but indeed the final judgment will fall on the unrepentant who despise Christ's sprinkled blood in their behalf. Indeed this very Christ is the source of our justification which you point out.
That there is a final judgment and God's justice in destroying the unrepentant is often an overlooked fact by some as there seems to be disonance between a "loving God" and judgment. I suggest, which you have not denied, that a "God of love" can not help but be just and righteous, for true love can not exist in a kingdom without them.
That is why our Savior came, so that, God himself vindicated his justice by Christ's atoning sacrifice in our behalf...so that He could be just and the justifier of those "lawbreakers...apart from law" for those who trust in Christ as their Savior and Lord for their salvation.
To these, as you point out, there is no condemnation/judgment...for they are hidden in Christ to the Glory of both the Mercy and justice of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit's redemptive plan.
The cross is the answer to God's justice and the Spirit today continues to witnesses to Sin, righteousness and judgment (Jn.16). Satan's kingdom was cast down at the cross (and there are presently only two kingdoms. (Col. 1:13,14) awaiting the final righteous judgment/ lake of fire and destruction/consumming of Satan and those in his kingdom(Rev.20) rather than those in the "kingdom of Christ" to which we are ushered in by Grace alone through faith alone in the beloved...and to whom there is no condemnation. Hallelujah to the Love, grace, justice/judgment found in Christ, the Father's only begotten Son.
Why will we choose death rather than Christ? Strange self- affection lest our sin's be made manifest.
regards,
pat
Alden references those who emphasise justification while others emphasise sanctification and then there are those who have trouble believing the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment. He also emphasises the great controversy theme.
I would suggest that Alden and the lesson quarterly miss the one critical issue that is the root of the confusion that exists over these issues. Christ plainly stated just hours before the event that Calvary was the judgment of this world. I refer of course to John 12:30-33, supported by other statements Christ made about judgment.
Unless we understand the judgment that took place at Calvary and unless all of our discussions about judgment past, present and future are rooted and grounded in the judgment that took place at Calvary, how can we possibly arrive at truth?
How can we resolve the issue of grace and judgment, justification vs sanctification without the judgment at Calvary? An investigative judgment in 1844 and a great controversy theme that ignores the judgment that God in Christ went through during those hours of darkness on the cross, to me is meaningless - worse than meaningless.
The universe saw what happened in that judgment when God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and Christ became sin for us so we could become the righteousness of God in Him
In the words of Horatius Bonar, "The cross is the axle on which the universe turns."
Ray
Ray,
Exactly.
When he (the HS comforter) comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world NOW stands condemned. Jn.16:8-11.
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darknessnstead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.... The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” Jn.3:17-21, 35,36
While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! Rom.5:8,9.
The cross of Christ is the answer...and Jesus knows His sheep...and they shall not be condemned in Judgment.
regards,
pat
Hi Alden:
While your idyllic scenario admittedly sounds hopeful, an Adventism with two forever-discordant theologies rings hollow....not unlike that orchestrated bugle.
This says so much in light of what gets fought out often on these web pages:
Being ready
It seems that there is a lot of anticipation around. Many are saying that this is the last time we will wel-
come in a new year. It has been predicted that the world will end in 2012!
Let me say unequivocally that this prediction has not been made by Seventh-day Adventists. We do not set dates for the return of Jesus. We know on the basis of the evidence of Scripture that Jesus is returning, and we hope and pray that His return is very soon. But we do not engage in date setting for this great event. Of course, we are encouraged by the biblical writers to prepare for the time of His return. Jesus Himself clearly told us to “. . . be ready! For in just such an hour as you think it could not be, the Son of Man will come.” He told the parable of the wise and foolish maidens to illustrate the importance of readiness.
Despite all of this, “readiness” for the return of Jesus is often misunderstood. Often I hear it described as if it is “something I am going to do” or as if it were “some- thing I must do”. But it is not at all something “I can or must do”. It is something that is done for me by Jesus as I put my faith and trust in Him. It does not in the first place have to do with anything I have done for Him, but it has to do with everything that He has done and is doing for me. The only way I can be ready for Jesus to come is if I accept the gracious provision He has made for my salvation by His death on the cross. That’s it. It is that simple. And of course, I respond to Him in loving obedience and trust. But that is one of the wonderful consequences of my decision to accept His grace.
You see, the point is that readiness is a “present continuous” state of being. To be ready for Jesus to return is an ever-present reality for the child of God. I want Jesus to come just as soon as possible. It can be today or later this year or . . . .? In the meantime, through His grace and love, we can continue to serve Him and obey Him and share Him. But we do not do those things in order to get ready. We do those things because we are ready and He has made it all possible!
From the January 2012 RECORD by Dr Barry Oliver - president of the South Pacific Division.
What on earth has Zechariah 3 to do with the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment? The former is simply an ideological defense of the postexilic reestablishment of priesthood at Jerusalem. The latter is a fanciful doctrine based on a gross misreading of the Levitical theory of atonement.
The sanctuary in the desert consisted of an outer court framed by a curtain wall with only one entrance. Upon entering that court yard one immediately encountered the Altar of Sacrifice. Beyond that Altar just in from of the entrance to the tented Holy Place was the laver of water.
Upon entering the first compartment, known as the Holy Place one would find three objects. To one side a table of Shew Bread, to the other side a seven branched candle stick. Before the veil separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy was an Altar of Incense.
Beyond the veil was the Ark of the Covenant with two significant parts
A covering or Mercy Seat, and contained within the Ten Commandments: the two representing the ethics and ethos of Heaven.
Now the typical Seventh-day Adventist application of the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly is to find the whole in a division of heaven itself.
A more apt understanding is clearly seen in the ministry and sacrificial death of Jesus.
The Altar of Burnt Offerings is an obvious symbol for the Cross, The Laver an obvious foretelling of the Rite of Baptism. The First Apartment is fellowship with Christ as the Light of the World, as the Bread of Life, and His intercessory ministry.
The Veil connotes the transition from the earthly ministry to the heavenly ministry of Jesus.
The Most Holy is Heaven itself. For what “Place” could be more holy than the place were God Dwells?
The Ark of the Covenant is a symbol of the Everlasting Covenant in which Justice and Peace have kissed each other in the Finished Work of Jesus as the incarnate God.
There are not two compartments or apartments in heaven, John the Revelator is clear on that as is the Writer to the Letter to the Hebrews.
One can be confident that heaven has not been defiled, nor does it require cleansing. Moreover, if effective prayer has any meaning or significance at all the “Book of Life” is always current.
The Investigative Judgment was and remains a “face saving” exercise from a faulty prior eisegesis.
Moreover, with God there is no past, present, and future. We may wait for fulfillment but not God. As Christ was slain from the foundation of the earth, so we also have been redeemed from the moment Christ cried out: “It is Finished!” It is now for us to accept our purchased acceptance.
To having “received Christ as Lord” we must be about His business—to witness to His Gift and to live under His authority. His yoke is easy and His burden is light.
I know of no two nicer guys than Alden Thompson and Herbie Douglass but to weave Ellen White in the seamless garment of Righteousness of Jesus is unworthy of the pain word of Scripture.
Tom Z
IF, if only, Adventists studied the book of HEBREWS more intelligently and more honestly!
Oh..., all those arguments about the IJ and the 2,300 would instantly disappear as a magic!
But it has been obvious that EGW's writings are more important and more authoritarian than the book of Hebrews! And unless a Sola Scritura principle is honestly adopted, this nonsense will continue for ever, and these two issues will remain as fundamental pillars of this church.
God has always been a God of judgment. He continually judges individuals and the nations...it did not begin in 1844. The verdict on Satan,sin and the world were made at the cross.
Wrath has not been done away with but is being stored up for His final righteous judgment. Rom.2:4-6 when it is poured out on the unrepentant. Hard sayings...but true.
Christ has ruled on the throne as King and priest since His ascension, and all authority has been given to Him. Our triune God will one day remove His stedfast kindness, grace,longsuffering and forgiveness to the unrepentant will not be found and unmingled wrath will be delivered at Christ's appearing.
Ez.18 mirrors 2 Pt.3
31 aCast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a bnew heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live.”
"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! Rom.5:9.
Well, the class at FLC basically has the content of my lesson this week...necessary to be faithful to scripture rather than "enjoyed."
regards,
pat
"...necessary to be faithful to scripture..."
Amen! and Amen!
Recently my church pastor loaned me a copy of Marvin Moore's book on the IJ to convince me that the doctrine of the IJ is scriptural and we don't have to depend on EGW.
I have read and re-read Moore's chapter on the great controversy theme in which he says that the IJ makes no sense unless it is seen in the context of the great controversy. I simply cannot find one reference to Calvary in the chapter. For me, the great controversy theme makes no sense unless it is rooted and grounded in the cross - Christ's atoning sacrifice - the great day of atonement.
I then went to the 28 fundamentals and still found no reference to the cross in the one dealing with the great controversy theme. The same problem exists in recent articles in some of our official church papers.
If we can't join Paul and glory in nothing but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, where are we headed?
Ray
Ray,
>>If we can't join Paul and glory in nothing but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, where are we headed?<<
Where we are...not just headed...with, I suggest, multiple unsupportable non-biblical views from "1844" to "perfectionism/why Jesus waits" to the "larger view of the atonement/healing model." ;>)
regards,
pat
As long as you feel forced to save Ellen, you will be forced to be dishonest. IJ and Hebrews is incompatable; Ellen and Hebrews in incompatable, and Ballenger found out the hard way.
The best answer to those who defend the lunatic view of the IJ, 1844, and 2,300 is always the BOOK OF HEBREWS. The Bible used to defend the Bible - it works perfectly!
(The latest lunatic is Gingrich, with his plan to build an US base on ...the MOON!!!....) :):)
The answer that Daniel is given in Chapter 9, after the vision of Chapter 8 concerning the restoration of worship and of the people of Israel, and after his fasting and confessing his sins and the sins of his people ( Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur imagery), is the self giving sacrifice of the coming Anointed One/ Messiah. His sacrifice is what brings in everlasting righteousness for all in the judgement...whether Jew or Gentile. His sacrifice is the answer for all in the judgement...whether Jew or Gentile...whether seen in Daniel or the NT.
It is the Good News, grasped by faith in the one who is the embodiment of it, that is God's answer to our condemnation in the judgement. Instead, God points to Christ and says, "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." As we continually grasp how astounding this love of God in Christ Jesus is for us, and as we walk with him in his grace and truth, it will bring about a continual transformation in us that will reflect the one who has already "appointed us not to wrath, but to salvation."
Thanks...
Frank
Good to see you back, Pat!
Aldan,
Perhaps Grace and Judgment are less incompatible than one might imagine.
Let’s start by remembering that the judgment is about us, specifically our behavior, and more specifically how we have treated our fellow humans. How we have acted. By our works. But of course our works are unrelated to the basis of our salvation. (2 Timothy 1:9)
The Judgment is right out there in the open. There is nothing secrete about it. That is why the judgment is*not* about the state of our ‘heart.’ (Daniel 7:10 and Revelation 20:12) Heaven cannot be allowed to be filled with people who arrive having been told by God that He has looked at their heart and they are qualified for eternity. Just imagine how quickly that collection inflated egos will turn Heaven into Hell.
I’m thinking that the Judgment is about confirming what Paul explains to be the human condition: sinner. (Romans 3:23)
Perhaps one of the main reasons for the Judgment is that as people come to realize they have been saved by God’s grace, they naturally tend to see those around them as God sees them, and tend to put on the robes of the Good Samaritan. And along the way they become amazingly loving souls. Indeed, Jesus predicted this by noting that his disciples would be known for their love of one another. (John 13:35)
However, Judgment is not about the state of our growing goodness, but whether we deserve the wages of sin. And, indeed, we are all judged as deserving the wages of sin.
Or, to put it in heavenly terms, we are all judged openly, publically, memorably as qualified for eternity purely by God’s grace, and apart from any Good Samaritaning we may have engaged in along the way of life upon understanding the Gospel of Jesus as the manifest grace of God.
And perhaps there is a moment to two for soapboxing here …
It is, or so it seems that, the grace of God is what purifies humanity for future glory, not the incinerating of sinners who have failed to embrace God’s graciousness prior to the judgment.
Having entered Heaven by way of the judgment, no one will imagine to campaign against Heaven’s God or Jesus our brother and God’s Son—realizing that not one will join such a rebellion because none of us will have any illusion of moral power to raise a rebellion of any kind.
The judgment, remember, does not judge our hearts, only our actions. And since murder cannot be defended by listing one after another of those whom one hasn’t murdered, sinners we all are no matter our sense of the Gospel.
Heaven will also verify in reality that, imprisoned by grace, one does not have to be free to freely love, and such love is no more a choice than is anything else about being a creature of Creator God. We do not choose, we only prefer. And in Heaven we will be free to prefer all that we see and feel.
As for entering the judgment with the intention of being a ‘witness for God and for his law,’ Alden, that feels more than a little arrogant. If judgment is about certifying each soul’s disqualification for eternal Heaven, should such intent result in spoken words, the words will most surely be considered irrelevant to the court.
Stepping down off the soapbox now …
All in all, Alden, you have in your inspiring way, sought to weave every possible angle positively in to the lesson theme this week. I admire that ability deeply. Many thanks!
Bill Garber
The 2300 evening-mornings of Dan 8:14 is a reply to a question about how long the little horn's depredations will continue. With SDAs applying the little horn to pagan then papal Rome, the dates should apply to Rome. 457 BC is before Rome became a power, before even the he-goat, and 1844 AD does not stand out as a significant date for the Papacy. And of course this beside the fact that the little horn is described as a KING from one of the KINGDOMS after Alexander, but the SDA version has the little horn acting for several times longer than the rest of the vision. The interpretation of the vision by the angel gives no hint of an investigative judgement - maybe he forgot about it!
Thanks Frank,
Good to read your comments. I was teaching this week's lesson so decided to see what was being put forward on Spectrum.
pat
If an SS teacher does not fulfill the green box section in ther SS quarterly intro section, then they are inept.
Alden:
You’ve written many good articles, this is not one of them. This is right out of the ‘80’s playbook. Those days are over. Look at the calendar, it’s 2012. Many (that’s MANY) of us have moved on.
