Walter Rea Dies: Famous for Research on Ellen White
By Adventist Today News Team
Pastor Walter Rea passed away Sabbath morning, August 30, at the age of 92. The memorial service was held Sabbath, September 13, in Patterson, California, a small town near Modesto in the Central Valley farming region where he spent the last years of his life as a grower of cherries, apricots, walnuts and almonds.
Rea is well known for a book he wrote in which he accused Ellen G. White of plagiarism despite her historic role as one of the cofounders of the Adventist movement believed by most of her cohort of early Adventists to exercise the spiritual gift of prophet. His study launched significant research which has changed the understanding of White’s writings among Adventists.
Rea was born in 1922 in Minneapolis, but lived much of his life in California. He graduated from Pacific Union College in late 1944 and in January 1945 was hired as a pastor by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. He started the first Adventist church in Lompoc, California, and served as a pastor in Lindsay and Madera before moving to Florida. He was pastor of Kress Memorial Church in Orlando, as well as in Fort Myers and Jacksonville before he returned to southern California where he led congregations in Pomona, Alhambra and Long Beach.
“He had a real reputation for being good with church finances and pulling churches together that had been fragmented,” his son, Walter Rea Jr., told the Patterson Irrigator local newspaper. “He was a tough disciplinarian, but he was a tremendous youth pastor. … He was a very practical religious person, [but] not much a preacher.”
Rea “never did really let his love of the ministry die,” the newspaper said, although “what devastated dad so much was that he was so passionate about the church,” his son was quoted. Rea was asked to resign from denominational employ after 36 years due to the controversy his book created.
For many years Rea was a promoter of the writings of White, compiling three volumes of extracts from her materials; two volumes of Bible biographies from the Old and New Testaments and a volume of material on the Bible books of Daniel and Revelation. All of these were distributed through the denomination’s book stores.
He became aware that White used information and language from books by Alfred Edersheim in a number of her books. He began to compare her writings with contemporary sources known to be in her personal library and found many places where she appears to borrow material. As a result, a number of research projects were commissioned by the denomination’s General Conference (GC).
The largest of these research efforts was the Life of Christ Research Project by Dr. Fred Veltman, at the time a religion professor at Pacific Union College. It was completed in November 1988 and found far more borrowed material than expected in one of White’s most widely-read books, The Desire of Ages. (The entire report is available at the GC online archives.)
At the same time, a study was completed by Vincent L. Ramik specifically of the accusation of “plagiarism.” He was an attorney who specialized in copyright law and a Catholic, not an Adventist. He reported that White clearly did not engage in plagiarism. Not all borrowing of material is plagiarism. Most authors use some information or phrasing that they have read from other writers.
About the same time the minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference were found in the denomination’s archives and it became obvious that these issues had been discussed by denominational leaders soon after the death of White in 1915. Participants included her son, William C. White, and the president of the GC at the time, A. G. Daniells.
The history made it clear that there have been two views of inspired texts among Adventists, one more literalistic than the other, and the more literalistic view had become dominant since the early 1920s when Christian fundamentalism emerged in America. The studies changed the denomination’s official position because the more literalistic, fundamentalist view simply does not account for the facts of the situation and creates problems of the type involved in Rea’s accusations.
Pastor Walter Rea passed away Sabbath morning, August 30, at the age of 92. The memorial service was held Sabbath, September 13, in Patterson, California, a small town near Modesto in the Central Valley farming region where he spent the last years of his life as a grower of cherries, apricots, walnuts and almonds.
Rea is well known for a book he wrote in which he accused Ellen G. White of plagiarism despite her historic role as one of the cofounders of the Adventist movement believed by most of her cohort of early Adventists to exercise the spiritual gift of prophet. His study launched significant research which has changed the understanding of White’s writings among Adventists.
