The following is a response I posted on a blog I found criticizing the Seventh-day Adventist church. As usual, there were a lot of erroneous statements as well as much undue focus on Ellen White. You may find it interesting to see what some misinformed people believe about the Seventh-day Adventist church. The original post can be found by clicking here.
Wow, this is one of the most inaccurate posts I've ever seen about Adventists. I hope you did this unknowingly and are not intentionally lying.
1. "The SDA church also publishes two of their own Bible "translations": The Study Bible and The Clear Word Bible." - NOT TRUE.
Any "Study Bibles" out there are regular translations such as NKJV, KJV, etc, which have study NOTES in them. They are not translations. "The Clear Word Bible" is a paraphrase from one man done as a personal devotional for himself, and is NOT endorsed by the Seventh-day Adventist church. Most SDA preachers use the NKJV, with some using NIV and KJV, etc.
2. "according to SDA's dogma, if an SDA does not accept Mrs. White as infallible, they have no salvation!" - NOT TRUE.
I have never met an Adventist who believes or teaches this, and it is certainly NOT the official position of the church. That is ridiculous. Whether one believes or disbelieves the counsel of Ellen White has nothing to do with salvation.
3. "SDAs believe that one can have immortality only on the condition that he comes to Christ through Ellen G. White; i.e., a works program, following salvation by grace with light of revelation through Ellen G. White as the infallible guide to Holy Scripture, apart from which one cannot have immortality.3 Then, at resurrection day, the body will be re-created (necessary because of soul sleep) for all those who believe in White's guidance and teachings (while non-SDAs will remain in "soul sleep" forever; i.e., will cease to exist [annihilated] and will not suffer everlasting torment). " - NOT TRUE.
SDAs teach that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and not of works, lest anyone should boast. Christianity 101. Again, Adventists do not teach that salvation has anything to do with accepting Ellen White's counsel. Adventists do not believe that non-SDAs will remain in in the graves forever. First of all, Adventists teach that most of those who are part of what Jesus called the "resurrection of life" will not be Adventists at all. Secondly, those who did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (notice it has nothing to do with Ellen White) will not just stay in the grave forever. Adventists teach that "the rest of the dead lived not again until after the 1000 years" - Revelation, and that they will "have their part in the lake of fire (hell)", and will be in the "resurrection of damnation" according to Jesus Christ.
4. "Christ. Mrs. White: "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature"...According to SDA, then, Christ acquired a sinful nature! Of course, if this could have been so, there could have been no sinless sacrifice, no hope for sinners, and no Savior." - NOT TRUE.
The Bible says "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Cor 5:21
So yes, Adventists believe what the Bible teaches: that Christ took our sins upon Himself to save us. He took what we deserve, and gave us what He deserves. Again, Christianity 101.
5. "Therefore, one must keep Old Testament dietary and ceremonial laws, paying particular attention to keep the Saturday Sabbath and the Ten Commandments, and most importantly, making sure to faithfully pay the tithe." - NOT TRUE.
Adventists do not teach that salvation comes by keeping ANY law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Adventists teach that we should follow the dietary laws because God made our bodies and knows what is best for them, and studies have shown that Adventists live longer and have less diseases than the rest of the world. (check articles about the "Adventist Health Study" by ABC News, Good Morning America, National Geographic) Adventists teach the very opposite of what your post says about the ceremonial laws. Adventists teach that ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ, were a shadow of things to come, and were nailed to the cross. Adventists also teach that paying tithe is between you and God, and they do not meddle in the finances of their members.
6. "SDAs are not "allowed" to experience assurance of salvation, because then there would be no pressure on them to keep the Old Testament law, as interpreted by Ellen G. White, and especially no pressure to pay the tithe" - NOT TRUE.
Adventists teach we can have assurance of salvation. They do NOT teach the false doctrine of "once saved always saved." Adventists teach what the Bible teaches, that we have free will and can choose to walk away from Christ and away from heaven.
"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins"
"Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him. But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul." Heb 10:26, 38, 39.
7. "Many rank-and-file SDA members deny that their organization any longer decrees Ellen G. White a God-inspired prophet." - NOT TRUE.
Most Adventists do, and should, believe that Ellen White was inspired by God. It is indeed the official position of the church. Most Adventists do, however, understand that believing Ellen White is NOT salvational.
8. "Yet EGW made numerous false prophecies: that "Old Jerusalem never would be built up" (Early Writings, p. 75), that she would be alive at the Rapture (Early Writings, pp. 15-16), that Christ would return before slavery was abolished (Early Writings, pp. 35, 276), that Adventists living in 1856 would be alive at the Rapture (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 131-132), and many more." - NOT TRUE.
The Bible is clear that God makes conditional prophecies. Jonah is not a false prophet, yet he prophesied: "And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”, but they repented and, "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." - Job 2:4,10.
Many of Ellen White's prophecies concerning the return of Christ were also conditional upon God's people repenting and turning to Him, and fulfilling the great commission.
9. Ellen White quotes teaching salvation by works: ""Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny ... though ... forgotten by us, they [our works] will bear their testimony to justify or condemn"" - NOT TRUE,
If that statement is teaching salvation by works, then so is the Bible and Jesus.
Eccl 12:14, "God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil."
Rom 2:15 "who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them"
Matt 12:36 Christ speaking, "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment."
10. Ellen White quote teaching salvation by works: ""When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life ..." - NOT TRUE.
1 Jn 1:9, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
We must repent of our sins to be forgiven and cleansed. If we don't, and they are not forgiven and cleansed, then we know the "wages of sin is death." This is not teaching salvation by works, but is again Christianity 101.
11. Ellen White quote teaching salvation by works, ""Each one of you needs to ... [be] working with your might to redeem the failures of your past life. God has placed you in a world of suffering to prove you, to see if you will be found worthy of the gift of eternal life"" - NOT TRUE.
Certainly Christians believe in the concept of restoration. If we become Christians, shouldn't we pay back anything we've stolen, or try to make right any wrongs we've done to people in our past lives?
Works do not save anyone, but they do prove that their conversion is genuine. As James says, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.", "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.", "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." - Ja 2:18,24,26. Was James teaching salvation by works?
And as the reformer William Tyndale said: "The fruit that grows on a tree does not make the tree good or bad. It only makes known whether the tree is a good tree or a bad tree. Works do not make a man good or bad. They only make it plain to other men that he who performs those works is good or bad. The man is reconciled before God by faith alone and works are only to make this justification known before men." Was Tyndale teaching salvation by works?
And as Christ said, "By their fruit you shall know them." and "He who abides in Me bears much fruit." Was Christ teaching salvation by works?
Please, I beg you to consider carefully when presenting your views about the Adventist church...take the time to actually learn what Adventists really teach and believe instead of taking the words of other people.
Let's make sure the Bible is used as our sole source of truth.
First-class thinking without ambiguity! The clearer biblical truth becomes, the easier it is to express it simply. Just as Jesus did. Too many want to make Jesus into a philosopher, which leads only into obfuscation and endless blogs. May your tribe increase! Cheers, Herb Douglass
ReplyDeleteMr. Douglass, you're comments are very appreciated! You hit the nail on the head, "too many people try to make Jesus into a philosopher." In my book (and God's), simple truth is simple truth. Many blessings!
ReplyDeleteWow, Mr. Douglass I just did a quick Google search to find out who you are and was surprised to find out that you're kind of a "big wig" in the church. I am honored that you took the time to grace my little corner of the blogosphere with a visit.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to stop by and give any guidance or correction you might have for me.
Thanks again!
Todd
I have already posted 3 other articles that discredit E.G. White. As a false prophet and a plagiarist. Your defending a religion that was established and built upon a plagiaristic false prophet. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteI will stand on the article I posted. I would like to challenge you to prove to me that E.G. White didn't plagiarize her supposed prophecies from God.
especially when i found a copy of a newspaper from the 1800's that calls her a plagiarist.
Travis
18. The Gift of Prophecy:
ReplyDeleteOne of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)
Just in case you try to say you don't follow the teachings of E.G. White.
Please notice the phrase,"continuing and authoritative source of truth." I wonder does that include the plagiarized prophecies and the retraction of her denial of the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Please enlighten me.
If I am wrong prove it so(if you prove it I will pull all the articles from my blog) if you can't I expect an apology.
You are loved in Christ
Travis
I just posted this on my blog
ReplyDeleteCalled into question
I was recently challenged by a member of the SDA church. His challenge was toward a post I placed here a few weeks ago. The post calls the SDA church a cult. He has called me an SDA basher. I challenged him to show me that E.G. White is not a plagiarist. If he does so I will pull all the posts I have here on the SDA church and apologize. If not I hope he will be man enough to do the same.
I am a man of my word
If I am wrong I will post a public apology to you on my youtube page as well as my blog
I am not a basher. I posted that article after I finished debating with an adventist apologist. She was attempting to defend E.G. Whites position that Jesus took on a sinful nature. I posted the article based on that debate.
You are loved in Christ
Travis
You say all this and refer to an newspaper article that you could not possibly now if it is true or just more bashing..
DeleteHey man, I appreciate the comments, I am running late for class but I will look these over more carefully later and give you an response. For the record, I do believe Ellen White is a prophet and I do, as far as I know, follow her counsel. I don't read a lot of her writings but am familiar with her teachings on various subjects. The reason I don't read her writings that much is because I feel it is of utmost importance for me to first and foremost become familiar with the Bible cover to cover.
ReplyDeleteThis view is, in itself, actually following her counsel though. She said, "Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and you make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White Said' —'Sister White said this,' and 'Sister White said that,' and 'Sister White said the other thing'. But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.'"
Ok I'm back and this is what I have to say:
ReplyDeleteIf you read all my quotes from your article and my responses to them, you'll notice that they were not focused at all on Ellen White but on Adventist doctrine and teachings.
All Adventists (I hope) are aware that Ellen White borrowed from other writers to communicate the ideas she needed to communicate. You can call it plagiarism if you'd like to put a nasty spin on it, I hear most Adventist say she "borrowed."
So I'm not disputing that fact. My opposition to your post is not your opinion of Ellen White...I could care less what you or anyone else thinks of her.
My opposition is the false statements you made about Adventist teachings and beliefs.
What amazes me is that you, a professed Christian, could make a statement like "I will stand on the article I posted" when I have made it so apparent that there are blatant lies contained in that article.
So, in response to your challenge to prove that Ellen White didn't "plagiarize," I decline and further more admit freely to you, as all Adventists should, that she did sometimes use things written by others. I could debate about whether or not there is anything wrong with that, or even whether there is Biblical precedent for Prophets using the writings of others, but that is not the reason I posted on your site.
I posted on your site for one reason, to show you the falsehoods contained therein. I have a counter-challenge to you: edit the portions of your article that are blatant lies, since Christians should not lie.
Unfortunately you still have this in your doctrinal statement,"18. The Gift of Prophecy:
ReplyDeleteOne of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)"
As long as the SDA church calls her an authoritative source of truth" you will be held to her writings. If you noticed everything in the article came directly from E.G. White's writings. It's all footnoted. If you don't believe she said it check the footnotes. If you don't want to be held accountable for her heretical teaching and plagiarism remove her from your doctrinal statement. It is always possible that I missed something when I reviewed the article (I am human) But I did check it. All the references checked out. (as far as I could tell) If you find one that is inaccurate I will pull the article.
P.S. thank you for your honesty and desire to stick to the word of God. Hopefully we can discuss soul sleep some other time I have to many irons in the fire right now.
You are loved in Christ
Travis
Travis,
ReplyDeleteYour quotes from Ellen White are all fine and good. The error is found in the portions of your article which contain opinions and assertions about the Adventist church from others.
Such as this:
"SDAs believe that one can have immortality only on the condition that he comes to Christ through Ellen G. White; i.e., a works program, following salvation by grace with light of revelation through Ellen G. White as the infallible guide to Holy Scripture, apart from which one cannot have immortality."
That statement is flat-out wrong about what the Adventists believe.
Will you remove the statements like the one above?
Thank you also for taking the time to converse with me about the topic, I appreciate it.
I will pull the entire article. Today.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with it.
On a personal note will you answer one question fro me?
How can you hold a woman in such high esteem knowing that she plagiarized a large majority of her writings? Wouldn't it make more since to come clean? Wouldn't it make more since to admit that she was a false prophet? Why not just repent of the past leave her and her "supposed" prophesies behind and start with a fresh look at the word of God?
If it were me I would repent of all her teachings and move on in my relationship with God. That being said I'm a little perplexed by your newest post.
you are loved in Christ
Travis
Wow, I didn't think you'd really remove the article. Thank you. Not that it matters what I think, but it really does make me think you are sincerely saying and doing what you believe is right.
ReplyDeleteYeah I will answer your questions.
I hold her writings in such esteem because from the little I've read of them, mainly Steps to Christ and some of Desire of Ages, what I've read is truth. What I've read in those books is all about God's love and forgiveness. So, to me, it doesn't matter if she used words that others used to express the truth...as long as it's still truth.
In my view, a false prophet is one who teaches falsehoods...teaches lies. I haven't found any falsehoods in her writings so I can't call her a false prophet.
I don't need to repent of her teachings, because they are her teachings, not mine. Like I've said before, I follow the Bible, not Ellen White.
It's like this, if I said "The Christian life is a bundle of choices." No one who believed that would need to repent of it. First of all, it's true. Second of all, just because it's not my original writing, but Jim Hohnberger's, that doesn't change whether the statement is true or not.
Trust me, if I ever find things in her writings that are false teachings about God, I will be the first to proclaim she's not a prophet.
The whole Ellen White debate doesn't concern me too much, since right now I'm just interested in the Bible. Perhaps at a later date, when I begin to read more of her books, the issue will be of more importance to me. Right now, though, the doctrines and beliefs of us as Adventists is what is important to me.
You said,"In my view, a false prophet is one who teaches falsehoods...teaches lies. I haven't found any falsehoods in her writings so I can't call her a false prophet." Is it a falsehood to claim to be speaking prophetically when in fact you are plagiarizing someone else's work? What would you consider falsehood? If she claimed to be the voice of prophecy and copied her ideas from someone else at the very least she is a liar the very worst she is a false prophet. I could show you many of her less than biblical statements but It's your job to Test all things hold-fast to that which is true and abstain from every form of evil.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I will tell you,"I am a Pastor my life is the word, whether I'm counseling or preaching I am always in the word. In the future don't be so quick to judge another Christian and dismiss their claims, They may be warning you of great danger as I am in E.G. White."
I'm sure we will speak again in the future, until then Dios Ti Bendiga
Travis
Please keep in mind the SDA doctrinal statement calls a plagiarist(a liar) an authoritative source of truth.
ReplyDeleteWould you expect a Pastor to practice willful deceit?
Remember 1 John 1:5-9 especially vs. 6 and 8
How can someone who is practicing deceit be an effective tool in Gods kingdom?
Love ya
Travis
I don't think presenting truths that were revealed to you by God, using someone else's words that stated those truths very clearly, is falsehood.
ReplyDeleteThis might explain my view...if you can imagine for a moment that Ellen White never used anyone else's writings. Those other writings just didn't exist. THEN, if you look at her writings and find falsehoods about God, then I'd consider her a false prophet.
I look at the information presented.
If you show me that she claimed to have never used anyone else's writings, then I might consider her as deceitful.
Enjoy the debate.
ReplyDeleteEllen G. White Contradicts
the Bible Over 50 Times
By Robert K. Sanders
Click here for:
CONTENTS of EGW CONTRADICTIONS
ADDENDUM to EGW Contradictions that came later.
CONTENTS OF ADDITIONS TO THE BIBLE
This list of contradictions is compiled by Pastor Sydney Cleveland, former Pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Robert K. Sanders, former Elder and 37 year member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as of 1994.
Revised June 2002
This list is revised to include the rebuttals of Seventh-day Adventist Apologists that call themselves "Volunteers at Ellen-White." They are challenging Ellen White's Bible contradictions by saying we have taken them out of context. I am giving their rebuttals in VIOLET and then our replies to rebuttals in GREEN and RED.
This will let you the reader judge whether or not EGW contradicted the Bible.
"There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written." — Ellen G. White, Letter 329A, 1905.
EGW: All the lessons which God has caused to be placed on record in His word are for our warning and instruction. They are given to save us from deception. Their neglect will result in ruin to ourselves. Whatever contradicts God's word, we may be sure proceeds from Satan. Patriarchs and Prophets, page 55, paragraph 2.
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22 NIV)
Ellen White was one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church back in the middle 1800s. She claimed to receive communications from God through visions, dreams, and angelic visitors. Though long dead, Seventh-day Adventists continue to claim Ellen White was a genuine prophetess, and they commonly refer to her as "the Lord's Messenger" to the Church.
The original document, "Examples of Ellen White Contradicting the Bible, was written as a direct challenge to Ellen G. White's followers to compare her writings to the Bible. Seventh-day Adventists are fond of quoting Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" -- mark it carefully, this text did not say there is some light in them, it said "there is no light in them!" Now, on the basis of Isaiah 8:20, let us see if Ellen White agrees with the supreme definer of truth: the Bible. If she does, then there is truly "light" in her. If she does not agree with the Bible, then she is a false prophet leading Seventh-day Adventists into utter darkness."
What to look for in the apologist's rebuttal and our reply.
1. What we quoted was truly what EGW actually said and wrote; therefore Ellen White’s apologists cannot claim we misquoted her. So there is agreement among us that she actually said the things we have quoted.
2. Because Ellen White may have agreed with the Bible in one section of her writings does not excuse her for contradicting the Bible in other parts of her writings. Since Ellen G. White repeatedly contradicted herself as well as Scripture, she repeatedly fails the test of a true Bible prophet.
3. When faced with Ellen White’s many contradictions of Scripture and contradictions of herself, apologists argue: "you have taken EGW statements out of context." So the question you, the reader, must first decide is: have we have taken her statements out of context, or have her apologists taken them out of context? We have always included the full references with each statement we quote so readers can study each one in context. We are confident the evidence clearly demonstrates to our readers that we have told truth!
4. The APOLOGISTS at Ellen-White website call us "D&D" to “protect our identity.” We have never hidden our work under the shadow of anonymity. Instead, we have always had our names clearly published as the originator of this document, and we publish our names on our respective web sites. No one has every had to wonder who we are. However, Ellen White’s apologists apparently are ashamed of their work, for they do not have the courage to list their names or backgrounds as of this writing!
5. In their rebuttals, the apologists have at times used many words and circular arguments in order to confuse the issue. To paraphrase King Solomon: “many words are found in the speech of a fool” (Ecclesiastes 5:3). We have presented facts in the briefest, clearest possible manner. For more information you can e-mail us.
The SDA Church agrees that the cannon of the Bible closed 2000 years ago with the book of Revelation. They also tell us that Ellen White's writings are not an addition to the Bible but are just as inspired as the writers of the Bible. This concept, both in theory and practice makes EGW's writings equal to the Bible as far as the average Seventh-day Adventist is concerned. By their accepting Ellen White as a prophetess and "Messenger of God", they unwittingly open the cannon of the Bible. In this they are no different from other cults who likewise proclaim the supremacy of their prophets and leaders.
