Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

[estesbob]

estesbob said:

I have no problem with your comment. I do not consider you to be picking on SDAs.

I simply do not see this aspect in exactly the same way that you see it.

So why did God wait 1800 years and then pick Ellen White to reveal that all who had went before her had it wrong ?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

. . . all who had went before her had it wrong ?

That is not the SDA position. We believe that God used and lead many in the 1800 years that you mention. I suspect that you and I might disagree on who some of those people were. But, I also think that we would agree on some of them.

The SDA Theologian Norman Gulley, writing on pages 99 & 100 of: Systematic Theology: God as Trinity (Andrews University Press, 2011, 676 total pages.) mentions several important contributions of the Council of Nicaea and also includes other Councils both in the body of his work and in footnotes.

I could list other examples, to include other books, and writers as well as Ellen White. But, such would go well beyond what is possible in a forum such as this.

I simply provide that one reference as an example of current SDA Thinking in what is a very large book.

A 2nd source for current SDA thinking is:

Paul Petersen & Robert McIver, Biblical & Theological Studies on the Trinity. 2014, Avondale Academic Press, 249 pages.

 

[Pythons]

pythons:

I believe that your two comments were neither fair nor accurate.

You clearly disagree.

I guess that we will have to move on at this point.

As I have said, Over a period of years, Ellen White moved from a personal understanding of the nature of Christ that contained some semi-Arian elements to a more Trinitarian view.

Yes, the SDA Church has also so moved.

However, this issue is really not as clear as some would make it. The reality is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not well understood and early Adventist leaders condemned that doctrine on the basis of false understandings of what was involved.

Like estesbob,pointed out - it’s odd that God would wait for 1800 years past the death of His Son on the cross…
…And THEN after all that time affiliate with a Church you admit was non-Trinitarian in teaching.
…It’s difficult to understand that Gregory & we mean no offense at all.

If we could transport ourselves back there to that time we would hear William Miller’s message…
…His message was ONLY repent because Jesus is coming on “X” then “Y” then “Z” dates.
…That was it - there was no other message!

Gregory:

In SDA thinking, there is no magisterium of infallible interpreters whose statements of belief must be considered normative for its members.

You don’t need a magisterium when you have a prophet that dictates what Scripture is and isn’t…
…The SDA Pioneers were “ANTHROPOMORPHITES” so Ellen produced visions about seeing Satan with “flesh”.
…She went on to claim that THAT teaching meant everything to SDA’s as a people.

Gregory:

As to Ellen white: Her views transitioned over a period of years that stretched from about 1850 to 1906. During that period of time she moved to a Trinitarian position. In Adventist thinking, she was not infallible.

I realize this - I think estesbob’s point was that it’s not logical for a person to claim to be a prophet of God…
…Then go on to teach error all the while producing “visions” ( supposedly from God ) to bolster the position.
…Of individuals who even the SDA Church leadership now admits were heretics.

If you lived back at that time and heard Miller’s frantic message AND your friend said wait…
…It’s good to repent and give your heart to Jesus but Jesus said NO MAN will know the day or the hour of the 2nd Coming.
…This makes sense to you until you watch Ellen flop around on the floor for a while then sit up and recount her “visions”.
…Visions that compound the error by supporting what the millerites were teaching about the timing of the 2nd Coming.

Please understand we are not trying to be mean but just trying to reason with you and get a better understanding…
…Of where you come from in these theological positions - we have questions but they will be coming from our understandings.

Gregory:

f
I am quite willing to acknowledge this movement from a position that contained some error to a more biblical position. But, I strongly believe that in the two comments that you made about her, your did not fairly represent her. As you disagree, I guess we shall simply have to move on.

I am quite willing to continue to discuss in the same spirit that we have been generally doing.

Ok, that’s all I was hoping for to be honest - that there was error & Ellen White’s production of visions…
…Didn’t help correct the error - it only compounded it.

I really wish I could find something of significance in Ellen’s writings that would show her to be supportive of the Trinity…
…Everything I’ve found that she said could be agreed to by those who you agree were against the Trinity Doctrine.
…Especially the points about the possibility of Christ sinning and loosing His eternal salvation.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

estesbob said:

So why did God wait 1800 years and then pick Ellen White. . .

I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding involved in this question.

God has always had His people. God has always been leading a people. That leading has been consistent form the time of Christ to the present day.