Rea was born in 1922 in Minneapolis, but lived much of his life in California. He graduated from Pacific Union College in late 1944 and in January 1945 was hired as a pastor by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. He started the first Adventist church in Lompoc, California, and served as a pastor in Lindsay and Madera before moving to Florida. He was pastor of Kress Memorial Church in Orlando, as well as in Fort Myers and Jacksonville before he returned to southern California where he led congregations in Pomona, Alhambra and Long Beach.
“He had a real reputation for being good with church finances and pulling churches together that had been fragmented,” his son, Walter Rea Jr., told the Patterson Irrigator local newspaper. “He was a tough disciplinarian, but he was a tremendous youth pastor. … He was a very practical religious person, [but] not much a preacher.”
Rea “never did really let his love of the ministry die,” the newspaper said, although “what devastated dad so much was that he was so passionate about the church,” his son was quoted. Rea was asked to resign from denominational employ after 36 years due to the controversy his book created.
For many years Rea was a promoter of the writings of White, compiling three volumes of extracts from her materials; two volumes of Bible biographies from the Old and New Testaments and a volume of material on the Bible books of Daniel and Revelation. All of these were distributed through the denomination’s book stores.
He became aware that White used information and language from books by Alfred Edersheim in a number of her books. He began to compare her writings with contemporary sources known to be in her personal library and found many places where she appears to borrow material. As a result, a number of research projects were commissioned by the denomination’s General Conference (GC).
The largest of these research efforts was the Life of Christ Research Project by Dr. Fred Veltman, at the time a religion professor at Pacific Union College. It was completed in November 1988 and found far more borrowed material than expected in one of White’s most widely-read books, The Desire of Ages. (The entire report is available at the GC online archives.)
At the same time, a study was completed by Vincent L. Ramik specifically of the accusation of “plagiarism.” He was an attorney who specialized in copyright law and a Catholic, not an Adventist. He reported that White clearly did not engage in plagiarism. Not all borrowing of material is plagiarism. Most authors use some information or phrasing that they have read from other writers.
About the same time the minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference were found in the denomination’s archives and it became obvious that these issues had been discussed by denominational leaders soon after the death of White in 1915. Participants included her son, William C. White, and the president of the GC at the time, A. G. Daniells.
The history made it clear that there have been two views of inspired texts among Adventists, one more literalistic than the other, and the more literalistic view had become dominant since the early 1920s when Christian fundamentalism emerged in America. The studies changed the denomination’s official position because the more literalistic, fundamentalist view simply does not account for the facts of the situation and creates problems of the type involved in Rea’s accusations.
Fundamentalist view of EGW or not, the truth about her writings and copying is now available to all due to computer power and the Internet. Judge for yourself the evidence (there are other sites also but this one by David Conklin is one of the most comprehensive):
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/
I read “The White Lie” in the early 1980s. What an eye opener for someone who was taught certain “truths” since childhood. I remember becoming very frustrated and pretty angry when I realized that not even in college, in the School of Theology were we informed about the plagiarism. Purposely withdrawing information from church members and theology students is really unacceptable an abhorrent.
It took a man of honesty and courage to break down the enchantment that “the boox” always exerted on people who relied blindly on the Church’s so called honesty, supposed openness, and expected transparency.
“I read “The White Lie” in the early 1980s”
Kind of interesting, isn’t it George, that the article never mentioned his book The White Lie?
Not only did Walter Rae accuse the church of hiding the truth of her material, he also accuses EGW of being a liar herself. He may have sold more people on his “findings” if he had not gone so far in his accusations. It is one thing to accuse the church of hiding some issues about her ministry, it is quit another to claim that EGW was a liar.
And no credible lawyer who would examine her writings would accuse her of what Rae did. Yet you seem real comfortable parroting this false accusation. So I am not so sure your own “objective” evaluation carries a lot of credibility for anyone who is aware of all the facts of the matter.
Bill,
Just a quick question for you:
Did YOU read his book, The White Lie, in its entirety?