1. WAS THE PLAN OF SALVATION MADE AFTER THE FALL?
EGW: YES "The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race" (Great Controversy, p. 347).
BIBLE: NO "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:18-20).
BIBLE: NO "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (Ephesians 1:4).
NOTE: The Gospel of salvation through grace by faith in Jesus Christ was already in existence before the creation of this world. EGW contradicts the Bible by claiming the plan of salvation was devised after the fall of Adam and Eve.
Apologist: Here D&D quote Ellen White saying that the "kingdom of grace" was instituted and the plan was "devised" immediately after the fall. What they failed to quote was Ellen White's statements that the plan had actually existed long before that (see Desire of Ages, p. 22, third paragraph in particular): "The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam..." And this statement in the same book, p. 147: "...every act of Christ's life on earth was in fulfillment of the plan that had existed from the days of eternity." There are numerous statements like this in her writings. To get a balanced view of what Ellen White really said about this issue (and in its proper context) we recommend the chapter entitled "The Plan of Redemption" in the book Patriarchs and Prophets.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologist's argument is EGW got it right in other places. We agree with this, but here is the problem. The Apologist tries to confuse the issue by saying EGW got it right in a different place while hoping you will not see that she got it wrong in our quotation: "The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race" (Great Controversy, p. 347).
2. Scripture states a plan was not "devised" after the fall of man by God but before the world was created!
3. Here EGW contradicted the Bible; made God a liar, and the apologists are defending EGW’s errors.
Apologist: The Bible has several texts like the ones listed above placing the Plan of Salvation before the creation of the world, but Revelation 13:8 is a bit ambiguous and says that Jesus was slain at the foundation of the world not before (KJV, NKJV, NIV, AMP, Weymouth, Young's, LTV). Technically Christ was slain "from the days of eternity" was He not? Did the prophet John make a mistake? No. The plan had to go into effect at the Fall of Adam and Eve, but when did Infinite Wisdom foresee sin and the need for a Savior? From the days of eternity, of course. (Some may point out that some versions of the Bible use "the foundation of the world" to refer to when the Lamb's Book was written as opposed to when the Lamb was slain. However, the majority of the Bible scholars who put together the English Bible translations did not come to this conclusion. Of the major Bible versions King James, New King James, NIV, AMP, Weymouth, Young's, and LTV (Green) all point to "slain;" (the NIV says in the margin that it could be written the other way, and the AMP renders it both ways in the text itself). NASB has it pointing to the "Book," with the margin stating that it could be referring to "slain." The RSV and Darby do word it so that that the "foundation" is referring to the writing in the Lamb's Book. Yet even without this text, Ellen White's statements don't contradict anything the Bible says in this regard. She agreed that the plan had been in existence from "the days of eternity.")
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists try to confuse you by saying that we do not know when Christ was slain; was it before the creation of the world or at the foundation of the world? The key word in Revelation 13:8 is the Greek "kosmos" (Strongs #G2889) which means "universe, heavens, earth, world." It is where we get our English word “cosmos” from. In English, “cosmos” means “the universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious whole.” The entire text is speaking in symbolic terms: there is no literal beast, Jesus is not a literal lamb and He was not literally slain at creation. But, through these symbolic terms we clearly understand that Jesus was “as good as dead” from the beginning of the universe – to say nothing about from the beginning of the world. Everything in this text refutes EGW’s apologists no matter how much they try to twist the Scripture!
2. The Bible gives the information we need; He was “chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:18-20). This text tells us it was "before the creation of the world."
3. EGW contradicted the Bible by saying; "The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race" (Great Controversy, p. 347). The Bible tells us the "kingdom of grace" was devised in the eternity that existed long before the fall of mankind. According to Ellen White, her god was caught by surprise when Adam and Eve sinned! But the God of the Bible knew beforehand that that Adam and Eve would sin, set up the plan of redemption and instituted the kingdom of grace. Do you believe the Bible? Or do you believe EGW and her apologists?
2. WAS ADAM WITH EVE WHEN SHE WAS TEMPTED IN THE GARDEN?
EGW: NO "The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger. ... She soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree" (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 53, 54).
BIBLE: YES Gen 3:6 (NIV) 6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Apologist: This is an argument over semantics, insisting that "with her" (KJV, NASB, RSV, Amp & Darby versions, among others, do not include the words "who was" [with her]) means that he had been with her during her entire walk to the Tree and conversation with the serpent. Ellen White was certainly not the inventor of the belief that Eve was alone at the tree. It is also an argument through silence, as well as an attempt to prove a negative.
Consider a few facts:
— In his conversation with Eve, the serpent never acknowledges Adam's supposed presence (Gen. 3:1-5). In fact, Adam's opinion of her decision is never mentioned until he "did eat." (verse 6).
— When confronted by God, Adam doesn't blame the serpent, but casts the blame on Eve (verse 12). Had he been at the Tree at the same time, it seems he and Eve together would have blamed the serpent.
— When confronted by God, Eve doesn't say "the serpent beguiled us, and we did eat" but rather, " the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (verse 13).
Many Bible scholars have taken this position through the ages, long before Ellen White ever commented on it. The words "with her"—given in no specific time frame—are hardly enough evidence to deny all of the circumstances in the above passages.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists argument is that the serpent did not acknowledge Adam's presence therefore he could not be present at the tree. This concept is not true. The Bible tells us that the serpent engaged the woman in conversation not Adam. We do the same in our conversation with two people present. We can talk with one of them looking them in the eye, all the while ignoring the other person present.
2. The Bible writer was telling us that it was Eve that accepted the serpent's challenge and ate the fruit. Eve told the serpent that "WE" may eat, and not "I can eat", which shows that Adam was with her at the tree. "The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,"(Gen 3:2 NIV) "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it" (Gen 3:6 NIV).
3. Adam certainly was not in the south 40 of Eden when Eve gave him the fruit to eat" who was with her". In other words the Bible does not say Eve ate the fruit, then took a stroll across Eden and then handed some to Adam to eat.
The question seems to be what does "with her" mean? The Hebrew makes it clear that "with does not mean apart. "With" in Hebrew; 'im, eem; Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines 'im as: "with, beside, by, among, accompanying. …It expresses the concept of inclusiveness, togetherness, company. … The basic conception conveyed is that of fellowship, companionship, common experiences." —pp. 676, 677. The Hebrew-English Lexicon defines 'im as in the "society of, or in the "company" of someone. —p.196.
1. We will show three Bible examples from many usages of "with her. " You can then see "with her" does not mean apart as the apologist would want you to believe. "Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder.." (Gen 24:15 NIV)
"While he was still talking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep, for she was a shepherdess." (Gen 29:9 NIV)
"And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her." (Gen 39:10 NIV)
2. The apologist contends Adam was not present at the tree because "Eve doesn't say "the serpent beguiled us, and we did eat" but rather, " the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (verse 13). This is simply an admission by Eve that she was the one that was beguiled/deceived by the serpent. She was accepting full responsibility for the sin and did not blame Adam who was "with her". The fact is that the Bible says, "she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." This is also in full agreement with 1 Timothy 2:14 which tells us “Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived.” But then, EGW contradicts this Scripture as well (see #3 below).
3. There is not one word in the Bible that tells us that Eve left Adam's side and was alone at the tree as claimed by Mrs. White and her apologists.
Worm in SDA Apple of God's Eye.
I bet you folks in "Adventist Fantasy Land" did not know that the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL in Genesis 2:16, 17 was an APPLE TREE. EGW has spoken to her SDA Sheep! EGW added to the Word of God!
Writing to Elders Prescott and Daniells on October 11, 1903, she compared The Living Temple to forbidden fruit, and stated: Like Adam and Eve, who took the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and ate it, our own sheep and lambs are swallowing the deceptive morsels or error offered them in the pages of this book. I am instructed to warn our brethren and sisters not to discuss the nature of our God.--Letter 224, 1903.
Why should Christians be warned by EGW not to discuss the nature of God? The Bible does not forbid this but gives us much information about God. For 2000 years Christians have been discussing the nature of God and then in 1903 according to EGW we are not to discuss God's nature. What is wrong with this picture??????
3. WAS ADAM DECEIVED BY SATAN?
EGW: YES "Satan, who is the father of lies, deceived Adam in a similar way, telling him that he need not obey God, that he would not die if he transgressed the law" (Evangelism, p. 598).
BIBLE: NO "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (1 Timothy 2:14).
Note: Who showed E. G. White that Satan deceived Adam, when the Bible says Adam was not deceived? So who is deceiving us?
Apologist: The text here only builds the case against allegation #2 on this list. It was Eve who was at the tree, "deceived," and then her downfall led to Adam's. When we read all that Ellen White has to say about that event we see that her statement here is referring to "Satan" in the general terms of his plan for the couple's fall (much like when we talk of Satan tempting us when in reality it is probably one of the demons that are doing it since Satan is not omnipresent).
This one is like trying to explain if the Pharisees were "deceived" or not when they crucified Christ. In one sense they weren't; they knew that they were killing an innocent man who fit every biblical description of the Messiah (and they would be accountable for their sin). In another sense, they were deceived because they had hardened their hearts until they were self-deceived. Adam had to have been "deceived" in some fashion because after all, he did eat the fruit (had he not been deceived in any manner he would never have done so).
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists say; "Adam had to have been "deceived" in some fashion." It is typical of many SDAs to depart from the plain Word of God in order to support EGW. Here her apologists take Ellen White above the Bible! And they appeal to other commentators who made the same mistake EGW did. Doesn’t this indicate that Ellen White got her ideas about Adam not being at the tree and being deceived from the commentators of her day rather than from Scripture or in vision from God?
2. Does the Bible tell us that Satan told Adam, "that he need not obey God"? Of course not. This is another of EGW's fantasies that the apologists support.
3. The Bible says very plainly "Adam was not the one deceived"
(1 Timothy 2:14). Adam made a choice to disobey God. He did this with his eyes wide open knowing the consequences. Here we see that EGW and her apologists choose to believe a lie rather than believe God!
4. WHO SPOKE TO CAIN?
EGW: ANGEL "Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed: 'If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?'" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 74).
BIBLE: LORD "Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right will you not be accepted?' ... So Cain went out from the Lord's presence" (Genesis 4:6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16).
NOTE: SDAs often try to reconcile this contradiction by claiming the Lord spoke to Cain through an angel. If so, then why didn't the Bible tell us the truth? When Moses wrote this account, why didn't God tell Moses He spoke to Cain through an angel? Why would our omniscient God let Moses write down the wrong thing? And, if EGW is right, then Jesus was wrong when He said in John 17:17, "Your word is truth." For EGW to be right, the Bible, Moses, and Jesus Christ all have to be wrong!
Apologist: D&D left out the sentence in Patriarchs and Prophets that appears just before their Ellen White quote. It says: "And the Lord said unto Cain, 'Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?' "
Here the issue is really that word "angel." The word "angel" means "messenger." The Bible has plenty of examples where the "Angel" of the Lord is referring to God Himself (see Gen. 16:7,13; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; 48:15,16; Ex. 3:2-6, Acts 3:25; 7:30-32; Num. 22:21 through 23:5; Judges 6:11-40; 13:3-22; see also Exodus 23:20,21)
D&D reject this explanation (previously given by Adventists, apparently) insisting that since Moses said "the Lord," the word "angel" cannot be correct. The conclusion is given then, that since Jesus said "Thy word is truth" (referring to the Bible) and since Moses did not use the word "angel" (while Ellen White did) then anyone who accepts this answer is calling the Bible, Moses, and Jesus wrong. We feel that the dozen-plus texts listed above prove otherwise.
Reply to Rebuttal:
The apologists argument is that when EGW says "angel" she means “the angel of the Lord” (who is also the Lord). But their answer required them to add words to the Bible and change what EGW said! Then they try to confuse the issue by bringing in texts which do speak about the “angel of the Lord” in completely different contexts. But when you look at the quote we used it is clear that EGW added the words: “angel messenger.” She did not say “angel of the Lord.” When the Bible speaks of the angel Gabriel for example, does that mean Gabriel is God? In Scripture, God often sent angels to speak to men, but that does not mean the “angels” were God. Genesis 4 does not use the term "angel" even one time. It is the LORD talking with Cain and not an angel.
According to her apologists, EGW knew it the LORD who spoke to Cain. Then why did she contradict herself and Scripture by changing her mind and claiming it was an “angel messenger” who spoke those words? Ellen White was so confused she couldn’t keep her story straight from one sentence to the other, no wonder her apologists are equally confused!
5. DID PRE-FLOOD HUMANS MATE WITH ANIMALS AND GIVE BIRTH TO NEW SUB-HUMAN SPECIES AND RACES?
EGW: YES "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64).
EGW: YES "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75).
BIBLE: NO "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move long the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:24, 25).
NOTE: Five times in these two verses God states that animals can only reproduce according "to their own kinds." Horses cannot mate with birds and produce offspring -- neither can humans mate with monkeys and produce offspring. Even SDA scientists and the Ellen White Estate admit EGW was simply wrong.
Apologist: There have been years of speculation in the Adventist church as to exactly what Ellen White meant by the above two statements (these are the only statements that address this issue in all of her writings). Many have concluded that the phrase "amalgamation of man and beast" (a problem occurring in each group) should not be confused to mean "amalgamation of man with beast" (humans and animals mating).
Here is a typical statement revealing Ellen White's views on the different races of human beings:
"No distinction on account of nationality, race, or caste, is recognized by God. He is the Maker of all mankind. All men are of one family by creation, and all are one through redemption."--Christ's Object Lessons, p. 386
For a detailed essay on this issue, please follow the link below. D&D declare in their conclusion that "the Ellen White Estate admits EGW was simply wrong." This is an untrue statement.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. Over the years, officials of the White Estate, as well as Seventh-day Adventist scholars, theologians and scientists, have stated both publicly and privately that Ellen White’s views on amalgamation were wrong. Many others, apparently fearful of coming out against EGW, dance around the subject but refuse to directly affirm her statements on amalgamation. A quick check of biology departments in SDA colleges and Universities will give the current thinking.
2. One of the first SDA biologists to research whether EGW meant amalgamation of man with animal or simply man with man, was Dr. Harold Clark. "Clark called attention to his work with Ellen White's son, W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, her secretary. Neither of these men ever doubted that Ellen White meant the crossing of man and beast by the phrase "amalgamation of man and beast." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.11. The current “speculation” among supporters of EGW is simply a ruse to circumvent what EGW actually said, and is only necessary because they understand the biological impossibility of what she wrote.
3. The Seventh-day Adventist Geoscience Institute Senior Scientist also believes in Amalgamation of man with beast. Click on: http://www.truthorfables.com/Amalgamation.htm
4. How can animals deface the image of God by amalgamation, as they are not created in his image?
6. DID GOD OR AN ANGEL SHUT THE DOOR OF NOAH'S ARK?
EGW: ANGEL "An angel is seen by the scoffing multitude descending from heaven clothed with brightness like the lightning. He closes that massive outer door, and takes his course upward to heaven again" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 68, written in 1864).
EGW: GOD "... God had shut it, and God alone could open it" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 98, written in 1890).
BIBLE: GOD 'Then the Lord shut him in" (Genesis 7:16).
NOTE: The Bible says the Lord shut Noah in, EGW disagreed in 1864 saying it was an angel who shut the door. Then twenty-six years later in 1890, she changed her mind and wrote that it really was God who shut the door. First she contradicted the Bible and then she contradicted herself. SDAs try to reconcile EGW with the Bible by saying, "Oh, God used an angel to shut the door." If so, then why doesn't the Bible tell us that? Why is it that none of the Bible prophets knew God "used an angel"? Why was this information only available to Christians through EGW? And why does her information contradict every one of the Bible writers? If the OT Bible record was wrong, then why did Jesus say the Bible is "truth" (John 17:17)? For EGW to be right, the Bible, Moses, Jesus and Ellen White herself have to be wrong!
Apologist: Ellen White interchanges the words "angel" and "God." See answer to #4 above. (If we classified every time a prophet used the word "angel" for God as a "contradiction", then the Bible itself would be in trouble.)
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists argument is that the Bible writers interchanged the words "angel" and "God" therefore EGW had the same right to alter the words of the Bible. This is not true, for angels are created beings while God is eternal. It is true Bible writers sometimes use the technical phrase: “the angel of the LORD” to refer to God, but they never call God an “angel.” In a similar way the technical term “the Son of God” refers to Jesus Christ, but the word “son” refers to any male human being.
2. The apologists go on to extend their argument by saying: “If we classified every time a prophet used the word ‘angel’ for God as a ‘contradiction,’ then the Bible itself would be in trouble.” First, the Bible writers don’t use the word ‘angel’ for God; therefore the only ones in trouble here are EGW’s apologists. Second, what we see here we see a standard argument used by EGW apologists: Ellen White is always right and the Bible is always wrong. Over and over again Seventh-day Adventists denigrate the Word of God in order to defend the lies of Ellen White.
3. The real question before us is: Who closed the door on Noah's Ark? Was it the Lord as the Bible tells us or was it an angel as claimed by EGW and her apologists? We choose to believe Scripture over Ellen White.
7. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT BEFORE THE FLOOD?
EGW: YES "This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 301).
BIBLE: NO "After the Flood ... they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 9:28 and 11:4).
NOTE: This was one of the first EGW contradictions that SDAs found and corrected. They claimed it was just a typographical error, forgetting that EGW claimed the "very word" she wrote came from God! "When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 51,52). 1907.
I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing the vision as in having the vision. Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 293.
Apologist: One need only to look in the table of contents in the book which contains the above quote (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3) to see whether or not Ellen White knew when the tower of Babel was built. Note the order of the following chapters of that book:
VI. Crime Before the Flood
VII. The Flood
VIII. After the Flood
IX. Disguised Infidelity
X. Tower of Babel
XI. Abraham
Ellen White writes in the chapter entitled "Tower of Babel" these words: "Some of the descendants of Noah soon began to apostatize.... They built them a city, and then conceived the idea of building a large tower to reach into the clouds..."
With this clear statement, along with the order of the chapters, it seems quite apparent that Ellen White understood when the Tower of Babel was built. So why the statement that seems to indicate the Tower was built before the Flood? The statement should have read "This system was corrupted before the flood, and by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the Tower of Babel." It was corrected to read this way in the very next printing of the book. The typo was caught by the editors long before any critic brought it up. In 1866 the editor of Review and Herald magazine explained the typo and the needed correction to his subscribers, thus clearing up the whole issue. Again, in light of all that was written about the Flood and Tower in Spiritual Gifts, no reasonable person could think that she, in one sentence, nullified the rest of the book. The chapters speak for themselves.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists are repeating the standard SDA argument that this error was a typo. Actually, this was one of the first EGW contradictions that her publishers found and corrected. That work continues to go on under the authority of the White Estate. You might wonder why SDAs think they have a right to change the words that the “Lord’s Messenger” used. Here’s what Paul A. Gordon, head of the White Estate wrote in the Adventist Review, Nov. 19, 1992, pages 8-9: “Is it legitimate to change, abridge, or simplify Ellen White’s writings? The answer is yes. We can change, abridge, or simplify the words, but we do not have license to change the intended message. Here’s why: Seventh-day Adventists do not hold to verbal inspiration. That means we do not believe that God dictated the words for Ellen White to use. … In the years since Mrs. White’s death in 1915, more than 50 new compilations or editions of Ellen White’s books have been prepared by the E. G. White Estate. In every case – including editions that have been abridged, condensed, or simplified – the intended message has never been lost; on the wording has been changed.” Therefore, when you read EGW’s books you are reading what the White Estate has approved – making changes whenever they felt changes were warranted – just as they did with EGW’s Tower of Babel error.