NOTE: I am not commenting on the activity of God to lead a people prior to the time of Christ.

Yes, we believe that God lead in the establishment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But, that does not mean that the SDA Church is the only group that is doing something that God has given them to do. If you know SDA writing well, you will know that Ellen White speaks positively of the ministry of the Salvation Army, a recognized Church with clergy.

I (We) believe that God gave Ellen White to us to guide us in our development as a denomination. Other denominations were mature in their development. They did not need any guidance from her. We did.

Ellen White’s guidance was substantially administrative. It was not doctrinal, as applied to our foundational doctrines. Yes, we do have some teachings that are not required for membership that come from her and may not be based upon a solid Biblical foundation.

In short, Ellen White was a gift to us as a denomination that we needed at that time to guide us in our development as a denomination. Her ministry was needed by us and not by other denominations.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

You don’t need a magisterium when you have a prophet that dictates what Scripture is and isn’t…

Both the teaching of the SDA Church and of Ellen White herself is that her writings must be subject to the authority of the Bible. The Bible is not to be subject to her. If you believe that there is a conflict, the Bible should rule.

As to William Miller; Yes, he taught one message the soon coming of the 2nd Advent. Yes, he never accepted a number of the doctrines of what became the SDA Church.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

pythonss said:

Please understand we are not trying to be mean but just trying to reason with you and get a better understanding…
…Of where you come from in these theological positions - we have questions but they will be coming from our understandings.

I understand and accept that as a valid basis for discussion. I would expect nothing else.

The same applies to me. My purpose, as is yours, is to get a better understanding.

I expect frankness. That frankness , at times, may become heated. That is O.K. as long as it has appropriate boundaries.

So, If I think you have not been fair, and/or inappropriate in you use of quoted material, I will tell you so. I fully expect that you will respond to me in telling me that you think I am wrong.

I can live with that.

Blessings on you.

 

[Pythons]

pythonss said:

I understand and accept that as a valid basis for discussion. I would expect nothing else.

The same applies to me. My purpose, as is yours, is to get a better understanding.

I expect frankness. That frankness , at times, may become heated. That is O.K. as long as it has appropriate boundaries.

So, If I think you have not been fair, and/or inappropriate in you use of quoted material, I will tell you so. I fully expect that you will respond to me in telling me that you think I am wrong.

I can live with that.

Blessings on you.

No problem here Gregory, I appreciate you’re being here…
…I will be on later today & I think I have a way to better illustrate what I’m ( and some others ) are saying / thinking.

God Bless

 

[patmiron]

=GregoryMatthews;13201081]QuestLove, you ask about your brother-in-law and his belief in Christ as Michael the Archangel:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is Trinitarian. As such it believes that the 2nd person of the Godhead was incarnated in human form to be our Savior/Redeemer. That person was fully God, without beginning and of the same substance as God the Father. IOW, that person was NOT a created being.

NOTE: As I said, we are Trinitarian. In my wording above, I am NOT stating that there are three gods. There is one God in the person of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

There is a trend of thinking within the SDA Church that the Biblical term Michael applies to Christ. In brief, that thinking is based upon the following ideas:

1. The term “archangel” references the one who is in charge of the angels. It does not reference a “Chief angel.”

1. Michael is typically described in the Bible as being in direct conflict with Satan. This is better understood as a conflict that involved Christ as God, and not just a created angel. See Jude 9, Revelation 12:7, Daniel 12:1 & Daniel 10: 13 & 21.

1. At the 2nd Advent the dead are raised to life by God, Christ, the Son of Man. see John 5:28.

1. I Thessalonians 4:16 tells us that the Lord (God, Christ) raises the dead at the 2nd Advent with the voice of the Archangel.

Inserted from the Douay Catholic [the Original Bible] by PJM … Please keep in mind that the Original bible is a Catholic Book

16 “Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air: and so shall we be always with the Lord” SORRY but I see no Michael reference here:shrug:.

NOTE: This is a brief statement as to our Biblical understanding on this issue

.

I will be the 1st person to tell you that I do not believe that the Bible is conclusive. I understand why others believe that the name Michael does not apply to Christ.

Frankly, the important issue to me is whether or not Christ is a created being. As SDA teaching is that Christ was not a created being, I Do not consider the issue of whether or not Michael is a name for Christ is important

“Created being” to ME is a dubious term.