____ YES
____ NO
Walter Rae was upset and angry at the myth he had been sold, and which he had so faithfully devoted his life to perpetuating. I translated for him when he came to Norway in 1984. I remember his response to the charge that his problem was that he had worshiped the wrong person, that he had made way too much out of her. The reason I reacted the way I did, he said, was because I believed in her. The fact that a host of scholars who had never cared that much for her in the first place were able to absorb the fact that she had massively plagiarized contemporary writers, did not impress him.
Walter Rae did not possess a scholarly demeanor. He was formed in the school of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and he howled with indignation and rage when he discovered that his beloved prophet had deceived everybody and that the church, despite the 1919 Bible Conference admissions, had chosen to enable those who craved the myth. Still, his scholarship, such as it was, was devastating. EGW’s authority took a body blow from which it has not recovered. Today, it seems to this distant observer, that church members today will go as far as defending her, but they no longer live by her word the way they did before 1980. In fact, I have the feeling that while Adventism before 1980 was “the Truth” (“How many years have you been in the Truth?” people would ask of newcomers), nowadays, Adventists in the developed world at most sympathize with their own cause. Desmond Ford and Walter Rae changed Adventism permanently.
Aage,
This was always my biggest point, the frustration of realizing that info had been deliberately hidden from the Church (members and most ministers). I spent FOUR years in college as a full time student of Theology in our seminary in Sao Paulo, Brazil and was never told about all these dysfunctionalities. This is wrong.
What amazes me, though, is that there are still people nowadays trying to convince us that “what happened actually happened not”….
It seems to me Walter Rae was indeed fed a very unbilical and unhistorical view of a prophet’s work (something the church perpetuated, whether knowingly or unknowingly, I will let others decide). That view being, a prophet only writes original stuff, never influenced by what they read or experienced in life. He had a wrong notion of how inspiration works on the human being, etc. Hence, the utter shock of being let down because of the false foundation he was standing upon. It is understandable why he went ballistic when finding his fabrication ran into reality.
I read parts of the book, George. My brother read all of it and I think endorsed it. What does reading the whole book have to do with knowing what it taught? Have you read everything EGW has ever written? You don’t have to read everything to “get the picture”, do you? So your “yes” or “no” lawyer type question is simply a false dilemma.
That he apparently “worshiped” EGW was his problem. When his delusion and bubble was popped, he was even less objective than he was before. Kind of like people who find out the bible is only infallible for its intended purpose. And when they find “errors”, they are so disappointed they abandon Christanity.
The fact is, I understand the bible, I understand EGW, and I understand the reformation. I have to admit that much of what is written by many SDA “experts” on theology is beyond my comprehension, and quit frankly, I think it is beyond theirs as well. Simply put, I don’t know what they are talking about, and I don’t think they do either.
So I am content with the bible and agree with EGW on her main points like the IJ and other end time scenarios. She simply follows the reformation theology and takes it to its final and logical conclusion. All you have to do is read The Great Controversy to see that.
You make more of what is less important, and then make less of what the objective realities are in her presentations. But, people do that with the bible as well. But I don’t think you will convince nor impress any clear student of EGW and scripture of the importance of many things you and others seem to think are mountains insurmountable about the various issues.
Aage said, “Desmond Ford and Walter Rae changed Adventism permanently.”
Actually, Mr. Rendalen, Neither of these individuals “changed” Adventism at all. They may have “sold” their individual views to some people. Perhaps, many people for that matter. But did not change basic fundamental Adventism a jot or a tittle. That’s because basic historic Adventism is simply an extension of basic bible Protestantism.
