Disagreeing with Our Mother
by Jack Hoehn
I am a Seventh-day Adventist because of Ellen White, and I remain a Seventh-day Adventist using the writings of Ellen White, even though all Adventists, including the most conservative of us, understand that we have to give her permission to be wrong.
All healthy humans come to a time in our lives when we learn the necessity of forgiving those we respect and admire and love for being wrong. We begin life assuming those godlike parents of ours can do no wrong. We become mature when we forgive them for their errors and failures, and love them still, or learn to love them again in that acknowledgement.
A Personal Example
I was loved, nurtured, and supported by my late father Gus Hoehn, MD. But I had to forgive him for his German voice of command, and I was too different from him by temperament and personality to happily work with him for long periods of time. He was extroverted and I am introverted, and that led to my keen teenage ability to see his imperfections. But even in my dismay over our conflicts my father retained the deserved respect and admiration of which he was worthy. As life has progressed and I have learned more of my father’s history and background my recognition of his imperfections has been paralleled by an equally increasing admiration for his strengths. I love and respect my father more now that I more fully understand. I easily and happily have forgiven him his few failings, and continue to be blessed in many ways by his example and life. I’m proud to be his son.
May I suggest that for Adventists, if we are to become mature Christians, we need to have the same experience with our spiritual Mother. We need to learn to honestly see Ellen G. White’s failings and forgive her for them, so that our admiration for her and the value of her ministry to us becomes deeper and far less problematic.
Our Relationship With EGW Changes
In our spiritual childhood it may have been necessary and even helpful to see our spiritual Mother as immaculate. I personally don’t feel scarred by my early acceptance of the Spirit of Prophecy as straight from Heaven’s throne. What can be damaging, however, is a prolonged infancy and refusal to grow in spiritual maturity and learning to recognize when Ellen White was mistaken in details or when her emphasis may have been appropriate for a certain time and day, but is no longer useful in our time.
It has helped me a lot in maturing to my present admiration and use of Ellen White as my spiritual guide to remember the following points.
A.) She never called herself a Prophet[1], but a Messenger.
B.) She never claimed to be error-free[2], and she clearly is not factual error-free.
C.) She refused to permit her writings to be used to decide doctrinal, historical, chronological questions[3].
D.) Her writings are not in the form of Divine Commandments, but written as persuasive arguments. She claimed by spiritual authority the right to be heard, but she does not claim by spiritual authority that we have to stop thinking about or questioning her messages[4].
E.) She speaks of the necessity in the future of changing our doctrines and beliefs, as the Lord gives new light.[5]
F.) It is clear she was at times in error in describing natural phenomena.[6]
G.) It is rare that she was wrong in foundational spiritual truths, and this is why she remains for me the Messenger of the Lord.
Malaria Not Caused by Foul Miasma
All of us know that leprosy is not caused by eating pork, malaria is not caused by a foul gas arising from swamps, all drugs are not poisons, and masturbation does not cause insanity. Every Adventist who rides a bicycle, wears her slacks without a skirt, eats mustard on vegelinks, uses prescription drugs, or believes that volcanoes are not caused by coal fires underground and superheated steam disagrees with Sister White.
But many of us still consider she was God’s messenger to our church. We have learned that Ellen White appeals to our reason in her writings, not to supra-human authority, so we are free to accept what is reasonable and forgive what is not. And we thank God for using her to build our church and guide us in the right direction, imperfections and all.
White Errors Are Not White Lies
Ellen White was not lying and deceitful about these things, she was honestly wrong. For her to write things that were not true was not a lie, it was an error. An error becomes a sin only when we refuse to edit and correct it, once we learn better. We become liars if we continue to publish her writings without editing the factual errors in them. We become idolaters (worshiping the human prophet instead of God who inspired the prophet) if we continue to use and promote her words as verbally inspired, when we know they were spiritually, not factually inspired.
What in Ellen White’s writings are inspired spiritual insights, and what are applied facts added and used to explain or apply that spiritual insight?[7]
Spiritual Insight Given Ellen White:
God is the Creator; life exists because God planned and executed it. It did not and could not have happened by itself by chance and self-organization of matter. Even the existence of matter itself is a Divine creation. The Sabbath is to remind us of that fact.
Presentation of that Insight
Context 19th Century Thought — Darwin and Huxley claimed to have found a principle of biology, making a Creator unnecessary. Geology claims earth is old enough to give plausibility to the claim that evolution had enough time to happen as claimed. Chronological tools have not yet been developed showing reliable natural clocks. Bacterial are not yet known, and nothing is known of DNA and genetics.
The Messenger of the Lord attacks Darwinism and Infidelity with the tools at her disposal, Bible reasoning. So she writes the following arguments:
“…the assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment. It represents the Creator as commanding men to observe the week of literal days in commemoration of vast, indefinite periods. This is unlike His method of dealing with His creatures. It makes indefinite and obscure that which He has made very plain. It is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form; its real character is so disguised that it is held and taught by many who profess to believe the Bible.”[8]
She also admits, in 1890,
“Relics found in the earth do give evidence of conditions differing in many respects from the present….God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history…”[9]
But she warns,
“ Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments, will be led to go a step further, and doubt the existence of God; and then, having lost their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity.” [10]
However she was surprisingly not denying science as a source of truth.
“All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations…Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation….the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.”[11]
So in 2012 we find she was wrong about the age of the earth; it is not 6,000 years old. She may or may not be wrong about the length of the Creation week, it may have been longer and longer ago than she or anyone could prove in the 19th century. So is she discredited as a false messenger?
Same Battle, Different Tools
The spiritual truth of Ellen White’s message remains the same in 2012 as it was in the 19th century. God is still the necessary and only cause of life. Darwinism and Infidelity are still bankrupt.
But the difference is that today we would no longer use Ellen White’s Biblical arguments to fight Darwinism. There are better ways to do that.
Today we can show Darwinism is falsifiable by scientific arguments not available to Ellen White. DNA has proven there is no single tree of life. Evolutionary investigations have shown the limits of evolution, and show that evolution is not the creator of new features of life, but only adaptability to external conditions of existing features. It is an amazing conservation of design that has been proven by these experiments.
This frees us to go back to our Bibles and reinterpret the ancient stories to show their compatibility with proven science. But we can continue to oppose the philosophical hijacking of science to the cause of atheism and infidelity.
Ellen White’s inspired messages remain true. Adventists today will support the identical spiritual truths, but we need to use better arguments and different tools than were available to the Lord’s Messenger in the 19th century.
And my Spiritual Mother said something I never forget:
"There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make an error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.”[12]
ISBN 1-876010-73-8 in discussing Ellen White’s health messages finds that she is usually scientifically correct when she tells us What we should do(87% agreement), and sometimes correct when she tries to explain Why (45%) we should do it. This would suggest the Whats were inspired (they may all be correct and modern science may be 13% in error!), and the Whys were 19th century applications or explanations using knowledge accessible to the messenger and her audience, so they ended up doing the right things, even if sometimes for the wrong reasons.
I often hear this quotation brought up in these debates in favor of a non-literal reading of Genesis:
"There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make an error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.”[12]
I seriously doubt whether Ellen White meant this to be a carte blanche for the eventual acceptance of theistic evolution by Adventists, for example. She saw six day creation as a foundational belief of Adventism. In this sense, I believe the isolated use of this statement violates very basic hermeneutical principles of EGW's writings.
