The 3abn Massachusetts Lawsuit Poll Options

[Voktar of Zargon]

When Pickle said "if we are going to say EGW is wrong, then we must say Jesus is wrong" he either was lifting her to Christ's level or reducing Christ to hers.

Once one accepts certain attributes that are the sole province of God being assigned to a human not born in a stable circa 4BC in Bethlehem, there is little to prevent their continuing that line of presumption until they believe that EGW is, alone and in and of herself, sufficient to getthem to heaven... that is an argument that has been made here in BlackSDA by an Adventist in "good and regular standing"... so it's not nearly as far fetched as you would like to think.
I have... on more than the one occasion noted above by more than one Adventist.
It could argued that you just made the comparison you just said you never heard made... that said... at no time has EGW's prophetic gift and calling been the issue...for anyone in this conversation and it's disingenuous at best and bearing false witness at worst to continue to reply to posts as if that is the issue. For the record... again... I accept her prophetic gift and her calling; what I cannot and will not accept is the continuing presumption of her inerrancy... because it's not and never was part of said prophetic gift and calling... *according to EGW herself* which is something the inerrancy camp continues to ignore. She said she made mistakes, that she was God's penman and not His pen and she was fallible. The problem is, the whole superiority bent this church seems bound and determined to take requires an inerrant and infallible prophet to God's end-time remnant... and by her own admission that was not the adventure signed up for and it only became entrenched among the rank and file in the church after she was dead beause she rebuked it when she saw it rise up while she was alive.

So the "choice" you present above is fallacious in it's implication...at best.

In His service,
Mr. J

I'm sorry, I thought that questioning the validity of her writings could be equated with questioning her prophetic gift.
I don't think Pickle was lifting EGW up to Jesus level or vice-versa. I think he is just saying that we should give her the same benefit of the doubt that we would give any Biblical prophet (Jesus included). The world wide church does not officially regard EGW as having been personally inerrant, nor her writings as innerrant - nor the writings of the Bible as innerrant. The church does believe that she was as equally inspired as the Bilbical prophets. There is no question that the prophets (excluding Jesus) were fallible. That does not mean that their God inspired messages were likewise fallible. We regard the Bible as infallible. If we are so quick to pronounce the writings of EGW to be fallible, then we should also declare the Biblical writings to be so - for they exhibit the same human imperfections. The fact remains - either she was a prophet or not. If she was, then her writings deserve the same respect that we would give to any other prophet - not the same authority since they are declared to be a "lesser light". Light is still light. If it is filled with fallible and erroneous declarations, can it be called light?

[Clay]

who regards the bible as infallible? How can that be if the people who wrote the bible were fallible? God did not dictate the bible word for word, nor do we believe that, so the bible written by inspired men must be fallible. You guys worry me.... The bible contains correct information about God and what is needed to be saved.... but to attribute to it infallibility... that is a stretch...

[awesumtenor]

I'm sorry, I thought that questioning the validity of her writings could be equated with questioning her prophetic gift.

Wherein lies the difficulty you face; rather than actually responding to what I've said, you are responding to what you think I mean. Such an approach is not conducive to constructive dialog... in addition, perhaps you missed where I flatly stated that I was not questioning her gift of calling... and acknowledging that she had human failings != questioning the validity of her writings... unless of course you believe that in order for her writings to be valid they must be inerrant.

I don't think Pickle was lifting EGW up to Jesus level or vice-versa. I think he is just saying that we should give her the same benefit of the doubt that we would give any Biblical prophet (Jesus included).

Biblical prophets made mistakes; it should then follow, if the end stated here is what you seek, that there should be no problem then with acknowledging that EGW was not inerrant or infallible... and yet, if it is pointed out that she was incorrect in this point or that, the immediate pavlovian response is to defend her inerrancy by making the reader out to be errant in his comprehension or to make such a question out to be an attack on the validity of her writings and a rejection of her prophetic gift.