Let’s review the basics: There are two groups within SDAC:
Group 1: Those who believe in the IJ & Ellen White (these usually go together).
Group 2: Those who don’t.
If G1 still believes in spite of Rea, Ford, Numbers - and on and on and on - then they don’t need this:
“…whenever I find someone struggling with the investigative judgment, I recommend without hesitation the chapter on “Joshua and the Angel…”
If they’re struggling with these issues, truly struggling, their struggle goes much deeper than that.
On the other hand, if this solution was presented to G2… well, we don’t need to go there. To put it mildly, they would simply say read Hebrews and Daniel (in context).
Anyway, just so you know, I’m a real trumpet (bugle) player. You my friend are a tap dancer.
tg
This is the sort of theological thinking and writing that is so positive and uplifting. A great deal has been vouchsafed to us, and we do have a whole lot to share. We do so best, not by lazily nitpicking or impulsively debunking things we know so little about, but by thoughtful exposition of the voluminous amount of material we have been privileged to inherit.
I am heartened by Alden Thompson's recording the fact of EGW's growth in understanding, like all maturing Christians are to do. So that one can see no contradiction of the grace of God in her statement, once seemingly so intimidating, that we shall stand in the presence of a holy God without an intercessor. In a sense can we not conclude that both the Father and the Son are interceding for us, not to mention the fact that the Holy Spirit himself "intercedes for us "with groans that words cannot express"? (Romans 8: 26).
Rather than deleting, ignoring, or invalidating the statement, we can retain it as it is, having at long last come to realize its deeper meaning. The same meaning Jesus tried so much to teach his disciples, that the "father himself loves" them and there was really no need for him to plead with him on their behalf once they could grasp that if they had seen him they had seen the father. Until such an understanding develops and sticks, they would never be comfortable in the presence of God without an intercessor.
Thanks Dr. Thompson for this very useful piece.
Whatever the Judgement is, it is most of all the evidence of Grace. Jesus and Paul and many other whose discourses I admire explain that "It is finished" at the cross, and there is no further need of piling up good works, or even good theology.
To get lost in the maze of IJ arguments is flawed Adventism - we look forward with longing the coming because we are saved by grace.
To search EGW for compatible ideas is simply an academic exercise - scripture is enough, and we should examine it more closely...
To indulge in the reconstruction of gospel by GYC and others is just stupidity - we have learned from our legalist past, grown up and moved on.
Alden,
Thank you very much for a well-written and thoughtful presentation on the judgment and grace. This has been an important and yet divisive field of study in Adventism. No doubt it is engrained into the fabric of our history and so it is difficult to discard the concept of the Investigative Judgment. And yet, i am sure that a lot of study is still needed to refine concepts and above all to make sure that our teaching is in harmony with Christ's clear teachings and with the message of the book of Hebrews.
So much could be said and the challenge remains for all of us to bring our best to the task.
Just a couple of suggestions:
1. Why not discard the wording, "Investigative Judgment"? Do what Heppenstall did and replace it with "Pre-Advent Judgment". IJ is not a Biblical term and although used in the Great Controversy it is not sacred.
2. I find the concept of parallelism to be a strong argument for Daniel 7 and 8 to have parallel concepts. A grand judgment is presented in Daniel 7. It seems logical that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" or the "restoration of the sanctuary" in chapter 8 would also present this grand concept. The events around Antiochus Epiphanes for a couple of years hardly seems to be a parallel thought.
3. We have stated that the "Pre-Advent Judgment" only refers to the saints. Are we sure of this? It appears that the judgment of Daniel 7 is against the Little Horn and all evil forces and powers. As far as the saints is concerned it is a "judgment in favour of the saints". We often say that the judgment must take place before the second coming in order to reward the saints. Well, does that not apply to everyone who has ever lived. Why reward all the lost with death at the second coming of Christ and then judge them afterwards. We are not consistent in our reasoning. If we are correct on a Pre-Advent judgment in Daniel 7 why not let it apply to everyone. For the sake of unfallen beings and the whole Universe a "Pre-Advent Judgment" for the whole of mankind makes sense. Prior to the Second Coming the whole Universe is made aware of why God saves those amongst the other religions and amongst pagans. And the judgment in the end is in"favour of the saints". How good to know.
Just a comment, Alden, about your remarks on the articles by Ellen White in Testimonies vol 5 pages 467-476 and in Prophets and Kings 582-592 entitled "Joshua and the Angel". Either one of these chapters woulc be a good replacement for the chapter, "The Investigative Judgment" in the Great Controversy. A pity that replacement could not be made before the book is distributed to the public.
Ellen White certainly comes out more strongly on the side of Grace in Testimonies vol 5 and in PK than in the GC.
If the article in Test. vol 5 was written around 1885 and is in such close harmony with PK my question is this. How come the 1885 Test. article is so different in tone and concept from the GC chaper on the IJ? Does that flow from Spirit of Prophecy vol 4 in the 1870s? How could Ellen White be so different in GC and in the Testimonies a few years apart? Are we sure Ellen White wrote the chapter in GC. We know she quoted from other authors in the GC. Was this perhaps the work of Uriah Smith or some other author? We are now no doubt into the field of Ellen White studies. I pay that I will continue to walk gently.
Hedrick..."So that one can see the contradiction of grace of God in her statement, once so seemingly intimidating, that we shall stand in the presence of a holy God without an intercessor."
Is this just spin?...made to cover up for what Ellen really thought and actually meant. It is not maturity to take what she said, turn it inside out and upside down and then to insinuate that we have taken her little nugget and matured it into a deeper truth. She knew exactly what she meant by that statement, and so do we, and it flavored her whole outlook towards God and how we should live. What is the harm is being truthfull and admitting that this simply was not scriptural and go from there...we can't because of pride. (and I'm not nitpicking)
Alden and/or anyone,
Most of the focus in SS class, this week, will be on GOD, up there, out there and future/later.
Reviewing the inductive method: acquire data / observe, analyze data / interpret/ unpack, ....then .APPLICATION !!!!...
****From SS quarterly INTRO: "This quarter we’re going to look at God, at various aspects of Him as they have been revealed to us and at what these things mean for us on a PRACTICAL LEVEL." ****
What in this lesson will make SDA believers....competent judges now and later?
What in this lesson will safeguard SDA so they do not continue to be fanatic , insubordinate, gainsayers infected by denominational pride, paranoia and passivity?
WHAT can take the simplistic, average ,carnal, worldly SDA from their apathetic passivity..,.who usually quote,....
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." to an authentic believer who is prepared for..
1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
I encourage any readers to not let another SS class go to waste.
Ray,
For me so far, I most clearly see the cross in the Great Controversy as spoken about by Graham Maxwell. Before that, for me, it was a bit obscured and little different from a generic battle between good and evil--and it was all a bit disconnected.
Maxwell's version put it all together for me in many ways that helped me appreciate the SDA perspective on the entire thing. Of course Maxwell's views are not so widely known outside of California unfortunately (or so it seems to me).
It is because of Maxwell that I don't see the IJ doctrine as unbiblical--although in my prior understanding it was very difficult for me.
Maxwell comes up every now and then in these discussions. I've heard the ame - but who is he, what does he say, where can I hear and read his ideas?
Eric Webster,
Where am I going wrong in seeing Dan 8:14 as being just an answer to a question about the little horn's activities? There is no mention of any thing like an IJ, and the sanctuary is not even mentioned in the angel's explanation, which is mostly about the little horn KING, not KINGDOM. Antiochus Epiphanes is often dismissed as a minor player in history, but he was not to the Jews of his time, and the "reconsecration" (NIV) of the sanctuary after his overthrow is still celebrated by Jews today in Hanukkah.
Can someone explain to me how could EG White write or reedit something in 1917 if she had died in 1915? Here I mean this passage of dr. Alden's essay: "In Ellen White’s experience, the roots of that more positive view of judgment go back to a vision of 1880. Its fruit appeared in mature form in Prophets and Kings (1917). We shall look at the details shortly, but the 37 intervening years raise a significant question, namely, why was the “better” explanation so long in coming?"
Otherwise I think that the essay could be very useful for a preparation for tomorrow's discussion in Sabbath School.
I don't think that Zechariah 3:1-2 could convince someone about the existence of the investigative judgment in heaven, but it is rather another picture of God's grace. By that I don't say that there cold not be an investigative judgement in heaven.
Tihomir:
You will be surprised to learn that she is STILL WRITING in our days!
Once in a while there is a new book being printed as if she had written it.
You know, "books for cash".... They just "make" new books for her.
Surprised?
Alden, Though I don't really understand most theology, and it all sounds like clanging symbols to me, I have long appreciated your perspectives. We go way back to the days when I was helping Paste Up the Gleaner at the old ColorPress tucked into the corner of the WWC campus. A week or two later we would be working on the copy for another issue filled with responses. People were thinking, as they are today. That is always good.
______________________________________________________________
Carolyn Parsons
Tihomir
According to my neighbor of the mid 1930's,, a participant in the 1919 Bible Conference. The Book Prophets and Kings was in process at Ellen White's death. Her staff completed the work and gave her the authorship.
He also said it is the most accurate of the entire Conflict of the Ages series.
Fay Crombie
You misquoted me badly, hopefully by mistake. I'm being made to say exactly the opposite of what I actually wrote. By leaving out the little word "no" before "contradiction" and inserting the little word "the", you changed the meaning completely. I Hope you are not spinning anything, whatever that is supposed to mean. I wrote, "So that one can see NO CONTRADICTION of the grace of God in her statement, once seemingly so intimidating, that we shall stand in the presence of a holy God without an intercessor.
An explanation. "Lord, show us the Father", was Philip's request of Jesus. His response, "Don't you know me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14: 9). What does this say about the Father's attitude?
Later, Jesus explicitly denied any need for him to intercede with the Father for them, informing his disciples that "in that day [day of judgment?] you will ask in my name. I am NOT saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. NO, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God" (John 16: 26-27).
To me these and other scripture help to clarify why anyone who is a true and faithful believer in Jesus Christ, a committed disciple, will be able to stand, as EGW says, “in the sight of a holy God without a mediator” (GC 425). There is no need for anyone to intercede with God for them, for no one can snatch them out of Christ's hand nor that of his Father (John 10:27-30).
How is it that Moses, one of God's truest friends, was able to speak to God face to face as a man speaks to his friend? (Exodus 33:11). At the same time the whole bunch of childish and deluded rebels at the foot of Sinai, whom God so loved, were quivering in fear, begging Moses to intercede for them.
What scripture seems to be saying is that God is our advocate - all three members of the godhead. At least we have Jesus Christ, along with the Father, serving as our trusted advocates before the entire universe - especially before the accusing finger of our prime adversary. This is a show of awesome grace in the judgment.
Is this all spin? I don't think so. It is a reasonable and rather powerful interpretation of the likely meaning of one central aspect of the judgment, against the background of what scripture reveals about God. There is good news in the judgment.
Here's my pointed question: Is the corpus of EGW's writing on the judgment, when interpreted in its entirety, compatible with the teaching of scripture? Based on Alden Thompson's exposition, it clearly is compatible if we can appreciate her maturing understanding of various facets of the subject. Wouldn't it be quite surprising and disappointing if any serious student of scripture could show no sign of growth, no increasing clarity of understanding, no ability to rightly divide and and appropriately apply scripture over a fifty year period of study - especially if that person is believed to be specially enlightened and gifted by God?
Unfortunately, a lot of folks are not serious students of scripture and so it is understandable that many are increasingly confused and confusing. But are we prepared to go so far as to jettison a biblical truth that is hardly disputable?
Tom Z. and others,
It seems to me that Paul taught of an Investigative, or at least pre-advent Judgment.
II Cor 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done in the body, whether good or bad." And this appears to be spoken to believers.
I Cor 3:10-15 also seems to describe a judgment of our works by fire.
So, that we will be judged seems pretty clear. And it seems it is pre-Advent. And it seems that believers are included. Now if you want to quibble about dates, fine, but the principle is there. (What then does it mean in Romans 8:1 when Paul says that there is therefore now no condemnation? I think both ideas have to be incorporated, and I think Adventism does this pretty well)
Besides that, Hebrews says that the heavenly sanctuary needed cleansing: Heb 9:23. It is mentioned in passing, and no further development occurs, but it is mentioned.
I see the IJ as a wonderful assuring doctrine. Yes, assuring.
My understanding of the Adventist position is that our names are entered into the book of life when we accept Christ. The names are not removed until the IJ occurs when names are blotted out if we have not persevered by God's grace.
But there is great good in this. Really. The main point is that our names are not removed until the end. If I sin in some way, my name remains on the books. If I commit adultery, my name remains, or steal, or apostatize or even murder. In other words, all the us here, if they have accepted Jesus, have our names written there, and they remain until our name comes up That means, Pastor Paulson, Mark, Elaine (if she was a Christian at one time), and Bogdon, and Bevin and Fr. Jim and all of us. Names still there, no matter what, if you accepted Jesus. Now this answers the problem of assurance for Armenians, and of Predestination for Calvinists. The IJ is a sort of intermediate position that keeps one from the chasms on each side. I can relax, for I know that Jesus can bring me through, and my name is already on the book, Ephesians says that we have an earnest, the Spirit, that shows that we are sealed. So, the books reflect this. We are part of the kingdom already, and have eternal life.
Now of course, a name can be blotted out. But not until the end, and I have time.
I think the IJ is a wonderful doctrine.
"Wouldn't it be quite surprising and disappointing if any serious student of scripture could show no sign of growth, no increasing clarity of understanding, no ability to rightly divide and and appropriately apply scripture over a fifty year period of study - especially if that person is believed to be specially enlightened and gifted by God?" Hedrick
So you think Ellen "grew" as she got older. Let's see:
"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake."
No "growth" there. How about here:
"I have been instructed that we should make prominent the testimony of some of the old workers who are now dead. Let them continue to speak through their articles as found in the early numbers of our papers. These articles should now be reprinted, that there may be a living voice from the Lord’s witnesses. The history of the early experiences in the message will be a power to withstand the masterly ingenuity of Satan’s deceptions. This instruction has been repeated recently. I must present before the people the testimonies of Bible truth, and repeat the decided messages given years ago. I desire that my sermons given at camp meetings and in churches may live and do their appointed work."—Letter 99, 1905. (Ellen White, 1905, Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 26)
Hmmm, not there either,,,
tg
Allen
Obviously there is a pre-advent judgment for Christ returns with judgment in His hand.