2. Also, notice they justify their changes by saying “Seventh-day Adventists do not hold to verbal inspiration. That means we do not believe that God dictated the words for Ellen White to use.” Here we have the Ellen White Estate contradicting what Ellen White herself said: "When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 51, 52). Seventh-day Adventists have a real conundrum: not only does Ellen White contradict the Bible and contradict herself, but even the Ellen White Estate contradicts Ellen White! Doesn’t it make a lot more sense to accept the Bible account and forget about Ellen White and her errors, lies, contradictions, omissions and the desperate SDA attempts to correct their false prophet?
8. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT TO ESCAPE ANOTHER FLOOD?
EGW: YES "The dwellers on the plain of Shinar disbelieved God's covenant that He would not again bring a flood upon the earth. Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. ... One object before them in the erection of the tower was to secure their own safety in case of another deluge. By carrying the structure to a much greater height than was reached by the waters of the Flood, they thought to place themselves beyond all possibility of danger. And as they would be able to ascend to the region of the clouds, they hoped to ascertain the cause of the Flood" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 119).
BIBLE: NO "Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth'" (Genesis 11:4).
Apologist: It is not a contradiction to give more information or details than the previous account (that is one of the purposes of prophets). Ellen White in no way denies or contradicts what the Bible says, she is just giving more information. All subsequent prophets would be "contradicting" Moses if we judged them this way.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists contend it is all right for EGW to give additions to the Bible. But they do not agree this is acceptable practice for the Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Notice Ellen White’s “additions” to God’s Word generally end up contradicting Scripture. Her additions require SDAs to put her writings on the same level as God’s Word (how else could one “add” to the Bible?), and they violate Revelation 22:18 – “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” By admitting EGW adds “more information or details” her apologists are admitting she deserves to receive the plagues.
2. It is not the purpose of God’s prophets to contradict what former Bible prophets have written. Truth is not progressive; truth is eternally unchangeable. Both Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists teach the false doctrine that “new” truth can explain away “old” truth and thus their false doctrines are accepted as “new truth.” However, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul proclaimed that every “new” truth had to be checked against the “old” truth of the Bible. Any who taught anything which departed from the Bible standard deserved to doubly cursed: “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” – Galatians 1:7-9 3. What was the reason for building the Tower of Babel? The Bible tells us it was to make a name for themselves and not because they feared a flood as EGW claimed.
4. Was the Tower of Babel really built higher than the mountains, which the flood covered? It had to be made taller than the tallest mountain for EGW’s “new” truth to be valid!
9. WHO PLUCKED THE FRUIT?
EGW: THE SERPENT “The serpent plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree and placed it in the hands of the half-reluctant Eve.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 55).
EGW: EVE “Without a fear she (Eve) plucked and ate.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 56).
BIBLE: EVE “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” (Genesis 3:6).
NOTE: Who did it?
10. WERE THE ISRAELITES DESTROYED BY GLUTTONY?
EGW: YES "God granted their desire, giving them flesh, and leaving them to eat till their gluttony produced a plague, from which many of them died." (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 148).
Bible: Num. 11:4 through Num. 11:6 (NIV) 4The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, "If only we had meat to eat! 5We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. 6But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"
Num. 11:31 through Num. 11:34 (NIV) 31Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea. It brought them down all around the camp to about three feet above the ground, as far as a day’s walk in any direction. 32All that day and night and all the next day the people went out and gathered quail. No one gathered less than ten homers. Then they spread them out all around the camp. 33But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague. 34Therefore the place was named Kibroth Hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had craved other food.
NOTE: EGW says the Israelites died because their gluttony produced a plague. The Bible says God struck them with a "severe plague" because they "craved other food". Numbers 11:4, 31-35.
SDAs try to justify EGW's error by appealing to Psalm 105:40 which says: "They asked, and he brought them quail and satisfied them with the bread of heaven." However, Psalm 105:40 refers to the first time God gave His people quail to eat at the same time He began giving them manna (Exodus 16:11-13). There's nothing in Exodus 16:11-13 or Psalm 105:40 about gluttony or people dying because they ate too much meat or manna. Anyone thinking EGW was referring to Exodus 16:11-13 has to admit she contradicted the Bible by saying people died from gluttony when there was no gluttony and no one died from eating quail!
The fact is Ellen White was referring to the second time God sent quail (Numbers 11:13, 18-23, 31-34). God told them He would give them enough meat to eat for a month -- enough to eat until it "came out their nostrils!" The Bible says a wind from God blew quail into the camp until they were piled three feet deep all around the camp. And the Bible says the people went out and gathered quail all day, all night, and all another day. The Bible says after they gathered it, and spread it around the camp, the "anger of the Lord burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague "when the meat was still within their teeth." EGW plainly contradicted the Bible by claiming they died from gluttony when no gluttony occurred in either incident!
Apologist: Do these statements contradict each other? D&D claim that no one had eaten or swallowed any food when God destroyed them, so their gluttony couldn't have been what angered God. The meat was "still between their teeth" for some of them. But do that many people (over a million) eat in perfect unison? Isn't it reasonable to think that while some people were taking their first bite thousands were already well into their second helping? "Come now, and let us reason together" is God's counsel for us (Isaiah 1:18). The Bible said that God struck them with a plague "before it [the meat] could be consumed." Does this really mean that not one of them had already eaten? Can you imagine over one million people gathering quail and all waiting to take that first bite at the same time? Unlikely. No, when it said it hadn't been consumed yet, it meant that the meat had not all been eaten/consumed. They, as a group, were still in the process of eating it when God struck them down (it was "still between their teeth" in other words). As a person starts on his fourth plate of food, he is a glutton before the food in front of him is consumed, even as it is still in his mouth. The conclusion that gluttony had not occurred is unrealistic.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists do not give one text to support EGW's claim that gluttony was the cause of the plague or their death. The apologists tell us they must have had more than one bite in an attempt to support EGW's gluttony claim. Not so. The Bible tells us the plague began with the meat between their teeth AND before it could be consumed or eaten. "There they were buried the people who craved other food." Numbers 11: 34.
2. The reason God brought a plague was because they complained about the diet of manna and wanted a diet like they had in Egypt. READ THE CONTEXT CAREFULLY, THE PROBLEM WAS NOT GLUTTONY. They wanted fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. Numbers 11:4, 5.
3. The people did not need to start eating "in unison" as the apologist tells us for the plague to begin. The plague began while the meat was between THE teeth of the complainers. We do not know how long that it took for each person to die after the first bite or how many plates of food they ate before the plague began. "There they were buried the people who craved other food." Numbers 11: 34.
4. Only EGW brings gluttony and meat into the picture as the cause of the plague and the apologists contradicts what the Bible tells us in order to supports EGW's fantasies. Would the SDAs accept this nonsense if it had been written by Joseph Smith?
11. DID GOD SEND RAVENS TO FEED ELIJAH?
EGW: NO "There He honored Elijah by sending food to him morning and evening by an angel of heaven" (Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 288 written in 1873).
EGW: YES "He who fed Elijah by the brook, making a raven His messenger" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 253 written in 1876).
BIBLE: YES "I have ordered the ravens to feed you. ... The ravens brought him bread and meat" (1 Kings 17:4, 6).
NOTE: In 1873 EGW contradicted the Bible when she said Elijah was fed by an angel. Then three years later in 1876 she changed her mind and agreed with the Bible that it really was a raven. Then, a year after her death, her editors tried to smooth things over by omitting any reference to either an angel or a raven -- they changed EGW's words to say Elijah was just "miraculously provided with food" (Prophets and Kings, p. 129 published in 1916).
Apologist: D&D conclude: In 1873 EGW contradicted the Bible when she said Elijah was fed by an angel. Then three years later in 1876 she changed her mind and agreed with the Bible that it really was a raven. Then, a year after her death, her editors tried to smooth things over by omitting any reference to either an angel or a raven -- they changed EGW's words to say Elijah was just "miraculously provided with food" (Prophets and Kings, p. 129 written in 1916).
The allegation that Ellen White "changed her mind" in 1876 is untrue. She had already stated in 1851—22 years earlier—that God had sent ravens to feed Elijah (A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White p. 45, later to be included in Early Writings, and found on page 56), so she knew all about the ravens when she made the "angel" statement.
The allegation that editors tried to smooth things over by changing Ellen White's words after her death is also untrue for three reasons. 1) Ellen White oversaw and approved any changes that were made, and 2) Nothing would be "smoothed over" or gained by saying "miraculously provided with food" after the previous statements were in print. And finally 3) Even if editors had altered the statement to read this way they were not trying to cover up any reference to ravens, for in that same book (Prophets and Kings) on page 123 a statement about the ravens still remains. This shows clearly that there was no deception on anyone's part to "smooth things over."
But why did Ellen White originally say "raven" and later mention the "angel"? Ravens don't naturally bring food to people, and they certainly wouldn't bring "bread and meat" without a miracle. The angel probably had a part in this miracle just as angels have been behind the scenes of most miracles.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The fact is that the Bible says ravens brought food to Elijah not an angel. Ellen and the apologists just cannot get it right. So they resort to non-Biblical assumptions to justify their false prophet’s contradictions. The fact she “knew all about the ravens” in 1851 makes us wonder why, in 1873, she claimed it was an “angel”? One simply has to conclude that Ellen White was not inspired by God and couldn’t even keep her own stories straight!
2. The apologist tells us, "The allegation that editors tried to smooth things over by changing Ellen White's words after her death is also untrue for three reasons. 1) Ellen White oversaw and approved any changes that were made." This requires EGW to oversee and approve the changes in Prophets and Kings in 1916 -- which was one year after her death (she died in 1915)! The White Estate has made many changes to EGW’s books after her death – see the documentation in our response under contradiction #7. Was the Tower of Babel Built Before the Flood, reply #1.
3. Does the Bible tell us that it was ravens or an angel who brought food to Elijah? Is your faith in the Word of God as the source of truth or is it EGW?
12. DID SAMSON DISOBEY GOD WHEN HE MARRIED A PHILISTINE?
EGW: YES "A young woman dwelling in the Philistine town of Timnath engaged Samson's affections, and he determined to make her his wife. ... The parents at last yielded to his wishes, and the marriage took place. ... The time when he must execute his divine mission -- the time above all others when he should have been true to God -- Samson connected himself with the enemies of Israel. ... He was placing himself in a position where he could not fulfill the purpose to be accomplished by his life. ... The wife, to obtain whom Samson had transgressed the command of God, proved treacherous to her husband" (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 562,563).
BIBLE: NO Judg. 14:3 through Judg. 14:4 (NIV) But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” 4 (His parents did not know that this was from the LORD, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)
Apologist: No Bible student can deny that Samson had indeed "transgressed the command of God" (see above EGW quote) by seeking a wife among the Philistines. God was quite clear in this respect (see Ex. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1,4; Judges 3: 5-6). The Lord knew that by continual association with the Philistine's (and their women in particular) Samson's life would fall far short of God's original plan.
But God uses us where we are. Was Pharaoh fulfilling God's will by not letting Israel go? Yes and no. No, He was not in harmony with God's will, when God clearly told him through Moses "let My people go." But yet the delay was God's will (see Exodus 4:21), because God knew that Pharaoh would harden his heart and by this continued act, God was even more glorified than if he had just said "okay."
Most would admit that although Samson is listed in faith's hall of fame (Hebrews 11) his weaknesses caused him much unnecessary hardship and misery during his life. Had Samson remained faithful to God he would have never been captured by the Philistines and had his eyes put out. Nevertheless, God turned even this pitiful situation into a victory through the strong man's final act of pulling down the pillars and killing more in his death than in his entire life. As with most of these allegations, when the statement is taken in its context (with no omissions) and the entire chapter is read, one can understand the point Ellen White was making.
Left out among the chopped quote above are these words : "He [Samson] did not ask whether he could better glorify God when united with the object of his choice, or whether [and then D&D pick up the quote again] he was placing himself in a position where he could not fulfill the purpose to be accomplished by his life." The omitted first part of this statement summarizes Samson's problem in seeking this woman. Note how differently it reads in its context as opposed to how it was rendered on the "contradiction" list.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. God gave Israel a law forbidding them from uniting in marriage to those outside of the Covenant People. Did Sampson disobey this law? Yes.
2. Did God want Sampson to marry this Philistine woman in spite of this law? Yes. The reason was to defeat the Philistines, which fulfilled Sampson's purpose in life. "The LORD, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)" This is a similar concept to the priests being absolved of working on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:5) and David eating the showbread under an emergency situation (Matthew 12:3-4).
3. Did Sampson by marrying a Philistine place himself in a position where he could not fulfill the purpose in his life as claimed by EGW? No. Sampson fulfilled the purpose that God had for him which was to destroy the Philistines, the enemies of Israel. The marriage was the will of God. Judges 14:4 (His parents did not know that this was from the LORD, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.) EGW and the apologists are wrong again.
13. DID THE HIGH PRIEST CARRY THE BLOOD OF SACRIFICED ANIMALS INTO THE HOLY PLACE EACH DAY?
EGW: YES "The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. ... By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354).
BIBLE: NO Apart from the annual Day of Atonement, the priest only sprinkled blood "before the veil" in the Holy Place on two occasions: (1) when a priest sinned (Leviticus 4:3-12); (2) when the whole Israelite community sinned (Leviticus 4:13-21). Blood was never taken into the Holy Place on a daily basis when a leader sinned (Leviticus 4:22-26), nor when an individual sinned (Leviticus 4:27-35).
Note: Thus EGW contradicted the Bible by saying the sins of the individual were "transferred in figure to the (Holy Place of the) sanctuary" "through the blood" sacrificed on a daily basis.
Apologist: In regard to what happened to the blood after a sacrifice, there were (as D&D pointed out) four different situations. 1)A priest, 2) a leader, 3) a citizen, and 4) the congregation in general. Two of these four required the blood to be sprinkled before the veil, and two required the meat to be eaten so that through the priest's body, the sins would be transferred in figure into the sanctuary.
Where the confusion lies in Ellen White's statement is when she says "the most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals." D&D imply that she means an individual citizen as opposed to the congregation, the leaders, or the priests. But if one reads the entire chapter (or at least the preceding 2 pages) it becomes clear that she means the sacrifice for "individuals" (whether they be leaders or priests or common citizens) as opposed to the ongoing morning and evening sacrifice, the incense burning, and what was done with the shewbread. These were sacrifices and ceremonies that were performed morning and evening, and were different than when a priest, leader, common citizen or the congregation committed an additional sin on their own.
We know Ellen White was not confused about this by a vital statement that D&D left out. It is the very next sentence after they end the quote. It is unfortunate and confusing to readers that this statement was left out. The statement, for all to read, is "In some cases the blood was NOT taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying 'God hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.' Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354,355).
How much more clearly could she have stated it? Ellen White chose to play up on the method that was used for one half of the four situations, because it most clearly points to Jesus' blood. But she did not leave out the fact that this was not done on all of them. This clear statement, coupled with a reading of the entire chapter, shows that Ellen White by no means contradicted the Bible. Keep in mind that if she knew that in some cases the blood was not to be sprinkled before the veil, then she knew when it was not to be sprinkled before the veil. This is in perfect harmony with the Bible.
Reply to Rebuttal:
"In some cases the blood was NOT taken into the holy place;* but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying 'God hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.' Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354,355).
2. Notice the asterisk the publishers inserted after the word “place” in the above quote – it points us to Appendix note 6, p. 761 of Patriarchs and Prophets. There we find the following: "When however, the offering was for a ruler or for one of the people, the blood was not taken into the holy place, but the flesh was to be eaten by the priest, as the Lord directed Moses; "The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it; in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meetings." Leviticus 6:26, R. V. See also Leviticus 4:22-35. The publishers are in agreement with us as they say, "When however, the offering was for a ruler or for one of the people, the blood was not taken into the holy place."
3. Blood was never taken into the Holy Place on a daily basis when a leader sinned (Leviticus 4:22-26), nor when an individual sinned (Leviticus 4:27-35). The blood was placed on the horns of the alter of burnt offerings. Leviticus 4:30.
4. EGW and her apologists are again contradicting the Bible – something even her publishers knew and tried to smooth over by their note in the appendix.
14. DID CHRIST RESEMBLE OTHER CHILDREN?
EGW: Yes 1896 "He was to be like those who belonged to the human family and the Jewish race. His features were to be like those of other human beings, and he was not to have such beauty of person as to make people point him out as different from others" (Christ Our Saviour, p. 9, Edition 1896).
EGW: No 1898 "No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children" (Questions on Doctrine, p. 649, 1957).
Bible: Yes "He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2 NIV)
Apologist: In the first quote Ellen White is talking about Christ's facial features (just as Isaiah 53:2 is). In the second quote she is stating the obvious: that His ordinary face "shining with animation" from the love that poured freely to all around Him, was unlike the other kids. While they were most likely complaining about their chores or arguing or doing all of the other things we all did as children, Christ stood out in that He was constantly the picture of heavenly love. His facial features were not extraordinarily handsome yet His countenance was always kind and "shining with animation."
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. EGW tells us that Christ did not resemble other children as his countenance was "shining with animation." The Bible does not tell us this, so we have her adding to Scripture. The Hebrew word is ta’or (Strongs #H8389) which means “outline, figure, appearance.” It is used of a drawing or sketch and refers to the entire image or form of a person – not just the “glow” on one’s face. So the apologists are required to read this text through Ellen White’s eyeglasses in order to arrive at their conclusion.
2. The apologist defends EGW by saying she was comparing Jesus with children who were misbehaving or grumpy. EGW did not say this it was her apologists. EGW was comparing the countenance of a normal happy child with that of other children when she said, "No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children." I have seen many small children, which have shown a countenance "shining with animation" they were very active and energetic. Thus, Jesus was in this regard just like other children.
3. The Bible tells us, "nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2 NIV) If as EGW claims, Jesus had a countenance, "shinning with animation" then his appearance would be such that people would be attracted to Him even as a child for He would be different from all other children!
4. Once again EGW and her apologists contradict the Bible.
15. WAS THE MAN JESUS CHRIST ALSO TRULY GOD?
EGW: NO "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty" (Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129).
BIBLE : YES "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).
BIBLE: YES "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:7-8).
BIBLE: YES "Therefore God exalted him (Jesus) to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name" (Philippians2: 9).