Jesus Christ is; was and shall always be BOTH True God [a Spiritual Reality] with His fully Divine nature and at the same time and forever; a “man like us” in every way BUT sin possessing His Human Nature… and yes this is bionically grounded. “I and the Father ARE One”; then reread Luke 1:26-36:thumbsup:

The issue of Michael as a name for Christ is not an important issue for SDAs. I have probably spent more time discussing this in this forum than I have spent in the last 20 years discussing it with SDAs!

You would have not trouble being a SDA and believe that the name Michael did NOT apply to Christ.

So, you tell me that Ellen White believed that the name Michael applied to Christ. O.K. Ellen White never claimed to be infallible and she was NOT infallible. Could she have been wrong on this point? Yes. Was she? you decide. It is not my mission in life to convince you on this subject.

Thank you so very much for such an interesting post:thumbsup:

God Bless you!

Patrick

 

[estesbob]

estesbob said:

I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding involved in this question.

God has always had His people. God has always been leading a people. That leading has been consistent form the time of Christ to the present day.

NOTE: I am not commenting on the activity of God to lead a people prior to the time of Christ.

Yes, we believe that God lead in the establishment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But, that does not mean that the SDA Church is the only group that is doing something that God has given them to do. If you know SDA writing well, you will know that Ellen White speaks positively of the ministry of the Salvation Army, a recognized Church with clergy.

I (We) believe that God gave Ellen White to us to guide us in our development as a denomination. Other denominations were mature in their development. They did not need any guidance from her. We did.

Ellen White’s guidance was substantially administrative. It was not doctrinal, as applied to our foundational doctrines. Yes, we do have some teachings that are not required for membership that come from her and may not be based upon a solid Biblical foundation.

In short, Ellen White was a gift to us as a denomination that we needed at that time to guide us in our development as a denomination. Her ministry was needed by us and not by other denominations.

But per SDA theology he was leading his people wrongly. And then suddenly after 1800 years he reveals to .Elen White the truth . You simply cannot paper over the profound theological differences between the SDA and other Christian denominations , especially the Catholic Church . So we are left with two options, either the SDA got it right and everybody that went before them got it wrong ( which presupposes an incredibly inept god ) or the SDA got it wrong . I believe the latter as I cannot believe that Jesus rose the dead ,. ascended into heaven and then left us on our own for eighteen hundred yenars

 

[GregoryMatthews]

estesbob said:

But per SDA theology he was leading his people wrongly. And then suddenly after 1800 years he reveals to .Elen White the truth . You simply cannot paper over the profound theological differences between the SDA and other Christian denominations , especially the Catholic Church . So we are left with two options, either the SDA got it right and everybody that went before them got it wrong ( which presupposes an incredibly inept god ) or the SDA got it wrong . I believe the latter as I cannot believe that Jesus rose the dead ,. ascended into heaven and then left us on our own for eighteen hundred yenars

I would never want to “paper over” the major differences in theology between Seventh-day Adventists and the Catholic Church. Major differences do exist. I would not paper over major differences in theology with other Protestant denominations. Those differences will be either less or more dependent upon the specific denomination. But, they will likely be more with the Catholic Church.

However, regardless of those differences, I believe that SDAs have some points of agreement with the Catholic Church and dependent upon the denomination some points of agreement with other Protestant denominations.

A major point of discussion with me has been related to the Trinity. I believe that SDAs, Catholics and many Protestants can agree together on this important doctrine. It is possible that there may be some minor points of seeing tings differently. "But, I believe that we are united on this to the extent that we cam agree that we are all orthodox Trinitarian, which is important.

I am fully willing to state that in the developmental days of our denomination, there was a strong, emphasis on some views of the Trinity that were not correct and that to some extent Ellen White was included in those views, although probably not as strongly as were others. But, I will suggest that the SDA Church of today has moved beyond those early views and today is officially orthodox Trinitarian.

A lot of discussion has related to a SDA application of the name Michael to Christ. T his would be important if in SDA thought this suggested that Christ was a created being and not fully God. It would be a major issue. But, SDAs, today, do not say that about Christ. At this point, this is not in any way an important issue for us. I do not have a need to convince you that we are correct. When you say that we are wrong, I do not feel it necessary to challenge you. As I have said, I do not believe that the Bible conclusively teaches that the name Michael can be applied to Christ.