But that is a far cry from the SOP proposition out of Dan 8:14 and a misuse of Christ's entering the Most Holy Place on Oct 22, 1844.
To challenge that proposition cost Ballenger/Ford their ordination and their salaries plus a lot of
back talk from the Brethren. Tom Z
The Book of Hebrews is the key!
It's sad to see some people trying to distort the meaning of this book once in a while.
But it's not a problem. For those who are willing to study this book in depth, and willing to believe in it (no matter what EGW said!) will have no problem understanding the issue and learning that the Adventist heresies about the IJ, 1844, and 2,300 are just... heresies!....
TJG
You responded to my statement concerning growth and maturation in understanding and applying scripture over a many years with two paragraphs lifted from the one hundred thousand pages of EGW's writings. Then you casually comment: "No 'growth' there. How about here . . .Hmmm, not there either,,, "
I'm not sure what is your point. How do the two paragraphs apply to the point I was attempting to make? I am no apologist for EGW and I am very much aware of her humanity; but are you really saying there was no growth in her understanding of theological truths over fifty years? If that is what you are implying, then you certainly haven't provided a shred of evidence for it. Not those two paragraphs.
From where came the notion that all the beliefs and writings of dead men and women are somehow false, or childish, or have outlived their usefulness to those alive today? In that case we should discard all the works of Luther, of Calvin, of C.S Lewis, of Aristotle, of Moses, along with everything believed or written by Adventist pioneers, as useless and discredited drivel unfit for the mature modern mind.
From where came the notion that growth in the understanding of biblical truths necessarily requires that we discard everything we learned since kindergarten? All of us who are learning anything at all should know that we are doing so because we are standing on the shoulders of our forebears. Sometimes the wisest thing we can do for our own good is to look backward with sensitivity and gratitude before we can gain any perspective to look ahead with a clearer vision and better assurance.
Pineknoll is the place to learn more about Graham Maxwell and his work. www.pineknoll.org
As TJG has noted, many Adventists still believe Ellen White was a prophet in spite of the research of Rea, Numbers and others. In fact there is now such a wealth of information in the public domain, that I’ve just about given up trying to convince Adventists of the truth regarding Ellen White – it’s clear that those who still believe are just not interested in the facts.
But Alden, it is really disappointing to see somebody of your calibre defending Ellen White – frankly you know better. While I don’t know you personally, I’ve read enough of your work to acknowledge you as a gifted author, a genuine scholar and an original thinker. In my view, your book “Inspiration” should be required reading for every Adventist, preferably prior to baptism.
I read your article carefully and noted you haven’t actually claimed here that Ellen White was a prophet. However to support her the way you have in this forum knowing that the Adventist church makes this claim for her, is tantamount to supporting that claim.
I’ll cut to the chase – a key plank of your defence is the idea of progression of maturity in Ellen White’s understanding, and you use this to explain away some of the problematic statements she made early in her ministry. The trouble is, she claimed many of those statements came straight from God, and neither she nor the church ever “unpublished” the majority of those statements. As most of those statements are demonstrably false, by any objective assessment, this makes her a false prophet.
So you’re defence amounts to “Ah, but she was not AS MUCH of a false prophet in her later years”. C’mon!
Tom and George,
So you do want to quibble about the dates. If you grant a pre-Advent judgment, and that in fact Hebrews does teach that the heavenly sanctuary needed purifying, or cleansing (Heb 9:23), it is not such a great leap to 1844. It is just a matter of when the judgment began. And after all, Dan 8:14 does say something to that effect. Not that difficult for me at least.
And the smaller issues about the IJ that are mentioned here on this blog have been addressed adequately, but perhaps not perfectly, in previous discussions.
And as I have pointed out, the IJ can give assurance.
So, where is the heresy?
As far as Ford and Ballenger are concerned, the church does have a right to fire those employees that it feels are undermining its teachings. This was discussed on the string on the recent SCOTUS case about the Lutheran teacher. I followed the Ford case from afar, and I think the church gave him time and treasure to present his views. His reasoning was not accepted, and he lost his credentials, but not membership, a local matter. The Daniel and Revelation Committee Series seems to me a pretty good, though as mentioned above, perhaps not perfect answer to Ford.
One more thing. Since most if not all of us are registered in the Book of Life, it seems to me that cordiality and civility are in order. We are all brethren, which includes the sistern, or something like that, and in the same family. So I recognize all as my siblings and plan to treat you in that light, which means I'll squabble with you, but love you in the end. (in spite of your pig-headedness.) No! Wait! Cross that last comment out.
Thank you Alden for this beautiful exegesis on the IJ and yes, E.G. White. I pray that folk here and elsewhere will work through their own "tensions" and allow the Holy Spirit to wrap their minds around the pillars of truth God revealed to us in order to save us.
Predictably when I read the "Comments" section I expect to read the tired and recycled "stoning" and disemboweling of E.G. White from those who still operate from the bitterness of being "betrayed" or from whatever other "bad" experience with the SDA Church they've had that they've chosen to "catastophize." This practice of constant nit-picking and throwing tantrums or of laying low in the "bushes" just waiting to pounce is disingenuous and ultimately self-effacing.
I will much rather take my chances and be lead by an imperfect, sometimes grumpy Moses than be lead by the self-righteous impudent gang of four listed in Numbers 16 " Now Korah.....Dathan and Abiram....and On....took men"...their story ended with "the ground clave asunder that was under them...." They were consumed with relentlessly pointing out Moses' leadership "flaws" and positioned themselves as more qualified to lead. Well well know how that story ended.
Yes, there's room for "dialogue" and even "disagreement" but when that engagement is nothing but a thinly veiled intent of offering the "strange fires" of our fractured understanding of God's purposes The Holy Spirit is not and cannot be in that. So to the "we hate E.G. White" brigade I say "GROW UP!!!!!"...God will plead and persuade, but at some point Mercy and Grace WILL run out!
Klimber,
The SDA instituion promotes the mindset that you counter in your post. The Jews got infected with the same mentality.
Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. (fanaticism)
Romans 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Jude warns us of the types of church corrupters:
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Prophet killing persists:
Matthew 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.Matthew 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The SS teacher's edition presents a little application for the lesson.
Most SS classes would be benefited by more since so many have already been exposed to the main topic.
"Just for Teachers: Discuss this question to help your class make a personal application of the lesson.
Life Application: If you are a parent, what examples from your child-rearing experiences illustrate the importance of consequences and just judgment, tempered by grace? Or perhaps you are in a position of authority in your field of employment, responsible for supervising your co-
workers? In any of these situations in which judgment or discipline was required, have you had to take upon yourself the consequences earned by the child or coworker? How does this experience correlate with, and deepen your appreciation for, that which Christ did for us on the cross?"
Who needs to make judgement calls?
Judges, cops, teachers, bosses, parents, military commanders, grandparents, loan officers, prison guards......
who should not be on this list ??
Jesus is judge...."we have the mind of Christ", "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus"
“You responded to my statement concerning growth and maturation in understanding and applying scripture over a many years with two paragraphs lifted from the one hundred thousand pages of EGW's writings… I'm not sure what is your point.” – Hedrick
_________________________________
Hedrick:
My “lifting” is nothing compared to Ellen White’s “lifting” over the course of her life. She “lifted” when she was young, middle-aged and old. She “lifted” day and night. She “lifted” in good times and bad. She “lifted” in all four seasons, rain or shine. And just when you thought no more “lifting” could be done, she would “lift” some more. Ellen White was a great “lifter.” I can’t think of a better one, can you?
All this “lifting” was coupled with “I was shown.” For those of us who have read the evidence clearly demonstrating that she was not “shown,” but in fact “lifted,” we have concluded that she was a false prophet. She was a false prophet when she was young, middle-aged and old. “Maturing” does nothing to erase this fact.
Now, if you want to believe Alden’s “maturing” argument to validate her as the SOP, go ahead.
tg
Fay Crombie - Thu, 01/26/2012 - 14:10
As long as you feel forced to save Ellen, you will be forced to be dishonest. IJ and Hebrews is incompatable; Ellen and Hebrews in incompatable, and Ballenger found out the hard way.
There it is, in a nutshell.
Sirje
"So, where is the heresy?" -- Allen Shepherd
Allen:
When your sins are forgiven, they are blotted out. They do not remain on the books until October 22, 1844. There is no investigation.
Shall I continue?
tg
"...but are you really saying there was no growth in her understanding of theological truths over fifty years?" - Hedrick
There is a fundamental problem with the concept that EGW's theology grew and matured throughout the years. Or that "her understanding" grew and matured. Assuming that what the SDA Church believes about her is true, to be a prophetess chosen by God, her message must have been perfect and complete since the beginning. One same message throughout her whole ministry. No other option. God does not change His message. His "understanding of the truth" does not "grow" or "mature."
EGW's "understanding of theological truths" is completely irrelevant. What she "understood" makes no difference. She was not called to "understand" the truth, she was supposedly called to "strong"deliver the truth. Her own ideas shouldn't shape the truth, right?
Thus, if the core of her message changed throughout the years, if she grew her understanding, and matured her theology, then we have a problem. A serious problem. First, she should not have any theology of her own. She was called to deliver "the truth". not to elaborate a theology.
But, yes, I am well aware of some changes in her "truth" like, for instance, she "was shown" that the DOOR WAS SHUT, then seven years later her truth "grew" and she admitted that the door was not actually shut.... I am glad her "truth" matured in several ways throughout the years...
May be her "new books" being printed once in a while may reveal still more growth and more maturity...
"... I followed the Ford case from afar, and I think the church gave him time and treasure to present his views. His reasoning was not accepted, and he lost his credentials, but not membership, a local matter...." - Allen Shepherd
Did you know that Neal Wilson had the non-acceptance document written before Ford completely defended his thesis at Glacier View?
The Ford case proved to all who wanted to see that the church had no intention to change course on any of the problematic issues. as it has not today. Business is more important than integrity!
TJG:
Didn't you use the wrong word above? Instead of "LIFTING" shouldn't it rather be "COPYING?"
Copying applies perfectly to what you wrote!!!
George:
USA Today Reporter Quits Over Lifting Quotations
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: May 6, 2005
"Tom Squitieri, a 16-year veteran of USA Today, resigned from the newspaper yesterday after his editors said he lifted quotations from other newspapers without attribution."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/business/media/06paper.html
What do you think?
tg
TJG,
I am lifted for the day!
TJG
Among other things you wrote in response to me: "My 'lifting' is nothing compared to Ellen White’s 'lifting' over the course of her life".
Sir or Madam, I have absolutely no argument with your view that Ellen White was a false prophet from beginning to end. You are completely free to hold tenaciously to that position as you will. I don't judge you for it, I don't condemn you for holding it.
But that's not my point in responding to you in the first place. Let me make it again: you misquoted me and therefore misrepresented what I wrote to all who cared to read you. By the omission of one little word "no" and the insertion of one little word "the" you have completely reversed the meaning of what I wrote. I thought it was a simple oversight, but evidently it was not.
Instead of simply acknowledging your mistake and moving on, you have now wandered off the point, seeking to obscure or justify your misrepresentation by pointing to Ellen White's culpability. I could say much more, but it is enough to simply and respectfully say that no honest conversation can continue with that sort of ethic.
“But that's not my point in responding to you in the first place. Let me make it again: you misquoted me and therefore misrepresented what I wrote to all who cared to read you. By the omission of one little word "no" and the insertion of one little word "the" you have completely reversed the meaning of what I wrote. I thought it was a simple oversight, but evidently it was not.” -- Hedrick
_______________
Hi Henrick:
How’s it going? Apparently you’ve had a bad night’s sleep. It happens to me once in a while too. It causes my brain to be a little fuzzy. Sometimes I start writing and forget who I’m writing too. I hate it when that happens, as I’m sure you do as well. But, before I hit the SEND button I usually double check. This is something you apparently haven’t mastered. For you see, I’m TJG, I’m not Fay Crombie. We’re not the same person. She is much smarter and better looking than me. You wrote to her and said:
Fay Crombie:
You misquoted me badly, hopefully by mistake. I'm being made to say exactly the opposite of what I actually wrote. By leaving out the little word "no" before "contradiction" and inserting the little word "the", you changed the meaning completely. Hedrick - Fri, 01/27/2012 - 16:27
Once again, I'm TJG (notice the spelling). Then you go on to state:
“Instead of simply acknowledging your mistake and moving on, you have now wandered off the point, seeking to obscure or justify your misrepresentation by pointing to Ellen White's culpability. I could say much more, but it is enough to simply and respectfully say that no honest conversation can continue with that sort of ethic.”
I agree fully Hendrick. I suggest you acknowledge “your mistake and move on.” Get a good night’s sleep and call me in the morning.
tg
Oops... Hedrick, Henrick and Hendrick. I acknowledge my mistake Hedrick. See how simple that is.
tg
TJG
I quoted it once, but here it is again
II Cor 3:10 For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Sounds like believers ("all" in a Pauline epistle, Paul even including himself), sounds like judgment, sounds like it happens before Christ comes. Not in Daniel, or Rev, or EGW. And it involves deeds done in the body, that you say are blotted out when forgiveness is given. See also Ez 18.
Ergo: Pre-Advent judgement Date: We can quibble, but I don't see heresy.
Thank you Alden for this beautiful eisegesis on the IJ and E.G. White.
George,
No, I did not know that about Neal Wilson. But I believe that Ford was taken seriously by the church, and was given time to present his case. And besides, the president doesn't decide by himself. And if I were Neal, I would have read Ford's stuff before hand, and prepared something at least a bit.
I am not defending Neal, he has to stand on his own. But Ford was given lots of time, and was paid while he prepared his defense. He was taken seriously regardless of what Neal did. I remember the debate in the church. It was not done in a corner.