Andre, you yourself have already written elsewhere that you have decided for a fact that the earth is not 6,000 years old. (I'm not asking you to agree it is 4.8 Billion years old, unless you decide for a fact that it likely is!) But I am asking you to not use Ellen White's oft repeated statements, supported by the majority of her contemporaries of course, that this earth is about 6,000 years old, as a reason to not accept solid evidence from nature that it is a different number. We can argue the number someplace else. But in church we need to agree that Ellen White's chronology was age appropriate, common knowledge at that time, and not a chronological revelation from Jesus to us.
Thanks Jack.
We can argue on many aspects of Ellen White's use of Scripture no doubt. And I agree that chronology itself is not a sine qua non of faith. I don't take her statements to be infallible, just as she didn't, especially on peripheral matters such as the exact date of creation.
But I doubt she would support using her statements to support a reading of Genesis which accommodates days as eras or life as billions of years. When approaching Ellen White's writings, regardless of our views of her inspiration, an objective approach requires that we keep them self-consistent as much as possible.
I think there's a little wiggle room for more than 6,000 years, yes. And there's really no objection to accepting that the earth itself may be billions of years old just as billions of stars and planets in the cosmos are billions of years old. The problem is making life on earth to be billions of years old.
Very useful article.
I was willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt until I read this: "So in 2012 we find she was wrong about the age of the earth; it is not 6,000 years old. She may or may not be wrong about the length of the Creation week, . . ."
This taints the whole article and is the same old backhanded way of trying to a discredit the SOP that we so often see. We've been over this so many times. There is not reason to accept the idea that the earth is more then 6000 years old. It has been repeatedly shown that the avilaible evidence is consistent with an earth that is less than 10,000 years old. But because the majority of scientists are agnostic or atheistic evolutionists with an a priori commitment to anything but the Biblical narrative, they will never admit that they could be worng. So why do so many Christians buy into their cleverly crafted fairy tales? Fear of being ridiculed is the only logical reason I can think of.
And the same goes for the length of the Creation week. There is not reason, scientific or otherwise, to understand it as anything other than what it claims to be–6 literal days.
Jean, I have written 7 blogs before this one listing both scientific, logical, and Biblical reasons to question the age of the earth and life on it as much longer that 10,000 years, and that the Creation week is a week of events, not a week of seconds, minutes, and hours. I just ask those who read your dismissal of these ideas, to at least read my blogs before accepting that there is no reason. There are thousands of reasons. Millions of reasons. I have listed a few. Better writers can list many more. And to Adventists who value Ellen White's ministry, read again what she wrote above. Read why she thought that Creation Week should be 7 literal days,see if you agree with her reasoning or not. Then read again what her son W.C. White wrote about using the SOP for settling chronologic questions. But Jean, I do thank you for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt for the first few sentences. Sorry that spirit dissapeared when we got to the chronology!
In studying Ellen White, it is important to draw a distinction between "she believed" and "she was shown (in vision)." She was a fallible human being, her understanding was not perfect, her experience deepened and grew with time. Some things she 'believed' turned out to be mistaken. That should not be a problem. Clearly, many of the disciples 'believed' that Christ would return in their lifetime. They were mistaken, but that makes their preserved writings no less inspired.
On the other hand, if what a prophet claims comes straight from God ("I was shown") turns out to be mistaken, that's a whole different level of difficulty.
This distinction is important in the '7-day creation' vs. the '6,000 years' age of the Earth. She believed the Earth to be about 6,000 years old; she claimed she 'was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God, in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. '
So, in so far as Ellen White is concerned, the 6,000 year age and the 7-day creation week are in quite different categories.
How reliable are Ellen White's "I was shown" statements? There seems to be a little inconsistency on that issue. We deal with apparent mistakes in the Biblical record without questioning the writers' inspiration or the truth of the message, so why should we have any more difficulty with Ellen White?
I disagree with your article as it contains errors and misrepresentations just like the book by Graeme Bradford "more than a prophet". Let me adress your suppositions you are basically betraying with a kiss Judas style where it seems you are being helpful but when in actual fact you are being far more detrimental. You invariably make the testimonies of none effect albeit your assertions to the contrary
1. The first issue is to agree whether or not she was inspired. From the tone of your article it seem you do, so we now need to agree what that means. I believe in thought inspiration not verbal inspiration i.e. she was God's penwoman not her pen. Does that mean she made mistakes? will adress that in #2
2. Do Prophets make theological errors while being used by God? It is true that prophets grow in their understanding but They do not grow from error to truth. If a prophet gives a theological incorrect statement then that prohet is a false prophet period I believe the lenghth of the creation week is a theological statement. If you say that she was wrong on that that makes her a false prophet and you are only giving her a pass because of the adventist sub culture.
3. The new "light" that you purport is nothing more than pseudo science with which the majority of scientists subscribe with a materialistic prori adherence to atheism. It is not based on on unquestionable, objective empirical data. so how do you expect me to believe this.
Fundamentally we have two options either E G White is right or Jack Hoeln is right. From where I am standing Jack has never ever said he was a meesenger so I will obviously assume he is uninspired. His arguments are self contradictory as he has never answered my question as to why he only questions God's power to create in six literal days and not to ascend into the heavens which counters gravity a scientific undeniable.
3.
"If a prophet gives a theological incorrect statement then that prohet is a false prophet"
Upon that logic:
The problem with both critics and die-hard fans of Ellen White is that both groups compare her against a very different criteria than they do biblical authors. The more I understand about the limitations of prophecy, and realise the Bible indeed is a progressive revelation through inspired humans, not a word-for-word dictation of God, the more I am convinced of Ellen White's gift.
Stephen
I said a theological statement key word being theological. From the plethora of examples you gave only the one on circumcision is the one that does try to address my assertation. First can you supply incontrovertable evidence that James, Peter, Paul were inspired to come to different conclusions about circumcision? I use the same criteria on E G White as I do Bible prophets and I recognise that some policy statements not Theological statements may need fine tuning. But if a person says that sabbath is sunday or there is no sanctuary in heaven or the world was created in ……………………. (Okay that was low but you catch my drift) then those are in verity false prophets. For E G White a six day creation is a theological proposition and thats how she presents it and if she was wrong on that front, then………………………………………………..
Finally an aside for Jack and Co is death an intruder or a neccesarry mechanism for creation. You say you believe the "science" but the scientific model for eons of ages has to have death as part and parcel creation and I cannot Believe in a God who uses death and suffering as a mechanism for creation. Thats the reason why theistic evolution is antithetical to christianity itself it destroys the gospel. If Jack will be kind to show us a scientific model which has eons of ages but no death I would be interested because he asserts that it was ages before adam and eve appeared on the scene so was death pre fall or post fall?
Ellen White saying the world was created in six 24 hour days is a scientific statement, not a theological one. I take note of what the Ellen White Estate says on Ellen White's limit, and the limit of other biblical prophets, when it comes to scientific statements:
"Attention has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen White made grievous errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called to update encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to be made "an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to the highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these "standards" change, even for the experts), we would have cause to reject Isaiah for referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) and John for writing that he saw "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1)."
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c
As to Peter, Paul, James and Barnabas disagreeing, that is plain to see in the scriptures themselves. They were human, even inspired humans, but humans nonetheless. It took a while for theological concepts to sink in, and they continued to filter that inspiration throug their own personal experiences, just as the four Gospel writers filtered the teachings of Jesus in simllar but slightly different ways.