I submit to you that EGW herself rejected such a pedestal while she was living... why then must you persist in trying to put her on it posthumously? Is not that tantamount to attacking what she said about her own prophetic gift? You have been quick to quote her when she says what her gift is... why are you so reluctant to even acknowledge what she says it is not?

The world wide church does not officially regard EGW as having been personally inerrant, nor her writings as innerrant - nor the writings of the Bible as innerrant. The church does believe that she was as equally inspired as the Bilbical prophets. There is no question that the prophets (excluding Jesus) were fallible. That does not mean that their God inspired messages were likewise fallible. We regard the Bible as infallible. If we are so quick to pronounce the writings of EGW to be fallible, then we should also declare the Biblical writings to be so - for they exhibit the same human imperfections. The fact remains - either she was a prophet or not. If she was, then her writings deserve the same respect that we would give to any other prophet - not the same authority since they are declared to be a "lesser light". Light is still light. If it is filled with fallible and erroneous declarations, can it be called light?

The church's official doctrine is not the issue here; it's the variants and divergences from said doctrine that one finds among the members in the pews... and the bible is not infallible, my friend.. it's flaws do not render the gospel it preaches null and void but it is still not infallible... as EGW puts it in Selcted Messages, vol. 1:

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. {1SM 21.1}

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). {1SM 21.2}

Seeing that God, as a writer, is not represented, while the testimony of scripture is, in the overall, faithful and true, this is in spite of the flaws and foibles of the men that wrote it. It is only in the context of EGW's fallibility that the true value of her writings stands forth. Once she is made out to be inerrant, she is either the automaton of God.. which is bad... or is being equated with God, one who was not privileged to think it not robbery to be equal with God. Not wanting to be put on such a pedestal explains why she would respond to an inquiry by saying

Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the Word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light...

Until your position inclines toward the official stated position, you will continue to be in a position where you attribute to EGW that which is solely the province of God... and don't think for a moment that God is not paying attention.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Seraphim7]

Okay, I'll be more plain: Over several decades I have had membership in or have regularly attended at least 16 churches in at least 9 states across the continent, and have rubbed shoulders with folks of various theological leanings, including folks at a number of supporting ministries, and not once have I ever heard or read anyone make the following statements:
...
We have enough problems with getting criticism from others without providing mischaracterizations that they will then wrongly cite as authority in their warfare against us.

I repeat: I do not presently believe that anyone can cite any Adventist anywhere taking the above positions, and I more than welcome being proven wrong.

In other words, because you have not personally heard the above statements, in your experience, you are calling AT a liar? Frankly, that is unacceptable. I have witnessed said commentary often enough myself in my years as an Adventist. Just recently, during this year on Memorial Day weekend, the elder in PA, at the church where we visited made the assertion that one must achieve sinless perfection... now I KNOW what I heard. Now, either you have heard said comments in your lifetime, in a round about manner and have ignored them or, maybe you have not. But, the reality is that that is YOUR experience alone and it is not your place to call the experience of another a lie. You can not tell anyone else that they are fabricating or, mis-characterized what they know they have heard/experienced personally. That dog won't hunt.

As my grandmother would say, keep on living.

[Seraphim7]

Sure! Why not? But I don't think Standish, Spear, Grosboll, Larsen, and others that might be of their persuasion have ever said such things. I think WB is correct that they would deny, for example, that anyone can be sinlessly perfect in and of themselves.


No, it doesn't work for me. You are entitled to your opinion, and I certainly don't feel like I have to convince you. But I am not going to sit by silently and let my church and faith be maligned by false statements that are posted for all the world to see. If the statements are true, that's another matter, but the statements are false.

And in the rare case that someone can find some kook that will dare to say that they believe some of those things, the opinions of one lone kook should not be used to discredit and criticize the entire movement.