You may assume that I support the modern conservative views being presented by some SDA scholars. I don’t. Some of the so-called “conservative” individuals are so “off the wall” they will actually deny the historic Christian doctrine of original sin. Pastor Kevin Paulson is probably a classic case of an individual who is woefully ignorant of the issue of sin and how Adam’s sin has not only affected the human family, but actually infected every child born into this world. He stated on the Spectrum forum a few months ago that “no one is born a sinner.” And his conclusion is that no one is a sinner unless and until they deliberately and wilfully commit some sin they know is a sin. Such a superfical view is scandalous for someone who claims the high level of enlightenment he claims for himself. He simply parrots the late Ralph Larson and Dennis Priebe of the Amazing Facts ministry.
I mention him by name, since it seems we have entered the age of naming any and everyone we think is a false teacher on some level. So he should not be immune from exposure and discussion. I see that some have chided him on Advindicate for some of his faulty theology and superficial ideas on several issues. In the end, what we have in Adventism is open season on anybody and everybody we disagree with, and I am not so sure but this is a good thing. If you can’t support your belief and understanding from the bible, then don’t think you are immune to criticism and challenge.
None the less, I agree with Kevin on several issues, such as male headship, a six literal day of creation, and any opposition to the Gay movement as being acceptable for church membership. What it means is that many liberals have some conservative convictions on some things, and conservatives have some liberal convictions on others. But I hold Kevin’s false view on sin and atonement far more serious than some of the other issues being discussed. Not that other issues are not important. They are. But if you can’t even define sin in its biblical context, how important can all the other issue be?
None the less, pastor Paulson pontificates all over the various forums and attacks everything he assumes is not biblical by his own evaluation. But since he can not define sin, how could he possibly explain the gospel? He can’t. Do I consider him a Christian. Yes. How be it, a very faulty student of church history, Protestantism, EGW, and the bible on a true definition of sin and all that it implies as related to the human family.
Bill,
Rae and Ford did not change SdA orthodoxy. You’re right about that and I never suggested otherwise. If you back and read what I wrote, you’ll see what kind of change I believe they inflicted on Adventism.
I didn’t want to misrepresent your point, Aage. And they did “change Adventism” for some people.
I would like to make a comment about the issue of authority in the SDA church today. And then I’ll “hang up my harp” for awhile.
There seems to be at least three historical times of authority that was and is non-negotiable. Moses was the ultimate authority for the Jews and any attack on it was not tolerated. Korah and his friend found this out in no uncertain terms. This principle held sold ground for hundreds of years in the Jewish community, even at the time of Christ. Thus the spiritual leaders of Jesus day were obsessed with trying to prove that Jesus was not in harmony with Moses. Jesus denied their charge, but we clearly see a non-negotiable locus of authority that all agreed on.
When the Reformation came, they stated one final ground for all authority was the bible. This was also non-negotiable. You could not really be an historic Protestant without acknowledging this basic confession of faith. Just like you could not be a Jew in the spiritual sense if and when you attack Moses.
So, we could call it a “Moses cult”, or a “Protestant bible cult” during the reformation.
Now as for Adventism, we also have a non-negotiable foundation of authority in the church, and it is/was EGW. We could even call it an “EGW cult” in some sense. She believed her views were scriptural and in harmony with Moses and the Protestant Reformation. She tolerated no opposition to her fundamental confession of truth. Namely, Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 to begin the work of a final judgment of the church. This was and is the foundation faith of the SDA church and it is non-negotiable. She ran everyone out of the church who attack this concept, and I think she would have run her husband James, out as well if he attack this non-negotiable concept. So we must ask ourselves individually, “Is her position correct or not?”
If not, we must abandon the SDA church just as surely as a Protestant who would attack the bible must give up Protestantism. Or a Jew who attack Moses must give up Judaism. You can not change these non-negotiable statement any more than a Roman Cathoic can remain loyal to the Catholic church and attack the Pope as the infallible leader of the church.
On these issues, you can not change the spirituality of these various concepts. All you can do is accept them, or, leave the community that holds the view. EGW was/is the spiritual icon of Adventism, just as Moses was/is the spiritual icon of the Jewish people. Unless you honestly consider the reality of what I have stated, you can only become more frustrated as you find the impossibility of “changing the church” on this and other non-negotiable issues.