George and Robert,
Their is a certain irony in that you consider yourselves liberals (at least I have heard George refer to himself as one), and yet you both reject Ellen White because you hold to a very conservative nigh fundamentalist view of inspiration. George expresses it most clearly here: "Assuming that what the SDA Church believes about her is true, to be a prophetess chosen by God, her message must have been perfect and complete since the beginning." That is an incredibly fundamentalist approach to inspiration, and proves just as troublesome when applied to Biblical writing as it does to Ellen White's writings. We can find much in the Bible that is not by itself perfect and complete and with a such narrow hermeneutic applied to it would be considered contradictory. One does not even need to pit the OT against the NT, just wrestle with trying to reconcile James and Paul. George goes on to suggest that Ellen White's ideas should not have influenced the message, again this is a very fundamentalist understanding of inspiration. It is no better a view of the process than verbal inspiration. According to this understanding God just crams a perfect heavenly message into the mind of the prophet, there is nothing relational about the process, there is no human element combined with the Divine - the human is of no more importance then a secretary. Again the Bible proves just a difficult to believe in with such a view of Revelation - Inspiration. There is too much in the Bible that comes across as human to believe that the human contribution was so incidental.
Robert I think the reason you're disappointed in Alden Thompson is that you've failed to fully understand his view of inspiration. Thompson is an intellectually honest Biblical scholar, so he does not have the luxury of rejecting Ellen White because of the difficulties inherent in her imperfections and yet sweeping the difficulties of the Bible under the rug. Therefore, he has adopted a broader hermeneutic which allows for these human imperfections and a developing message while still believing that it all comes from God. You, however, have stuck to a much narrower conservative hermeneutic that does not allow for theological development. You are familiar enough with E.G.W. writings to see that such an approach is problematic, but are able to do the mental gymnastics to say that the Bible does not have such problems. As a Biblical scholar Thompson does not have the luxury of doing those gymnastics.
"You are familiar enough with E.G.W. writings to see that such an approach is problematic, but are able to do the mental gymnastics to say that the Bible does not have such problems." -- John Mark
You have completely misunderstood me. Your problem (and that of the SDA church in general) is that you don't seem to be able to distinguish between Inspiration and the gift of prophecy. Ellen White did not have the gift of prophecy, but the church claims she did. That is completely different than the question of whether or not there was inspiration at play in her writings and teachings. I happen to recognise that there WAS a level of inspiration at play in some of what she wrote. However the church has effectively ruined the benefit of this with the "prophecy" claim.
Robert,
Yes I do consider Revelation-Inspiration to be the same as the gift of prophecy. I think most Adventist theologians when they talk about prophecy and Revelation-Inspiration use them inter-changably. We believe the Bible writers to be prophets in that they received a message from God. What is your definition of prophet, and how does it differ from the theological concept of Revelation-Inspiration?
John Mark,
There are different categories/groups of Bible writers. Some where prophets and some were not. I thought this was Theology 101 - Major Prophets, Minor Propehts, etc.
Luke is probably the best example of a Bible writer who was not a prophet. He was a historian, a researcher and a story-teller. He never claimed to have special revelations or to see visions.
The definition of prophet I accept is "someone whe receives a special message from God for others", and is typically characterised by visions or some other form of special revelation. It is historically demonstrable that this part of Ellen White's ministry was a complete fraud.
What you are referring to is literary genre. Conservative protestants would reject the idea that these equate to levels of inspiration; in other words they believe in plenary inspiration. Liberal protestants might (and some certainly do) accept the idea of degrees of inspiration, but generally, I think, they would not hold any genre including the prophets to the high standards of authority and infallibility which you do. Adventists generally fall into the conservative protestant camp, and believe that the words of Timothy and Peter describing all Scripture as inspired words of God apply to all scripture, even that which does not technically fall into the prophetic genre. Alden Thompson will have to speak for himself, but my impression is that he holds to this plenary view of Scripture which is why when he advances a broader understanding of inspiration it applies to the prophetic genre as well as any other.
'...but generally, I think, they would not hold any genre including the prophets to the high standards of authority and infallibility which you do." -- John Mark
Once again, you're making some assumptions about how I see the Bible. I'm well aware that there are significant questions around the authorship and period of some of the major prophets, and I read them with this in mind. The difference with Ellen White is, we actually KNOW from historical evidence there was no prophetic gift at work.
All you KNOW is that she did not work according to your definition of the Prophetic gift. It can be proven that she borrowed sources, and apparently that is not permisable in your understanding of the prophetic gift. However, whether God sent her a message and that message could be expressed in borrowed language, isn't really a matter open to historical verification - it's a matter of theology and faith.
"...whether God sent her a message and that message could be expressed in borrowed language, isn't really a matter open to historical verification - it's a matter of theology and faith." -- John Mark
Really. It's "a matter of theology and faith." Well, let's take a look:
"If you refuse to believe until every shadow of uncertainty and every possibility of doubt is removed, you will never believe. The doubt that demands perfect knowledge will never yield to faith. Faith rests upon evidence, not demonstration. The Lord requires us to obey the voice of duty, when there are other voices all around us urging us to pursue an opposite course. It requires earnest attention from us to distinguish the voice which speaks from God." EGW, Selected Messages, Bk. l, p27.
"We must not defer our obedience till every shadow of uncertainty and every possibility of mistake is removed. The doubt that demands perfect knowledge will never yield to faith, for faith rests upon probability, not demonstration.... We must obey the voice of duty when there are many other voices crying against it, and it requires earnest heed to distinguish the one which speaks for God." Daniel March, Night Scenes in the Bible; Philadelphia: Zeigler, McCurdy & Co., 1823; p88.
Looks pretty close to me. What say you John Mark?
So, let me ask you: What was the message that God sent to Ellen White that she had to use "borrowed language" to convey? I'm anxious to hear your response.
tg
Joseph Smith also is a true prophet. All you know is that he did not work according to your, or Adventist, definitions of the prophetic gift!
TJG,
You quote more Ellen White then an old lady then the misguided saints that live on her word. Such a negative obsession cannot be healthy.
S Styrra,
Yes, accepting Joseph Smith is also a matter of faith. I think Mormons are wrong, but not in the arrogant "dang Mormons just won't face up to the facts that are as plain as day" kind of way that ex-Adventists seem to enjoy. I respect their theology I just have a different one. As a naturally skeptical person, I imagine we would find the same difficulties in the Bible writers that we do with modern prophets if it wasn't for the 2,000 years of history covering it up. Therefore, it greatly annoys me when Bible believers assume an air of superiority over those supposedly gullible enough to accept a later prophecy. Likely the only reason you're not facing the same problems is1. you're not looking hard enough, and 2. the Bible is older.
John Mark,
Please re-read my original comment to Alden - my principle issue with Ellen White is not her "use of sources" (that's an ethical issue but on it's own, doesn't preclude the operation of a prophetic gift).
My principle issue is that she claimed God showed her things that subsequently proved to be just plain wrong (most notably in relation to the shut door belief). But then I'm sure we've had this discussion before, on another thread. S. Styrra is correct - if Ellen White was a prophet, then so was Joseph Smith.
"...you consider yourselves liberals (at least I have heard George refer to himself as one), and yet you both reject Ellen White because you hold to a very conservative nigh fundamentalist view of inspiration. ..." - John Mark
You are right. This is why TJG and I already declared ourselves to be the "true conservatives" on this forum. Thus, Liberals are actually those permissive people who allow "other stuff" to be deliberately (liberally) added to what is called "Sola Scriptura."
Yes, I guess this is it then! I feel good choosing to be a true Conservative. How do you feel now being a true Liberal???
"S. Styrra is correct - if Ellen White was a prophet, then so was Joseph Smith."
Sorry I don't see the logic in that it all. It would have been quite possible for God to have inspired Joseph Smith and not Ellen White or visa versa. This is like saying if Moses was a prophet, then Mohammed must have been a prophet since they say some equally troublesome things. I agree we should be respectful of other religions' claims, but it doesn't follow that I have to believe them, just because I believe my own religion. Not sure where your reasoning is in this.
"Not sure where your reasoning is in this." -- John Mark
Um, obviously that they're both clearly false prophets...
"How do you feel now being a true Liberal???"
I hold to Sola Scriptura and do not consider Ellen White as scripture (I hold the same position on that issue as my denomination does, maybe you've heard of us, we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists). I do hold to a more liberal view on the continuance of God's prophetic guidance, on the use of community in understanding the Scriptura, and I hold to a more liberal view than you do on inspiration. I believe in Sola Scriptura because I believe it's only scripture at the top, but I believe there's much more of value below it and that we must approach understanding it together. Anyway, put it all together, and yes I'm a good deal more liberal in my theology of Scripture, church, and truth then you are, but I don't think most folks would consider either of us liberals on the broad spectrum of Christian theology.
Hedrick - Sat, 01/28/2012 - 08:12
TJG
Fay Crimbie
Among other things you wrote in response to me: "My 'lifting' is nothing compared to Ellen White’s 'lifting' over the course of her life".
I have absolutely no argument with your view that Ellen White was a false prophet from beginning to end. You are completely free to hold tenaciously to that position as you will. I don't judge you for it, I don't condemn you for holding it.
But that's not my point in responding to you in the first place. Let me make it again: Fay misquoted me and therefore misrepresented what I wrote to all who cared to read you. By the omission of one little word "no" and the insertion of one little word "the" you have completely reversed the meaning of what I wrote. I thought it was a simple oversight, but evidently it was not.
Instead of simply acknowledging your mistake and moving on, you have now wandered off the point, seeking to obscure or justify your misrepresentation by pointing to Ellen White's culpability. I could say much more, but it is enough to simply and respectfully say that no honest conversation can continue with that sort of ethic.
"Um, obviously that they're both clearly false prophets..."
If only theology were so clear. Unfortunately it's just as clear to some that the Biblical prophets are false, to others that Mohammed is false... I have no problem with your belief that Ellen White or Joseph Smith is a false prophet, but the clarity on these issues is only subjective, so respect for those that disagree would be commendable.
And I still don't see the logic in your statement. Because someone accepts one falsehood they should accept any other falsehood? That's like saying since Hindus believe in reincarnation they might as well believe in transubstantiation, because to me they are both clearly false. That would be incredibly disrespectful to religious belief, which might be okay if it wasn't for the fact that you're a religious believer yourself, so this kind of makes you a hypocrite.
TJG
Yes, you are correct. It was a case of mistaken identity. I have resent it and included Fay's name. Please take note.
John Mark,
I just found a text that is an obvious contradiction in itself. Take a look:
"I hold to Sola Scriptura and do not consider Ellen White as scripture (I hold the same position on that issue as my denomination does, maybe you've heard of us, we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists)..."
I bet you also have seen this text before, right?
By the way, you and I know very well that the "denomination" does not hold this position in practice. To the neophytes they may tell this, but we both know better than this. (I am assuming you are not a neophyte Adventist...).
The Rocks Cry Out
In the Gospel according to Luke, we find the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The carpenter from Nazareth is hailed as the Messiah. The “rulers” ask Jesus to still the crowd.
Jesus replies: “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”
Dr. Luke didn’t know about piezoelectricity. Now rocks cry out all the time. Junior scientists can still buy crystal set radios. It seems if certain crystals are distorted by pressure they will produce an electrical potential and if an electrical potential is applied to certain crystals they will distort. These properties are the basis for creating sound waves, which amplified can be heard and understood by the listener. If the voice of God could still the wind and the waves; if the voice of God could call the dead from the grave; then the voice of God could make the rocks cry out—even sing!
Recall at the beginning of Christ’s ministry a voice from heaven declared: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased!” Now after 3.5 years, the people echo that benediction.
Did anyone ever wonder or speculate what the rocks would say, if energized by the voice of God? One would have to assume that they would say, what “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Charles Jennens gives us a strong hint in the textual base he prepared for Handel’s Messiah.
The rock could have sung more but they could not have sung less—
“The Lord whom ye seek, ‘has’ suddenly come to His temple,, even the messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in: behold He ‘has come’, saith the Lord of Hosts.” Malachi 3:1 kjv (adapted)
But we have a problem here. If the messenger of the Covenant came to the temple in A.D. 33 did He not bring judgment with Him? To the people singing His praise and the rulers trying to still the adulation: the Hour of His Judgment had come!
The rocks continue—
“But who may abide the day of His coming, and who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner’s fire.”Malachi 3: 2kjv
The rocks answer their own question—
“He shall purify the sons of Levi, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness”. Malachi 3: 4. kjv
The Hour of His Judgment comes when each person is confronted with a choice: As James Russell Lowell tells us: “Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth with false-hood, For the good or evil side.”
That time had arrived for the rulers in Jerusalem. The events following that entry carried the ruling class inevitably to an irreversible conclusion. When Pilate said: “Behold the Man!”
They cried: “Away with Him.” Their irreversible decision sealed their fate.
Never-the-less, the rocks sense in the moments of the triumphal entry that the evil one will soon be vanquished. So they continue their Gospel refrain—
“O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain. O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, behold your God! O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, Arise, shine, for they Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.” Isa. 40: 9; Isa. 60:1 kjv
The rocks continue—
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, thy King cometh unto thee. He is the righteous Savior, and He shall speak peace unto the heathen”. Zech. 9:9-10 kjv
The song keeps building—
“He shall feed His flock like a shepherd; and He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.” Isa. 40: 11 kjv
To the open invitation—
“Come unto Him, all ye that labour, come unto Him that are heavy laden, as He will give you rest. Take His yoke upon you, and learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. Matt. 11: 28-30 kjv (adapted)
The rocks in great joy and anticipation gather in full voice saying—
“Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is this King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is this King of Glory? The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory. Ps. 24 7-10 kjv
Finally the rocks carry forth to the songs of heaven—
“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain and hath redeemed us to God by His blood, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honour, glory and power unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. Amen. Rev. 5: 12-13
Let every voice say so!
Tom Z
George,
I think it depends upon whether one considers Sola Scriptura to mean only Scripture at the top as the ultimate authority or only scripture all the way down. I would have a problem with the second view of Sola Scriptura even I was to reject Ellen White.