Ellen White is of course an issue that has been discussed at some length. My perception of comments made to me about EGW is that you place her in a role that is neither our belief and teaching, nor that is what she taught about herself and her role. IOW, I perceive you as placing her in a role that is not Biblical and should be rejected.

I do not attempt to convince you that she should fill the role that we give to her. What I would like to do is to help you to understand that we see her is a different role than you seem to think she has. To be specific, I would want for you to understand that we place her and her writings under the authority of the Bible and not the other way around. And I would want you to understand that we do not believe she was infallible. She was subject to error in her personal beliefs.

Ellen White had a 3rd grade education. She grew in knowledge spiritually as must any human. Her understanding on a number of issues, to include the Trinity grew over the years and was not the same in 1906 as it had been in 1850.

 

[Pythons]

Hi Gregory, in post #103 you said:

Gregory:

Both the teaching of the SDA Church and of Ellen White herself is that her writings must be subject to the authority of the Bible. The Bible is not to be subject to her. If you believe that there is a conflict, the Bible should rule.

As to William Miller; Yes, he taught one message the soon coming of the 2nd Advent. Yes, he never accepted a number of the doctrines of what became the SDA Church

I’ve heard this before, but in all honesty Ellen “qualified” this teaching by her teaching on what Scripture really is.

Ellen White
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." (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One “The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers”)

It’s not lost on me that one of the names Ellen White is known by is “pen of Inspiration”.

penofinspiration.com/

stepstolife.org/php/view_article.php?article_id=1429

orangenjsda.org/from-the-pen-of-inspiration/

It would appear that above Ellen made it clear that the Bible does not reflect God’s mode of though & expression…
…Ellen classifies her own writings as reflecting exactly what God wanted people to know.
…Of course via Ellen White.

Ellen White
As soon as I take my pen in hand, I am not in darkness as to what to write. It is as plain and clear as a voice speaking to me, ‘I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go’” (2MR 319).

Ellen White
There are those who say, ‘Someone MANIPULATES her writings.’** I acknowledge the charge**. It is One who is mighty in counsel, One who presents before me the condition of things” (1MR 30).

Ellen White
We MUST follow the directions given through the Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White’s writings]. … God has spoken to us through His Word. He has spoken to us through the Testimonies to the church and through the books that have helped to make plain our present duty and the position that we should now occupy." (Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 298)

Ellen White
These books contain clear, straight, unalterable truth and they should certainly be appreciated. The instruction they contain is not of human production." (Letter H-339, Dec. 26, 1904)

There are MANY other equally explicit statements that would appear to cast Mrs. White’s writings / teachings…
…In a category at a minimum equal to the Bible & at a Maximum an authoritative commentary on what the Bible means.
…This, I would argue is well past the authority the Catholic Church claims for it’s Pope.

Well, what do you think?

 

[Pat_Albertson]

No, that is an innovation started by Jehovah’s witnesses and, unfortunately, being copied by some Protestant denominations.

If my memory serves me correctly, I think this belief is also characteristic of the UFO sect known as Urantia.

 

[Pythons]

If my memory serves me correctly, I think this belief is also characteristic of the UFO sect known as Urantia.

I do know Ellen White claimed to have went “off-world” & visited extraterrestrials on different planets…
…My questions is does anyone know if she every said any of the other early Pioneer SDAs’ also went off world.
…Or, was she the only one allowed to communicate with the E.T.'s?

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I do know Ellen White claimed to have went “off-world” & visited extraterrestrials on different planets…
…My questions is does anyone know if she every said any of the other early Pioneer SDAs’ also went off world.
…Or, was she the only one allowed to communicate with the E.T.'s?

I know less about Ellen White and Seventh Day Adventists than I do about the Urantia book, and all I know about Urantia is from having listened to a few of their online lectures after having heard about it on Coast to Coast.

I suspect, although I do not know for a certainty, that CAF probably wouldn’t want me linking to their site, but it is easy enough to find if you google it. Their official site is one of the first references to Urantia that comes up.

The Urantia book is exceedingly large, so not very many people have ever either read it or listened to it all the way through. I listened to parts of it, but I tended to fall asleep while doing so. It is interesting to listen to, and even rather relaxing in a soporific sort of way. I don’t regard it as theology so much as I do as a kind of entertainment, a voice in the night, sort of like Coast to Coast.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons quoted:

Ellen White
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." (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One “The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers”)

Yes, your quotation came from page 21,

The paragraph immediately after what you quoted says:

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.

Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that God dictated the original words that a Biblical writer recorded in what became the Bible. IOW, we reject what has been called verbal inspiration.

While I have an idea, I am not totally certain as to where Catholics are on this issue. so, I cannot say with certainty as to whether or not we agree.

Here are some other statements of EGW, taken from the same book that you referenced:

But the Lord has preserved this Holy Book by His own miraculous power in its present shape–a chart or guidebook to the human family to show them the way to heaven. page 15{/quote]

NOTE: Her reference was to the Bible.

I take the Bible just as it is, as the Inspired word. I believe its utterances in an entire Bible. page 17

Pythons said:

It would appear that above Ellen made it clear that the Bible does not reflect God’s mode of though & expression…
…Ellen classifies her own writings as reflecting exactly what God wanted people to know.
…Of course via Ellen White.

I disagree with you. While Ellen white did not believe that God dictated the Bible word by word, she clearly believed that The Bible could be trusted to contain God’s message, even if expressed in human thought.

Ellen White also said:

Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to my by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation. page 37 ]/quote]

and

in regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning. page 37

Pythons, whether you understand it or not, you attribute to the writings of Ellen w ite more than she claimed and ore than we as a church give to her.

Yes, we do believe t ha god used her to give advise us in our developing days. But, she was not the authority over the Bible. The Bible was not to be understood in terms of Ellen White. Her writing were to be subject to the Bible and under its authority.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

It’s not lost on me that one of the names Ellen White is known by is “pen of Inspiration”.

penofinspiration.com/

stepstolife.org/php/view_…rticle_id=1429

orangenjsda.org/from-the-pen-of-inspiration/

Regardless you need to understand it in the context of what we teach/belive about her.

1. You reference to the Steps to Life ministry, of John Grosboll, is to one of the biggest critics of the SDA Church. In no way can he be considered representative of the Seventh-day Adventist. Church. Here is one of the titles of a document that he wrote:
   When The Devil Becomes A Seventh-day Adventist - John Grosboll . Please do not hold him up as an example of Adventism. He would object to that.
2. As to your reference to penofinspiratioin.com: I suspect that it is an independent ministry. But ,I can not conclusively say much about it. IOW, its relation to the SDA Church is unknown to me at the present time.
3. The Orange SDA Church. This appears to be a real SDA Church. I Do not have the
4. Yes, the term “pen of inspiration” has been used by Adventists in reference to EGW. time to go into this any more this evening and reserve the right to make further comment at a later time.

 

[Pythons]

Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that God dictated the original words that a Biblical writer recorded in what became the Bible. IOW, we reject what has been called verbal inspiration.

While I have an idea, I am not totally certain as to where Catholics are on this issue. so, I cannot say with certainty as to whether or not we agree.

Catholics don’t believe that either

Gregory:

Here are some other statements of EGW, taken from the same book that you referenced:

But the Lord has preserved this Holy Book by His own miraculous power in its present shape–a chart or guidebook to the human family to show them the way to heaven. page 15{/quote]

NOTE: Her reference was to the Bible.

I’m not saying she didn’t or doesn’t reference the Bible - I’m only showing what she said about the Bible…
…I.E. that the Bible doesn’t convey God’s own thoughts and expressions.
…Ellen White said SHE DID via her writings and oral statements on theological matters.

Because, according to Ellen, in contrast to the Bible writers, Ellen was given the actual words to write down.

Gregory:

I disagree with you. While Ellen white did not believe that God dictated the Bible word by word, she clearly believed that The Bible could be trusted to contain God’s message, even if expressed in human thought.

There is no disagreeing with me in this…
…I never suggested that’s what I thought.
Gregory Quotes Ellen White:

Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to my by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation. page 37

What she has “seen” - these would be her “visions”.

Gregory:

Pythons, whether you understand it or not, you attribute to the writings of Ellen w ite more than she claimed and ore than we as a church give to her.

Yes, we do believe t ha god used her to give advise us in our developing days. But, she was not the authority over the Bible. The Bible was not to be understood in terms of Ellen White. Her writing were to be subject to the Bible and under its authority.

I will attempt to illustrate it better then.

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I** would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays**.–Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

It would appear that these companies of “learned & devoted men” came together with their Bibles…
…& some things they just couldn’t figure out even with their Bibles ] & they would get stuck.
…The power of God then comes into Ellen White & she was able to determine truth FROM error.