Paul recalls that he told Peter to his face that Peter's views (theological views) (Gal 2:11). It all happened because James sent some men (Gal 2:12), illustrating a different theological opinion between conservative James and liberal Paul. In fairness to Peter, Peter was probably trying to be the moderate in the middle, as he was in Gal 2. These were indeed theological disputes.
Theological diveristy occurs and is perfectly ok, even amongst prophets and apostles. If there had been more prophets alive at the same time as Ellen White, no doubt there would have been more, and we would probably have a much healthier (and biblical) view of the gift of prophecy.
I disagree with your interpretation of Galations 2:12 Peter was being a hypocrite it was not as theological as you purport. You also said theological diverstiy is ok? Apparently God did not think so when He threw Satan out. Sois it okay for all to believe anything and everything within the adventist church? Jeroboam also wanted theological diversity and he was the SI Unit for apostacy in the book of Kings. The question comes for those who believe in theological diversity in that just how much latitude should they be and who determines that latitude?
What do you mean by 'theological'. Theology literally means 'God speak'. Surely it involves both belief and practices?
But weren't James (i.e. he sent men to confront Peter and Paul) and Paul at least having a theological disagreement about how Jewish Gentile converts had to be? This was both about belief and practice. Peter was a hypocrite because he was in effect trying to satisfy both factions within the early Church.
There always has and always will be a degree of theological diversity in God's Church. The difficult question is where do we draw the line – and I do agree a line needs to be drawn? No doubt your own beliefs and practices differ from others in your own local Church – if you look hard enough below the surface.
Tapiwa, I used to think that death itself came after Adam's fall. But then I read in my Bible that "the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth." Then I read in my Bible that Jesus said that Satan was "a liar and a murderer, from the Beginning".
So the possibility of death in a Great Controversy between Christ and Satan not only after Adam's fall, but from the foundation of life on earth, from "the Beginning" of earth's creation on days 1-6, began to suggest itself.
So I went back to the texts in Romans that I had thought stated that all Death began with Adam's fall. And I found that Paul's statements make perfect sense when I re-read them as "Human Death", not plant death, not animal mortality. So yes, I think that the wages of sin is Death. But now I suspect that it was Angelic sin that introduced Death into creation of earth, and Adam's sin that brought death to humanity. I have a multipaged article I am working on, so I am not asking anyone to accept this interpretation, but just to let you know that the sin caused death of plants and animals outside of Eden where there was no Tree of Life to prevent Death, is a possibility the Bible can support. We just have to adjust our interpretation of the texts we have thought said all death began with human sin. Perhaps not.
–Footnote: I was not a little encouraged in this "heresy" when I found that another modern inspired prophet had suggested the same thing in 1940. "The origin of animal suffering could be traced, by earlier generations, to the Fall of man–the whole world was infected by the uncreating rebellion of Adam. This is now impossible, for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men. Carnivorousness, with all that it entails, is older than humanity… It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene: and that when man fell, someone had, indeed, tempted him…If there is such a power, as I myself believe, it may well have corrupted the animal creation before man appeared…" C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, pages 133-135,
Now, wait a minute. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're equating the "inspiration" of C.S Lewis with that of Ellen White? And he clearly rejects the Genesis account of creation. Have mercy!
I've rarely seen Scripture twisted the way you did in your reply to Tapiwa; an amazing exercise in eisegesis. Using your techniques for understanding Scripture, I could develop a very unique set of doctrines, which would raise the eyebrows of most Christians. You take what is clearly literal and make it a symbol or a metaphor; you take what is clearly symbolic or metaphorical and make it literal–all to get around the plain meaning of Genesis.
Obviously Jesus was not slain before Calvary, but the intent was there. The plan was in place. God, being omniscient, often speaks of the future as if it were an accomplished fact. Jesus said that whoever hates someone is guilty of murder. And so Satan can be called a murderer from the beginning. And Paul does not say "human death;" he merely says that death entered because of one man. You may not like that explanation because it doesn't fit the evolutionary fairy tale, but you must admit that it is a plausible explanation.
You're also accusing God of using death in his perfect ("very good") creation. Are you really that committed to being in sync with evolutionists–who don't really care what you or I believe, as long as we keep quiet about it? Dawkins recognizes the problem. Even though he is a committed evolutionist, he thinks creationists are consistent in their beliefs, while theistic evolutionists are out in left field. He knows that the two belief systems are diametrically opposed to each other.
Jean, there is only one source of inspiration/illumination. Ellen White inspired and illuminated thousands of Adventists and not a few non-Adventists. C.S. Lewis has been used by the same Holy Spirit to inspire faith in millions of humans. I give God the credit for both. They are both lesser lights, of course. They both point to the Bible, and more important than the Bible they point to Christ. Steps to Christ has blessed millions. Mere Christianity has blessed scores of millions. C.S. Lewis has presented the Great Controversy to millions of children who have never read a Bible story, but they have learned to love Aslan. The Bible has the book of Isaiah and the book of Jonah. Our post Biblical age has Ellen White and C.S. Lewis. They are not the same, but they work for the same Spirit. Neither is a source of doctrine, both rediscover and reset precious truths into 19th and then 20th century settings. Perhaps Jean Corbeau will be used to set the truth into 21st century settings?
Jean,
Where in scripture do you get the idea that God is not capable of inspiring someone who do not hold the exact same set of beliefs you hold as true? If, as you apparently assume, it is not possible for God to inspire someone who is theologically correct on even a one point, then it is impossible for God to inspire anyone. Neither is it possible for us to judge who is or is not truly inspired because that measurement requires empowerment from the Holy Spirit that you imply is not given to the theologically misguided. Instead, we should be marveling at the immense love of God for fallen humanity and being amazed by how willingly He works through each of us in spite of our imperfections and failings!
The scriptures are primarily the accounts of people just like us and their experiences with God. It is their testimony. What record does your life give for those who follow you about the love and power of God? Is it not equally possible for someone in the future to look back on your life the same as we look at the characters in the Bible and see how God worked in your life in spite of the sin that is in you?
Jack, I share your admiration for C. S. Lewis (also known as "Jack" to his friend), though I would use the term illuminated rather than inspired. In any case, "The Problem of Pain" was published in 1940. Eleven years later, Lewis published an essay, "The Funeral of a Great Myth," that myth being evolution. You might find it interesting.
Ed,
Differentiating between inspiration and illumination is a subjective effort based on contrasting human concepts and thus certain only to end without conclusion or clarity. The root concept is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Like all gifts, they are given in degrees. We have elevated the concept of Ellen White's prophetic role to become our definition of "inspiration" and use that contrast to minimize or degrade all other degrees of inspriation by the Holy Spirit. But it is still inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The problem is our desire to measure how much of the gift that is given instead of recognizing the gift and that it is from the Holy Spirit.
I'll give you an example. I make no claim of being a prophet, but I have had the experience of being inspired. When I was writing my first book I needed a scene in which to frame the four horsemen of Revelation. I was utterly stumped. Then God gave me a dream that became the scene framing the discussion far better than anything I could have imagined. I have no doubt that God was inspiring me. I've had countless experiences since where God put a question or concept in my mind and asking or describing it in a meeting of other church leaders gave a solution to a challenge. As I said, I am not a prophet. But God does occasionally choose to speak through me. That is the practical essence of inspiration.
Scripture contains some very good advice, including that in Philippians 4:8, where we are instructed to maintain positive attitudes. "Whatever is true…," along with honest or honorable, just or fair, pure, lovely, etc., "…think on these things." Dr. Hoehn clearly comes down on the side of a focus on truth and honesty, when he carefully examines the evidence and concludes that the age of the earth is far greater than 6000 years. Insisting that we must all accept the young-earth concept places us in opposition to what is true and honest.