Bill,
Every church has two identities: it is first of all a spiritual fellowship, but it’s also an organization with an identity defined by ideosyncratic dogmas.Virtually all Christian denominations believe that salvation is free, that God’s grace is what saves humans. This is the position of Roman Catholicism, Adventism, Lutheranism and probably the Jehovas Witnesses. What differs from organization to organization is the stated restrictions on the grace of God. If you’re a Catholic, God’s grace is free, but it can only be dispensed through the Church and its sacraments. If you’re an Adventist, grace is also free, but it is only dispensed to those who accept Adventists dogmas (i.e., if they have lived closed enough to an Adventist church to have been able to stop by and learn the ‘truth’ (this according to EGW). If you’re a Lutheran, the grace of God is free to those who share Martin Luther’s view of the Gospel (probably no longer the operative view within the Lutheran church, but I grew up in a Lutheran country, Norway, at a time when God only saved orthodox sinners; Adventists, I quickly learned, need not apply.)
It is in the nature of religious organizations to set themselves apart and to claim the divine franchise on dispensing the grace of God. Spiritual fellowships are not like that. They are the people who gather around a common religious campfire to celebrate salvation and enjoy the fellowship of kindred spirits. Spiritual fellowships are like the body Paul spoke about in Corinthians; denominations are body parts pretending to be the whole body.
PS. Luther’s view of the Bible was a bit more complicated that what you sketch out. He argued that the ultimate authority in religious matters was the Gospel and he was willing to throw out of the Bible books that did not ‘promote Christ’ (was Christum treibt), such as Revelation and especially the Epistle of James (ironically, probably the NT text that is closest in spirit to the Gospel Jesus preached.) Luther’s point about ‘sola scriptura’ was to limit religious authority to the Bible, with the Gospel at its core.
All churches have a “self stated identity” that is non-negotiable.
And you made this comment, “It is in the nature of religious organizations to set themselves apart and to claim the divine franchise on dispensing the grace of God.”
This is true. And if they don’t do this, they have no reason to exist. What church would do evangelism by stating, “I have nothing unique to share that has any real salvational value, so whether you join us or not, is really not relevant?”
We are aware that Luther was not always consistent, and Melancthon was actually a more comprehensive and even better scholar. You stated that “Luther’s point about ‘sola scriptura’ was to limit religious authority to the Bible, with the Gospel at its core.”
But Luther’s point and the whole Protestant movement was simply, “….to limit religious authority to the Bible,” Period. Certainly he wanted to defend the “gospel”, but he wanted to correct every abuse and error of Rome by way of scripture. And it was not just the gospel. The gospel was subject to scripture as was every other doctrine and teaching. And this was the “non-negotiable” of Luther and every other historic Protestant.
No true Protestant is interested in some “generic” Christanity that has no clear and definitive confession of faith. But you made this statement “Spiritual fellowships are not like that. They are the people who gather around a common religious campfire to celebrate salvation and enjoy the fellowship of kindred spirits.”
If there is no clear definitive confessions of faith, then there are no “kindred spirits” to fellowship with. In Adventism, the “kindred spirits” are those who agree on the 1844 IJ that EGW has clearly identified. But even more definitive for a SDA is the fact the EGW is the “Moses” of the SDA movement. Otherwise, you are not a SDA in its historic definition of itself.
You may even be a Christian on some level, but not a SDA.
I very much appreciated Bill Sorensen’s thoughts! Well put!
Thank you. I hope all is well with you and your Christian experience. Keep the faith.
Bill,
Messianic organizations, such as the RCC and SdAs, believe that the organization is the indispensable vessel that holds the grace of God. This is a perversion of everything Jesus stood for. The movement is not the message. That, unfortunately, is what sectarianism is all about.