No I'm not a neophyte, I was born and raised in the church, have five and a half years of denominational higher education, a year and four summers of canvassing work, two overseas mission trips, and my lineage is sixth generation Adventist. So while my experience might not match up to yours, I think it's safe to say I'm not speaking about the church from a position of naivete. So with that established, no the church does not hold to Ellen White as Scripture. In my own experience I have rarely heard sermons preached with her, I have not seen Bible studies that appealed to her authority, I don't recall any of my religion classes (and I hold a BA in theology for Union College) ever appealing to Ellen White, I didn't even hear that much of Ellen White quoted in SS over my life. I think I have seen a greater string of Ellen White quoting from disgruntled spectrumites then elsewhere. Granted I grew up in a country church that was almost Sabbatarian non-Denominational - with carnivorous potlucks to top it off. Now, I'm going to a church that's much more based on Ellen White, so I can see where the Spectrumites are coming from. The problem for your assertions, however, is that these churches do not represent the official church, as the official church and Ellen White Estate... take a very clear stand for Sola Scriptura. So essentially, what we have is spectrumites obsessed with leveling an Adventist fringe, while imagining they are bulldozing the whole of Adventism. For those who spend all their time on spectrum rather than experience the real church as it has changed over the decades, this perception becomes reality.
"And I still don't see the logic in your statement. Because someone accepts one falsehood they should accept any other falsehood?" -- John Mark
Alright, I'll put it another way - the only way Ellen White can be a prophet is if you define prophet as someone who "see things" and then speaks with conviction, whether there is any merit (or honesty, for that matter) in what they say or not. By that criteria, Joseph Smith (and a heap of other people) could also be prophets. I think S. Styrra used Joseph Smith as an example because he (or she?) thought there would be common agreement on this thread, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet (the statement about Joseph Smith being a true prophet was clearly sarcastic!)
"I have no problem with your belief that Ellen White or Joseph Smith is a false prophet, but the clarity on these issues is only subjective, so respect for those that disagree would be commendable." -- John Mark
That's all very well to a point, but somewhere you have to draw the line and start calling stupidity for what it is. The evidence against Ellen White's prophetic gift is not subjective - the evidence FOR her gift is subjective - but this is offset by a large volume of very OBJECTIVE evidence to the contrary.
"I think S. Styrra used Joseph Smith as an example because he (or she?) thought there would be common agreement on this thread, that Joseph Smith was a false prophet (the statement about Joseph Smith being a true prophet was clearly sarcastic!)"
Indeed he did, and I find that kind of dogmatic dismissal of Mormon beliefs as distasteful as I do the constant dismissive dogmatism against Ellen White. I hear as much "There's just no way, no way, I'm wrong, I'm objective and factual, and those who disagree with me are wrong, wrong, wrong, and just subjective imbecile" as I hear actual arguments for why that is the case. If you were all secure in your beliefs about Ellen White I have a feeling you would not spend so much time on the topic, and so much time in meta-conversation asserting how sure you are. Like I said, I hear more about Ellen White from the critics then I generally do from the believers, it pops up on every thread and seems to be a life consuming obsession for some critics. It makes me wonder if deep down there's a nagging doubt that maybe just maybe you're wrong, and you desperately don't want that to be the case. So a million times per thread we hear the most dogmatic meta-conversation from the critics about how there's absolutely no freaking way they're wrong.
John Mark,
I'm not interested in your rhetoric or your posturing. You know your last post is not representative of the majority of comments I've made on this site. Please just tell me (Yes/No answers will suffice) whether you have read each of the following (or at least the majority). If you have not, then please refrain from further comments on this matter until you have informed yourself:
1. Walter Rea’s The White Lie;
2. The official response of the White Estate to The White Lie;
3. The 1919 Bible Conference minutes;
4. The transcript of the interview between J.H. Kellogg, G.W. Amadon and A.C. Bourdeau on 7th October 1907;
5. Bruce Weaver’s analysis of the accounts of the events surrounding the arrest of Israel Dammon;
6. W.W. Fletcher’s history of the Shut Door teaching;
7. E.S. Ballenger’s Facts Seventh Day Adventists.
"7. E.S. Ballenger’s Facts Seventh Day Adventists." above should read "7. E.S. Ballenger’s Facts About Seventh Day Adventists".
What if Ellen, Joseph, Mohammed and Moses are all prophets in their own religious community contexts - and to those outside of those frames of references they generally aren't?
I can learn from each of them, but I don't give away my mind to them. Where they resonate with me and call me to live more fully and free and to make the world a better place, I let them inspire me. Consistency, rationality and grand-all-encompassing theories of supposed truth aren't the way us humans work - so no need for me to get caught up in mind games of pursuing perfect truth, theology and understanding. Pep plls and medicine for along the life journey from a variety of difference sources from time to time stimulate me, challenge me, help me see where I am at and where others are at. One step and day at a time.
"You quote more Ellen White then (sic) an old lady then (sic) the misguided saints that live on her word. Such a negative obsession cannot be healthy." -- John Mark
Well, if you can't answer the question -- "What was the message that God sent to Ellen White that she had to use 'borrowed language' to convey? -- you might as well say something, no matter how nonsensical it is. Typical liberal.
tg
TJG
Immediate classification prejudices all subsequent thinking---the issue is Ellen White's "lifting" not John Mark.
An apt definition of a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Ever after they are afraid of anything that goes bump in the night.
The evidence is clear that Ellen White reversed her view "from" God time and again. She also used other sources without attribution. Thus one must use discretion in reading her testimonies and historical accounts.
The canon of Scripture remains a Christian's primary source.
Instead of "Ellen White says" let us say "The Apostle Paul writes!"
Tom Z
"...I hear more about Ellen White from the critics then I generally do from the believers, it pops up on every thread and seems to be a life consuming obsession for some critics...." - John Mark
EGW'c critics will always voice their protest when she is used to establish DOCTRINE and BELIEF.
I would not talk about her at all if she were not used to establish doctrine. Saying that one is for Sola Scriptura then adding her as source of doctrinal authority is the most hypocritical attitude I can think of.
If she were considered as an "inspirational writer" with encouraging Christian messages, it would be fine. Provided she didn't write "prophecies," some of them unethically copied from other sources.
But the jump is too big for having her writings added to the Holy Text. The central pillars of SDA doctrines still emanate from EGW. For me this unacceptable.
DOCTRINE and BELIEF should be based only on the BIBLE. But not everyone thinks this way...
"The canon of Scripture remains a Christian's primary source. Instead of 'Ellen White says' let us say 'The Apostle Paul writes!" -- Tom Z.
Tom -- I'm with you 100% (if there were more, I'd give it).
"Saying that one is for Sola Scriptura then adding her as source of doctrinal authority is the most hypocritical attitude I can thing of." -- George
George -- That's the way I see it as well, again 100% (if there were more, I'd give it).
These "liberals," got to love 'em.
tg
Robert Sonter,
If you don't mind, I would add to your list one more fundamental book, Ford's "Daniel 8:14, The Day of atonement and the Investigative Judgement." This would be #8 on your list.
Then, as a bonus, # 9 would be the Book of Hebrews, in the NT. (By the way, just this one is more than enough to collapse the so called "1844-related IJ Doctrine")
My bet, though, is that you won't get a straight YES/NOW answer. You will certainly get a "lecture" about these books, that were probably not read anyways... Most people who attack these evidence books usually didn't read them - they just "heard" about them.
TGJ,
I already corrected the typo "thing" to "think"
So, just for the record, I reiterate my prior statement to prove my conservatism:
"Saying that one is for Sola Scriptura then adding her as source of doctrinal authority is the most hypocritical attitude I can think of." -- George
Saying Adventists stray from Sola Scriptura because they hold to doctrines you find un-biblical, that were supported by our founders, is disingenuous. I don't accuse Calvinists of not being Sola Scriptura because they hold to what I consider to be a non - Biblical view of predestination that was advanced by Calvin. I do not accuse. I do not accuse dispensationalists of not being sincerely for Sola Scripture, because they hold to what I consider a non-Biblical doctrine advanced by John Darby. I don't accuse Calvinists or Dispensationalists of giving a higher authority to John Calvin or John Darby then the Bible. The fact is people can read the same book and come to wildly different conclusions, and that's why we have hundreds of denominations all believing in Sola Scriptura. So let's drop the BS about people who come to views that you find to be clearly false not being believers in Sola Scriptura. Just pick a denomination that agrees with your view of the Bible, and respect those who have a different view.
John Mark
I appreciate your comments. In my own spiritual sojourn I have struggled with the question, "how does inspiration work anyway?" My grandfather was one of the bible teachers who attended the 1819 Bible Conference, the transcripts of which I have read several times. Some of his questions in that setting lead me to believe he struggled too. I have advocated for an open discussion or conference on the issue of inspiration for years in that I think lack of consensus on that subject drives much of the heated debates about both Biblical as well as EGW inspirational authenticity.
My own study and ruminations have lead me to conclude that evidence suggests growth or maturation of both EGW and Biblical authors. Though I at one time held the concept of "God said it and I believe it and that's that", I now find that too easy, simplistic and faulty. As an example, I have considered the life trajectory of John the Baptist whom Jesus confirmed as among the prophetic greats. His mission of introducing Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah was certainly a high calling which he faithfully fulfilled yet, when depressed and in prison he sent his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was the one John thought he was. The Bible does not seem to shy away from a depressed prophet or Christ from declaring John great knowing that he would one day doubt. There is plenty evidence that Moses, Aaron and David grew too as they lived their life's missions.
I appreciate the thoughtful scholarship of Alden Thompson on the topic of inspiration and God's dealing with all humans at every stage of the biblical narrative. To deny that Bible authors and EGW both grew in their experience and in their understanding of the truth they so passionately wished to share in my view is tantamount to throwing the entire notion of inspiration and the bible out the window.
Thank God for the likes of Alden Thompson who keep simple folks like me engaged in the blessed hope. Grace truly abounds even in the intellect and writings of authors whom we have come to recognize as inspired.
Alden, If you happen to read this post of mine be aware that I may be one of the ones you spoke about in your comment about two Texas guys in your article. I'd love to share the details with you privately.
John Mark:
Once again: What was the message that God sent to Ellen White that she had to use "borrowed language" to convey?
tg
"Just pick a denomination that agrees with your view of the Bible, and respect those who have a different view." - John Mark
John,
No, I am NOT leaving.
And I am not sorry to say that I will always reject that idea that true biblical doctrines can or should be built utilizing the Bible PLUS other convenient sources. No. The Bible is the only one authorized source. Whatever cannot be proved from the BIBLE only is anathema and a heresy.
Now, when people come up with some extraneous doctrines and want to FORCE them on others, then there is a problem. I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. Believe what you want. I am just saying that I do not accept any teaching that is non-biblical. This is not an accusation, this is a statement.
Telling people to leave is just an old tactic that represents a deep fear that more people will have access to the challenging thought of, "Check it out by yourself." Inconvenient for the Whiteists, and I understand why.
Franklin,
Thanks, I have also greatly appreciated the work of Alden Thompson, it was required reading for theology majors at Union (I think the class was Prophetic Guidance). I think the experience of God's prophetic gift in modern times is a blessing in that it forces us to wrestle with the challenges that have always been inherent in a Transcendent God incarnating Himself and His message to communicate with and trough frail humans with all the imperfections of human culture, language... For some it seems that giving up a fundamentalist view on inspiration is simply too much, so they only stick to ancient texts as the age makes denying the challenges to a conservative fundamentalist view on scripture somewhat easier. This is okay, as long as one still accepts the Grace of Jesus Christ, I am however, too much of a skeptic to go the route of the fundamentalist.
"Whatever cannot be proved from the BIBLE only is anathema and a heresy."
Agreed, but just because you find something to be un-provable from the Bible does not mean another sincere practitioner of Sola Scriptura will not come to a different conclusions. If I believe Calvinist doctrines on predestination and hell fire cannot be proven from the Bible and are anathema and heresy straight from the Devil that makes God out to be a cruel tyrant (which I do) then does it makes sense for me to accuse Calvinists of placing Calvin above the Bible, spend all my time on a Calvinist blog making this assertion, and stay in a Calvinist church campaigning for them to reject Calvinism? You're free to stay, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me is all.
Well did the SS class U attend end up being another BIG waste of time..regurgitating trite theology and shallow doctrinal cliches?
No Jim...It wasn't.
Thanks...
Frank
"Agreed, but just because you find something to be un-provable from the Bible does not mean another sincere practitioner of Sola Scriptura will not come to a different conclusions." -- John Mark
While you think of an answer to my previous question John Mark, let me enlighten you a bit on your claim to being a "practitioner of Sola Scriptura." As you know, you have two sources of authority for your beliefs, scripture and Ellen White. Since you are a traditional SDA (you believe in all 28 fundamental beliefs) you hold to FB#1: "Holy Scriptures are... the authoritative revealer of doctrines" and FB#18: Ellen White's writings are "a continuing and authoritative source of truth."
Therefore, since you have two sources of "authority" and two sources of "truth," by definition you cannot be Sola Scriptura -- bible only. Do you see the problem?
I on the other hand am not a traditional SDA. Ellen White has no authority over my beliefs.
tg
I find many other humans's writings more inspired and valuable than much of the Bible.
All truth is God's truth, no matter the spokesperson.
TJG,
As I said previously I interpret Sola Scriptura to be only Scripture at the top, and would not be comfortable with only Scripture all the way down whether I believed in Ellen White or not. I also struggle with the extreme individualism of a fundamentalist Sola Scriptura which would suggest it's every person to himself interpreting the Scripture. Perhaps my view is more prima Scriptura then sola, but I think it's could still be called Sola as I believe the Bible stands alone at the top of the pyramid. However, I think we climb to the top of that pyramid as a community using all our spiritual gifts, and there's plenty of other valid sources of knowledge below the Scripture. One challenge to a very conservative Sola Scriptura is that it's a self-contradiction, as you will not find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Bible meaning your most foundational authoritative doctrine comes from outside the Scriptura. Also your acceptance of the cannon is extra-Biblical. Therefore if we interpret Sola Scriptura in the most conservative sense, by definition nobody can claim to be a practitioner of it.
Frank7
Glad to read so..for U anyway.
I get more out of Everybody loves Raymond reruns than some SS classes.
I like Everybody Loves Raymond, too, JIm. Happen to have it on right now. Funny stuff! Glad to see you have sense of humor, too!
Frank
"I get more out of Everybody loves Raymond reruns than some SS classes."
Jim,
you're a prophet. I was going to make the same point :) This whole discussion of revelation and inspiration obscures the reality that science is more of a revelation than any ancient scripture ever was, and many a book or movie published in the last decade are more inspired and inspiring than the previous three millennia of religious products.
Also, Hebrews speaks of cleansing a heavenly temple in the context of its inauguration. In NT thinking, the heavenly temple was cleansed two thousand years ago, when first and last entered by the victorious Christ.