Apologist: Both Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventists teach that Jesus was fully God even though He became a real man. We disagree with certain denominations that claim that Jesus was a "lesser God" created by the Father. We maintain that He was one with the Father from eternal ages past and Ellen White continually expressed this view. Now let's look at the quote above in its context:
"Christ left His position in the heavenly courts, and came to this earth to live the life of human beings. This sacrifice He made in order to show that Satan's charge against God is false--that it is possible for man to obey the laws of God's kingdom. Equal with the Father, honored and adored by the angels, in our behalf Christ humbled Himself, and came to this earth to live a life of lowliness and poverty--to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Yet the stamp of divinity was upon His humanity. He came as a divine Teacher, to uplift human beings, to increase their physical, mental, and spiritual efficiency. There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Notice in its context that Ellen White made it quite clear that Jesus was totally equal with the Father when He came to the earth. So what did she mean then that Jesus wasn't "Lord God Almighty"?
The key word here is "Almighty" (not whether or not Jesus was "truly God" as the heading of this allegation suggests). Before Jesus became a human, He had:
1) Omnipotence
2) Omnipresence
3) Omniscience
When He came to the earth He laid aside:
1) Omnipotence (He said "I can of mine own self do nothing" [He needed the Father] John 5:30.)
2) Omnipresence
3) Omniscience (He said that even He did not know the day or the hour of His own Second Coming, but only the Father knew [Mark 13:32])
Jesus didn't count equality with the Father a thing to be grasped, but for you and I He became a human and was obedient even to the death of the Cross (see Philippians 2:6-8).
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. This is another case where EGW got it right in one place and got it wrong in another. The apologists tell us, "Both Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventists teach that Jesus was fully God even though He became a real man." But the truth is, EGW did not regard Christ as fully human and fully divine. She held to the heretical Arian belief as to Christ’s nature – just as did James White, Uriah Smith and many other early Adventists. By making this distinction, EGW makes Jesus a lesser “god” – a “mighty” god – but not “Almighty” God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses make this same distinction.
2. How can this be true when Ellen says that Christ was not the "Lord God Almighty?" For whatever reason Ellen White made this statement, it is not Biblical. And if Jesus was just a “man,” while on earth, then when did He become “Lord God Almighty?”
If Jesus is not the Lord God Almighty then the Father cannot be the Lord God Almighty either because Jesus said that He and the Father are one. If the SDAs do not accept Jesus as the Lord God Almighty, then they do not have a Lord God Almighty at all!
Christ was always before and after His incarnation, "the Lord God Almighty." At times as a man, Christ did not display his powers as God and at times He did. He could read the hearts of people, He could tell the future, He could forgive sins, and He could heal the sick. By denying the full deity of Christ, EGW and the apologists contradict the Bible as well as orthodox Christianity, which is the work of antichrist.
Jesus is the Lord God Almighty
http://www.truthorfables.com/J-C-Lord-G-Almighty.htm
16. WHILE TEMPTING JESUS, DID SATAN CLAIM TO BE THE ANGEL WHO HAD SAVED ISAAC FROM CERTAIN DEATH?
EGW: YES "As soon as the long fast of Christ commenced in the wilderness, Satan was at hand with his temptations. He ... tried to make Christ believe that God did not require Him to pass through self-denial and the sufferings He anticipated. ... He (Satan) also stated he was the angel that stayed the hand of Abraham as the knife was raised to slay Isaac"(Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 273).
You may read the Bible from cover to cover and you will not find any evidence to validate this supposed conversation between Christ and Satan.
Apologist: Here D&D don't elaborate very long and offer no texts because there is no contradiction here. This is merely more detailed information. As with so many of these, when such details are given, the information is immediately classified as a contradiction. Even atheists who try to tear the Bible apart don't fault the Scriptures in this manner. For example:
In Jude verse 9 we read: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." Now imagine the argument "You may read the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi and you will not find any evidence to validate this supposed conversation between Michael and Satan." Jude in no way contradicts the Old Testament, yet this contention over the body of Moses is never even mentioned in the Bible previous to this text. Jude also speaks of Enoch prophesying about the Lord coming "with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all..." [verses 14-16]. We have no record of Enoch saying any such thing in the writings of Moses, yet we believe Jude.
Reply to Rebuttal:
The Bible never recorded this conversation between Christ and Satan in the wilderness where Satan said he was "the angel that stayed the hand of Abraham as the knife was raised to slay Isaac." If you believe this “new truth,” then your faith is based on the fantasies of Ellen White and not the Word of God.
The EGW apologists present an illegitimate argument by quoting Jude’s comment about the body of Moses. This is just a smoke-screen to confuse readers. It may come as a surprise to the apologists, but the book of Jude is indeed part of the Bible, whereas the writings of EGW are not! Every Christian will reject the apologist’s claim that extra-Biblical writings contain “more detailed information” (i.e. “new” truth). The SDA argument is precisely why Christianity teaches that the canon of Scripture is closed. Therefore by making the additional “information” claim EGW’s supporters are presenting their view that EGW is just as authoritative, just as inspired, just as truthful as the Bible writers and that her writings are at least equal to Scripture. The facts are clear: they are wrong.
Adventists renounce Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell and others for adding to and contradicting the Bible, but approve this practice for Ellen White. One of the distinct marks of cults is that the Bible is never sufficient for them – they always need false prophets to guide them with “new” truth.
17. WHO CHOSE JUDAS TO BE ONE OF JESUS' TWELVE DISCIPLES?
EGW: CHRIST CHOSE JUDAS "When Judas was chosen by our Lord, his case was not hopeless" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 41).
EGW: DISCIPLES CHOSE JUDAS "The disciples were anxious that Judas should become one of their number. ... They commended him to Jesus" (Desire of Ages, p. 294).
EGW: JUDAS CHOSE HIMSELF "While Jesus was preparing the disciples for their ordination, one who had not been summoned urged his presence among them. It was Judas Iscariot, a man who professed to be a follower of Christ. He now came forward soliciting a place in this inner circle of disciples. ... He hoped to experience this through connecting himself with Jesus" (Desire of Ages, pp. 293, 717).
BIBLE: JESUS CHOSE JUDAS "When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them ... Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. ... Then Jesus replied, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? ... You did not chose me, but I chose you" (Luke 6:13-16; John 6:70; 15:16).
Apologist: Ellen White's quotes simply say: The other disciples, when they heard his plea, "commended him" (not "chose") to Jesus, then Jesus chose him to actually become one, though knowing where it would lead.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The question is, who chose Judas as well as the rest of the disciples? The Bible tells is that it was Jesus. John 15:16 (NIV) 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
2. but I chose you.
18. DID DOGS EAT JUDAS' REMAINS?
EGW: Yes " His weight had broken the cord by which he had hanged himself to the tree. In falling, his body had been horribly mangled, and dogs were now devouring it. His remains were immediately buried out of sight;" (Desire of Ages, p. 722).
Bible: No "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." (Mat 27:5 NIV)
"With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." (Acts 1:18 NIV)
Note: The Scripture is very plain, no dogs were involved in feasting on Judas's remains. This is more of EGW's, "precious light from the throne."
Apologist: Again, there must be conflicting accounts for there to be a contradiction and the Bible says nothing that would cause us to think that dogs eating Judas' flesh would be unlikely. Ironically these very texts are sometimes used by skeptics to point out a "contradiction" in the Bible. One passage says Judas "hanged himself," the other says he bought a field and "fell headlong, his body burst open and his intestines spilled out." Critics cite the fact that in Acts 1:18 the hanging is never mentioned and in Matt. 27:5 there is no reference to his intestines spilling out. On the surface there appear to be two different accounts of how Judas actually died. Believers know that these two passages do not contradict each other, but simply give different details. These are the same types of allegations so often brought against Ellen White.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. We agree the Bible writers do give us different points dealing with the death of Judas. Christians recognize these additional, inspired, scriptures are not contradictions. But does a 19th century prophet have the right to change or add to what the Bible tells us? EGW is not a Bible writer and comes on the scene 1700 years after the last book of the Bible was written. When a so called prophet is given the authority to add to or subtract from Scripture, then that prophet is above the Word of God and there is no way to test him or her by the Bible.
2. EGW and her apologists have contradicted the Bible record, for no dogs are mentioned anywhere in Scripture devouring the body of Judas. If it had happened, we would have been told, for the Bible always tells the truth. It is this type of adding to Scripture that enabled the Roman Catholic Church to develop their doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary and many other errors. It was these additions to Scripture (often “traditions”) that caused Martin Luther to start the Protestant Reformation with the motto: “the Bible only.” Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the “completers” of the Protestant Reformation – but the truth is they take us right back into Roman Catholicism with their Ellen White traditions! Jesus denounced all these Seventh-day Adventist traditions when He told the Jews of His day: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!” (Mark 7:9)
19. DID HEROD PLACE A TATTERED ROBE ON JESUS?
EGW: Yes "At the Suggestion of Herod, a crown was plaited from a vine bearing sharp thorns, and this was placed upon the sacred brow, of Jesus; and an old tattered purple robe, once the garment of a king, was placed upon his noble form." 3 Spirit of Prophecy p.138, 1887 Edition. "Behold Him clothed in that old purple robe" (1Testimonies, p. 241).
Bible: No "Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate" (Luke 23:11 NIV).
Note: Was it a tattered robe or an elegant robe that was placed on Jesus? Why would God give Ellen a different picture than the one given in Scripture?
Apologist: Ellen White describes the tattered robe as "once the garment of a king." If the robe was once the garment of a king, then it was probably made of very fine linen: an elegant robe that had simply become tattered over time. Ellen White made herself very clear here. It is doubtful the mocking Herod would have lent one of his own new robes for such shameful treatment, especially considering that the robe was going to go "back to Pilate" (on Jesus) and would probably be lost and torn even worse in the process.
Reply to Rebuttal:
The apologists again deny the Bible to support EGW's fiction by saying, "It is doubtful the mocking Herod would have lent one of his own new robes for such shameful treatment." First, according to EGW’s statement, the robe of a “king” was required – Herod was only a governor. Second, why would it be impossible for Herod to have placed an elegant robe on Jesus as the Bible tells us? Herod certainly had the resources to have as many “elegant” robes as he choose to have.
Notice how Ellen White’s apologists use the word “probably” – “it was probably made of very fine linen.” “Probably” is a word of conjecture, supposition and myth – it is not a word of fact. As you read the apologist’s defenses of Ellen White you will see that same word, “probably,” appear in their objections to contradictions numbers 3, 11, and 19. Thus these apologists want you to take their conjecture, their suppositions, and their false prophet’s myths over the clear facts of Scripture! Are you comfortable with the claims of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to be a Christian, Bible-believing denomination when their prophet’s contradiction of Scripture has to be supported by conjecture, supposition and myth?
20. DID JESUS FAINT THREE TIMES UNDER THE CROSS?
EGW: YES "He was weak and feeble through pain and suffering, caused by the scourging and blows which he had received, yet they laid on him the heavy cross upon which they were soon to nail him. But Jesus fainted beneath the burden. Three times they laid on him the heavy cross, and three times he fainted" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 57).
BIBLE: NO "As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross" (Matthew 27:32).
BIBLE: NO "A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross" (Mark 15:21).
BIBLE: NO "As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus" (Luke 23:26).
NOTE: Nowhere in the Bible is there a single statement that Jesus fainted even once, much less three times! The Bible writers were careful to mention that there was three people crucified that day, but somehow they didn't see Jesus faint three times!
Apologist: Again we see that any details that are given are called contradictions. There must have been a reason Simon was compelled to carry the cross. Considering the obvious facts that Ellen White presents in the first sentence of the quote and the three texts D&D provided, her conclusion makes logical sense. This type of detail omission/addition is common when one compares the four gospels.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. More fiction. The apologists use the phrase “there must have been a reason” to contradict the clear statements of Scripture. This is simply more of their supposition, conjecture, and myth. The apologists have nowhere to go in Scripture to support EGW’s false statements.
2. Once again the apologists denigrate Scripture in order to lift up Ellen White’s myths when they say: “This type of detail omission/addition is common when one compares the four gospels.” And again we must reiterate that the four gospels are inspired books of the Bible, as all Scripture is. However, Ellen White’s writings are extra-Bible, they outside the sacred canon of Scripture. Thus to compare the two is to mix apples and oranges. Ellen White does not have the authority to add to or subtract from the sacred Word of God. She is an imposter, a false prophet, and a liar whose name should not be even uttered in the same breath with which one speaks of God’s Word.
3. From Scripture we do know this: Jesus did not faint or pass out. But we expect that if EGW had said Jesus sang and shook hands with everyone along the way as He carried His cross, her apologists would defend that myth just as vigorously as they do this one! The bottom line is this: do you choose to believe the lies of EGW? Or do you choose to believe the truths of God’s Word. There is no compromise on the issue. Ellen White herself said: “There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil.” (Testimonies, vol. 4, page 230). “If the Testimonies speak not according to the Word of God, reject them!” (Testimonies vol. 5, page 691). We urge you to reject Ellen White as a false prophet, and her apologists as knowing accomplices.
21. Was The Countenance of Jesus Marred?
EGW: NO “There stood the Son of God, wearing the robe of mockery and the crown of thorns. Stripped to the waist, His back showed the long, cruel stripes, from which the blood flowed freely. His face was stained with blood, and bore the marks of exhaustion and pain; but never had it appeared more beautiful than now. The Saviour's visage was not marred before His enemies. Every feature expressed gentleness and resignation and the tenderest pity for His cruel foes.” Desire Of Ages, p. 735.
Bible YES Isa. 52:14 (NIV) 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness—
Matt. 27:29 through Matt. 27:31 (NIV) 29and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. 30They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.
Note: Isaiah's prophecy tells us that Jesus was to be disfigured beyond that of any human likeness. Matthew tells us that Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on his head and his head was struck several times with a staff. No doubt with the staff hitting the thorns blood would be steaming down the face of Jesus and the pain from the blows and the thorns would be excruciating.
EGW does not contradict the Bible text when she said that "His face was stained with blood, and bore the marks of exhaustion and pain;" But she does contradict the text when she say, "The Saviour's visage was not marred before His enemies" when in fact it was. Jesus did have compassion for his enemies, but that does not offset the pain that was reflected in his face from his beating.
22. WAS MARY LED AWAY FROM THE SCENE AND JESUS' BONES BROKEN DURING HIS CRUCIFIXION?
EGW: YES "The mother of Jesus was agonized, almost beyond endurance, and as they stretched Jesus upon the cross, and were about to fasten his hands with the cruel nails to the wooden arms, the disciples bore the mother of Jesus from the scene, that she might not hear the crashing of the nails as they were driven through the bone and muscle of his tender hands and feet" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 58, written in 1858).
EGW: NO "His hands stretched upon the cross; the hammer and the nails were brought, and as the spikes were driven through the tender flesh, ..." (Desire of Ages, p. 744, written in 1898).
BIBLE: NO "A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. ... All those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things (the crucifixion). The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it" (Luke 23:27, 49, 55).
BIBLE: NO "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25).
BIBLE: NO " ... These things happened so that the scriptures would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken'" (John 19:25, 36).
NOTE: There is no Bible record of Mary being led from the scene so she wouldn't hear the crashing of the nails through his bones. The Bible says she stood nearby with the other women watching the crucifixion and then followed the burial party to watch his interment in the tomb. The Bible tells us that Jesus, as symbolized by the Passover Lamb, was not to have any of his bones broken: Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20. When EGW compiled the Desire of Ages, 40 years after she first wrote that the nails were driven through his "bone and muscle," she changed her account to read: the nails were driven "through the tender flesh."
Apologist: There are two issues addressed here:
1) Mary led away from the Cross
No, the Bible doesn't say that Mary was led away from the scene. It also doesn't say that she stayed there for every part of the heartbreaking event. D&D use John 19:25 ("Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother...") to prove that she was never taken away even for a moment, but Ellen White didn't say Mary was never there; she just said that she was taken away. A continued reading of the reference above (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1) reveals that the disciple John also brought her back to the cross again (p. 59; see also Desire of Ages, p. 752).
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. At least the apologists agree that the Bible does not say "Mary was lead from the scene" but to support EGW they speculate she was taken away. Again we see they are required to use supposition and conjecture in their attempt to overthrow the Word of God. Isn’t it shameful that to support EGW’s myths these apologists have to tear down the Bible?
2. Was Mary indeed lead from the scene so that she would not hear the bones of Jesus being broken as proclaimed by Ellen White? No!
3. The broken bones of Jesus were an event that never took place and neither was Mary being lead away. This is more Ellen White fiction.
2) Jesus' bones "broken"
Ellen White stated that the nails were "driven through the bone and muscle of his tender hands and feet." Were they? When one was crucified, that is how it was done. Every Christian has seen illustrations of Jesus on the Cross and this is certainly not an Ellen White concoction (some claim the nails were actually driven through the wrists, but even this would require them to go "through" the bone). Jesus Himself backs up all of this when He appears to the hiding disciples after the Resurrection. They fear he is a ghost and he tells them to "behold my hands and my feet" and then "he shewed them his hands and his feet." (Luke 24:39,40).
Some may say that this was not to show the nail prints, but rather to show that He had flesh. But let's not forget what Thomas (who was not there for this first encounter) said after he heard about it: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25) Where did he get that idea? They had told him that Jesus had showed them the nail prints in His hands and feet. Then when Jesus appears to Thomas He tells him to examine His hands and side (the spear scar), which Thomas does, and then believes (verse 27).
Now, having established that Jesus definitely had the nails go through His hands and feet (see also Isaiah 49:16; Psalm 22:16; Zech 12:10), we must ask ourselves if they ever went "through" the bone. No matter where the nails were driven they must have encountered a bone and thus they still had to go "through" bones somehow in order to pierce Jesus to the cross. When the Bible speaks of not one of Christ's bones being broken (Psalm 34:20), it clarifies just what it meant in John 19:31-36, where we see that when the soldiers came around to break the legs (bones) of those who had been crucified that day, they didn't break Christ's bones for He was already dead. The Bible makes no mention of what specifically happened biologically when the nails were driven through His hands and feet. But even if God miraculously preserved the bones in Christ's hands and feet, it doesn't change the biblical fact that the nails went "through" them. This again is really about semantics. Ellen White said "through;" the Bible said "pierced." According to Webster's Dictionary, the word "pierce" means: 1.a : to run into or through as a pointed weapon does : STAB b : to enter or thrust into sharply or painfully; 2. to make a hole through : PERFORATE; 3. to force or make a way into or through. Ellen White never said that Christ's "bones were broken." When she said the nails went "through" His hands and feet she was in perfect harmony with Scripture—both Old and New Testament.
D&D claim Ellen White "changed her account" of what the nails did when later wrote about it in Desire of Ages, but the wording of the entire scene is totally different. This is not a case where one sentence was changed to cover up a mistake, but simply telling the story again in a different book. Why would she need to change something that was in harmony with Scripture in the first place?