BTW, what AT stated was not an issue of giving his "opinion." It was based on what was heard not what he thought he heard. I know this because I was there. Now, whether you choose to believe that or not is your business but that does not make it any less the truth simply because it is not something you have experienced.

[PeacefulBe]

I have found myself repeatedly gasping at the profundity of exposition each of you have so eloquently demonstrated on this provocative issue. While it does not appear that any consenus of thought will be attained, the discourse was fruitful nonetheless for I, once again, find myself ever so thankful for my simple mind.

All right then. Carry on!

[Pickle]

EGW != Jesus. The moment you start making that comparison ...

I made no such comparison.

But if the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, then we all agree that the one who testified through Isaiah and Matthew was none other than Jesus by His Spirit, and that anyone who disregards those Bible books is in essence disregarding what Jesus had to say. See 1 Pet. 1:10, 11.

[Pickle]

When Pickle said "if we are going to say EGW is wrong, then we must say Jesus is wrong" he either was lifting her to Christ's level or reducing Christ to hers.

You misunderstood my point. Critics who quibble over Ellen White's interpretation of "with" in Gen. 3, if consistent, must also quibble over Jesus' interpretation of the word "with" in 1 Sam. We're talking about the same basic point in the two Bible stories, and the same English word.

Any crtitic who won't quibble over Jesus' interpretation of "with" in 1 Sam. should cease complaining about Ellen White's interpretation of "with" in Gen. 3, especially since their quibble makes Adam out to have very little brains between his ears.

[awesumtenor]

You misunderstood my point. Critics who quibble over Ellen White's interpretation of "with" in Gen. 3, if consistent, must also quibble over Jesus' interpretation of the word "with" in 1 Sam. We're talking about the same basic point in the two Bible stories, and the same English word.

Any crtitic who won't quibble over Jesus' interpretation of "with" in 1 Sam. should cease complaining about Ellen White's interpretation of "with" in Gen. 3, especially since their quibble makes Adam out to have very little brains between his ears.

Seeing that I brought up neither 1Sam nor Gen 3, what does either have to do with your continued avoidance of my question?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

Pickle, thanks for your comments, but you believe what you believe my brother, I choose to believe differently. Your proof texts do not support your position, but that's your belief and its working for you. As I said, the sda church cannot say it is the remnant church, at best it can say it is a part of the remnant. Your comments are simply apologist propaganda for the church... I ain't feeling it.....

I would feel more comfortable if you would say that you believe that the church can't say such and such rather than that it can't say such and such. Especially given what Jesus testified by His Spirit through His prophets.

But we don't have to agree.

[Pickle]

who regards the bible as infallible?

One of my favorite authors appears to have, at least to some degree:

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible" (1SM 416).

[Pickle]

In other words, because you have not personally heard the above statements, in your experience, you are calling AT a liar?

No, I am not.

Just recently, during this year on Memorial Day weekend, the elder in PA, at the church where we visited made the assertion that one must achieve sinless perfection... now I KNOW what I heard.

I never called into question that someone may have made a statement like that, I called into question that someone may have made the statement that we must achieve sinless perfection in and of ourselves.

I welcome being corrected, but on a point like that I'd like to see or hear some documentation.

[Pickle]

Seeing that I brought up neither 1Sam nor Gen 3, what does either have to do with your continued avoidance of my question?

You didn't bring up those passages. I did. And it was my bringing up those passages that you misunderstood as equating EGW with Jesus.

Not sure what question I am avoiding.

[Pickle]

Okay, now I see your question. Here's maybe a better way to answer it:

"Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony" (GC vi).

[awesumtenor]

You didn't bring up those passages. I did. And it was my bringing up those passages that you misunderstood as equating EGW with Jesus.

Not sure what question I am avoiding.

The question of what to do when EGW is wrong... so far you have argued that if she is wrong, she's not wrong; the reader invariably is... changing the issue to something not asked. My question remains unaddressed... and I don't think things will get any better in that regard... so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

I think we're done here.

In His service,
Mr. J