Also, John 5 and quite a few Pauline passages show that the only judgment believers attend is the Cross, mirrored in the baptismal death and resurrection.
George Tichy,
Thank you for your suggested additions to the reading list. Indeed there are many things that could be added - I was just trying to compile a quick list of the things I had personally found the most compelling. But once you start looking, there's a wealth of good material.
I find sleepins, snuggles, breakfast out on my balcony, native birds warbling and gentle breezes in the morning sun while Sabbath School is taking place far more enriching, enlivening, and inspiring than any Sabath School lesson!
"However, I think we climb to the top of that pyramid as a community using all our spiritual gifts, and there's plenty of other valid sources of knowledge below the Scripture." -- John Mark
John Mark:
We’re discussing sola scriptura. This phase has meaning. It does not have a wax nose for you to bend when it’s convenient to fit your individual understanding. This holds true for me as well. We’re not discussing “top down,” “bottom up” or “pyramids.” Sola Scriptura does not mean anything you want it to mean.
You made the claim that your beliefs are sola scriptura. In fact you said to George “…let's drop the BS about people who come to views that you find to be clearly false not being believers in Sola Scriptura.” I agree. Let’s drop the “BS” (a phase I have never used on this forum).
The SDAC, our church, does not believe in degrees of inspiration. We believe and teach that the writings of scripture and the writings of Ellen White are both equally inspired:
"the bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant..." -- Feb. 11, 1978, SS Quarterly, teacher's edition, p. 112
“As Samuel was a prophet to Israel in his day, as Jeremiah was a prophet to Israel in the days of captivity, as John the Baptist came as a special messenger of the Lord to prepare the way for Christ's appearing, so we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the church of Christ today. And the same as the messages of the prophets were received in old days, so her message should be received at present times" Review and Herald, Oct 4, 1928.
I could go on and on, but there is no need to. You know this to be true. Furthermore, our Fundamental Beliefs also teach that scripture and Ellen White’s writings are “authoritative” (see FB #1 & FB #18). Reason dictates that if there are no degrees of inspiration, there are no degrees of authority. This “lesser light leading to a greater light” is meaningless (actually, complete nonsense) in light of our true position "the bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant."
The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible.
The primary Catholic argument -- and yours as well -- against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics and you argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, you and they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against un-biblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition or the writings of Ellen White.
Once again, Ellen White has no authority in my life. I am sola scriptura according to the historical meaning, not my own. Because you hold to all 28 fundamental beliefs, you are not sola scriptura as you claim. So yes, let’s cut the “BS” – your phase, not mine.
The hypocrisy is blatant and astounding, not only from you but from our church.
tg
TJG,
While I admire your stance, I cannot help asking some questions:
"We know that the Bible is the Word of God."
We do?
"The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative."
So what?
"We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable."
We can?
Bogdan:
One thing at a time brother. Context, that's the key. Let's deal with sola scriptura first, then we'll deal with your questions -- which are good. Let's see how John Mark responds. Stay tuned.
take care -- tg
"One thing at a time brother."
Fair enough :) No rush.
TJG,
You said it all. Now there is nothing else left for me to say. How sad...
Stay "s-tunned"
------------
John Mark,
Robert Sonter asked you above about some books, if you had read them. You never responded to that, though he just asked for a YES/NO answer.
Can we than conclude that your answer is NO? Yours answer is important to us, because if your answer is actually NO, than it completely changes the tone of the discussion with you. It would be a nonsense to keep discussing the EGW issue if you have no information about the issue.
So, please, be so kind and answer that question so that we will know if we are on the same page.
I know that this issue is difficult to deal with. At first it seems impossible that the church had misbehaved so much, especially being the (self-proclaimed) "remnant church." But we were brainwashed on these issues. I went through the same challenge 30 years ago. But instead of keeping defending the church and EGW "no matter what" I chose to re-study everything at the light of the new information I was gathering. And this included many books. It took me literally hundreds of hours to study it all again. I am glad I did.
One more thing: Be sure that your position on this controversy is not based on what you hear other people saying about it. There will be people even cautioning you to not read the books available about the facts - scaring you, saying that you will lose your faith, and so on. They don't want you to learn the truth. Sad as it may be, fact is that the Church has no intention to educate the people on the true facts. (I wonder if this rings a bell for you?)
I wonder why Ted Wilson wants to "protect the flock" against non-adventist speakers and non-adventist literature.... Any clue???.... Isn't it all obvious?
So, again, I beg you to clarify how much personal study have you done of all the material available. And if you didn't yet, it's time for it brother. These sources have been available for over 30 years!
TJG,
By your logic the gift of prophecy should have died with John the Revelator, but Paul clearly speaks about it as one of the continuing gifts of the spirit. You may be right that your understanding of Sola Scriptura is the only way to define the issue, in which case I would have a very difficult time accepting the doctrine. It's not about Ellen White either, I could reject her writings, and I would still struggle with a Scripture all the way down approach. You're right that I share my reasoning with the Catholics, and that's because I find those reasons quite compelling. The fact remains that if you believe in Sola Scriptura (only the Protestant cannon all the way down), then you're holding to two doctrinal beliefs (the cannon and Sola Scriptura) which are not found in Scripture and one of those beliefs is that you should not hold beliefs that are not found in Scripture. This is obviously a contradiction, which is why I wrestle with the need to reinterpret the understanding of Sola Scriptura.
Your argument makes two wrong assumptions. First, you assume that I must believe any doctrinal statement put out by the church. Second you assume that I must believe anything if it is Protestant and goes against Catholic teaching. On the contrary, my ultimate authority is Jesus Christ, and His scripture which I have found as His voice. If that led me away from the Adventist church to become a Roman Catholic, that is what I would do. I don't believe that this will happen, but it means that I don't find arguments about how I'm not following official Adventist teachings or how Adventists aren't following official Protestant teaching, but rather Catholicism to be convincing. This also is not about Ellen White for me. So find a Scripture that clearly spells out Sola Scriptura as you understand it, and I will accept it. The other arguments I find unconvincing.
George I have read about those things, but not them in particular. I'd think that as much time I have spent on this blog, I have the basic gist of the objections however. Whatever the case though, I don't have hundreds of hours to spend on Ellen White studies, as my academic interests lie elsewhere. I don't see that accepting Ellen White or rejecting her would make such a huge difference in my life. I have based all my doctrinal positions on the Bible, and Ellen White has simply been a great spiritual inspiration to me, and been influential in leading me to a more Biblical understanding of being saved by grace alone. If that's reason for you not to discuss the issue with me, that's fine; it's not my greatest theological interest. It just seems to be one of the topics that come up most often on this blog and it interests me in the broad theological sense of how it relates to the doctrine of Revelation-Inspiration and Scripture, but Ellen White Studies themselves would not be my area of specialization.
Much of Adventism I don't find in the words of Jesus.
John,
"... it's not my greatest theological interest..."
I understand you better now. Based on your passion in defending EGW I sincerely thought it was an issue of supreme importance to you. Over this issue you even suggested that I should look for another denomination, remember?
But as I can see now, it's not actually the case. Fine with me.
"Over this issue you even suggested that I should look for another denomination, remember?"
Not just over that issue, but over your general negative passion for fighting against all the Adventist distinctive. My passion is not necessarily the distinctive, but rather the bedrocks of all Christian faith, however, I do not have a passion against or disagreement with the distinctive doctrines either. I'm not really asking you to leave either, just suggesting that the church might not be the place for those who can't stand Adventism, at the least I request that you respect those who still believe in Adventism.
"...I wrestle with the need to reinterpret the understanding of Sola Scriptura." -- John Mark
You wouldn't if you only had one source of authority.
tg
TJG, you still don't get it do you? My problem with a narrow definition of Sola Scriptura is not a desire to keep Ellen White, but the fact that it's self-contradictory to hold to the doctrine of no authority outside the Bible when that doctrine is itself outside the Bible. This has nothing to do with Ellen White, but rather with scriptural support for a narrow view of sola scriptura.
I get that some of you are most comfortable in the field of Ellen White polemics, but I would hope you can see that theology is larger than that. Now that's we're discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura we have exited the exclusive domain of Ellen White polemics. I would be most interested to hear your apologetic for a conservative Sola Scriptrura. However, if you want to venture onto this field you should recognize that we are no longer playing in the field of Ellen White polemics. There's well over a Billion Christians who accept neither Ellen White nor Sola Scriptura, and that's not including more liberal protestants who at best hold to liberalized view of Sola Scriptura. So if you're inclined to engage in that topic, fire away, but if you're not comfortable arguing outside the narrow confines of Ellen White polemics...I think we've exhausted that discussion.
John,
First you fight in favor of EGW, then you admit not having a full knowledge of the serious problems with her writings, etc (which is public domain for over 30 years). Then you say it's not actually important to you, and switch to a discussion on Sola Scriptura. Discuss Sola Scriptura???
Man, if you are willing to discuss the concept of Sola Scriptura, then yes, I too think " we've exhausted that discussion." Enough of this nonsense.
FTR I don't think I was one that got the conversation started on Sola Scriptura. It just appears I'm the only that was the willing to actually take that conversation outside the narrow field of Ellen White studies.
I was not the first one that took the conversation off topic. The post was on Grace and judgment, but like most spectrum posts it got hijacked by people are only interested in reliving the 1970s Ford, Rea, era again. Now you're complaining because I go off that narrow battlefield that was a side issue in the first place to discuss a broader and more important issue? Whatever. I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of this site, but I tire of the stubborn preoccupation with the 1970s theological battles. I don't think this preoccupation is healthy for anybody's spirituality. But perhaps I should follow my own advice about not sticking in a community one's overwhelmingly critical of, and leave you all alone.
Is you indignation at the idea of discussion Sola Scriptura, because it's off topic or because you think it is something that should never be discussed? I assumed it was the first, but reading your post a second time it kind of sounds like its the second. This would be strange for someone who's constantly said they are for open minds... It's not an issue I take lightly or brought up just for kicks, it's an issue that has actually been one my mind. I'm not questioning Biblical authority, just the interplay of it and the community and how they relate to each other, and so forth. I would hope for all your talk about a more open intellectual environment you don't think everybody should take your view of the Scripture and shut up. That kind of approach doesn't work for me. I come from having doubted everything about God to believing in Jesus and His Word as His voice, so not discussing and just accepting doctrine is not how I think.
John Mark,
My view of Scripture works just form me, and I don't think I have ever suggested that everybody should take my view of the Scripture and shut up.
I am more than persuaded that I have exhausted my thoughts about this issue.
" I don't think I have ever suggested that everybody should take my view of the Scripture and shut up."
Good, I wasn't sure how to interpret: "Discuss Sola Scriptura???..."
Because the concept of Sola Scriptura is self-explanatory. I personally don't have any need to get into a broader discussion of this concept. Sola Scriptura is, for me, an obvious approach that hopefully everyone already understands. May be some people feel a need to discuss it. But it's not my case.
For me, "Sola Scriptura" means just.... Sola Scriptura.
It's not so much a question of what, as it is of why and how, but I'm glad you're at peace with it. You can't go wrong with that approach even if there's some difficulty in its inner logic.
No problem, my pride tells me I will be OK dealing with the "difficulty in its inner logic."
Solution Scriptural - when it comes to what?
History, science, culture, law, health, psychology, futurism, ethics, human and sexual relationships, ...?
John Mark:
In your enthusiasm to defend something (which none of can figure out what it is), you forget what you say. You simply love to argue because you find Spectrum “intellectually stimulating.” If you took the time to read your comments on this thread you would find, as we do, you’re all over the map. When someone tries to figure out what you believe, like George, Robert or me, you grab your pogo stick and off you go bouncing here there and everywhere. You love to bounce. Let’s take a look at some of your statements:
“FTR I don't think I was one that got the conversation started on Sola Scriptura. It just appears I'm the only that was the (sic) willing to actually take that conversation outside the narrow field of Ellen White studies. I was not the first one that took the conversation off topic.” - Mon, 01/30/2012 - 19:20
Well, grab your pogo stick and follow me (if you can). Let’s bounce over here where this conversation started – by you my friend:
“I hold to Sola Scriptura and do not consider Ellen White as scripture (I hold the same position on that issue as my denomination does, maybe you've heard of us, we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists).” Sat, 01/28/2012 - 19:36
First of all, yes, I’ve heard of Seventh-day Adventists. I’ve been one for over 50 years. Like you, before you grabbed your pogo stick, I hold to Sola Scriptura. For most of us, this is a simple concept: The bible alone is our authority for doctrine. Unfortunately, as your enthusiasm increases to argue and stay “intellectually stimulated,” this simple concept becomes increasingly difficult for you understand, even to the point where Sola Scriptura is nothing more than a contradiction: “This is obviously a contradiction, which is why I wrestle with the need to reinterpret the understanding of Sola Scriptura.” Mon, 01/30/2012 - 09:50. In your confusion you really don’t know what it all means: “Perhaps my view is more prima Scriptura then (sic) sola, but I think it's could still be called Sola as I believe the Bible stands alone at the top of the pyramid.” - Sun, 01/29/2012 - 17:22. Well John Mark, perhaps this and perhaps that –who knows what you believe. That’s what we’re trying to figure out.
So, let’s review. You say, “I hold to Sola Scriptura”-- “perhaps not” – but the bottom line is “it’s a contradiction.” Putting your true position together, it looks like this: “I hold to a contradiction, or perhaps something else, which I need to reinterpret” and do not consider Ellen White as scripture, which is the same position my church holds.” You make about as much sense as our church on this subject.
Yes, there is much “value” in other writings, but they have no authority for us who understand and adhere to Sola Scriptura. All practitioners of Sola Scriptura abide by this. However, our church does not hold this position as you so naively believe. Our church officially teaches that the bible is “the authoritative revealer of doctrines” (FB #1, look it up), which is good. However, it doesn’t stop here as it should. Our church also teaches, in direction contradiction to FB #1, that the writings of Ellen White “are a continuing and authoritative source of truth” (FB # 18, look it up). Because doctrine is simply what you believe to be true, there is no difference between these two “authorities.” If there is, feel free to explain it.