Jack and others are not saying that God COULD NOT have made everything in six literal days or created nature in a way that differs dramatically from its physical appearance. I have difficulty with those whose belief suggests that God has provided in nature a deceptive record, or that He permitted Satan to fundamentally alter creation to fool us.
Everything gets way too complicated when we stray far away from the verifiable truth of nature. Nature is complicated enough (and exquisitely wonderful) just as it is.
Jack,
Ellen White's specific counsel to us was that we should be using the Bible and the Bible alone and that her writings should never be used as the basis for any doctrine or belief, or to support any argument. So, why have you made her statements the focus of your discussion?
Since the exact duration or creation cannot be proven conclusively by either scripture or science, why do you persist in pursuing the illusion of persuasion on the topic?
William, I believe in progressive revelation. I believe Moses was led by God to insist on fair treatment of captured slaves by God's people in his day. I believe Paul was led by God to advance the concept of equality in Christ of slave and free within the church. I believe Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce were led by God to ban Slave transport by English ships. I believe Ellen White and other abolitionists were led by God to ban Slavery itself under Abraham Lincoln.
I believe that the truth about Creation begins in Genesis 1 to correct the ancient myths. I believe it is greatly advanced by John 1, showing that Christ the Word was the Creator in a controversy between Light and Darkness. I believe the truth is advanced by Revelation showing that that controversy began in Heaven before Lucifer was cast to earth where the battle continued. I believe the truth is further advanced by Ellen White's revelations that the Great Controversy began in heaven over the planning of the creation of earth, which helps me begin to understand the geologic record left of an ongoing controversy starting with creation days one through five, before the creation of humanity on day six.
If I were writing for Christianity Today, I would limit myself to the Scriptures, but I am writing in Adventist Today where I am writing for a people blessed by the inspiration of Ellen White. To understand the theology of creation we need all the inspiration we can find, and if God gave you , William, a vision or dream explaining more to me, I would happily add that to my understanding!
We create problems for ourselves when we use God's revelations to inspired writers as the limit of truth, instead of an Introduction to truth, a Gateway to truth, a signpost pointing us in the direction of More Truth.
My Bible introduces me to the truth about Creation. It does not stop me from learning much more than Moses, John, or Ellen ever dreamed, as God continues to reveal truths to us. Do you remember Ellen White's visions in the last years of her life? "Sister White says that during the night session she hears voices saying, 'Advance! Advance! Advance!…" I am asking all Adventists to heed this prophetic call.
Jack,
That was the sort of answer I expected. I would like to challenge you to study deeper into the instructions for how she said her writings were to be used and not used.
We have far more important issues facing us than the length of creation with our greatest need being discovering the power of the Holy Spirit that is promised to us so that we can finish spreading the Gospel. Continuous discussion about creation consumes time that would be far better spent actually doing the priority tasks God has put before us.
William, by all means be about your Father's business. I'm trying to do the same. Report to us from time to time your sucesses to encourage us all.
I too have a day job where I work in a life time Christian ministry. Every day I see in Jesus and the Adventíst church's name people suffering and looking for healing. I have done this for 13 years in Africa and nearly 26 years in Washington. I don't discuss the age of the earth with any of them. I do encourage trust and faith in their Creator. Adventist Today blog is my night recreation. Don't be too worried about how I am spend my time. I do this instead of golf.
I find an occasional round of golf a far more beneficial and profitable use of my time than debating what cannot be proven.
William,
I understand your perspective, but think you need to be a bit more broad minded. I think what Jack writes is extremely important. It demonstrates that those who genuinely believe there is more evidence in favor of an old earth can still align themselves with scripture and inspiration (although we should all be broadminded and humble in our convictions). The Adventist community is still in desperate need of understanding that a less literal interpretation of Genesis can be scripturally viable and honorable. There are far too many who are uncharitable on these issues despite as you said you can't prove either beyond a shadow of doubt.
Rudy,
What good will having that understanding deliver? How will the time and energy spent reaching that point advance the Gospel and bring people into the Kingdom? The duration of creation has never been an issue for anyone I've introduced to God or brought into the church.
Jack
I also believe in progresive revelation. What I do not believe in is retrogressive revelation which basically undermines all adventist pillars. What you have done basically in a nutshell is put your interpretation of what the bible says above Ellen White's interpretation albeit linguistic gymnastics of the highest order! Yours is not an advance advance advance yours is a retreat to higher criticism which she totally rejected. You did not tell people that did you? Advancement is not backwards to things we have been rejecting for a long time that is a retreat. Some long to Go back to Egypt very few to Canaan
I left Egypt slavery long ago. I was at Sinai for a while fearing the thunder. I've come to Golgotha and been reassured of God's character of Love. Now I want to move to a city that has foundations and 12 different gates, one for the tribe of Young-Earth Creationists, one for my tribe of Old-Earth Creationists, one for the tribe of Creation by evolutionists, and perhaps there is even one for the tribe of atheists who didn't believe in the God they were taught for all the right reasons (that's the God you and I don't believe in either). Holding to past understandings of truth is an attractive but dangerous plan. Following the truth wherever it leads keeps us free. Slavery to sin in Egypt, and being enslaved by past understandings of truth and not free to move on to new understandings are both slaveries. Thank you for warning me not to go back to Egypt. Been there, done that.
You are now hinting at universalism a tribe of atheists in heaven! wow and here I thought without faith it is impossible to please God! Silly me! You say that the Bible should not undermine Scientific undeniables on other threads to which I said that your believe in the gospel becomes preferential and disingenuous. My final question to you is this, Gravity is a scientific undeniable so did Jesus ascend into the heavens? Density and surface tension are also scientific undeniables so did Jesus walk on water? If you believe these then,you disbelief in a six day literal creation is hypocritical and disingenuous.
This is where theistic evolution is the biggest oxymoron of our time and is a self defeating theological proposition. You ccan be an evolutionist or an adventist but not both! they are mutually excusive. So may you please indulge me did Jesus ascend to the heavens, defying a scientific undeniable?
I would say, looking at the various comments here, that the greatest danger to Ellen White's authority as a prophetic messanger are those who hold a rigid and unrealistic, if also unbiblical, view of her role and teachings. Such views only feed and justify the views of the other various ex-Adventists who congregate here.
It somewhat reminds me of Star Trek VI: Undiscovered Country, where extremists from both the human and klingon factions unite together in an unholy alliance to prevent a lasting peace. Probably a good metaphor for many of the conflicts and disputes around the world.
Ellen White, like anyone, is a prophet only for those who accept that she is a prophet.
True, but such is everything in life. The President of the United States isn't 'my President', and he holds no rights, duties or authorities over me, because I don't recognise the applicability of the US Constitution over me. The same goes for your ancestors who didn't accept your Declaration of Independence, but instead continued to see the authority of the King of Great Britain, and ultimately had to move to Canada.
The problem I have is that many conservative Adventists seem to have an unrealistic and indeed unbiblical view of prophecy. In turn, many non-Adventists, especially other conservative Christians, judge Ellen White by those same unrealistic and unbiblical criteria.
If I judged the Bible prophets by the same standards by which many of her hardcore supporters and her harshest critics judged Ellen White, none of the Bible prophets would past their unrealistic and unbiblical standard either!