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. We ask the readers, Did the nails break any bones of Jesus as EGW states? "... These things happened so that the scriptures would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken'" (John 19:25, 36)
2. The apologists deny the plain word of the Bible to support EGW by saying, "No matter where the nails were driven they must have encountered a bone and thus they still had to go "through" bones somehow in order to pierce Jesus to the cross." Here again they use conjecture and supposition to deny the plain word of God. We have no need to resort to conjecture because God’s Word is clear: “not one of His bones will be broken.” Scripture did not say “not one of His LEG bones will be broken, but the bones in His hands and feet will be broken” – that thought came from the false prophet and her supporters.
23. DID JESUS' HUMANITY AND DIVINITY DIE ON THE CROSS?
EGW: YES "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Men need to understand that Deity suffered and sank under the agonies of Calvary." (Manuscript 44, 1898, and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 907).
EGW: NO "The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary" (Letter: 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, page 1129).
BIBLE: YES "We believe that Jesus died and rose again" (1Thessalonians 4:14).
NOTE: The Bible repeatedly states that Jesus, the total Person, died on the cross. Four of the first heresies Christianity faced (Appolinarianism, Arianism, Docetism and Nestorianism) denied that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine as a person. Orthodox Christianity maintained the complete unity of Christ's nature in both His life and death. Thus Ellen White not only contradicted the Bible and orthodox Christianity, she also contradicted herself.
Apologist: Let's look at both Ellen White statements in their context:
" 'In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.' Men need to understand that Deity suffered and sank under the agonies of Calvary. Yet Jesus Christ whom God gave for the ransom of the world purchased the church with His own blood. The Majesty of heaven was made to suffer at the hands of religious zealots, who claimed to be the most enlightened people upon the face of the earth."
Here EGW is obviously referring to the Deity of Christ. Although the "fulness of the Godhead" dwelt in Him "bodily" it was the Son only who had to sink in death under the agonies of Calvary; every Christian knows this. Jesus "purchased the church with His own blood." He suffered "at the hands of religious zealots." The Father suffered in a different way: watching His beloved Son die helplessly on that Cross.
Now the next statement, in its entirety:
"There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Here she uses the word "Deity" to describe the Godhead—"Christ and the Father" (and the Holy Spirit of course). The Father and Holy Spirit did not "sink" into death like Jesus did. She is clearly saying that although Jesus and the Father are one, the entire Godhead did not sink under the torture of the Cross. Christians understand that when Jesus died, God the Father did not die also. The other two Persons of the Godhead or Trinity were still very much alive; it was the Son who was to die in our stead, not the entire Deity. She is saying, in the context, that although the "Deity" (Father included) did not suffer and die on the Cross, nevertheless God the Father gave His Son to die for us, and what agony that must have been --watching Him die. Here EGW is clearly contrasting the role of the Son with the rest of the Godhead and it is this Godhead to which the word "Deity" refers in this instance. In summary, was Jesus Deity? Yes. Did He sink/die on the Cross? Yes. Are the Father and Holy Spirit Deity? Yes. Did they sink/die on the Cross? No. This is simply a case where a word (like the word "law" for example) is used different ways.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists agree with us and the Bible that EGW's first quote was correct, that "Deity" referred to Jesus' Deity that died. "Men need to understand that Deity suffered and sank under the agonies of Calvary" (Manuscript 44, 1898, and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 907).
2. The apologists disagree with us that in the second EGW quote that "Deity" did not refer to Jesus but the Godhead. "The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary" (Letter: 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, page 1129). The apologists are putting words in EGW's mouth to cover up her non biblical teaching. If indeed EGW meant "the Godhead" instead of Jesus for the term "Deity" she would have made that clear. Isn't that the purpose of the "spirit of prophecy" to make the Bible clear? But here we see once again that EGW and her apologists are the authors of confusion. The Bible fact is clear; Jesus did suffer on the cross and die. Ellen and the apologists are wrong.
3. Ellen White made what she believed clear: that the "Deity" of Jesus did not die but His “humanity” died. This makes EGW and her apologists wrong!
EGW: "When the voice of the angel was heard saying, "Thy Father calls thee," He who had said, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again," "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, page 1113, Chapter Title: Mark paragraph 4. This contradicts EGW's quote "that Deity suffered and sank under the agonies of Calvary".
24. DID JESUS DIE TO GIVE US A SECOND PROBATION?
EGW: YES "Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave his life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation" (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 134).
BIBLE: NO "I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation" (2Corinthians 6:2).
BIBLE: NO "How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation" (Hebrews 2:3)?
BIBLE: NO "Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him" (Hebrews 9:2728).
NOTE: The Bible clearly teaches that there is no second chance for salvation. Everyone living before Christ was saved exactly the same way as everyone living after Christ -- during their lifetime everyone accepts either God's gift of salvation through Christ or is excluded from eternal life. Jesus death on the cross was not an afterthought, not a second probation and not a second chance.
Apologist: The three Bible texts given are wonderful truths about the gospel, but they do not address (nor refute) the issue in Ellen White's statement at all. Here are four that support what she said:
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:21,22)
"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." (1 Cor 15:14-18)
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. " (Romans 8:1-4)
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans 5:10-19)
This is exactly what Ellen White was saying and it is the foundation of Christianity.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists preach a long sermon and give many Bible texts, yet there is not one text that speaks of a "second probation". The question before us is, did Christ's death on the cross give you and me a "second probation" as claimed by EGW? The answer is No, our opportunity for salvation is only right now while we live: “Now is the day of salvation.” There is nothing past the grave that will enable us to be changed from lost sinners to saved saints: “Man is destined to die once and after that to face judgment.” There is no second probation in Scripture: “How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?”
2. Adam and Eve were never placed on probation before they sinned. Probation is always given after an offence. After Adam sinned every person has had only one opportunity for eternal life and that must be utilized during one’s lifetime by accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord. Period.
3. We ask the apologists, what was the first probation and when did it take place? The apologists fail to give one text to support EGW's second probation fiction. The reason is simple; there is only one plan for our salvation not two – and there is only one probation, not two.
25. WAS THE ATONEMENT FOR SIN COMPLETED AT THE CR0SS?
EGW: NO "Instead of ... Daniel 8:14 referring to the purifying of the earth, it was now plain that it pointed to the closing work of our High Priest in heaven, the finishing of the atonement, and the preparing of the people to abide the day of His coming" (Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 58).
EGW: NO "Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly (sanctuary), at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation" (Early Writings, p. 253).
EGW: YES "He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is complete."--The Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901.
BIBLE: YES "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (John 19:30).
BIBLE: YES "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:21-25).
BIBLE: YES "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" (Romans 5:9 11).
Bible: Yes "Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Romans 5:11 NIV)
NOTE: The Bible totally rejects EGW's idea of the 2300 days and an investigative judgment in the heavenly sanctuary beginning in 1844. Notice how the Bible texts quoted above were all written less than thirty years after Jesus' resurrection, and all clearly state that Christians living then were already fully justified, redeemed, sanctified and reconciled to God through Christ's death on the cross. As cult-watchers, Martin and Barnhouse stated: "The (SDA sanctuary doctrine) is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history! We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position. And we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable."
Apologist: The three Bible texts given are wonderful truths about the gospel, but they do not address (nor refute) the issue in Ellen White's statement at all. Here are four that support what she said:
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:21,22)
"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." (1 Cor 15:14-18)
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. " (Romans 8:1-4)
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans 5:10-19)
This is exactly what Ellen White was saying and it is the foundation of Christianity.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. After their long sermon the apologists hoped you had forgotten the contradiction. We ask which of the texts they quote said Jesus was "finishing the atonement" or that a "final atonement" began in 1844 as claimed by EGW? The truth is they did not present a single text to support EGW’s claim.
2. The Bible does not tell us, "Jesus entered the most holy in 1844 to make "a final atonement" as claimed by Ellen White. The "final atonement for sins" was made on Calvary 2000 years ago. "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:21-25). Christians have been benefited by the "atonement" made at Calvary immediately.
3. The atonement was completed at Calvary and does not give room for a "final atonement" or a "finished atonement" in 1844. EGW and the apologists are saying that Christ's atonement was not complete and final at Calvary. This is simply cult heresy.
26. DOES THE BLOOD OF CHRIST CANCEL SIN?
EGW: NO "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin ... it will stand in the sanctuary until the final atonement" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357).
BIBLE: YES "In him we have ("have" is present tense) redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Ephesians 1:7).
BIBLE: YES "And the blood of Jesus, his son purifies us from every sin" (1 John 1:7).
BIBLE: YES "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him" (Romans 4:7-8).
NOTE: To forgive means to pardon, give up all rights to punish, to forever cancel a debt. Jesus did all that for us when He shed His blood for us. The Bible says that forgiven sins are never counted against an individual. However Ellen White contradicts the Bible by claiming God stores up our sins and later punishes us for them if we do not measure up to His standard before the final atonement. This idea causes millions of SDAs agony as they question whether or not they will be saved.
Apologist: This allegation is a re-wording of the last one and again, one needs to study the Investigative Judgment for one's self to understand the validity of it. A few quotes will not shed much light on the issue. The Day of Atonement was a wonderful shadow of the conclusion to God's Plan of Salvation. Any Bible student would be blessed by studying the matter. The texts D&D offer simply say that we have (present tense [if confessed]) redemption and forgiveness and cleansing through Jesus—one of the favorite themes of Ellen White and Adventists. Both Ellen White and Adventists, however, do reject the teaching of "once saved always saved" for the Bible does not teach it.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists refuse to accept the plain teachings of the Bible that sins that are forgiven are forgotten. This has nothing to do with the doctrine of "once saved always saved." The figurative Day of Atonement was fulfilled at Calvary when Jesus was the Lamb slain for our sins and the sins of the world. The Day of Atonement was fulfilled at the cross just as all the other Annual Holy Days such as Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacles, and so forth were fulfilled. SDA’s sneer at those who mistakenly “keep” the Annual Holy Days, but they themselves extend the Day of Atonement past the cross! This double-standard only makes sense to deluded believers of the false prophet Ellen G. White.
2. Sins are never stored up to be faced in an Investigative Judgment. There is not one Bible text telling us that the blood of Christ does not cancel confessed sins. Nor is their even one Bible text telling us that forgiven sins remains in the Sanctuary in Heaven until a final atonement in 1844. These are all myths of Ellen G. White.
3. The Bible does not speak of an Investigative Judgment. God declared the saints in Hebrews Chapter 11 were worthy 2000 years ago to inherit the City of God. And they were not required to go through Ellen G. White's non biblical 1844 Investigative Judgment.
4. EGW and the apologists are contradicting the gospel of Christ by not allowing the blood of Christ to blot out confessed sins till 1844. Their “new” truth produces a “new” Gospel that merits God’s two-fold curse (read Galatians 1:8-9).
27. ARE CONFESSED SINS TRANSFERRED TO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST?
EGW: Yes "As the sins of the people were anciently transferred in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ." (Great Controversy p. 266 1886 Edition).
" As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred in figure to the earthly sanctuary so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary." (Great Controversy p. 421 1911 Edition).
Bible: No "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." (1 John 1:7 NIV) "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace" (Ephesians 1:7 NIV)
Note: There is no Scripture to support E. G. White’s teaching that confessed sins are transferred to the heavenly sanctuary "by the blood of Christ" in 1886 and she changed it to read, "by faith placed upon Christ" and transferred to the heavenly sanctuary to be dealt with at a later date in an Investigative Judgment. The Bible teaches our confessed sins are completely covered by the blood of the Lamb.
Apologist: This allegation also deals with the Investigative Judgment. The texts used to refute Ellen White only support what she had said in the quotes listed.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The Bible does not teach that our sins are transferred to the Heavenly Sanctuary as taught by Ellen White by the blood of Christ. If you believe we are mistaken, please give us the text.
2. The blood of Christ covers confessed sins, it does not transfer sins anywhere. Sins that are forgiven are blotted out, not saved for a latter date of judgment. Again, we challenge you to produce a Bible text contradicting our assertion. Remember how you Seventh-day Adventists have enjoyed offering $1,000 to anyone who can produce a Bible text showing the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday? Well, now the shoe’s on the other foot – give us one Bible text stating that there was an Investigative Judgment on October 22, 1844. Or give us one Bible text stating that our sins were transferred to the Heavenly Sanctuary in 1844. Or give us one Bible text stating Christ’s blood transfers our sins to the Heavenly Sanctuary. Show us the text and we’ll give you $1,000. We’re waiting. And we’ll be waiting till the Lord comes because your Investigative Judgment is a lie, which directly contradicts the Bible.
3. The truth is there is not one Bible writer who ever taught an Investigative Judgment. I J is an EGW myth believed only by Adventists.
28. WHO BEARS OUR SINS?
EGW: SATAN "It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. ... Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, ... so Satan, ... will at last suffer the full penalty of sin" (Great Controversy, p. 422, 485, 486).
BIBLE: JESUS "He himself (Jesus Christ) bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed" (1 Peter 2:24).
Apologist: Another Investigative Judgment statement. If one rejects the Investigative Judgment (or the Sabbath, or soul sleep in death, or the Flood for that matter) then that person will be able to find plenty of Ellen White statements that are apparently "wrong". Jesus paid the price for our sins, but Satan is responsible for tempting us to sin. If Jesus wants Satan to pay a price for that, that is His decision. Again, we suggest the reader study the Day of Atonement and read Clifford Goldstein's book on this subject.
Reply to Rebuttal:
The apologists give no Bible text for God laying confessed sins on Satan at the end of time. Instead they try to say the Sabbath, Soul Sleep, and the Flood all are linked to the Investigative Judgment. This is pure nonsense! Ellen White is wrong because she does not agree with Scripture – she is not right because she believes the Investigative Judgment. But her apologists make the IJ the litmus test of “orthodox” belief. The truth is, no Christian has ever taught or believed the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment – for the IJ is a cult teaching, it is neither Biblical nor Christian. As soon as we point out EGW’s errors in matters of salvation which touch on the IJ, her apologists do have a Bible response.
2. Our confessed sins are forgiven and blotted out, so they cannot be laid on Satan. Christ is the Christian's sin bearer not Satan.
3. Satan will pay for his sins not the confessed sins of Christians. The unrighteous will pay for their sins. See: Is Jesus or Satan Your Scapegoat?
29. DOES GOD REQUIRE A TRESPASS OFFERING BEFORE HE PARDONS US?
EGW: YES "You cannot make every case right, for some whom you have injured have gone into their graves, and the account stands registered against you. In these cases the best you can do is to bring a trespass offering to the altar of the Lord, and He will accept and pardon you" (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 339).
BIBLE: NO "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
NOTE: God tells you to coness «~€Âzm?ïmÿðmúôëüardoned and purified. EGW contradicts the Bible by telling you to bring a trespass offering in order to be pardoned.
Apologist: We recommend reading the entire section of Testimonies, Vol. 5 from which the quote is taken to understand the setting. Ellen White was writing to a man who had a problem with money and dishonesty. Apparently he had wronged some people financially and some of them, over the years, had died. Ellen White then refers the man to Zacchaeus and his Christian act of vowing to pay back fourfold of all that he had wrongfully taken .
If we have gotten financial gain from taking advantage of others and breaking God's law in the process, of course we are to restore to them all that we have taken. And if they and their relatives are gone, then we should restore this money to God. There should be something coming out of what we have gained. We cannot steal from a wealthy man and then accept Christ, but insist on continuing to live the good life on money that we wrongfully acquired. Ellen White's point is that the money should first and foremost go to the one(s) that have been wronged, but if that isn't possible, then we should turn the money over to God. A reading of the entire section would clear up any confusion as to what Ellen White meant.
To disprove this very biblical principle, D&D quote from 1 John 1:9, which says that if we confess our sins God forgives us. That's not the issue here; EGW was talking to a particular individual who had a particular problem. She was by no means saying this is the way we come to Christ—with a financial offering. But D&D conclude:
"God tells you to confess your sins and you will be pardoned and purified. EGW contradicts the Bible by telling you to bring a trespass offering in order to be pardoned."
This is untrue. Ellen White does not tell "you" to bring a trespass offering in order to be pardoned.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologist tell us that EGW was writing to a man that had wronged some people and that by bringing a "trespass offering" did not apply to everyone. EGW said the letters she wrote were put in the Testimonies, as it would apply to others with similar problems.
2. So if you wronged someone you need to bring a "trespass offering" according to EGW to be pardoned. "In these cases the best you can do is to bring a trespass offering to the altar of the Lord, and He will accept and pardon you" (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 339). Trespass offerings were required of Israel not the Christian church. And bringing the money to the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not synonymous with giving the money to “God.” Think about that: the SDA Church teaches doctrines that are not Biblical, doctrines which contradict the Bible, and they have even written their own Bible which incorporates the false doctrines of their false prophet right into God’s own Word. Now just how can one suppose that giving money to these anti-God activities somehow equates to giving money to God?
3. If you accept EGW's theology then this is how you are to bring a "trespass offering" to the Lord. The NIV calls this a "guilt offering". Lev. 6:6 through Lev. 6:7 (KJV) 6And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: 7And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
4. Christians are never required to bring a "trespass offering to the altar of the Lord" to be pardoned when we sin against a person. Christian Churches in the Bible did not have altars, and neither do Seventh-day Adventist churches. A pulpit is not an altar. EGW and her apologists have departed from the plain teaching of the Bible and substituted human myths in its place.
30. CAN WE SAY WE ARE SAVED RIGHT NOW BY CHRIST'S GRACE?
EGW: NO "Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. ... Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 155).
BIBLE: YES "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).
Apologist: Now let's see the quote in its context (this is long, but worth it -- very Christ-centered): (above quote in italics below)
"Peter's fall was not instantaneous, but gradual. Self-confidence led him to the belief that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the downward path, until he could deny his Master. Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation. God's word declares, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried." Dan. 12:10. Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life. (James 1:12.) "Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves. They lose sight of their own weakness and their constant need of divine strength. They are unprepared for Satan's devices, and under temptation many, like Peter, fall into the very depths of sin. We are admonished, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." 1 Cor. 10:12. Our only safety is in constant distrust of self, and dependence on Christ."
This passage places self where it belongs—in the dust—and shows us our constant need of Jesus. Peter is, as she said, a perfect example of what happens when we declare something to be fact, as if we are out of the range of falling. We can know our relationship is right with God today, but we do not know our weaknesses, or where we could fall and/or turn against God (see Jer. 17:9). We can have the assurance that if we were to die today we would be saved, but to boldly announce that come what may, we are saved is basically "once saved always saved" and that is really what she is warning against.
1 John 5:12 is a beautiful truth as we read above: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
There is nothing wrong with having faith in the fact that we have accepted Jesus' free gift of eternal life. This is the kind of assurance we need. But this text does not say that we should go out and proclaim that we cannot fall, as Peter did. We are warned by Paul to take heed if we think we stand, lest we fall (1 Cor. 10:12). And Jesus said that some of the "branches" that had "abided" in Him would be cut off and burned if they did not bear fruit (John 15:1-6). In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus describes a class of people who come to Him, convinced that they are "saved" and to them He says "I never knew you." They were looking to themselves, which is always a big mistake.