These teachings lead our church into making other statements such as "the bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant..." -- Feb. 11, 1978, SS Quarterly, teacher's edition, p. 112. This is unacceptable for us who hold to Sola Scriptura and Fundamental Belief #1. I clearly pointed this out to you in my previous post (see Mon, 01/30/2012 - 03:32) but because you are not aware of the problem/contradiction you don't address it. You simply ignore it all together and go off on your pogo stick anxiously bouncing on to another subject. For us who have the ability to stay focused, this simply demonstrates your naiveté.
Once again, you started this entire discussion by stating: “I hold to Sola Scriptura and do not consider Ellen White as scripture (I hold the same position on that issue as my denomination does)…” Well, please put down your pogo stick for a moment and answer a simple question: If Ellen White’s writings are “inerrant” and “authoritative,” then how is it they are not equal with scripture? We await your answer.
Also, you are the one who originally put scripture and Ellen White together, no one else. We are simply trying to understand your original statement, which is nonsensical (and not true) for those of us who have been around awhile. Instead of staying focused, you now want to separate the two subjects and avoid being caught in defending the indefensible. Now you want to bounce over here: “Now that's we're discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura we have exited the exclusive domain of Ellen White polemics.” - Mon, 01/30/2012 - 15:20. That pogo stick must be almost worn out by now.
The truth of the matter is you’re the one who “excited Ellen White polemics” by stating: “…whether God sent her a message and that message could be expressed in borrowed language isn't really a matter open to historical verification - it's a matter of theology and faith. - Sat, 01/28/2012 - 17:21
Well, Robert and George have given you a reading list on this very topic which you refuse to read, you’re busy with other things. Nevertheless, if you were educated on this subject you are so willing to argue, you simply wouldn’t make such ignorant statements. Ellen White’s “borrowing” (plagiarism) is indeed a matter of “historical verification,” it’s NOT a matter of “theology and faith” – at least for those of us who have spent the time to read the material.
So, please explain yourself: “I hold to Sola Scriptura and do not consider Ellen White as scripture (I hold the same position on that issue as my denomination does)…" and tell us John Mark, why was it necessary for Ellen to steal the words of others to express what the Lord told her as you believe? Why not simply read the words of those she copied?
Stay focused, no bouncing.
tg
TG,
Very well put. I couldn't say it better!
This issue is still a major problem in Adventism: Members don't know much about the controversial issues that have permeated the church's realm for decades, actually since its beginning. What amazes me most is when someone who is not educated on the matter wants to discuss the matter. This is nonsense!
I wish people would talk about certain issues only after learning what the issues are.
TJG,
Your posts are very clever and funny, and you"re able to cut through the BS. I was glad to see that I wasn't the only one who had a hard time following what John Mark was saying. It was very twisted and didn't make a lot of sense to me. I think that is the problem with having two authoritarian sources that are very conflicting, especially in major areas.
carol f.
"Instead of staying focused, you now want to separate the two subjects and avoid being caught in defending the indefensible."
Believe what you want, but I am not being intellectually dishonest. I am hard to nail down on these issues because I am actively thinking them through not because I'm playing games. It seems the problem is that we view dialogue very differently. In your view it's a sport with very set rules where we each already have an clear established position allowing one side to win and the other side to lose. I have few unalterable positions and view dialogue more as a process of thinking and establishing clearer positions. This discussion seems like a pretty good picture of the generation gap between post modern millennials, and the modernist thinking of the Baby boomers. This is a pretty tough bridge to gap because we're essentially playing two different games. Anyway I'll clarify my position the best I can.
First it is clear the Church interprets Sola Scriptura differently than you. You can call it dishonest, inconsistent, historically inaccurate, and all that, but words take on different meanings for different communities and different individuals; it's just part of life. I'm sure you're aware of how the church interprets Sola Scriptura. We hold that Ellen White does not conflict with it, because she was a Prophet which pointed to the Bible, who's basic role was to lead people to Scripture and toward applying it to the present era. Most of her writings even though inspired argued from Scripture, and through Scripture. Also we believe she to be tested by Scripture. Therefore, while we take her writings as authoritative it's an authority which points to Scripture. So if by Sola Scriptura you mean Scripture is our only light, then any prophet after John the Revelator is going to be a problem, however, if you take it to mean Scripture is the sole foundation, then yes the church still believes in Sola Scriptrua. Now, you'll no doubt argue that she got things wrong, but being wrong about the Bible doesn't make Adventist any less practitioners of Sola Scriptura then being wrong makes Calvinists less practitioners of Sola Scriptura, because they happen to follow Calvin where he was wrong. In both cases we are sincere in drawing our beliefs from the Bible even if we are sincerely wrong.
The issue of Sola Scriptura comes up because it is argued that accepting any kind of authority outside the Bible is contrary to the doctrine. Perhaps that is the only historically accurate way to interpret the doctrine, but that naturally brings up the difficulty I have with the issue. Namely that such a doctrine narrowly defined is a self contradiction. You're most fundamental doctrine is that there is no doctrine outside the text of Scripture, and yet that doctrine is outside the text of Scripture; there wasn't even a cannon when until after the Bible was written let alone a doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This isn't a dodge, but an honest issue I have with a narrow view of Sola Scriptura.
"and tell us John Mark, why was it necessary for Ellen to steal the words of others to express what the Lord told her as you believe?"
One example of where Ellen White moved the church toward the mainstream of what was already a part of the body of Christian tradition was toward a higher Christology. I don't know what she borrowed or what she didn't on this issue, but the fact is the Church as a radical Restorationist movement wouldn't have accepted the words of other Christian authors and would have considered the doctrine simply to be a part of the corrupted tradition. The authority of prophecy, however, was able to reach the movement and steer toward the parts of the Christian tradition which were valid. If not for that, we likely would have been with JWs and Mormons on this issue.
"I think that is the problem with having two authoritarian sources that are very conflicting, especially in major areas."
Sadly for those of a modernist approach that like to have every fit into a neat propositional box, Sola Scriptura doesn't even come close to solving that. Scripture is actually 66 authoritative sources written over several centuries. And if one does not take a more holistic approach and is intellectually honest they will surely find contradictions. Indeed Martin Luther the father of the Reformation that brought about the concept of Sola Scriptura bet his doctoral degree to anyone who could reconcile Paul and James.
“This discussion seems like a pretty good picture of the generation gap between post modern millennials, and the modernist thinking of the Baby boomers.” – John Mark
Good morning John Mark:
It’s snowing. If you called me up and asked me “how’s the weather TG?” I’d say “it’s snowing.”
Even though you’re “post-modern” and I am only “modern” (your labels), there’s no doubt you’d understand what I said. Why do you suppose that is? Well, it’s because words have meaning. If words did not have meaning, we could not communicate and our society would be in total chaos. In your particular situation, in school, if words did not have meaning you would never have to take a test, because there would be no wrong answers. You could simply write down “Professor: I am post-modern. A test means something different to me than it does to you. To me, test means beets. Since I don’t like beets, I don’t like tests. Therefore, I refuse to take your test. Sincerely, John Mark, post-modern thinker." Go ahead. Try it.
Getting back to snow. Snow means snow. You and I have seen it, touched it, played in it and experienced good old snow. Snow does not mean one thing to me and something else to you, like beets. We live on the same planet. When it’s snowing outside, it is not necessary to discuss the origin of the word snow, who named it snow, why they named it snow, how long it’s been called snow, what mood was the person in when they called it snow -- is there really snow? -- what is snow, if snow was not snow then what would snow be? All of this is not necessary to communicate to you that it is snowing outside my window right now. This is because words have meaning regardless of what you think: "…words take on different meanings for different communities and different individuals; it's just part of life.” I have a newsflash for you: snow means snow, it doesn't mean beets.
And don't bother telling me that Eskimos have 20 different names for snow. We're not Eskimos.
Try this “post-modern” argument the next time you stand before a judge for a speeding ticket. I can hear you now “Judge, speeding means something different to me than it does to you. Speeding to me means beets. I don’t like beets, therefore I wasn’t speeding. You can’t possibly understand this because I’m post-modern and you’re only modern.” Go ahead. Try it.
So when you say, “This discussion seems like a pretty good picture of the generation gap between post modern millennials, and the modernist thinking of the Baby boomers,” it’s simply an excuse for you not being able to articulate what you believe, if anything, or maybe everything. Who know? As you say: “I am hard to nail down on these issues because I am actively thinking them through not because I'm playing games.”
No. You’re hard to nail down because don’t know what you believe. You’re still “actively thinking them through,” which is a good thing by the way, as opposed to “non-actively thinking them through.” That type of thinking is reserved for dead people.
You’re also “hard to nail down,” especially regarding the issues involving Ellen White, because you haven’t read the material which has been widely available for 30 years on the net and before that in other sources. In fact you admit: “…I don't know what she borrowed or what she didn't…” Nevertheless, in spite of your ignorance you have no problem taking on this subject and lecturing us who have studied this issue in depth. Your ignorance shows when you make these types of comments: “…whether God sent her a message and that message could be expressed in borrowed language isn't really a matter open to historical verification - it's a matter of theology and faith.” This type of statement may make sense to a “post-modern who is actively thinking,” but to us “moderns” it’s pure nonsense derived from ignorance -- words have meaning.
When I asked you to explain "and tell us John Mark, why was it necessary for Ellen to steal the words of others to express what the Lord told her…” you came up with the price of cherries in Hong Cong. I have no idea what you’re talking about:
“One example of where Ellen White moved the church toward the mainstream of what was already a part of the body of Christian tradition was toward a higher Christology. I don't know what she borrowed or what she didn't on this issue, but the fact is the Church as a radical Restorationist movement wouldn't have accepted the words of other Christian authors and would have considered the doctrine simply to be a part of the corrupted tradition. The authority of prophecy, however, was able to reach the movement and steer toward the parts of the Christian tradition which were valid. If not for that, we likely would have been with JWs and Mormons on this issue.”
Yes indeed, the post-modern mind at work. Did you even read my question? Apparently you interpreted what I said as beets. You say: “…but the fact is the Church as a radical Restorationist movement wouldn't have accepted the words of other Christian authors…” is laughable, a real knee-slapper. The fact is, our church DID accept the words of other Christian authors, the very ones she copied from the books in her library. Trust me, you have no idea of what you’re talking about. Furthermore, Ellen White “moved” our church towards a “shut door” not a “higher Christology.” A higher Christology for our church happened around the turn of the century when we moved from Arian to Trinitarian. Ellen White did not lead in this transition. The facts are what they are, go ahead and argue otherwise.
Let me ask you, did you get this from the White Estate: “One example of where Ellen White moved the church toward the mainstream of what was already a part of the body of Christian tradition was toward a higher Christology.” This sounds like the nonsense they put out. If not, then you should take full credit. I don’t see a lot of thinking going on here, actively or otherwise. Just stop and think for a moment what you’re saying. You’re telling us that Ellen White moved our church to accept what was already considered mainstream for other Christians – and this takes a prophet? Why is it that other Christians knew it before we did? This is nonsense of the highest order, at least according to my “modern” way of thinking.
From here it gets worse. When it comes to justifying her “gift” you state: “I'm sure you're aware of how the church interprets Sola Scriptura. We hold that Ellen White does not conflict with it, because she was a Prophet which pointed to the Bible, who's basic role was to lead people to Scripture and toward applying it to the present era. Most of her writings even though inspired argued from Scripture, and through Scripture. Also we believe she to be tested by Scripture. Therefore, while we take her writings as authoritative it's an authority which points to Scripture.”
Huh? What you're arguing applies to many, many, many Christian writers that point us to scripture. Their writings don’t conflict with scripture either. Their “basic role” was to lead us to scripture as well. We also test their writings with scripture. However, we don’t consider them to be a prophet. We also don’t consider their writings inspired. We also don’t consider them to have any authority. Why not? From what you’ve described, there’s no difference. If there is, please let us know what that difference is.
And finally this: “The issue of Sola Scriptura comes up because it is argued that accepting any kind of authority outside the Bible is contrary to the doctrine.”
No. What I wrote was: “I hold to Sola Scriptura. For most of us, this is a simple concept: The bible alone is our authority for doctrine.” It means what I wrote. You’re the one who is arguing with yourself, not me. You’re the one frustrated over this issue. It’s a conflict for you, not me. It’s a contradiction for you, not me. Ever hear of a straw-man? Better give that post-modern mind a rest. It needs it.
Hey John Mark, it’s snowing outside…
tg
TJG,
Alright, congratulations you win. It is now obvious to me that you're approximately a trillion times smarter then me. My intelligence is to yours as a flashlight is to the bright noonday sun. Here I was thinking that there were other issues in theology besides Ellen White, here I was thinking that dialogue could involve the development of ideas rather then a win-loss battle to the death, but your absolute genius has shown me how wrong I was.
First you showed me that unless I am a fundamentalist with full and complete certainty about all truth, then I must be a relativist who doesn't think there is any truth at all and that words have no meaning - here I thought there could be a middle ground...but that's just an example of my poor rodent brain trying to keep up with you. Then you showed me that your fundamentalist understanding of inspiration, in which a message is never imperfect and never overlaps with something already revealed is the only way to understand inspiration. Here I had spent all this time thinking about these issues (if you could really call what my "brain" does thinking), when your sound reasoning could have cleared it all up: Sola Scriptura and fundamentalist hermeneutic are obviously the only way to understand these issues and everything else is just a relativist delusion. Then you showed me how ridiculous it would be for a Prophet to be used for connecting a restorationist movement to a wider Christian tradition, I'm still not quite sure why that's a contradiction, but my feeble intelligence probably couldn't understand your explanation anyway.
So from now on, I'm just going to follow your intelligence. Forget all the things, I might learn in school, clearly all I must do is sit at your feet, read the critical literature on Ellen White (because that and Desmond Ford really is the only issue that matters), and then wait and hope against hope for the day when I can be a 10th as bright as you are. It only a matter of time till your impeccable reasoning skills convince the whole world, it's just too bad so few people have your great intelligence.
The funny thing is, I've generally done quite well on tests, I can't wait see to how well I do now that you've revealed to me this groundbreaking idea of words having meaning and the existence of facts. The sky is limit!
And here I am, not as fortunate as TJG is having snow outside, but it's pretty cold in La Sierra (40 F). So I am drinking a delicious tea, and sitting comfortably while I enjoy reading the "conversation" between TJG and John Mark. Just having fun reading the long exchanges of "positions"...