Thank you Jack, for another terrific blog with many gems of wisdom. I don't see you as using Ellen White for doctrinal purposes, so much as freeing her for inspirational purposes. I am probably less charitable towards her than you in many respects. I think she not only erred in matters about which she claimed to "have been shown", but she also was deceptive about her indebtedness to other sources.
Nevertheless, her fallibility, as you point out, should not prevent us from seeing how God worked through her, spoke through her, and used her relentless passion for Him and His word to raise and preserve a movement that has blessed tens of millions. The truth is that millions of Adventists do use Ellen White as an authoritative source of divine wisdom. The Church owes Ellen White an inestimable debt of gratitude. We should revere her, but not idolize her.
Well said
A more schizophrenic post may not exist. EGW was either a fraud or a messenger of God. She was not both.
I didn't read Nathan as saying she was a fraud. The fact that she was fallible (i.e. she 'erred' on occassion) does not automatically render her a fraud. Nathan erred in telling David he could build a temple, Jonah technically erred in telling the people of Ninevah that they would be destroyed, and Paul erred in telling virgins they didn't have time to get married.
I am somewhat reminded of the character Oracle in the moive Matrix. The Orcale tells the main character Neo that he is not 'The One'. The fact is, Neo was The One, but he needed to hear that he wasn't. So did that make the Oracle false?
I have often wondered if this is somewhat how biblical prophets work? They tell us what God wants to reveal for the people at that time, including what the people need to hear, and the limits of what they can hear.
Nathan,
Revere Ellen White? Have you not read her many pointed statements about such praise and adoration belonging only to God?
To be human is to be a fraud. We have all misrepresented the truth in order to advance what we thought was a higher purpose. God's messengers have often been deeply flawed humans. I do not see how any rational, halfway objective person can read extensive passages from writings avaible to Ellen White, that closely parallel what whe claims to have been shown, and not conclude that, contrary to what she claims, she was often heavily indebted to other authors for her phrases and words, if not her inspiration.
William, I think you are parsing words. I use the term "revere" to mean deep respect and gratitude – not worship. Perhaps "revere" is too strong a word. How about deeply admire and respect? And yes, I have read her statements. The fact that she made them doesn't vest them with authoritative value for me, despite my deep gratitude for her service to God and her critical role in the formation of the SDA Church.
God’s messengers are of course flawed humans. God’s messages to us are not flawed. Someone who purports to be God’s messenger is either God’s messenger or a fraud.
Finding, excerpting, or using information that was written by others does not mean that God did not direct or inspire the finding, excerpting or use of said information.
There are texts/verses/sayings that are recited and rewritten from the Old Testament by Paul. God does not necessarily directly dictate or directly write; but rather He directly directs.
True Stephen. I think you will find that almost all the same criticisms against Ellen White could be levelled against the OT and NT authors. If that makes her a false prophet, then it makes the authors of the Bible false prophets as well.
I am very displeased to those misinterpreting the Bible and Ellen White, God will judge those leading people astray. God give us power to look through the subtle deception. Dont buy into those causing doubt and do not use scripture to back what they are saying and there are some who will use scripture in the wrong way also so pray God will open your eyes. Shame on some of the writers for adventist today, their are jesuits who are infiltrating our church to change our doctrines be wise brothers and sisters. Stand firm for truth.
Robert, how do you judge a Jesuit? How does one know you and not the writers of Adventist Today are Jesuits, come to lead us astray with unrealistic and unbiblical views of Ellen White and the gift of prophecy, that only sets our faith up for failure?
Stephen
You are creating a strawman argument to state that I have a rigid unbiblical view of E G White's inspiriration. I did not state she was infalliable, only God is infalliable I have made that clear on a number of threads. How then would you define those who make of none effect the testimonies? I said prophets who make theological errors are false prophets. Note I said "theological". Can you give me an example of a biblical prophet who said an erroneous theological statement and was still God's prophet? If you try and tap dance again on this one I will call you out.
You said there needs to be a line drawn on theological diversity but my question was who gets to draw that line , you , Jack, AT? I believe in diversity but not theological diversity:- that is pluralism which is unbiblical. The only diversity the bible talks about is in gifts and lines of ministry but not in diametrically opposed theological viewpoints as a sustainanble christian model. Mixture of truth and error is babylonish and this church is not babylon unless of course you believe otherwise?
Preach, it brother! It's beginning to appear as if the so-called Western World has lost it's grip on truth, and we must look to our African brothers and sisters for counsel. They have not yet been duped by all the clever stumblingblocks thrown up to confuse the saints. It is clear to me that here and at Spectrum there is a deep-seated animosity (not by all, but by a significant number) toward the SOP; and a strange love affair with heretical theologians, as well as agnostic and atheistic scientists.
Tapiwa: "I did not state she was infalliable, only God is infalliable I have made that clear on a number of threads. How then would you define those who make of none effect the testimonies? I said prophets who make theological errors are false prophets. Note I said "theological"."
Tapiwa, I hear what you are saying and on that basis I wonder if we substantially agree with each other, but are primarily disagreeing on semantics, or have slightly different definitions of terms, such as 'theological.'
Prophetic message vs personal opinion
For example, when Nathan told David he could build the Temple (2 Sam. 7:3), I personally take that to be a ‘theological’ statement – a deeply theological statement given the importance of the Jewish Temple to Judaism. But that statement by Nathan was wrong (i.e. false), because God had to correct him (2 Sam. 7:4,13). Of course, Nathan offered his own human opinion, even though he no doubt exercised his standing as a prophet to give David that initial ok, which was in fact different from God’s different opinion.
I do think there is a lesson in that in distinguishing Ellen White’s own personal statements, especially in various letters, and statement made on behalf of God. I also think that helps us better understand some of Ellen White’s more unusual statements, such as her Shut Door theory, which she later recanted.
Do you accept that general proposition?
Limited messages
Furthermore, would you agree that given the nature of progressive revelation, prophets might not necessarily give false theological statements, but they do obviously give incomplete statements. For example, the OT prophecy about Elijah returning was incomplete insofar as it probably wasn’t obvious when it was fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist. Paul’s message that circumcision was not required no doubt was a new progressive revelation that seemed at odds to many Judaizer-Christians. Likewise, I believe God was with the Reformers, especially Martin Luther, but he was not impressed with the Sabbath message at that time.
I do think that is a lesson for reading Ellen White as well. I think it helps us understand say her unusual statement about the moons of Jupiter, which we now know was technically not scientifically correct. However, more importantly, the statement was scientifically correct as necessary to convince Captain Bates – the intended recipient of the message.
Do you agree with that general proposition?
Evolution of theological thought
The moment someone is endowed with the gift of prophecy they don’t suddenly know everything theologically. God might teach, but His teaching doesn’t stop. As a prophet learns and is taught more from God, they impart more. Sometimes the prophet’s own views theologically evolve in the process.
For example, Peter’s general theological attitude to the Gentiles, and the important theological implication of Universalism, was a gradual work in progress. Even though he was endowed with amazing spiritual gifts at Pentecost, he had to keep learning – and keep teaching his flock as he learned. Although Peter gained spiritual authority at Pentecost in Acts 2, God had to give him a vision about the Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10, and then re-convince him through Paul in Acts 15, and then prevent him from being a theological back-slider on the issue in Acts in Gal 2.
Likewise, if you read the entirety of the NT, you see Paul’s own theology evolve, or at least refine itself.
I think that poses an important lesson for reading Ellen White as well. We can see her own theology evolve, especially her views towards a more orthodox view of the Trinity (despite Arian and Pantheistic tendencies of some pioneers), and in support of Jones and Wagner in righteousness by faith (despite the legalism of many of the pioneers).