Therefore, these “new” teachings, especially those things that differ from Historic Christianity ( Catholic / Orthodox / Protestant Theology )…
…DIDN’T come “from the Bible” - they were affirmed by Ellen White via special revelation.

Ellen did go on to warn that to ignore her teachings was to insult the Holy Spirit.

Ellen White
In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. **In these days he speaks to them by **the Testimonies of his Spirit" (Testimonies, Vol. 4, p. 148; Vol. 5., p. 661)

Ellen White
If you lessen the confidence of God’s people in the testimonies he has sent them, **you are rebelling against God **as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abirum" (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 66).

That’s pretty direct I’d say - it would seem the evidence supports the claim that Ellen White officially interpreted what the Bible meant…
…This would put her in a place of power far past the Bishop of Rome.

I’m hoping you will look these quotes over and compare them with what I’ve been saying since we started the discussion…
…I don’t feel like I’ve misrepresented Ellen at all - nor do I believe that the average SDA would dispute the meaning I’ve given these quotes.
…I’m thinking the only thing going on here is that this information is withheld from the newbies & given to the more advanced levels of membership.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons said:

Regardless you need to understand it in the context of what we teach/belive about her.

1. You reference to the Steps to Life ministry, of John Grosboll, is to one of the biggest critics of the SDA Church. In no way can he be considered representative of the Seventh-day Adventist. Church. Here is one of the titles of a document that he wrote:
   When The Devil Becomes A Seventh-day Adventist - John Grosboll . Please do not hold him up as an example of Adventism. He would object to that.
2. As to your reference to penofinspiratioin.com: I suspect that it is an independent ministry. But ,I can not conclusively say much about it. IOW, its relation to the SDA Church is unknown to me at the present time.
3. The Orange SDA Church. This appears to be a real SDA Church. I Do not have the
4. Yes, the term “pen of inspiration” has been used by Adventists in reference to EGW. time to go into this any more this evening and reserve the right to make further comment at a later time.

My only point with the URL’s was that “pen of Inspiration” is simply a code word for “Ellen White”…
…That along with Spirit of Testimony - ‘testimonies’ , & “the lesser light pointing to the greater light”.
…Most people would miss the part about 'The Pen" in Ellen’s writing about the Bible writers.
…& how the Bible writers did not reflect God’s thought and Expression but Ellen did.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

My only point with the URL’s was that “pen of Inspiration” is simply a code word for “Ellen White”…
…That along with Spirit of Testimony - ‘testimonies’ , & “the lesser light pointing to the greater light”.
…Most people would miss the part about 'The Pen" in Ellen’s writing about the Bible writers.
…& how the Bible writers did not reflect God’s thought and Expression but Ellen did.

Pen of Inspiration: Yes, we have used that term to refer to EGW.

Spirit of Testimony: I believe you meant to write Spirit of Prophecy, which we have also used. I have never heard of the term that you used.

Lessor Light pointing to the greater light: This term is a clear statement that the writings of EGW (the lessor light) are subject to the authority of the Bible (the greater light).

I will suggest that there is a lesson here that we can profit from discussing related to your inclusion in your list of a website that actually comes from a major critic of the SDA Church.

First, I do not blame you for doing so. But, I want to discuss this in a later post. In this post I will address another issue.

As you well know, Protestant critics of the Catholic Church sometimes will accuse it of worshiping idols and/or dead saints. The defenders of the Catholic Church respond by saying that this accusation is false. They then attempt to clarify how the Catholic Church actually considers (and relates to) images of the saints, Christ and the Virgin Mary. This defense changes no minds and the critics of the Catholic Church continue unabated.

You will never see me making that accusation. I will differ from Catholics in regard to the use of images and the role that saints play in Christian life. You would consider my differences to be major. However, I will never make the accusation that I have said is made by others. I do not think that I would be treating you fairly to do so. In addition, I believe that I must take at face value the Catholic response as to the role that they assign to those images. That Catholic assigned role , in my thinking, rules out may making the charge that is made by others.

There is a sense in which I feel like you have, in these discussions, done to me exactly what others have done to you on the issues that you bring up. You say: Ellen White and the SDA Church teaches X. I say: No, her position and the position of the Church is Y. The response is then to the effect of Yes she and you do teach X. NOTE: My use of the word “you” includes several of the people who are posting here in the discussion with me.