But I couldn't resist this one:
"...clearly all I must do is sit at your feet, read the critical literature on Ellen White (because that and Desmond Ford really is the only issue that matters)..." - John Mark
John,
The focus should be on the FACTS presented in those sources. Why is that literature called "critical?" There is NO CRITIC, just FACTS being presented. Des Ford doesn't matter at all (though he is one the finest persons I've ever met), what matters is what he presents, the FACTS.
But, again, without having studied the FACTS (as you admitted preciously), and learned about so many FACTS that corrode the perfection and infallibility of EGW's doctrines, it is certainly much easier to keep talking about her "critics" instead of recognizing the absurdity of accepting her as part of the Sola Scriptura concept (your idea of a pyramidal Sola Scriptura).
Well, back to my tea, to do some work while waiting for the next post that will pop up here - very soon, I am sure!
My Orchestra consists of the following masters.
Mom and Dad, C.B. Haynes, Otto Chrstiansen, Edward Heppenstall, Graham Maxwell, Jack Provonch,
H.M.S. Richards, Alden Thompson, Desmond Ford, Fr. Max at Marquette, Fr. Theadore Hesburg at Notre Dame, Pope John XIII, Hans Kung, Philip Yancey, Fred Craddock, F.F. Bruce, J. I Packer, Dan McCall of Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church, R. C. Sproul, Pat Travis, and a host of open hearts and mind bloggers on Spectrum. They all give the Trumpet that certain sound.
Those with a dissident sound I classify under the rubic of Vance Farrell et al of which Kevin Paulson is a leading contemporary spokes person.
What puzzles me is how Kevin is on the brink of an advance degree at an institution of which Edward Heppenstall was a leading beloved mentor.
Maybe Alden can explain why the negativity of the LL Hill Church persists in so many contemporary
voices. I fully understand why the Clhina lobby of returned missionaries could have such an impact 30+ years ago---but NOW?
Far too many commentators of Daniel, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation exists to totally discredit
any 1845-60 apology for Oct 22, 1844 and the Triumphalism it created.
Tom Z
Tom, Years ago, when I was young (long time ago!) I used to play Cello. But I will be honored to keep playing in your Orchestra if it is well with you. As you know, I won't be playing any dissonant or dissident notes...
George You are most welcome, I overlooked some key members. I must add John R. W. Stott as conductor and D. Martyn Llody-Jones as first chair. And on the humanist side William Sloane Coffin as counterpoint. Pastor Jim Coffin as a solo voice from within.
Tom Z
Tom,
If you need a good soloist, pick TJG!!!!
You won't be disappointed, though John Mark may become very jealous!!!
Way to go, Tom. John Sott is one of the greatest ministers that the Christian world has ever seen. He's been invited to other various SDA Church events to speak...
George TJG is in First Chair Trumpets. John Mark is on percussions. Elaine is harpist. Lets find someone for flute.
This bit of satire recalls Bobbie Burns" To a Louse:
O wad some Power the gifie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
Tom Z
"There is NO CRITIC, just FACTS being presented."
Of course, I can see this now after TJG has opened up my mind. Now, that I know language has meaning and there are such things as objective facts I can see that there are only two groups of people: those who think purely objectively and those who don't. Clearly, Walter Rea, Desmond Ford, and all are in the first group and never wrote a single sentence that was not "just FACTS." I can now see that every single sentence you and TJG write is only "just FACTS." This awakening is very liberating for me, I no longer have to wrestle with uncertainty, skepticism, and the complexities of trying to account for my personal bias, I can achieve pure objectivity just like the great thinkers on this site.
"But, again, without having studied the FACTS (as you admitted preciously)..."
Well, of course now I will spend my life studying the FACTS. No more being swayed by thesubjective experience of Ellen White's writings help bringing me to build a better Christian walk, no more being swayed by the subjective experience of her role in moving me toward a more grace centered life. None of that matters, obviously the only thing that matters is the FACTS about her not being perfect and infallible. And that FACT should be the focus of all our theological interest.
Opps Sorry wrong Thread.should have been Family Guy. Tom Z
"John Mark is on percussions."
Well, you better hope my theological rhythm is better than my musical rhythm. :-) I did use to play Cello, when Union started a chamber orchestra, I came for the first day, the conductor called me the next day and suggested I step aside, for the stability of the fledgling group.
I prefer my facts to be Amazing Facts. They always get it right. Without question. Without a doubt.
John my bout with the bass fiddle is a very sorry tale. Try the Willian Tell Overature after four months of lessons. The conductor made me do it--he was also glad when I abandoned music for tennis.
Tom Z
John, I am so happy that you finally are having a "liberating" experience... :)
Good morning John Mark:
It’s no longer snowing here. For you “post-moderns,” this means it’s no longer snowing here.
In class one day a teacher asked little Johnny to spell snow. Little Johnny spelled it “sno.” The teacher said: “No, little Johnny, that’s not correct. It is spelled “snow.” To which little Johnny replied: “yea, but you asked me how I spelled it.”
Yes indeed, for you “post-moderns” there’s no right or wrong, black or white, it’s all sort of gray (or maybe it’s “grey” – who knows?). After all, what is “gray?” Who named it “gray?” Maybe “gray” isn’t really “gray.” Maybe “gray” is really beets. When it’s all said and done, facts don’t matter, not really. Besides, you have your “facts” and I have my “facts.” They’re obviously not the same set of facts. They can’t be, impossible, you’re post-modern and I’m only modern. That’s the problem. If only I were post-modern, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would just hold hands and skip along the beach. Facts just get in our way, they’re trouble makers, can’t have that.
First of all, I apologize. I did something I shouldn’t have done. I copied and pasted this: “I hold to Sola Scriptura and do not consider Ellen White as scripture (I hold the same position on that issue as my denomination does, maybe you've heard of us, we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists)” John Mark - Sat, 01/28/2012 - 19:36. I'm sorry.
I thought this was an interesting statement. So, I put two and two together and concluded you wrote it. It’s my old “modern” brain at work. Apparently, if I had a “post-modern” brain I would have come to a different conclusion. In any event, using the old-clunker I have, I decided to inquire about your statement (forgive me for putting a label on this statement as “yours.” I don’t mean to imply anything by this. It’s simply a method for us to get from point A to point B).
From your statement I understand that you “hold to Sola Scriptura.” I got this from reading “I hold to Sola Scriptura.” Maybe I shouldn’t have done that. Maybe I should have concluded that you “hold to beets.” If only I were post-modern, then and only then could we communicate. The chasm is so great. You even hinted at this by saying: “TJG, you still don't get it do you?” John Mark - Mon, 01/30/2012 - 14:29. No, guess not John Mark. No doubt, I’m the problem.
From other statements you made, I also concluded that you were sort of an expert on this subject of Sola Scriptura and Ellen White, you really knew what you were talking about. You wrote: “I think it's safe to say I'm not speaking about the church from a position of naiveté. So with that established, no the church does not hold to Ellen White as Scripture… the official church and Ellen White Estate... take a very clear stand for Sola Scriptura. John Mark - Sat, 01/28/2012 - 20:51. Okay. For me, this pretty much says it all. I’m glad that it’s established (a relative term no doubt) you’re not naïve about this subject. Not at all.
What confuses me, however, is how you can know so much about the issues regarding Ellen White (you know, the “shut door,” the Israel Dammon incident, copying the words of other writers and then claiming it came from the Lord/Veltman, extensive plagiarism/McAdams and all that stuff) but not read about it: “…I don't know what she borrowed or what she didn't…” You see, for me at least being old school, I would term this as naïve. But hey, what do I know. I’m only a modern and not a post.
Regarding the subject of Sola Scriptura, you wrote: “So let's drop the BS about people who come to views that you find to be clearly false not being believers in Sola Scriptura. John Mark - Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:25. That’s the spirit John Mark! Put your foot down! Take a stand! No more BS! I’m with you on this 100%. It’s time for all this BS to stop. Let’s get some facts on the table. In an effort to do so, you wrote:
“The fact remains that if you believe in Sola Scriptura (only the Protestant cannon all the way down), then you're holding to two doctrinal beliefs (the cannon and Sola Scriptura) which are not found in Scripture and one of those beliefs is that you should not hold beliefs that are not found in Scripture. This is obviously a contradiction, which is why I wrestle with the need to reinterpret the understanding of Sola Scriptura.” John Mark - Mon, 01/30/2012 - 09:50
Yep, no BS there. Just the facts. Sola Scriptura is a contradiction that you believe in and that’s why you say “I hold to Sola Scriptura.” Nothing could be clearer, right? As you wrote: “the official church and Ellen White Estate... take a very clear stand for Sola Scriptura.” John Mark - Sat, 01/28/2012 - 20:51. I’m glad you do as well John Mark. Very clear indeed. Nothing could be clearer. Just the facts.
But, that’s so “yesterday” for you post-moderns. Today you’re no longer Sola Scriptura, your something else: “Perhaps my view is more prima Scriptura then (sic) sola, but I think it's (sic) could still be called Sola as I believe the Bible stands alone at the top of the pyramid.” John Mark - Sun, 01/29/2012 - 17:22
Yesterday it was Sola, today it’s prima, but it could be called sola because of the pyramid. Sola, prima, beets, what’s the difference? Call it whatever. Yes indeed, the ruminations of the post-modern mind.
Hey John Mark, how do you spell snow?
Anyway. George and Tom are starting a band and have asked me to play trumpet. I don’t mind telling you that I play a mean trumpet. I’d love to be a part of that band/orchestra Tom and George are putting together, especially with Elanie in there. I understand you play cello. Let’s join ‘em. What do you say? We can chat some more in between songs. Who knows, maybe you’ll convince me to be post-modern.
tg
TJG,
I hope John accepts to play in the orchestra. This will be hilarious... because I play(ed) cello. So John and I will play together side by side. Imagine playing and discussing theology at the same time? Will he play only what the written music is ("Sola Scriptura") , or will he "add other stuff" to it?
I bet the conductor will get angry at him if he starts adding extra-stuff, and may "shut the door" next time John comes for rehearsal...
Still have no "SNO" around here, but I need my cup of tea now (with caffeine, of course!)
TJG,
What the heck, I came over to your view and yet you continue to harp on my past? Is their no forgiveness among those who stick to the FACTs? I gave up my post-modernism and became a fundamentalist just like you, after you showed me how there's only people who are purely subjective and believe words have no meaning and people who are purely objective who have a complete and unbiased grasp of the FACTS. I could spend a bunch of time explaining what I meant by those positions and how they fit together, but that's the "old me." You still call me post-modern when I have rejected it all, or do Factists not accept conversion; I'd call you Objectivists, buy I think Randians already stole that term.
George, my problem with cello wasn't so much what notes I played as when I am played them. However, with a little practice I could do Sola Scriptura if our cannon were the hymnal. None of that Brahms tradition, Bach's tradition, Beethoven tradition, Mozart tradition Let's just stick to the simple sola hymnal and not get confused by all that classical tradition, and I might be able to cut it. :-)
Well, of course now I will spend my life studying the FACTS. No more being swayed by thesubjective experience of Ellen White's writings help bringing me to build a better Christian walk, no more being swayed by the subjective experience of her role in moving me toward a more grace centered life. None of that matters, obviously the only thing that matters is the FACTS about her not being perfect and infallible. And that FACT should be the focus of all our theological interest.
******************
John Mark...
Your experience is all well and good, but it doesn't account for whether or not EGW had a prophetic gift. I have had the same experience by reading other Christian writers whose writings have profoundly impacted my life. That doesn't make them prophets. Nor do any of them claim to be. Nor do their denominations as the identifying mark of being the "true church." This is where TJG and George are aiming what they are saying. It's not that EGW could never have written anything that is helpful or inspirational. It's the self claims and the claims of the SDA church that are made in the face of a whole host of issues that are swept undeer the rug.
IOW, there is a body of information that has not been sufficiently dealt with against these claims.
Thanks....
Frank
John Mark,
Now you are speaking my language!!!
I appreciated your thoughtful comments, John Mark. I hope to read more in the future, especially since you don't seem to use this as a platform to put others' opinions below yours.
The name calling and sarcastic remarks on this blog are inconsistent with claims for following scripture. Doesn't anyone else notice the irony of this?
For many days I avoided looking at the responses to my lesson commentary. Adventist on-line conversations can be so predictable and can become a substitute for real contact with real people. Yet even the vivid contributions of former SDA and non-SDA perform an important role for the on-going life of the community. As Catholic novelist Graeme Greene has one of his characters say, it was “only when a man became angry that he told the truth.”
But anger isn’t found in any of the NT virtue lists. In Galatians 5, it’s on that other list, the one that comes just before the “fruit of the spirit” passage and includes, among other things, “enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy” (NRSV). Paul must have been on line!
Anger management has to be an issue for all of us. Much in our world deserves our white-hot anger. Simply to shrug would reveal a serious case of heart trouble. Yet we destroy ourselves if anger looms too large.
I suggest in the column that a crucial issue for a healthy church is learning to live with the tensions reflected in the anthropocentric/theocentric divide when we talk about judgment and grace. In Scripture it is reflected in the differences between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and between James and Paul. In Christian history, it is reflected in these notable pairs: Pelagius/Augustine in the fifth century, Arminius/Calvin in the sixteenth, and Wesley/Whitefield in the eighteenth. In Adventism, a significant third-force is found in the writings of Graham Maxwell. But do the supporters of Maxwell and Desmond Ford quarrel with each other? With tenacity.
So let’s get really serious and discover how the diversity in Scripture matches our diversity today. In the end, I hope we will discover that Jesus was on to something when he summarized the entire Old Testament in a single sentence: “Treat others the way you would want to be treated” (Matt. 7:12). And that requires honoring our different perspectives. Here I really like the closing lines of the introduction to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. Lewis is emphatic that he is not proposing “an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions.” It’s more like a hall, he notes, “out of which doors open into several rooms.” One waits in the hall, but lives in a room. Only there does one find “fires and chairs and meals.” For living, he argues, even the “worst of the rooms” is preferable to the hall.
He concludes with this wonderful admonition: “When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.”
All of us with any kind of Adventist connection could learn from that admonition.
aldenthompson
Add your comment