Do you accept that general proposition?
Messages as warnings
Finally, sometimes prophetic messages don’t come true because they were in fact warnings. Sometimes, the message is obviously a warning, but sometimes the message isn’t obviously a warning. God’s warning for Ninevah held no ‘ifs’, but was a positive statement about what ‘would’ happen – end of story (Jonah1:2; 3:4).
This is why Jonah was so angry (Jonah 4:2), because Jonah certainly didn’t consider it a mere warning, even though he suspected God might change His mind. But technically, Jonah’s warning was a false prophecy and it made him a false prophet per the test in Deut., because he predicted something that did not come to pass.
I think that is an important lesson for reading some other of Ellen White’s more unusual statements, such as statements about the American Civil War.
Do you accept that general proposition?
Other approaches
I personally think having a realistic view of prophesy is what the Bible itself teaches. When we apply that biblical view to Ellen White, rather than the mythological view that both hardcore conservative literalists and critics apply, her prophetic gift is upheld.
If you apply some other test, how do you rationalize her many problematic statements?
Stephen
In principle I agree with most of your generilisations but it is the application of those generilisations that I have concern. Maybe our argument is semantical but how does one make of none effect the testimonies? I believe Jack is making of none effect the testimonies. Would you disagree with that aasertion? Jack now believes there was death in the plant kingdom before the fall yet E G White says she saw adam cry when the first leaf fell more than we cry for our beloved ones.
So who is right? JAck or SOP?
By the way
Stephen,
Getting bogged down in discussions about semantics and details in Ellen White's writings is exactly where Satan wants us to be expending our energies because it distracts us from the primary points and purposes of the prophetic gift. She had two primary messages: 1) Look to Jesus for salvation, and 2) Use the Bible and the Bible only as your spiritual guidebook because it will point you to Jesus and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that are essential if we are to be ready for the Second Coming. Heeding those two points frees us from arguments and discussions and allows us to focus on the greater priorities God has outlined for us. Things like discovering the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that God wants each of us to be using.
Timo,
You make an excellent point. In the New Testament descriptions of when the Holy Spirit was present and working in churches you quickly see a number of gifts at work. Discernment is listed as a spiritual gift. It makes a person aware of both what is true and what is false. At the same time there are numerous other gifts listed (and some not listed) that are powerful and contribute to the growth and strength of the church. How can we claim to be God's people and following scripture if we are not seeing these other gifts obviously being empowered by the Holy Spirit and strengthening the church? Where are the people who are performing miracles of healing? Where are those who can speak other languages? Where are the prophets? Where are the gifted teachers? Where are the leaders in the local church who are serving according to how they have been empowered by the Holy Spirit instead of being selected by the Nominating Committee?
You clearly don't understand botany. The apple is not "alive," as such. It was meant to be eaten. The seeds, however are viable. Eating fruit does not kill a plant. Eating seeds do not kill a plant. God told man that fruits, nuts, and grains were to be his diet. Therefore when Paul said that death came as a result of sin, he could not have meant that eating fruit produced death, since fruit was consumed before sin. .And, all protestation to the contrary, the fossil record is easily explained by the Flood.
Thank you Jean, you do understand that it is OK to use the truths of botany to clarify what an inspired writer like Paul said about the wages of sin. This is most logical and obviously what God requires us to do.
I'm just saying that when a 15 year old immature Ellen White had a dream of heaven, it was a 15 year old's dream. She plucked flowers and shouts in childish joy, these shall never fade!
Really?
I believe Ellen was given a dream of heaven, I believe she was allowed to dream of a 15 year old's response to heaven, I believe she was free to use her own words and thoughts to describe what she dreamed. It is a wonderful teen age dream, and I thank her for sharing it with us.
But does it tell me that every flower I pick in heaven and bring into my mansion will be fresh and vibrant for eternity? And will the plants in the field that she plucked them from be eternally naked and bare? Or will they grow new flowers that new teen age girls will pluck and bring into their mansions and bother their mothers with the thought of how can I display these new ones when the old ones will never fade?
Please, please Jean, keep on doing what your in the image of god mind tells you to do. Let truth in nature help us interpret the truths given by inspired but fallible human messengers. Let them be balanced and more true after we think them all through a little more. Let all truths converge to bring us closer to The Way, The Truth, The Life.
Get a copy of great hope, A small and easy read written by some woman who had a third grade education.
Jack, I intended to ask some questions of Stephen Ferguson regarding the notion of being genetically and neurobiologically "hard-wired" for spirituality, but I find that the appropriate thread regarding "intelligent design" is now closed to nonsubscribers. Do you know if that was intentional?
I was wondering if Stephen got the "hard wired" notion and language from Hamer's "The God Gene" book or some other source. Consideration of the VMAT2 genetic locus and its products needs some examination.
Wishing you well. Anyone should feel free to contact me directly at agingapes AT gmail DOT com.
Joe, I didn't get the "hard wired" notion from "The God Gene" book. Didn't know the book existed to be honest, but will check it out. I kind of obtained it from a British Jewish scientist (his name escapes me now) who did a documentary on God. In one episode, he was part of an experient where he was hard-wired with various instruments and put in one of those sensory-deprivation chambers, where supposedly in such situations people can sometimes have a feeling of someone behind them or with them.
I am no scientists, but as to any notion that God, supernatural, spirituality and religion are hardwired into the human condition, I am not sure if it can be ascribed to just 1 gene. I am no expert in genetics, but my understanding is that normally things are attributed across a range of code. But then again, that is the sort of thing I wouldn't mind hear more about.
Hi Stephen,
You are correct that the claim about there being a "God gene" is greatly over simplified, and the author admitted that. What he found was an association between scores on a personality test and one single nucleotide polymorphism (A33050C) of VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter type 2). He identified three SNPs of VMAT2 among the people he tested, but only one of them was associated with the higher "spirituality" scores. There are many weaknesses with his story, but there are some interesting connections.
Perhaps the most important is that in humans, all other primates, and all other mammals, VMAT2 is involved with neuronal function via influences on neurotransmitters (mainly, serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine). Of course these are especially important for brain function. For the brain to operate, the functional forms of VMAT2 need to be present and they need to aid the processes of release and reuptake of the neurotransmitters. Even then, of course, VMAT2 is not acting alone, but is acting synergistically with other aspects of the neuroanatomical and neurochemical environment.
VMAT2 is a "highly conserved" gene. It is believed to have existed in some form in the common ancestor of all animals. Its products even exist in bacteria, although the function there is different. The human chromosome on which the VMAT2 gene is located includes tens of millions of base pairs, and VMAT2 includes several thousand base pairs with the potential for as many as four alternative SNPs at each base pair location. One source indicates that 767 SNPs in VMAT2 have already been found. There are enormous possibilities for variation in VMAT2 that may produce suboptimal or even wildly aberrant brain function. Indeed, some forms of VMAT2 are associated with Parkinson's disease, neurodegenerative disorders, ADHD, bipolar disorder, mood disturbances, and even schizophrenia. There are also some associations with drugs of abuse, especially cocaine and amphetamines, as well as many commonly prescribed psychoactive drugs intended to be therapeutic.
So, I'm not quite sure what "hard wired" would look like. Clearly, there are many forms of VMAT2 that do not cause functional disruptions that severely impair individuals or result in visions or hallucinations. It is all pretty complicated, but it seems interesting and worth trying to better understand.