The beauty of all this is not that we doubt God and His ability to save, but rather we doubt ourselves and our ability to do any good thing or overcome sin in our strength. We aren't strong enough to overcome. Only Jesus through us can overcome. This constant awareness of our weaknesses is the only safeguard against presumption and choosing sin over Jesus. Lack of faith in self is one of the most important lessons we can learn.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. Every Christian has the assurance that they are saved when their trust is in Jesus. Acts 16:30 through Acts 16:32 (NIV) 30He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 1 Cor. 15:2 (NIV) 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
2. EGW takes away the Christian assurance of being saved. She holds the non biblical doctrine of the Investigative Judgment over their heads and teaches that no one can say they are saved till their name comes up in the Investigative Judgment and God blots out their sins. Of course no one will ever know they are saved till Jesus comes. Because of the Investigative Judgment doctrine, the Adventists cannot say with assurance that they are saved as their confessed sins are still pending.
3. Paul had the assurance that a crown was laid up for him and so can we regardless of EGW’s statements that we cannot say we are saved.
2 Tim. 4:8 (NIV) 8Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Jesus gave a woman the assurance that she was saved. Luke 7:50 (NIV) 50Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” The Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment robs their members of the assurance Jesus died on the cross to give to us. It is shameful how this non-Biblical doctrine dreamed up by their false prophet has destroyed their assurance!
31. CAN THE FAITH OF BELIEVING PARENTS SAVE THEIR CHILDREN?
EGW: YES "I know that some questioned whether the little children of even believing parents should be saved, because they have had no test of character and all must be tested and their character determined by trial. The question is asked, 'How can little children have this test and trial?' I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 313).
BIBLE: NO "If I bring a sword against that country ... and I kill its men and their animals, as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, even if these three men (Noah, Daniel and Job) were in it, they could not save their own sons or daughters. They alone would be saved. Or if I send a plague into that land and pour out My wrath upon it, ... even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness" (Ezekiel 14:17-20).
BIBLE: NO "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him (Ezekiel 18:20).
BIBLE: NO "I will judge each of you according to his own ways" (Ezekiel 33:20).
Apologist: The three texts above are not referring to little children who are not yet accountable (even the first text which says "son or daughter" does not specify little children who do not know right from wrong). Here are some texts that deal with accountability and light given:
James 4:17: "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
John 9:41: "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."
Acts 17:30: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"
And what about the salvation of our children?
Isaiah 49:25: "But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children."
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
These texts do not mean that any accountable person has a blanket covering of forgiveness based on a relative's faith. But they are no more contradictory or confusing than the Ellen White quote in question.
It would not be logical to believe that God judges adults by the light that they have, but condemns little babies who know nothing. God "winks" at their ignorance because "ignorant" is all they are. Don't the prayers and faith of the parents make a difference to God until the child is old enough to make his/her own decisions about God? The Bible says those prayers and faith do make a difference (see James 5:16). As for what happens to the babies (who die) of wicked parents, we don't know how all of that works, and it is not our business. Fortunately God alone is Judge and He will work it all out, we can be sure.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. Jesus tells us that the kingdom of God belongs to "little children". Luke 18:16 through Luke 18:17 (NIV) 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” EGW and the apologist are wrong. The Bible does not teach that children must have a test of character and trial before they can be saved. Children under the age of accountability are saved because they have not knowingly rebelled against God – in this aspect they are like Adam and Eve before the fall. Not until they knowingly violated God’s direct command was sin counted against them. But nowhere in Scripture do we find Ellen White’s myth that parents can save their children from sin!
2. James 5:16 have nothing to do with the issue of salvation of little children. It is about praying for each other.
32. WILL THE SINS OF THE SLAVE BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SLAVE MASTER?
EGW: YES "I saw that the slave master will have to answer for the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance; and the sins of the slave will be visited upon (transferred to) the master" (Early Writings, p. 276).
BIBLE: NO "I will judge each of you according to his own ways" (Ezekiel 33:20).
BIBLE: NO "The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18:20). Did Judas Have a Conviction to Confess His Sin?
Apologist: Ezekiel 33:8 "When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."
Luke 17:2 "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into
the sea, than that he should offend [cause to stumble] one of these little ones."
The greek word for "offend" here means to cause to stumble/sin as the NIV, NASB, RSV, Darby, Amplified and other versions render it in modern language.
Although this text is talking about causing someone to stumble as opposed to preventing them from knowing truth—as in the case of the slave—the text supports the fact that God does require us to answer for our influence in the sins of others. Ezek. 33:8 (above) clearly states that if we do not "warn the wicked of his way" then although he dies for his own iniquity, his blood will be required at our hands.
D&D mistakenly interpret Ellen White's words "visited upon" to mean "transferred to." But there is a biblical precedent for "visited upon" which shows that this is not what the words mean. In the Second Commandment, God Himself says "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exodus 20:5) God clearly is not saying that He will literally "transfer" a man's sins onto his own children and grandchildren to the fourth generation. The man will die in his own sin, but there is a cause and effect going on. "Transferred to" is an inaccurate interpretation of Ellen White's words. She was merely supporting the principle of Ezekiel 33:8, and using a phrase right out of the Second Commandment. Would God welcome a slave owner to heaven with open arms who has intentionally kept the gospel from his slave? Since God loves the slave as much as the slave owner then such an action would no doubt sadden and anger God. He loves all of His children equally.
Reply to Rebuttal:
The apologist's argument is that the term "visiting" is different than "transferring" the sins of the slave to the slave master. How is this different? And why do her apologists raise this issue when they claim the Bible says what EGW said – i.e. they are both the same thing?
EGW's term is "visiting". Now if God is "visiting" the slave master with the sins of the slave, then the slave master will have the sins of the slave laid on him and the slave master will have to pay for them. This would be the same as the term "transfer".
Regardless if you use the term transfer or visiting it is not biblical for a person to pay for the sins that another commits. We do not pay for Adam's sin, but we do pay for the consequences of his sin by inheriting his sinful nature.
Ezekiel 33:8 is not speaking about transferring or “visiting” the sins of one person upon another. It is simply stating that when a “watchman” does not warn someone of impending doom, the watchman will be held accountable for the fact that he has not done his duty. There is nothing here to support EGW’s idea of transferring the sins of a slave to his master. That is just more nonsense from the pen of EGW.
33. CAN IGNORANT SLAVES BE SAVED?
EGW: NO "God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes" (Early Writings, p. 276).
BIBLE: YES "The true light (Jesus) that gives light to every man was coming into the world" (John 1:9).
Apologist: Here Ellen White is not talking about just any "ignorant" slave, but the same slave whose sins would be "visited upon" the slave master in the above argument. God "winks" at ignorance; yet this does not mean He ignores chosen evil characteristics. If a person disobeys God's counsel while ignorant of that counsel, God winks at it. But if a person (ignorant slave in this case) harbors an evil spirit and goes against even what little light/conscience that he has, then this is different. Ellen White explains this by saying that God "does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been, while the master must endure the seven last plagues and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the justice of God will be satisfied." Early Writings, 276.
In other words, this slave, although not saved, will not face the punishment of the lost either. He will simply stay "asleep" for all eternity, while the slave master suffers in the lake of fire before he is consumed. Ironically the very text that D&D use to argue against EGW is the one that helps her case. They quote John 1:9 "The true light (Jesus) that gives light to every man was coming into the world." This light that was given to every man was in the conscience of this slave. His master kept him from the Bible and from God, so the slave's hateful attitude (or whatever sins he had) was never overcome. Yet God does not punish the slave, either.
The question that heads the alleged contradiction is also inaccurate. The issue isn't whether or not an "ignorant" slave can be saved. It is whether one who has not lived up to the light that he has can be saved. The thing that breaks God's heart is knowing what would have happened had that hardened slave read the Bible. That is why the slave master is going to suffer.
A few pages after this very statement she states: "I saw the pious slave rise [in the resurrection] in triumph and victory." (p. 286) She was quite clear in her writings that many slaves would be saved.
Some critics object to the idea that some will remain in their graves in light of John 5:28,29 which states that all who are in their graves will come forth. But the Bible has several instances in regard to the end time events where all-inclusive language contains definite restrictions. The best example of this is found in Revelation 6:15,16 which says that at the Second Coming "every bondman [slave] and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb." Obviously not every slave and free person is going to be lost (see also John 12:32).
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. After a long sermon by the apologists, EGW still states that God cannot take to heaven the ignorant slave. The apologists contend EGW did not mean just any ignorant slave but the slaves whose sins would be visited against the slave master. The Bible never tells us that any person would be lost because of their ignorance – and neither does the Bible teach that the sins of slaves will be transferred to their masters.
2. The apologists tell us, "In other words, this slave, although not saved, will not face the punishment of the lost either. He will simply stay "asleep" for all eternity," Does this non biblical concept remind you of the Catholic PURGATORY – a place neither in heaven nor in hell? There is not one Bible text which gives a third option of dealing with sin as the apologists claim. According to the Bible, the unrighteous will be held accountable for their sins, they will burn in the fires of hell, they will not stay asleep for eternity.
3. The apologists take a giant leap to support EGW by now skipping the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous by keeping the slaves asleep for all eternity. God has not changed the judgment to fit EGW or her apologists non-biblical statements!
34. CAN WE LEGITIMATELY SAY "I HAVE CEASED TO SIN?"
EGW: YES "Christ died to make it possible for you to cease to sin, and sin is the transgression of the law" (Review and Herald, vol. 71, No. 35, p. 1, August 28, 1894.)
EGW: YES "To be redeemed means to cease from sin" (Review and Herald, vol. 77, No. 39, p. 1, September 25, 1900).
EGW: YES "Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all his precepts" (Manuscript 122, 1901, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1118).
EGW: YES "To every one who surrenders fully to God is given the privilege of living without sin, in obedience to the law of heaven. ... God requires of us perfect obedience. We are to purify ourselves, even as he is pure. By keeping his commandments, we are to reveal our love for the Supreme Ruler of the universe" (Review and Herald, September 27, 1906, p. 8).
BIBLE: NO "The blood of Jesus, his son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives" (1 John 1:8, 9).
BIBLE: NO "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8, 9).
Apologist: Note the question raised with this allegation: "Can we legitimately say 'I have ceased to sin'?" Now considering the evidence presented, let's look at two facts.
1) Not one of the listed Ellen White quotes tells us to say that we have ceased to sin. Ellen White did address this issue in other places though, and here's a sample of what she said: "Those who are really seeking to perfect Christian character will never indulge the thought that they are sinless. Their lives may be irreproachable, they may be living representatives of the truth which they have accepted; but the more they discipline their minds to dwell upon the character of Christ, and the nearer they approach to His divine image, the more clearly will they discern its spotless perfection, and the more deeply will they feel their own defects." And again: "Those who take pains to call attention to their good works, constantly talking of their sinless state and endeavoring to make their religious attainments prominent, are only deceiving their own souls by so doing." (The Sanctified Life, p. 7 & 12)
"But we shall not boast of our holiness. As we have clearer views of Christ's spotlessness and infinite purity, we shall feel as did Daniel, when he beheld the glory of the Lord, and said, "My comeliness was turned in me into corruption." (Selected Messages 3, p. 355)
"Why is it that so many claim to be holy and sinless? It is because they are so far from Christ." Manuscript 5, 1885
2) Not one of the Bible texts tells us that we cannot overcome, by God's grace. (which is all that the Ellen White quotes were saying)
The first text (1 John 1:8,9) simply says that if we claim we have not sinned God's word has no place in us (and we are in error). Ellen White consistently expressed this view as shown above.
The second text (Eph. 2:8,9) simply says that we are saved by grace and not works. Again, Ellen White consistently expressed this view:
"When men learn they cannot earn righteousness by their own merit of works, and they look with firm and entire reliance upon Jesus Christ as their only hope, there will not be so much of self and so little of Jesus. Souls and bodies are defiled and polluted by sin, the heart is estranged from God, yet many are struggling in their own finite strength to win salvation by good works. Jesus, they think, will do some of the saving; they must do the rest. They need to see by faith the righteousness of Christ as their only hope for time and for eternity." (1888 Materials, p. 818)
"...for nearly every false religion has been based on the same principle—that man can depend upon his own efforts for salvation." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 73)
(see also Testimonies 1, p. 163; Christ's Object Lessons, p. 117; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 97, 456; Steps to Christ, p. 61; Testimonies 6, p. 372; Evangelism, p. 596; Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 431-2; Acts of the Apostles, p. 298, 553, 563; The Sanctified Life, p.87...)
We have seen that Ellen White fully supported what the Bible taught on salvation by grace through faith. But does the Bible support what she said about overcoming? With no additional commentary, consider the following texts in light of the Ellen White quotes.
"And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." 1 John 3:3-6
"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." Galatians 5:16
"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy" Jude 1:24
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Revelation 3:21
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. Because EGW supports salvation by faith and not by works in some places does not excuse her from getting it wrong here by saying, "Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all his precepts" (Manuscript 122, 1901, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1118).
2. EGW tells us that to attain "sinlessness" like that of Adam before his transgression, it will be by faith in Christ PLUS the works of commandment keeping. The Apostles had faith in Christ and obeyed the commandments, and they were far from being in "the condition of sinlessness." They always needed the Savior's forgiveness.
3. The offspring of Adam will never reach the sinlessness of Adam before his fall. If this were true we would not need Christ to help us nor would we need a Savior. We are all born with a carnal nature. Even though we have faith in Christ we still have carnal thoughts and temptations from Satan that Adam never experienced before his fall. Jesus is the only sinless one who has ever lived on earth.
35. WILL OBEYING THE COMMANDMENTS EARN ME GOD'S FAVOR?
EGW: YES "To obey the commandments of God is the only way to obtain (earn) His favor" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 28).
BIBLE: NO "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).
BIBLE: NO "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith'" (Galatians 3:11).
Apologists: Note: the word "earn" is a parenthetical addition by D&D not EGW. To obtain something does not always mean to "earn" it. Obtain can simply mean to "come into possession of." Are there any biblical examples of a person obtaining God's favor or did Ellen White come up with this idea?
"But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. (Gen 6:8)
"And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Gen. 26:4,5)
"Moses said to the LORD, "See, thou sayest to me, 'Bring up this people'; but thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, 'I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.'" Exodus 33:12
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." (Hebrews 11:5)
"So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God" (Acts 7:45,46)
"And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." (1 John 3:22)
"And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God." (Luke 1:30)
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologist uses the names of many individuals that found favor with God. Have you notice that none of the individuals listed found favor with God because they were commandment keepers. It was by their faith in God.
2. The apologists use 1 John 3:22 to show that we find favor with God by commandment keeping. In the context of this text it is telling us that our prayers are answered if we obey the command and John spells out what the command encompasses, to "believe in the name of his Son, Jesus".John 3:21 through 1 John 3:24 (NIV) 21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
3. EGW did say, "To obey the commandments of God is the only way to obtain (earn) His favor."
4. Abraham found favor with God and it was not by commandment keeping.
Rom. 4:3 (NIV) 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
5. EGW and the apologists are contradicting the Bible by saying "the only way to obtain" God's favor is by commandment keeping. The Pharisees were commandment keepers and did not obtain God's favor. Ellen White didn’t even make it as a commandment-keeper with her theft, lies, blasphemy, and so forth!
36. DOES OUR OBEDIENCE AND FAITH RECONCILE US TO GOD?
EGW: YES "Man, who has defaced the image of God in his soul by a corrupt life, cannot, by mere human effort, effect a radical change in himself. He must accept the provisions of the gospel; he must be reconciled to God through obedience to his law and faith in Jesus Christ" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 294).
BIBLE: NO "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8, 9).
BIBLE: NO "Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation" (Colosians 1:21, 22).
Apologist: The first sentence in the Ellen White quote speaks for itself. "Man...cannot, by mere human effort, effect a radical change in himself." Her language seems quite clear here. She goes on: "He must accept the provisions of the gospel..." The "provisions" of the gospel are what reconcile us to God, and those provisions include empowerment to obey God's law. The full gospel provides both forgiveness and power, according to the Bible.
If we take issue with Ellen White's reference to obedience then we must take issue with the following texts:
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." 1 Peter 1:22
"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word." Psalm 119:9
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. EGW tells us, " he must be reconciled to God THROUGH OBEDIENCE to his law." The gospel of Christ never tells us this. The gospel tells us we are reconciled by Christ: Rom. 5:10 through Rom. 5:12 (NIV) 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
2. The apologists use the text, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." 1 Peter 1:22. This text is not dealing with reconciling a Christian with God by obedience to the law. It is dealing with a love relationship with the brethren in obeying the truth? What truth? John 13:34 through John 13:35 (NIV) 34“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
3. The Bible never tells Christians that we are reconciled by keeping the law. We are never justified by keeping the law. Christian reconciliation is always in Christ by faith in Jesus and not of works of the law.
4. EGW and her apologists have yet to grasp the Gospel of Christ because they are deeply immersed in “another” Gospel which merits God’s double curse (see Galatians 1:6-9).
37. AS A CHRISTIAN DO I STILL STAND CONDEMNED BEFORE GOD?
EGW: YES "At the time the light of health reform dawned upon us, and since that time, the questions have come home every day, 'Am I practicing true temperance in all things? ' 'Is my diet such as will bring me in a position where I can accomplish the greatest amount of good?' If we cannot answer these questions in the affirmative, we stand condemned before God" (Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 19, 20).
BIBLE: NO "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).
BIBLE: NO "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned" (John 3:17, 18).
BIBLE: NO "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24).
Apologist: D&D correctly show two of the conditions for us to remain out of condemnation. 1) To be "in Christ Jesus" and 2) to "believe" in Christ and the Father. Now let's consider what "in Christ" and "believe" really mean.
Ellen White's statement was about health. The Bible says: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:17
This command is clear. Adventists believe that it is a sin to destroy your body through intemperance (smoking, drinking, destructive eating habits, etc.). This belief is based on the sixth commandment (Thou shalt not kill) as well as a host of other texts like the one above. The Bible definitely promotes Christian health, which is a study all in itself. In light of the above text, would one still be "in Christ" if he or she is intentionally defiling the temple of God. This goes back to the teaching of "once saved always saved" which is not supported by the Bible. Christ Himself taught that there will be those who were at one time "in Christ" but who chose not to maintain that relationship (see John 15:1-5; Matt. 7:21-23; Ezek. 18:24; Rev. 22:19). This relationship is not a one-time decision, but must be maintained daily (see 1 Cor. 15:31).
For many Christians the word "believe" takes in far too little. The Scriptures tell us that even the devils "believe" and tremble (James 2:19), but they are eternally lost. God isn't asking us to merely believe that He is real and that Jesus was crucified 2,000 years ago. He wants us to believe "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt. 4:4). Do we believe that Jesus is able to empower us (Jude 24, 1 Cor 10:13; 2 Cor 10:5; etc.)? If so, then He will; if not, then we don't have faith, and thus do not really "believe" (Matt. 9:29). It's quite simple. It is not for us to decide which portions of God's promises we will believe and which we will doubt. The condition that keeps us out of condemnation is to believe them all.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The Bible points out our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 3:16. It tells us "anyone that destroys God's temple, God will destroy." This is talking about a person that murders a Christian (God's Temple) and that God will destroy the murder. It is not talking about a person's diet. EGW and the apologists are in error in interpreting this text as dealing with diet.