The only perversion, Aage, is if and when they have become something that God did not intend. The early church was absolutely the organization as the one and only indespensable means of grace. But only as long it continued in defense of the objective truths commited to her trust. The early church was not the antichrist movement until it abandon its identity and definition and re-defined itself outside the original meaning established by the Jesus and the apostles.
The Roman Catholic church is not the final means of grace precisely because it abandon its true biblical definition. God ordained the SDA movement to be the final Protestant means of grace in harmony with the bible to prepare people for the second coming. We alone have the truth to carry out this mandate. In the last few decades, we have abandon our identity and opted for some generic non-biblical identity by way of a false gospel. Not everyone has done this, of course. But many have.
Only the 1844 message as understood and explained by EGW can motivate and create this final bible community of believers who “reflect the image of Jesus fully” (EGW) In this context, the 7th day Sabbath is the final test of faith in the bible, vs. the authority of man and a “spirit ethic” that stands above the bible.
There is no “unconditional election” for any person, or any church community. Only if the SDA church maintains its original teaching and identity, can it continue to be what God has ordained for it to be and do. More than a few would like to change the church identity by changing the message. If the church eventually opts to abandon the message, then it has also abandon its election, just like the early church.
None the less, God will yet raise up a community of believers who will not fail nor change or abandon the message or their mission. And we should clearly discern that anyone who abandons the message as given by EGW, will also give up the 7th day Sabbath. There is no other option. You can not keep the bible Sabbath without the motivation inherent in the 1844 Investigative pre-advent judgment doctrine.
Rae and Ford pointed out some major realities to the GC. They may have changed the way some SDAs think but unfortunately, they could not reform SDA as the GC refused to admit that some doctrinal change was necessary, (re: 1844, Two Phase Heavenly Sanctuary, the IJ & status of EGW)and accept that some major reforms of these traditional SDA doctrines was needed.
Bill, the idea that grace is hobbled by orthodoxy, that God only shakes hands with the theologically pure, is a distortion of anything Jesus ever said. If theological perfection were the criteria established by God, Adventists would find themselves cut off at the knees when knocking on the pearly gates.Just take a trivial point: what will you answer when God pokes you in the chest with his finger and asks you why you opted for a Catholic version of the Lord’s supper, replacing a meal with a fraction of a cracker and a thimble of juice? And what will you say when he points out that there was no “little horn” Roman power, clerical or secular, in 457BC, when the dubious 2300 ‘year’ prophecy started? And when he asks you what temple was desecrated in 457 BC, how will you get out of that quandary? These are all silly points, but they illustrate that those who live by the theological sword shall die by the same.
Aage said, “Bill, the idea that grace is hobbled by orthodoxy, that God only shakes hands with the theologically pure, is a distortion of anything Jesus ever said.”
Not so. Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
With any kind of reasoning, it is obvious that no one can have any kind of viable relationship with God unless they know who God is and what He requires. Doctrine is simply the rules and boundries of the relationship. So it is impossible to “know the gospel” unless and until you know bible doctrine. The relationship is built on accurate knowledge. God gave accurate knowledge to Moses. Jesus affirmed what Moses said and removed the false ideas that men had formulated by way of human reasoning and speculation. That is, Jesus restored accurate knowledge for the purpose of building a viable relationship with Himself and the Father.
Protestantism was also a system of “accurate knowledge and pure theology”. And affirmed this knowledge was by way of scripture. The “weeding out of human speculation” began again in the Protestant Reformation. False doctrine had infiltrated the Christian church and any viable relationship with God had been convoluted by the same method Satan had used to corrupt Judaism.
God ordained the Advent movement to complete the restoration of truth and prepare the church for translation. This could only happen by pure doctrine and theology. To use the gospel to undermine the function and importance of true doctrine and theology is the same thing as claiming the gospel does away with the law of God.