Yes, very interesting. It still doesn't really address the central point though, that only 2% of the world population, in a modern age of science, are atheists. Similarly, attempts to erradicate theism, as in the Soviet Union were largely failures (and I am not saying communist societies are generally representative of the morality and ethics of other atheists).
My point being, I don't think the problem is one of scientific and rational evidence. I think the problem is something to do with the human condition, which chooses to believe despite the evidence.
My question is why is this so? I am not suggesting for the purpose of this discussion that theism is objective truth; rather, I am merely wondering why theism continues to be the dominant and somewhat default setting for human beings, even in a modern and scientific world? Theism doesn't appear to be dying, it appears to be thriving.
If genetics provide some of the answers, then I would be very interesting to hear about those theories. If there are other possible explanations, then I would be interested in those as well.
And I recall it was a BBC documentary, about 2-3 years ago. Will try to remember.
Yes, the article in question is ordinarily among that material (premium content) reserved for subscribers only, but AT occasionally posts a small number of these longer, more in-depth articles from the magazine, for sampling, and generally for nine days at a time. AT encourages serious online participants to consider the convenience and advantages of acquiring an online subscription. These are still available for $8 a year online or by phone (at the same price) at (503) 826-8600. The price rises to $10 a year in 2013….
Edwin A. Schwisow
Executive Secretary for AT Development
Edwin,
Well, I took the bait and attempted to subscribe, as I wanted to see the outcome of the debate re VMAT2.
But my application was unsuccessful. And no clear indication as to why. I think my credit card still had 8 bucks credit available. I wonder if the address section, which limits the 'states' of residence to US states only and so cannot be a field entered by overseas subscribers, is the source of the problem. I have struck this elsewhere. Likewise, it is difficult for us to phone in.
I wonder if anyone else has had this problem? Any suggestions?
Thank you, Edwin. That is a little disappointing. Ah well….
Again, anyone interested in discussing the A33050C SNP and other variants of the highly conserved VMAT2 gene shoulld feel free to contact me at agingapes AT gmail DOT com.
Joe
Dear Dr Erwin,
It's great to see you posting. Thanks for your insight and POV.
With regard to more in depth discussion of consciousness, mind, brain and genetics… and in light of the tone of discussion taking place this evening in this thread above, my first reaction is to respectfully decline to take part in front of this audience. In interested appropriate company, please count me in (Erv, Dr F, CB, Tim, Elaine, Newton and some others). I'd prefer not to trigger comments like, It's better to be a sociopathic satanist than a morally and socially conscientious non-believer. etc Any chance of a subset?
Cheers! dl
Is that a joke, David? Or should I call you Doctor? You make me laugh out loud. I can't believe you would embarrass yourself with such a pretentious display of unbridled arrogance. Have you no pride, man?
You misread me. No arrogance intended. My non-religious naturalistic explanations cause offense. A while back I had been invited to not be part of those commenting. Another suggested at a different time I was here to recruit for the cause of non-belief.
It would have been better for me to contact Dr Erwin in private. Next time I will.
And now, back to disagreeing with your mother.
Guys…this is pathetic.
I for one have made myself absent of late because of this same attitude. Nathan, I saw no reason to even consider David's comment a joke. I'm not in the arena of those qualified as I suspect he is, but I sure identify with the oppressive culture of some here.
I was challenged by Timo's comment on another thread: "If they cannot satisfactorily discomfit or persuade the other to adopt their own right perspective/interpretation, do they then just take their ball from the sandbox and go home?"
To which I quoted Matthew 7:6 about casting one's pearls before swine. I really do think there is a point at which some of the "audience" can be hard to differentiate from said pigs. Why waste one's time?
Stephen…. I kinda hope you were not serious. Seems to me Adventists need to get used to rubbing shoulders with their fellow human's, some of whom may be "ex", and that at the very least their tollerance and graciousness may grow through the experience, at the best, just maybe some will be discomfited to the point where the arrogance of certainty (truth) is seen for the pig pen mentality it is.
…there you go….this is why I try to keep my distance…I get sharp with my words….and become a pig myself:(
Sorry I didn't get your bit Chris about trying to keep your distance.
Stephen, keeping my distance was a metaphor for staying out of the discussions that take place here:)
Maybe at some point our words will become "Nay, nay" or "Yay, Yah" … and we will sit in silence … holding each other whole, at the feet of Jesus.
David, how about you go and create your own website, such as ex-Advetist Today?
Chris, I was not the one suggesting forming an elite company of "enlightened persons" for a private discussion.
I thought Tapiwa made a good point, and I wouldn't even have responded if you hadn't reacted so strongly to him. But, speaking of cheap and snide, equating my remarks with the devil's converstion with Eve, seeems a bit over the top. Or were you just subtly calling me a snake in the grass? No, matter, I have to slither off to work now.
Only by messing with the concept of "death" can one come up with your unusual conclusions. Which tells me that you don't really believe the Bible. Paul says that death came because of one man: Adam. Not Lucifer and not the death of the banana in his stomach. And all this just to be able to embrace the evolutionary fairy tale and discredit Ellen White. A commitment worthy of a nobler cause.
And it is Adam, not Eve. What is that about?
I've always wondered about that. But it is clear from Scripture that Adam is the one who was held responsible for bringing sin into the world. Maybe because Eve was deceived, but Adam chose to disobey, knowing full well what he was doing. Plus, he was the head of the race, and responsible for Eve's wellbeing.
And all along we were told that it was Lucifer who brought sin into the world–with God's permission.
OUCH! My my, i am totally out of the scientific research of the brain & genome. Please, someone share
with me what the research shows that explains the downward spiral of the continued animosity displayed by some here today.Should not tolerance be in order for us all to abide? As adult responders here i hope we are able to maintain at least a minimum of decorum. After all if we all agreed, there would be less debate amonst us. lol.
I have repeatedly provided my email address and some here have communicated with me privately. My intention is not to form an elite company of enlightened persons. Sorry it appeared that way to some. Some topics come up from time to time that are interesting enough to warrant discussion away from the arena where some people find such topics offend them. Earl is correct. One should be able to expect decorum in such a place as this. Perhaps it is too much to except of mere mortals such as we all are. Peace, brothers and sisters. Love one another.
Dear Adventist Sister/Brother, please listen to our Spiritual Mother, no one has ever said it better:
"Every association of life calls for the exercise of self-control, forearance, and sympathy. We differ so widely in disposition, habits, education, that our ways of looking at things vary. We judge differently. Our understanding of truth, our ideas in regard to the conduct of life, are not in all respects the same… So frail, so ignorant, so liable to misconception is human nature, that each should be careful in the estimate he places upon another. We little know the bearing of our acts upon the experience of others… We should be careful not to take into our hands the work of judging that belongs to God." Ellen G. White, Ministry of Healing. p 483, 484.
(I read these words first over 40 years ago in a time of interpersonal misunderstanding. They were underlined then and have been long memorized from my copy of the Ministry Healing that is worn from frequent use. I am not posturing when I tell you Sister White has been and remains a source of spiritual truth for me. This advice is from Heaven's Throne as far as I am concerned. Not because they say "I was shown" but because as I read it my mind and my emotions, my soul if you will, recognizes Truth and I bow my head before it.) Jack.
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, ….
Jack
Just to get you straight, You are saying ellen white is only true when as you said "my mind and my emotions, my soul if you will, recognizes Truth""
That is what I was talking about when you make of none effect the testimonies! Cafeteria religion where Jack chooses what is truth based on his feelings and perceptions. You invariably betray the SOP with a kiss.