2. Rom. 14:17 through Rom. 14:18 (NIV) 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
3. EGW said, "At the time the light of health reform dawned upon us," that people that did not follow EGW's Health Reform such as not eating meat, sugar, eggs, cheese, pickles and other such items, they would be CONDEMNED BEFORE GOD. People in the Bible have always eaten these products and God never CONDEMNED them. Christians the last 2000 years have eaten them without God's condemnation. EGW condemns what God has not condemned.
4. God does not condemn Christians nor does he make it a salvation issue for not following a healthy diet. If God were to do this the majority of SDAs would be lost. They eat eggs, sugar, meat, cheese and many are grossly over weight.
5. It is interesting to note that many non SDAs use tobacco, coffee, tea, and meat, live longer and reach the age of 100 years and over, than vegetarian SDAs. Perhaps the SDAs are defiling their body temple with the vegetarian Health Foods that the denomination manufactures and markets.
38. MUST I BE PERFECT BEFORE CHRIST WILL ACCEPT ME?
EGW: YES "From what was shown me, there is a great work to be accomplished for you before you can be accepted in the sight of God" (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 84).
EGW: YES "You have a great work to do. ... It is impossible for you to be saved as you are" (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 316).
EGW: YES "As you are, you would mar all heaven. You are uncultivated, unrefined, and unsanctified. There is no place in heaven for such a character as you now possess. ... You are further today from the standard of Christian perfection ... than you were a few months after you had received the truth" (Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 465).
BIBLE: NO "Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -- it is by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:4-5).
BIBLE: NO "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God" (Romans 15:7).
BIBLE: NO "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them (the Gentile converts) by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8-9).
Apologist: The question asked was "Must I be perfect before Christ will accept me?" Of the three quotes listed only one has the word "perfection" in it and it says nothing about this being a condition before Christ accepts us. The other two quotes are not talking about perfection but about conditions which will be understood when we look at the quotes in their context.
Ellen White time and time again repeated the fact that we cannot change ourselves, and that we need to come to Christ just as we are for any changes. In fact, she even said we do not need to repent before coming to Christ, for it is He who gives us repentance (see Steps to Christ, p. 14,15; pocket version). Here she says that many err by thinking that they cannot come to Christ until they repent. Then on page 18 she says "If you see your sinfulness, do not wait to make yourself better...There is help for us only in God." There are many examples just like this. On that same page she says that if we wait to be "good enough" to come to Jesus, we will never come, but to come as we are. Anyone who has read Ellen White's writings knows her very decisive position on this.
In all three cases she is talking to individuals, for their particular situation. We need to see what that situation is before we can know what she meant in the condensed quotes above.
Quote #1 "From what was shown me, there is a great work to be accomplished for you before you can be accepted in the site of God." (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 84)
She goes on to say to this individual "Self is too prominent. You possess a hasty, passionate temper, and are arbitrary and overbearing in your family." Is Christ abiding in us if self is too prominent? (Can we serve two masters?) Does Christ consider a selfish heart (the essence of Satan's problem) "acceptable" or does this man need a great work to be accomplished for him by Christ? Did she say "you have a lot of work to do before you can go to Jesus"? No. Who does the work for us? Jesus does. This is in perfect harmony with the Bible. Not one person is "acceptable to Christ" in a selfish, overbearing condition. Only Universalists would debate this point. Did a "great work" need to be done for King Nebuchadnezzar before he was "accepted" by God, or was he just fine when he was setting up an idol and trying to burn God's faithful servants? The "great work" was accomplished for him by God in Daniel chapter 4.
Reply to Rebuttal:
Quote 1: EGW "From what was shown me, there is a great work to be accomplished for you before you can be accepted in the sight of God" (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 84).
1. EGW was reprimanding a Christian man who had a lot of faults. If a person with these faults accepts Christ and is baptized, does God accept them as they are? Yes. This is called justification. Does God still accept a person with faults after they are baptized? Yes. The person may be a long ways from having all the Christ like attributes but he is still a Christian.
2. If a person dies with these faults is he lost or accepted by God? God expects the new Christian to grow in grace to be Christ like – this is called “progressive sanctification.” EGW demonstrated throughout her life that she had some of these very faults she charged this man with and told him there "is a great work to be accomplished for you before you can be accepted in the sight of God." Ellen had faults till the day she died. She has judged herself and, by her own criteria, will not be accepted by God.
3. It is because of our faults that we need Christ as our Savior to help us to be like him. Christians do have un-Christian faults and God accepts them as they are even as He works with them to be more Christ-like. Look at the faults of the Apostles and every great person in the Bible – their salvation depended upon their acceptance of Christ, not in their achievement of perfection.
4. The apologists use the example of King Nebuchadnezzar as an example of God having to "accomplish a work for him before he could be accepted by God." This is a non-Biblical statement. If Nebuchadnezzar was going to be accepted by God on the basis of his works (his “sanctification”), then he would never be accepted by God. We, and Nebuchadnezzar, are “accepted by God” on the basis of our faith in Christ, not on the basis of our works. The apologists are simply confusing Ellen White’s myths with Scripture.
Quote #2 "You have a great work to do. ... It is impossible for you to be saved as you are"
(Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 316).
This page (316) clearly lays out what "great work" they (a couple) need to do. Not saving themselves, but quite the opposite: "Now Jesus invites you to come to Him, and to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart." When did EGW say they should go to Christ? Now. How much clearer can it be? Listen to this from the same page: "Oh, how important that you see the work to be done for you, before it shall be forever too late!" We do have a work in our salvation: coming to Christ and keeping our eyes on Him; He won't do that for us; He never forces the will. But all growth and victories in our lives come directly from Him. EGW continues: "The promise He has given you is sure, that you will find rest in Him." This hardly sounds like she is instructing them to work their way to perfection before going to Jesus. And the statement "It is impossible for you to be saved as you are" has nothing to do with perfection, but rather supports the biblical teaching that "Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts" (Hebrews 3:15). It was impossible for the Pharisees to be saved as they were; they needed Christ desperately. It was impossible for Saul/Paul to be saved as he was; he needed Christ desperately. It was impossible for you and I to be saved as we were before Christ, for all of our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). This is all in harmony with the Bible.
Reply to Rebuttal:
Quote 2: EGW "You have a great work to do. ... It is impossible for you to be saved as you are" (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 316).
1. The apologist's response to EGW quote 2 by saying EGW is not talking about perfection. If not, what is she talking about? The woman EGW is saying this to a Christian wife and mother. Ellen is telling her about her shortcomings and that "it is impossible for you to be saved as you are."
2. All Christians have shortcomings. Therefore according to Ellen White no one can be saved. Our salvation is not in our perfection but in Christ's perfect life and his death to save us.
3. The apologists are using non-Christians such as Saul and the Pharisees and comparing them with Christians. Non-Christians are accepted by God the same way Christians are: by their faith in Jesus Christ. This is called JUSTIFICATION by faith.
Quote #3 "As you are, you would mar all heaven. You are uncultivated, unrefined, and unsanctified. There is no place in heaven for such a character as you now possess. ... You are further today from the standard of Christian perfection ... than you were a few months after you had received the truth' (Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 465).
With this quote the subject changes from "Christ accepting me" to "perfection" or victory over sin. Here Ellen White is talking about the transformation of character that comes along after a person has come to Christ. Jesus clearly taught that those who come to Him, and even abide in Him for a while, but do not continue, will ultimately be lost (see John 15:2&6). Peter talks about those who accept Christ and then turn away. He says that it would have been better for them if they had never known the truth and likens them to a dog returning to his vomit (see 2 Peter 2:20-22). Jesus Himself talked about being "perfect." "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) And Paul: "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." (2 Cor. 13:11); "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" (Eph. 4:13); Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (Philip. 3:12,15) And James: "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." (James 1:4) And Peter: "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." (1 Peter 5:10)
Adventist and non-Adventist Christians alike have debated just what is meant by these statements, but none denounce the prophets as being false for using such language. And no one in Adventism, including Ellen White, has ever taught that one must be perfect before coming to Christ. No such statement exists.
The issue here in quote #3 is victory over sin and the perfection of character which Christ (not us) works out in His children. But with this quote—as with the previous 2—if one reads the whole passage it is clear that Ellen White teaches that the help comes from Christ and we don't change ourselves.
In light of all EGW says about how one comes to Christ, there is no more reason to attack her on these statements than there is to call Paul a false prophet for admonishing us to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12). We need to look at all Paul said on the subject before we say he contradicts the rest of Scripture.
Reply to Rebuttal:
Quote 3: EGW "As you are, you would mar all heaven. You are uncultivated, unrefined, and unsanctified. There is no place in heaven for such a character as you now possess. ... You are further today from the standard of Christian perfection ... than you were a few months after you had received the truth" (Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 465).
1. The apologists point out EGW quote 3 is dealing with perfection after a person has come to Christ. The first and second EGW quote also deals with people that have come to Christ and are Christians with faults.
2. We all have been born with and we have faults in varying degrees as long as we live. We are to be Christ-like in this life as far as possible with the help of God. But we will never attain the perfection of Christ in this life. At the Second Coming the Saints will be resurrected and we will be like Christ. We will not have a carnal nature and we will be “perfect” in that we are all God created us to be.
3. EGW plays God by confusing sanctification with justification. She makes salvation dependent upon our total sanctification and thus robs her believers of their assurance of salvation. This is a criminal act on her part. Some Christians have differing views of some aspects of sanctification, but Ellen White’s position does not fall into that category. Her doctrines go much farther, are contrary to Scripture, and are an aberration of Christian teachings.
39. DID JESUS ENTER THE MOST HOLY PLACE OF THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE BEFORE OCTOBER 22, 1844? Day of Atonement.htm
EGW: NO "I was shown that ... the door was opened in the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary, where the ark is, in which are contained the ten commandments. This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in l844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where he now stands by the ark" (Early Writings, p. 42).
BIBLE: YES "The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man" (Hebrews 8:1, 2 written in 60 AD).
BIBLE: YES "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12 written in 60 AD).
NOTE: Both these Bible texts were written in 60 A.D., and they both state Jesus was already ministering the in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at least 1,824 years before 1844. Ellen White's 1844 scenario simply contradicts the clearest Scriptures!
Apologists: This first text listed says nothing about Jesus being in the Most Holy Place. God's "throne" can be wherever He wants it to be. It is a movable throne (can you imagine God being confined to any one place?), described as having "wheels" (Dan. 7:9). God's presence was not just manifest in the Most Holy Place in the Old Testament either. He was seen by the outer door of the Holy Place with Moses, for one thing (see Ex. 33:8-11). There needs to be some text that declares that God the Father was and is always in the Most Holy Place compartment of the heavenly sanctuary for Ellen White and Adventists to be wrong on this one. No such text exists.
Rebuttal Reply:
1. Daniel 7:9 does indeed describe God's throne with wheels. Does the Bible tell us that God rolled his throne from the Most Holy Apartment to the Holy apartment at the ascension to be with Jesus as the apologists suggest? And then God wheeled back into the Most Holy to begin an Investigative Judgment with Jesus in 1844? Of course not! More fiction. – Scripture states after His ascension Jesus “sat down at the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12) – which makes a “movable throne” moot! Wherever God’s throne was is where Jesus sat down! Furthermore Scripture tells that at Christ’s ascension God’s throne was in the Most Holy Place, for Jesus entered “behind the curtain” (Hebrews 6:19-20); and that place is called “the Most Holy Place” (Hebrews 9:3); and Scripture specifically tells us Christ entered the Most Holy Place (Hebrews 9:12) – that’s the very place where He sat down at the “right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12). Only a believer in EGW can make a mockery of God’s Word by claiming God’s throne played musical chairs with Christ until October 22, 1844!
2. EGW points out that the earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly. When did God ever have his throne in the Holy Apartment in the earthly sanctuary? When Jesus ascended to Heaven he sat down on the Father's Throne. The apologists have yet to show God's Throne was ever in the Holy Apartment in the earthly or heavenly Sanctuary.
3. The apologists asks us, "There needs to be some text that declares that God the Father was and is always in the Most Holy Place compartment of the heavenly sanctuary for Ellen White and Adventists to be wrong on this one. No such text exists." Doctrine is not built on what the Bible does not say, but on what it does say. The fact is the Bible never tells us that Jesus was in the Holy Apartment at his ascension as claimed by EGW and her apologists. See our note on #1 above.
4. The New International Version of the Bible renders the second text to say "Most Holy Place" while the King James simply says "Holy Place." What does it say in the Greek, though? The GREEK in Hebrews 9:12 is VERY CLEAR that Christ entered both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place after His ascension and before 70 A.D. when the book of Hebrews was written. The Greek literally states: “nor through blood of goats and of calves, but the (His) own blood entered (past tense) once for all into the holies, (“ta hagia” plural – meaning both the holy and most holy place) eternal redemption having found.” If you compare with Hebrews 9:25 (which the NIV also translates “the Most Holy Place) the Greek there is also "hagia" (plural form) meaning "holies." We can be CERTAIN that "holies" is a clear reference to the Most Holy Place because of the Old Testament context Paul alludes to: that the priest entered the Holy Place every day, but only entered the Most Holy Place once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). Christ entered the “holies” – passed from the Holy Place right on into the Most Holy Place at His ascension and was seated at the right hand of God on His throne. So EGW apologists are going to have to admit the SDAs are WRONG if they wish to be biblical!
The only time the book of Hebrews speaks of the second apartment (Most Holy Place) specifically and on its own is in Hebrews 9:3, where it uses the Greek hagia hagion, and translates it correctly as "the holiest of all." In this text it does not say Jesus went there at His ascension; it is simply describing the earthly sanctuary. Nowhere in the entire book of Hebrews is hagia hagion used to tell us where Christ is in heaven. If He entered into the hagia hagion, why didn't Hebrews mention this even once?
It does in Hebrews 9:12 when compared to Hebrews 9:24, as I point out above in both the literal Greek and the English translation as well as the context. Paul used the term “holies” so we’d have the actual progression of Christ traveling through the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place. If Paul had only said: “Christ entered the Most Holy Place” we would have wondered if He dropped in through the roof rather than entering through the curtain! Sorry dudes, you’re out of luck with your 1844 nonsense!!
Again, we suggest Clifford Goldstein's book 1844 Made Simple for a more in-depth look at this and other charges against the Investigative Judgment.
Clifford is an attorney trying to be a theologian. His views are the typical cultic SDA response to the non-Biblical support of EGW and her contradictions of Scripture. But then, when you’re digging at the bottom of the barrel for some kind of support for a lost cause, what do you dredge up but a LAWYER!
40. ARE THE FORGIVEN SINS OF THE SAINTS NOT BLOTTED OUT UNTIL THE GREAT DAY OF FINAL AWARD?
EGW: YES "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement. ... In the great day of final award, the dead are to be 'judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works' (Revelation 20:12). Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357).
BIBLE: NO "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (Hebrews 8:12).
BIBLE: NO "I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more" (Isaiah 43:25).
BIBLE: NO "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (Jeremiah 31:34).
NOTE: The Bible is very certain that the moment God forgives our sins they are forever removed, blotted out, canceled and forgotten. First John 1:9 tells us the instant we confess our sins we receive God's forgiveness through his grace. By contradicting these Scriptures EGW turns God's overwhelming mercy into a sham. God is recreated into a lying, malevolent, heavenly bookkeeper who manipulates Divine records to make it only appear that we are forgiven. For EGW, our forgiveness does not depend upon God's grace, but upon our "works."
Apologist: The Day of Atonement in Old Testament times pointed ahead to Christ's work in the Investigative Judgment. The Bible, Ellen White, and Adventism are all three correct in proclaiming this doctrine.
D&D again use texts which don't prove the EGW quote wrong. These texts all say, in essence, that God will forgive us and remember our sins no more. Forgiveness comes when we come to Christ (1 John 1:9), but God does not wipe the memory of them from existence until after the close of probation. These texts say nothing about when this happens. Proof that their memory has not yet been blotted out is found in the Bible stories themselves. Has David's sin with Bathsheba been wiped from existence? Millions of people read about it every year. Yes, when the great controversy between Christ and Satan finally ends, God will, for all eternity, remember our sins no more; they will be wiped from existence. As stated previously, what Jesus does with those sins in the meantime is His business. We just need to give them to Him now.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. It is true that some confessed sin of specific individuals are on record in the Bible. But that is not the issue, for the apologists are simply trying to mislead us with this fact. Scripture does not say that our sins are wiped from everyone’s memory when they are forgiven. What Scripture states is that when our sins are forgiven, God’s memory of them, and God’s record of them are wiped out from existence, never to be retrieved again. This happens the instant we confess our sins and God forgives us: “I am he who blots out (present tense) your transgressions for my own sake, and remembers (present tense) your sins no more" (Isaiah 43:25).
2. The Saints of Hebrews 11are an example of how God has judged them worthy without them going through EGW's "Investigative Judgment.
3. God judged Abel as a righteous person before 1844. Wow! Matt. 23:35 (NIV) 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Heb. 11:4 through Heb. 11:5 (NIV) 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
41. DID PAUL LEARN THE GOSPEL FROM MEN IN THE CHURCH?
EGW: YES "Paul must receive instruction in the Christian faith and move accordingly. Christ sends him to the very disciples whom he had been so bitterly persecuting, to learn of them. ... Now Paul was in a condition to learn of those whom God had ordained to teach the truth. Christ directs Paul to His chosen servants, thus placing him in connection with His church. The very men whom Paul was purposing to destroy were to be his instructors in the very religion that he had despised and persecuted" (Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 430).
BIBLE: NO "I want you to know, brothers, that the Gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. ... I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles -- only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie" (Galatians 1:11-12, 16-20).
Apologist: The Ellen White quote comes just after EGW had been describing the biblical account of Paul being struck blind on the road to Damascus. Listen to the words from the Bible itself:
"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." Acts 9:6
This is never mentioned by D&D. The fact is, Ellen White was correct that Christ did tell Paul to go to the Christians and they would tell him what to do and help instruct him.
In the proof text given by D&D Paul is saying that he received what he did "by revelation from Jesus Christ." Does Ellen White deny this? No. From the same page that their EGW quote is taken from, she says this: "Jesus directs him [Paul] to His agents in the church for a further knowledge of duty. Thus He gives authority and sanction to His organized church. Christ had done the work of revelation and conviction, and now Paul was in a condition to learn of those whom God had ordained to teach the truth. Christ directs Paul to His chosen servants, thus placing him in connection with His church." (Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 430)
Notice she said that Christ had done a work of "revelation and conviction." Ellen White and Paul are in perfect harmony that the truth about who Jesus really is (the "gospel") was revealed to Paul by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Ellen White didn't say that Paul learned all about the gospel from the disciples, but that Christ sent Paul to the organized church that he had been fighting to "receive instruction." Can a prophet of God who gets revelations directly from the Holy Spirit receive instruction from other humans? Of course. Just look at Samuel and Eli, David and Nathan, Moses and his father-in-law, and even Peter being corrected by Paul on one occasion. Paul is talking about the essence of the gospel, making it clear to the Galatians that he wasn't duped by the fables of men into believing what he did about Jesus, but that this was given to him supernaturally by the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that he received no instruction by the early church in regard to the practical things that they were doing and the direction in which they were going? Jesus could have healed Paul of his blindness just moments after afflicting him. He could have told him everything he needed to know right then and there, forgetting about the early church. But He did not do this. He wanted to connect Paul to them just as soon as possible, and it was through Ananias' miracle (by God's grace) that Paul's sight was restored. If one reads the pages before and after the EGW passage quoted, this becomes quite plain.