Since your system of prophecy and doctrine do not fit the historical SDA norm, it should be apparent that you are not, and could not be a SDA. That OK from a point of simple honesty. You should oppose our view of law and gospel, and we oppose yours. Neither will we fellowship based on some “common faith” that has no definitive boundries of who we are and/or what we believe. Neither will I claim you are not a Christian, since I don’t know how you believe what you believe, but I know it is not what I believe. And what I believe is critical to salvation. I simply reject the modern generic Christanity that was formulated by the eccumenical movement. From an historical SDA perspective, it is based on a false gospel.
But I would say this in your defense. Your spirituality represents what may be the modern majority view in the SDA church of today. And more people who profess Adventism could well agree with you and disagree with me. In which case, it seems some kind of split is inevitable. And you will be among the majority and I will be among the minority.
Bill, I left the SdA church in 1981 after a 10 year stint in the ranks (as pastor and writer/editor).I belong to no church and endorse none. From my perspective, Christianity as we know it has little to do with Jesus, especially not those variants that have recreated God in their own image. The idea that Christianity is an evening class in theology and that theological perspicacity will determine your eternal fate is utterly foreign to me.Theologically, you’re still living in the 19th century. That is not an option for most of us, so yes, you’re in the process of becoming a minority even in your church. The conflicts that are rocking the SdA church today is caused by the strain created by the clash of these two centuries. You can only live in the past so long before you become and oddity and worse, completely irrelevant.
Aage, I accept your evaluation as the one I discerned from the beginning. My observation is the spiritual development of Robert Brinsmead who began as a loyal SDA and an avid supporter of EGW and her ministry move in the direction that Dr. Ford advocated during the period you refered to. He was a brilliant scholar and always followed his convictions to their final end. He opposed the liberal agenda in the days of his loyalty and in 1970, made this salient comment.
“Not everything SDA’s have taught is correct……..That we all have much to learn and much to unlearn should not unsettle our faith in the truth of the Advent Movement. But if the concept of what happened in 1844 was proven to be wrong, then we would have to be honest and admit there would not be a redeemable feature in the Advent Movement. That is a matter of simple honesty with ourselves and with the world. Yet we gladly and fearlessly stake everything on the truth of 1844.” The Australian Institute Messages On Justification. page 6 This was in 1970
In the late 70’s he abandon the Investigative judgment and wrote an article entitled “1844 Re-examined” and denied the issues he had previously supported.
Being an honest individual and logical scholar, he abandon Adventism. Did he stop here. No. In a short time he soon attack the bible, the vicarious atonement, resurrection of Christ, the doctrine of original sin, and finally renounced Christanity completely. Today he is quite likely a “human moralist” who embraces human goodness and advocates that we should act accordingly.
Most people don’t progress this quickly. But the final agenda is the same. Maybe ending in a somewhat different format, but always an abandonment of the bible. So I would ask you, do you see any parallel in his spirituality to much of modern Adventism? Both before and after an affirmation of 1844? The church is following Ford and Brinsmead. It is just taking them longer to get there.
Those who believe that unless those who “know” about the “Sabbath truth” but cannot conceive of a god who would judge that as the exclusive doctrine that must be obeyed, will be eternally lost is to state HOW God will judge. Let God be God, and stop attempting to interpret rules not made by Him. John NEVER mentioned Sabbath as a test; Christ never made it a test; it is an exclusive SdA interpretation made to support their adoption of Judaism for Christians. Those who will be welcomed into the kingdom are those who have cared for the less fortunate in their physical needs; not in converting to a set of beliefs.
Not until the “old guard” passes on, will it be realized that in the first world countries there are no longer the college educated who were taught to think, have left the church to the last of the senior citizens.
Bill, given that you completely ignore what I write, there is no point in continuing this conversation.