Tapiwa, I am not the issue. You are not the issue. Truth is the issue. God reveals truth about the history of life on earth in geology, he reveals truth about creation and adaptation of creation in the genome, he reveals truth about his character in how he dealt with ancient myths and cruelties in the old testament, he reveals truth about himself in the history of Jesus on earth, he reveals truth about how he wants to rescue earth from Pharisee and Pagan alike in the history of the 1st century church, he reveals truth about how he wanted to rescue earth from churches and Americans in the 19th century through Ellen White. Letting a Bible writer or a prophetess be human and recognizing that prophets tell truth, but are not The Truth, is no betrayal. It is simply true. We betray Sister White by bowing before her as infallible, more than by offering her a simple kiss for what we love.
So true, Jack! Take a look at my comment on Stephen Foster's Bibliolatry blog, regarding the Rob Bell video – Everything is Spiritual. I am certain you will find that video to be a stimulating and rich spiritual feast, consistent with so much of what you gently and lovingly share with us on this website.
Thank you, I watched it and was spiritually nourished. This is true creationism indeed. How much Adventists should applaud someone who is such a sucessful promoter (he made it the cover of Time magazine!) of truths Adventists were led to like no eternal hell, and here the centrality of the Sabbath, is magnified! Thank God for Rob Bell. (Who knows, his next book may be on the spiritual benefits of a plant based diet?) 🙂
I am not sure Ellen White is any less betrayed by those who read the Bible through her works and then declare her to be in agreement with the Bible. Surely there is a place for both subjective and objective recognition of truth?
Moderator
My apologies to Jack, If he feels I was offensive. I would not want to shaken out like my good friend Jean ( God bless his soul) would I. I realise my comments are of a conservative leaning, so any mistake I make and I get the axe. My final question as this might be my last post is where was the moderator when Elaine insuated I was illeterate and that I had an intrinsic fear of women? Where was the moderator when Timo said I did not heve a relationship with Christ or that I was unloving?
Where was the moderator when Stephen fergusson baselessly accused me and my people of being pro polygamy?
I respect and appreciate that this is your site and it is your prerogative to accept or deny comment privilages. You judged my response as being Unchristian but even Jesus was accused of being demon possesed! my comment did not disparage Jack I simply said He makes of non effect the testimonies noone thus far has replied that assertion. My comment was not an indictment on Jack's character or his standing with Christ. Timo actualy said I had no reationship with Christ but since he does not believe in our core doctrines he gets a pass
I realise my conservative leanings mke me a target for the axe but Come on! So if this is my last post Goodbye and hope we meet in heaven if not may it be known by all that I will stand for the bible,truth and reason in love of course but I will not be apologetic for my views so help me God!
(Luther style)
Mr. Jack Hoehn,
How long have you been studying the subject of creation, if you don't mind me asking?
Kimberly, I think it is all my life (66 years to date), if you count my Adventist upbringing which was firmly short term creationist, my Adventist high school. At Pacific Union college I took premedical science courses including teaching from Harold Clark a firm creationist. I have purchased and read books by Creationists for many years, including those classics by Dr. Henry Morris, and Rehwinkle's Flood books, so I think I was pretty well grounded in Young Earth Creationism.
But in my youth I hiked in the Sierra Nevadas and saw the Bristlecone Pines who were too old to allow for a global flood 4,000 years ago. Later as a missionary in Lesotho I saw caves with footprints of dinasaurs on their exposed ceilings without a human footprint anywhere near. I observed by living in Canada, USA, Austria, Lesotho, London, Zambia, Kenya, and many places inbetween that different areas had different types of similar animals making change or evolution seem likely in a limited sphere. I have flown over Greenland in large airplanes 20+ times, and found the evidence of age in the ice caps preventing belief in a global flood 4,000 years ago. But the breakthrough into Old Earth Creationism as a possibility for Christians began with the Intelligent Design movement starting with books by Phillip Johnson starting with "Darwin on Trial" where I began to understand that you did not have to be a Young Earth Creationist to be a Christian and to challenge the godless evolutionary alternative to YEC. This was perhaps in 1989. Later on I discovered Hugh Ross a Calvanist Pastor and Astronomer at CalTec, who combined belief in an inerrant Bible and honest Science, which has offered many insights since then. At present I have in my personal library over 100 books on archeology, geology, origins and design, and I continue to read and collect more.
I have to add that as I loved and studied the works of Ellen White, I also had to mature in my understanding of her ministry. This began in my youth where we had copies of some of the books she used in writing the Great Controversy, so knew of passages the same in both books. Alden Thompson's articles on how Ellen White's theology matured with time were helpful. And more recently I have found the book More Than A Prophet by Elder Graeme Bradford helpful in understanding the honest place for Ellen White's writings on these subjects today.
This is more than you asked! So I will close with my recommendations with resources for someone wanting to combine honest science with honest Bible study:
http://www.reasons.org/ — Reason's to Believe — Biblical Inerrantist with Scientific Believer, Hugh Ross's organizations. Many useful books, classes, insights. They believe God created all the good and the bad, and I think Ellen White can help modify this with our understanding of the Great Controversy, but still a great way to understand Genesis 1, the Flood from Bible and Science.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/about-contact/ — Perry Marshal gives a lot to think about again from a Bible Believer who also thinks about Science.
http://www.discovery.org — A think tank for Intelligent Design, many useful articles here, including some with the theology of why "theistic evolution" is wrong, as well as how science itself demonstrates that Darwin was wrong. Publishes many important books supporting ID.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/ — short articles on recent items in the news, from an ID perspective.
Jack Hoehn
The point of science as a method is to advance knowledge, understanding, and predictability by falsifying what was previously thought to be true.
The thesis Ellen used in Great Controversy was not original with her but originated with Zoroaster, a Persian prophet ca. 600 B.C. and was quickly adopted by the Jews while in exile there and incorporated into the scriptures which were written during that period. There is no record of an evil source in the writings in the Bible prior to 1000 B.C. and scholars have concluded that many were written during and around the reign of Josiah.
The concept of good and evil, dark and light, gave the Jews a new understanding from their previous beliefs that God was in charge of everything: both good and evil; and this is corroborated from Scripture written prior to the exilic period. This is seen in the early books where God sent evil, flood, disasters, earthquakes an mass killings–all from God. There was no idea of a satan or devil during that period.
The theme of good vs. evil is the greatest motif in history of books, plays, music, and all of life which is portrayed as a contest between two opposing forces. The only difference is in the identification of the principal characters which in Ellen's writings, she chooses to name a religious persecutor as the epitome of evil. Yet, if we were truly honest, there is no need to identify an outside source: evil lies within the human heart.
Elaine, Is it your belief that the story of the fall, ie: the serpent/Eve & Adam, in Gen. 3, is allegorical?
That God stated his Creation was "very good" Gen.1:31, was not true,but that evil was within the human heart at creation?
Of course, I believe it was an allegory and not literal. Who do you believe wrote those verses describing creation? Angels and humans? Yes, I believe that God's creation is very good, don't you? Do you believe it wasn't good?
"Blaming the devil" is the oldest excuse in history. I recall a favorite radio program "Flip Wilson" where he used to play the black preacher and when he sinned, always said "The devil made me do it." Kids have tried similar excuses on parents with little success. If there were no evil in our hearts we would not be tempted, would we? Jesus was tempted, according to the Gospels, but did not sin.