Let me talk a bit bout how I see myself in this forum and the discussion that we are having: I have a graduate background in counseling. As part of this, I have been trained in regard to being clear about bias and agendas.

Bias: I am SDA Clergy. That does give me a bias. But, by acknowledging it I can attempt to control it and be fair and objective. Perhaps not perfectly. But, I am better off than if I refused to acknowledge it.

Agenda: It is not to either convert or to attack. but, I do have an agenda in coming here which includes:

1. I want to clarify what is main-line SDA belief and practice. Frankly there exists a spectrum of belief and practice. When I say something is SDA teaching, you can accurately respond that you know of deviations for what I have said. The SDA Church probably allows a greater spectrum of belief and practice than most people realize. I simply want to be able to tell you what is main-line belief and practice.

NOTE: I see a spectrum in belief and practice in the Catholic Church.

1. I want to listen to and respond to the issues that you bring to me. That is an agenda of mine. I do not want to say: I differ with you on X, so we need to talk about it. If X is of not interest to you and you want to talk about Y, then let us talk about Y.

As a Federal chaplain, I have worked closely with a number of RC priests. Over the years I have brought many questions to them as to what the official teaching of the Catholic church was on issues that were of interest to me. They have always been quite willing to respond to me. From one priest I got a book on Canon Law. (That type of stuff interests me.) As part of my job as a Federal chaplain, I kept an up-to-date copy of the Priests Manual in my office. NOTE: It is available on the Internet. from the Archdiocese for Military Services, USA.

NOTE: I am gaining value in these discussions. My discussion here differs in several respects from the discussions that I have had with RC priests during my years of Federal service. Those differences are of value to me in that they provide me with an additional perspective on the Roman Catholic Church. By the way, I like to include the word “Roman” and I know that I could also say Latin rite. Just a personal preference for me that is not a major issue. So, I trust that it is not offensive for me to do so.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

In the above post, I stated that I cannot blame you for including John Grosboll’s website in your listing.

In litigation of some years ago, a major leader of the SDA Church testified in Court to the effect that the SDA Church was similar to the Catholic Church in regard to its top to bottom lines of authority. I agree with the essence of what he said. However, there are differences.

It is true that the SDA denomination is not a congregational type of church. However, much to the fear of many leaders, it is slowly moving in that direction. Regardless, there are two areas in which the local congregation has ruled and denominational leadership effectively has little that it can do about them. These are:

1. The authority to determine who are members and who are not.
2. The authority to elect whomever it wants as local leaders–not the pastoral staff.

Yes, SDA policy does have some formal means to address the above issues. But, from the practical standpoint, they are not effective and really the hands of the denomination are tied except in extreme cases. It can expel an entire congregation from the denomination. But, that can take several years to do so. On occasion it does do that. There are independent congregations that exist today what have either been expelled from the denomination, or have left on their own.

The reality is also that there is a very conservative, or even fundamentalist, element that often establishes either fully, or semi, independent organizations. 3-ABN is one example.

The result of all of this is that differences exists within the SDA membership in regard to what it means to be a SDA in belief and practice. It also means that variation exists among individual congregations and their pastors. Various Adventist congregations are considered to be conservative, liberal or perhaps something else.

One issue that is divisive in the denomination is the role that females should have in spiritual nuture and congregational life. As a result, the SDA Church has taken a position that cannot be rationally defended by any standards. Some of our critics on this issue accuse us of taking a Catholic position. Some of our clergy have been accused of being Jesuit priests who have infiltrated into the denomination to lead it astray!

Anyway, what about the role of females: We currently allow them to be clergy, in some places only, but we do not “ordain” them. We “Commission” them. My Protestant friends who know of the role that Ellen White played in our denomination find this to be beyond belief. The practical result of this is that according to the official interpretation of denominational policy, a female cannot be elected to the position of a Local Conference President, but a female can be elected to the position of an International General Conference Vice-President as one has been so elected.

NOTE: We actually have a female who has been elected as a Local Conference President. But, she is not recognized by our International headquarters.

Why do I tell you all of this? I tell you this simply to illustrate that the SDA denomination is complex and I cannot fault people who do not correctly understand it in belief and practice. In responding to you, I am attempting to sort this out and inform you of what is main-line SDA belief and practice. But, what I tell you may not be what you have observed.

I hope that this clarifies somewhat. But, I suspect that it probably will raise more questions. If so, I will be glad to discuss them with you.

Have a good day.