I don’t think I have ignored what you have written. But your point is well taken as we have both made our points and further discussion is probably pointless. And I consider Elaine’s comment typical. None the less, she has arrived at the obvious conclusion about the Sabbath/Sunday issue and reflects the general thoughts of many who have abandon the SDA church. I appreciate her honesty and yourself as well. Many do not confess the real issue and like Dr. Ford, try to straddle the fence claiming to be SDA while denying the obvious. I suppose time will eventually force everyone to stand on one side or the other. Until then, we can only wait and express our own convictions about the various issues.
The problem does not lie with EGW. The problem lies with the fundamentalists who ignored the pleadings and warnings of the 1919 GC conference committee that predicted unless EGW’s role and function was promoted as they all understood it, dissatisfaction and controversy would arise when people realized that an infallible EGW who was an expert on medical, theological and historical information was being promoted at every turn. Had the church heeded the information discussed, we would not have had a Walter Rea.
It’s not an accident that atheists used fallacious attacks about plagiarism in the Bible and also in Ellen White. In BOTH cases, this tactic is used to get people to ignore crucial principles that greatly improve life which was why God gave this wisdom in the first place. In BOTH cases, some of the content was known to other surrounding cultures, but there were also many new things as well. Some things that Ellen White wrote about have only been confirmed by science in the last 10-20 years.
The issue is how much good we want to experience in life. If there was a bit of borrowing on a couple points…that changes nothing in terms of the good of the writing. The plagiarism charge has done astronomical harm to millions of lives..and THAT is it’s primary purpose and why Satan has used it so much.
Compare for example her statements on the importance of mother’s nutrition on fetal health to what science knew in this documentary. Only in recent decades LONG after EGW died has science caught up with her knowledge on this topic and the same is true for many others too.
BBC Horizon 2011 The Nine Months That Made You
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kad7p_bbc-horizon-2011-the-nine-months-that-made-you-pdtv-xvid_tech
—-
Dr. McCay [Cornell nutritionist] was so impressed by Ellen White’s writings on nutrition that he authored a three-part series of articles for the Review and Herald. Note a portion of his summation at the end:
“To sum up the discussion: Every modern specialist in nutrition whose life is dedicated to human welfare must be impressed . . . by the writings and leadership of Ellen G. White.
“In the first place, her basic concepts about the relation between diet and health have been verified to an unusual degree by scientific advances of the past decades. Someone may attempt to explain this remarkable fact by saying: `Mrs. White simply borrowed her ideas from others.’ But how would she know which ideas to borrow and which to reject out of the bewildering array of theories and health teachings current in the nineteenth century? She would have had to be a most amazing person, with knowledge beyond her times, in order to do this successfully! . . .
“In spite of the fact that the works of Mrs. White were written long before the advent of modern scientific nutrition, no better over-all guide is available today.”8
In the years since Dr. McCay made his observations, scientific advances have confirmed his conclusionsand Ellen White’s concepts about the relation of diet and health all the more strongly.
Salt.
Dr. McCay referred to the difficulty of successfully selecting the right counsel from the mass of incorrect teachings afloat in Mrs. White’s day. One example is the use of salt. Some physicians were literally killing their patients with large doses of salt. Others, such as Dr. Trall, a health reformer popular with Seventh-day Adventists, recognized the cause of these deaths and reacted by forbidding any salt at all, saying that it was a poison.
What was Mrs. White’s stance? “I use some salt, and always have, because from the light given me by God, this article, in the place of being deleterious, is actually essential for the blood. The whys and wherefores of this I know not, but I give you the instruction as it is given me” (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 344). She was not always given the reason, the “whys and wherefores,” but the counsel was sound and safe to follow.
And her counsel has stood the scientific test of time. Confirmation, however, is not always immediate. It took about 120 years for science to establish the truth of her warnings about tobacco. And some things she taught have not yet been confirmed by science. But her “track record” is strong enough that we need not reject those counsels just because science hasn’t proven them yet. And this track record also makes it untenable to say that she just got her ideas from others and called them her own. As Dr. McCay observed, she could not have done this so successfully.
—–
http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/v15n1/02.01.html