In Summary: Two things were left out of the evidence: 1) EGW's statement about Paul receiving revelation and conviction by Jesus Himself, and 2) The Bible text (Acts 9:6) which has Christ telling Paul to go into the city to learn from the believers what he should do next. There is no contradiction when these portions are included.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists are misleading you. God did not tell Paul to go to Damascus to learn the Gospel or to be taught by Ananias or any other church leader. The Bible tells us Christ said: “you will be told what you MUST DO,” NOT what you must believe and teach! EGW and the apologist are going against the plain word of God. Look at Saul's Damascus record. Acts 9:5 through Acts 9:6 (NIV) 5“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
2. Did Ananias teach Paul about the Gospel? No! Ananias was sent to Paul not to teach him the Gospel, but to assist Paul to see, be filled with the Holy Spirit and to be baptized. This is what Ananias said to Paul; Acts 9:17 through Acts 9:19 (NIV) 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and 19after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.
3. EGW and the apologists claim the Disciples taught Paul. Is this true? No! The text vs. 19, tells us Saul spent several days with the disciples, but not a word that the disciples were teaching Paul. In fact Paul could have been teaching the disciples as the text tells us "at once he began to preach in synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."
4. EGW and the apologists will not accept what Paul tells us under inspiration of God. "I want you to know, brothers, that the Gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. ..." (Galatians 1:12).
42. WHAT IS "THE SEAL OF GOD"?
EGW: SABBATH "The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God" (Great Controversy, p. 640).
BIBLE: HOLY SPIRIT "You were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 1:13).
BIBLE: HOLY SPIRIT "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30).
NOTE: This is a crucial contradiction. The Bible is certain that God's seal is the Holy Spirit. But EGW denies this Bible truth, claiming that the seventh day Sabbath is God's seal. Thus Sabbathkeeping is promoted as the great determiner of who is lost and who is saved. In this, EGW proclaims that it is the Sabbath which saves, rather than Jesus Christ who saves! This is heresy, claiming salvation by works. EGW makes the Sabbath the greatest commandment of all. James 2: tells if you offend in one point of the law (adultery, murder,) you are guilty of all. Halo?
Apologist: Most Bible translations other than NIV have Ephesians 1:13 in agreement with 4:30 on the fact that the Holy Spirit does the sealing. Adventists use these same texts all the time in Bible studies, for they help explain what the seal really is and Who does the sealing. God's seal involves the Holy Spirit in our hearts, Christ's character formed within, and God's name in our "foreheads"/minds (see Ephesians 1:13 & 4:30; Colossians 1:27; Revelation 7:3 & 14:1). When the mark of the beast is enforced, those who have the above three characteristics will choose to obey the Word of God rather than the laws of men even when faced with death (see Isaiah 24:1-6; Psalm 119:126; Revelation 14:12 & 12:11). They will keep God's Sabbath day holy. The Seal of God—like the Investigative Judgment—is a Bible study all in itself. The texts listed here do not disprove the belief that the Sabbath is God's seal in the final days. Ellen White summed up the relationship of the Holy Spirit and the seal of God this way:
"The sanctification of the Spirit signalizes the difference between those who have the seal of God and those who keep a spurious rest day." Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 980.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. Did you notice that the apologists could not give a text that tells us that the Seal of God is Sabbath keeping for Christians?
2. When the apologists cannot support from the Bible that "the seal of God is Sabbath keeping" they go to EGW for their support. This is called circular reasoning. In other words the apologists are using EGW as interpreter of Scripture. Shame on any person that accepts this cultic reasoning. EGW: "The sanctification of the Spirit signalizes the difference between those who have the seal of God and those who keep a spurious rest day." Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 980.
43. ARE WE REQUIRED TO KNEEL EVERY TIME WE PRAY?
EGW: YES "Where have our brethren obtained the idea that they should stand upon their feet praying to God? One who has been educated about five years in Battle Creek was asked to lead in prayer before Sister White should speak to the people. But as I beheld him standing upright upon his feet while his lips were about to open in prayer to God, my soul was stirred within me to give him an open rebuke. Calling him by name, I said, "Get down on your knees! This is the proper position always" (Selected Messages, book 2, p. 311).
EGW: YES "Both in public and private worship, it is our duty to bow down before God when we offer our petitions to Him" (Selected Messages, book 2, p. 311).
EGW: YES "To bow down when in prayer to God is the proper attitude to occupy" (Selected Messages, book 2, p. 312).
EGW: NO "We need not wait for an opportunity to kneel before God. We can pray and talk with the Lord wherever we may be" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 266).
EGW: NO "It is not always necessary to bow upon your knees in order to pray" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 267).
BIBLE: NO "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, "God have mercy on me, a sinner" (Luke 18:13).
BIBLE: NO "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins" (Mark 11:25).
NOTE: This is just another example of EGW contradicting herself and the Bible. Elder D. E. Robinson, EGW's secretary from 1902- 1915 said he had been present "repeatedly at camp meetings and General Conference sessions in which sister White herself has offered prayer ... standing'" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 266).
Apologist: In the "Yes" quotes she is talking about corporate and private worship and in the "No" quotes she obviously means as we go about our daily business. The apostle Paul told us to "Pray without ceasing." (1 Thess. 5:17) Clearly he meant that we should have a frame of mind of prayer even when we are walking, working, or doing anything in life. We don't have to be on our knees every second of every day. This is what Ellen White meant here in the "No" references.
One reason Ellen White gives for the necessity of kneeling is that of Bible examples. In Selected Messages 2, p. 311 Ellen White gives 8 examples from both the New and Old Testament where people knelt to pray (and there are many more she didn't list).
Some argue that Ellen White herself stood many times when offering prayer at church, but let's look at one example of this and see if we can understand why they were standing:
"Ellen White and Audience Standing for Consecration Prayer. --Who now, I ask, will make a determined effort to obtain the higher education. Those who will, make it manifest by rising to your feet. [The congregation rose.] Here is the whole congregation. May God help you to keep your pledge. Let us pray." (Selected Messages 3, p. 269)
Is there not a difference between the way Ellen White did this and the pastor who just non-chalantly started into prayer while standing? EGW was asking them to stand to make a pledge before the Lord and they would then pray that the Lord would help them keep their pledge.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists tell us that EGW meant knelling was required in public prayer but not in private prayer. EGW said, "Both in public and private worship, it is our duty to bow down before God when we offer our petitions to Him" (Selected Messages, book 2, p. 311). "To bow down when in prayer to God is the proper attitude to occupy" (Selected Messages, book 2, p. 312).
2. The apologists contradict EGW as she said "both public and in private" it is our duty to bow down. The apologists still fail to give the text that requires kneeling as a Christian duty either in public or in private.
3. Ellen had two sets of rules one for herself and one for others. She often demonstrated this by condemning people for eating meat and feasting on it herself, paying tithe to whomever she choose and instructed others to give it to the church. She was a hypocrite and was always trying to control people and when that did not work she would publicly embarrass them. This is an example of her control: EGW: "Where have our brethren obtained the idea that they should stand upon their feet praying to God? One who has been educated about five years in Battle Creek was asked to lead in prayer before Sister White should speak to the people. But as I beheld him standing upright upon his feet while his lips were about to open in prayer to God, my soul was stirred within me to give him an open rebuke. Calling him by name, I said, "Get down on your knees! This is the proper position always" (Selected Messages, book 2, p. 311). If I were this man I would have told her in no uncertain terms, my prayers are to God and you are not my judge and if my standing to pray offends you, you are welcome to leave the platform.
The Bible does have plenty of examples of kneeling in prayer (Psalm 95:6; Eph. 3:14; Dan 6:10; 2 Chron. 6:13; 7:3; 29:29; Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 17:14; Luke 22:41; Acts 20:35,36, etc.). But what about those two texts D&D offer?
In the first text the tax collector not only stood but "beat his breast" also. Was Jesus giving a discourse in the proper manner to pray during worship or was He making a point about a self-righteous attitude in prayer versus one who recognizes his unworthiness?
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The point is that God accepted the prayer of the tax collector while he was standing and he went home justified. Jesus accepts the prayers of those not by their posture, such as kneeling, eyes closed, hands folded or waving in the air. Jesus accepts the prayers of those that worship him in Spirit and in Truth.
2. God did not condemn this man for not kneeling and he does not condemn us for not kneeling? There is no command by God to kneel while we pray.
And in that second text, the Greek word rendered "stand" (steko) is used — in every other text in the Bible — as a figure of being firm or stationary ("stand fast in the Lord" usually). The Greek word used to show that a person is literally on their feet as opposed to sitting is a totally different word (histemi). People do not always kneel when praying or speaking to God in the Bible, but Mark 11:25 is not referring to a physical position. If it were, then Christ's instructions would not apply to believers when they kneel in prayer, and obviously Christ was referring to anytime we pray.
There is no question that worship services in most of our denominations today are becoming far less reverent than in the past (in what we wear, how we act, what we say, the common chit-chat, and the attitude in general). Ellen White wished to stem this tide by promoting the biblical idea of reverent kneeling in the house of worship. In light of the trends in church today, we would do well to heed her advice. Ellen White and all of the Bible examples are correct that kneeling is quite proper.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. Where in the Bible does God condemn or refuse to accept a person's prayer that leads out in a religious service by standing and also the congregation? Is a person more or less reverent to God by kneeling in prayer?
2. A person that kneels could have his prayer rejected if it is not an honest prayer from the heart. IT IS NOT THE POSTURE THAT IS IMPORTANT BUT THAT THE PRAYER COMES FROM THE HEART.
3. The apologists ignore THE FACT that Ellen did not follow her own counsel in public worship. NOTE: This is just another example of EGW contradicting herself and the Bible. Elder D. E. Robinson, EGW's secretary from 1902- 1915 said he had been present "repeatedly at camp meetings and General Conference sessions in which sister White herself has offered prayer ... standing'" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 266).
44. WILL PEOPLE BE LOST BECAUSE THEIR PASTOR IS UNTIDY?
EGW: YES "The loss of some souls at last will be traced to the untidiness of the minister" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 25l).
BIBLE: NO "I will judge each of you according to his own ways" (Ezekiel 33:20).
BIBLE: NO "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18:20).
Apologist: Does Ellen White say here that the person is lost strictly because of the minister's untidiness in spite of the person's close relationship to the Lord? No. EGW is not saying that anyone can, in the judgment day, say "I'm lost solely because that pastor was untidy." But the point EGW is making is that the first impression is an important one and that some people, because of the untidy appearance of the pastor, may not want to come back to that church. The decision is theirs, but had he not been so unkempt and ungroomed they would have never taken those first steps down the trail they chose (which led to perdition and neglect of spiritual things). Ellen White only stated that the loss of this soul would be "traced" to that pastor's untidiness. She never said that he would be the sole cause of their lost condition. Ellen White is addressing the issue of being a stumbling block to someone and Paul talks about this himself (see 1 Cor. chapter 8).
We highly recommend reading the passages before and after the EGW quote that was given here. This will clear things right up and put them in their proper perspective (Selected Messages 3, p. 251). Such ultra-short quotes usually tell us very little about the context.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. It is hard to believe that some people will trace their rejection of God because of the way a pastor dresses. A Christian may not want to belong or return to a church where the Pastor dresses like a slob. However why would they leave Christ because of this? There are other denominations they can attend. I agree that we could be stumbling blocks to people. I believe that the SDA Church is a stumbling block as they mislead their members by the non biblical teachings of Ellen White. Many who leave the SDA Church have been so discouraged by the church's lies that they left Christ.
2. If a person is truly a Christian they will not let others be a stumbling block to their salvation by dress, words, actions, etc. of others. But notice how the apologists have to put words into EGW’S mouth to try to get around her plain statement that: “"The loss of some souls at last will be traced to the untidiness of the minister" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 25l).
45. IS IT A SIN TO BE SICK?
EGW: YES "It is a sin to be sick; for all sickness is the result of transgression" (Counsels on Health, p. 37).
BIBLE: NO "So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. ... In all this, Job did not sin" (Job 2:7, 10).
NOTE: It is a matter of record that Ellen White was sick a lot --does that mean she sinned a lot?
Apologist: Here is the very next sentence after the above Ellen White quote.
"Many are suffering in consequence of the transgression of their parents. They cannot be censured for their parents' sin" (Counsels on Health, p. 37)
Here we clear up any notion that everyone who gets sick is just paying the price for their own sins. Many things are handed down and we have no control of that. If our parents and ancestors abuse their health (a pregnant mother on drugs or alcohol, for example) we end up being affected by it, fair or not. This is all still the result of violating God's laws of health and nature. In fact, there would BE NO SICKNESS if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned in the first place. God doesn't invent sickness, it is the result of living in a sinful world and is amplified by our own unhealthful practices. This is what she meant by calling it "sin." As we saw in her very next sentence, she didn't mean that by getting sick one has then and there committed a sin. All of the human health problems are the result of an accumulation of sins and violations of the health laws, no honest person can deny that.
The listed Bible text (Job 2:7,10) shows Satan inflicting Job with sores, and obviously this was not Job's fault. If Ellen White were saying what D&D are trying to prove that she's saying, then this text (along with many others) would prove her wrong; but she's simply not saying that.
D&D add "It is a matter of record that Ellen White was sick a lot --does that mean she sinned a lot?" Much of Ellen White's poor health conditions were the result of that tragic and nearly fatal accident as a child, but even for the other times when she was sick, we need to understand what she was saying (by reading the next sentence) before we call her a hypocrite or accuse her of contradicting the Bible.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. EGW does say, "It is a sin to be sick for all sickness is the result of transgression." God never tells us that being sick is a sin, regardless if we inherited weakness from our parents genes or bad health habit.
2. She goes on to say they should NOT BE CENSORED for their parent's sin. Why should people be censored for their parent's sins? God does not say they are sinning because they are sick.
3. Never-the –less EGW holds people guilty of sinning for being sick because of their inherited health problems, not their parents sins.
4. NO ONE IS EVER HELD GUILTY BY GOD FOR THEIR PARENT'S SINFUL HABITS OR DISEASES THEY MAY HAVE PASSED ON TO THEIR CHILDREN AT BIRTH.
46. WILL GOD PREVENT THE WICKED FROM KILLING HIS PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO RECEIVE THE MARK OF THE BEAST?
EGW YES "God would not suffer (allow) the wicked to destroy those who were expecting translations and who would not bow to the decree of the beast or receive his mark. I saw that if the wicked were permitted to slay the saints, Satan and all his evil host and all who hate God, would be gratified. ... The swords that were raised to kill God's people broke and fell powerless as a straw. Angels of God shielded the saints" (Early Writings, pp. 284, 285).
BIBLE: NO "I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years" (Revelation 20:4).
Apologist: This has less to do with "contradictions" and more to do with eschatology. Adventists believe in a close of probation. Once probation closes then the death of God's faithful ones would serve no purpose, for no one lost after their probation closes will go to the other side and be saved (by the very definition of "probation"). The blood of martyrs would after that point sow no seed for the gospel (see Great Controversy, 634). Thus the Ellen White statement that D&D quote (Early Writings, 284,285) about God not allowing His faithful ones to be slain by the wicked is correct, for this is after the close of probation. The martyrs portrayed in the listed Bible text (Rev. 20:4) are those who are killed before the close of probation (see Manuscript Releases 20, p. 14).
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The Bible never uses the term "probation". This is a non biblical term used by Ellen White and Joseph Smith. Christians are not nor have they ever been “on probation.”
2. God does not tell us that before Jesus returns that the wicked will attack the saints and attempt to put them to death for not receiving the MARK OF THE BEAST (Sunday keeping). This is another of EGW’S myths.
3. Revelation 20: 4, tells us that the saints were beheaded for the Testimony of Jesus and his word and not for Sunday keeping. This has nothing to do with before or after probation closes -- the term is not mentioned.
4. John sees those that were beheaded for not worshipping the Beast and it's image and EGW sees those that do not worship the Beast being protected by angels and not dying. Which is the true story? The Bible of course has the truth, not the ravings of a false prophet and her apologists.
47. DO THE WICKED TRY TO REPENT AS THEY EXPERIENCE THE SEVEN LAST PLAGUES?
EGW: YES "The plagues were falling upon the inhabitants of the earth. Some were denouncing God and cursing Him. Others rushed to the people of God and begged to be taught how they might escape His judgments (repentance). -- Those who had not prized God's Word were hurrying to and fro, wandering from sea to sea, and from the north to the east, to seek the Word of the Lord (repentance). ... What would they not give for one word of approval from God (repentance)! But no, they must hunger and thirst on" (Early Writings, p. 28l).
BIBLE: NO "They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify Him. ... Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done. ... and they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible" (Revelation 16:9-11, 21).
NOTE: Once again, the "vision" Ellen White saw is contrary to the Bible record.
Apologist: Notice the three places where D&D insert the word "Repentance." This isn't talking about true repentance at all, but rather trying to get out of the punishment that they have brought upon themselves. And even if Ellen White had used the word "repentance" this would not contradict the Bible, for it says of Esau "for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." (Heb. 12:17). This again is not sincere repentance or God would have forgiven him. This is the same sort of "repentance" that came from Judas' lips when he saw that Christ was not going to deliver Himself from condemnation (Matt. 27:3,4). This is the type of false repentance the lost will experience after the close of probation (see also Amos 8:11,12; Matt. 25:11,12).
D&D quote from Rev. 16:9-11 & 21 where the lost "curse God" because of the plagues, but this by no means rules out the fact that millions of them will be trying to change their tune after they see it's too late. This is human nature. Ellen White doesn't contradict truth here any more than the Bible does when it speaks of the "repentance" of Esau and Judas.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The Bible does not tell us this EGW fiction, that when the plagues come, "Others rushed to the people of God and begged to be taught how they might escape His judgments". The Bible tells us that THE WICKED CURSED GOD and did not seek how to escape his judgments when the plagues fell. Only EGW apologists try to get around the plain Word of God in order to support the lies of EGW.
2. This is another example of EGW contradicting God and being supported in this lie by her apologists.
48. CAN SATAN ANSWER PRAYERS DIRECTED TO GOD?
EGW: YES "Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them (Christians) look up to the throne, and pray, 'Father, give us Thy Spirit.' Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence ..." (Early Writings, p. 56).
BIBLE: NO "If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:11).
BIBLE: NO "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven" (Matthew 18:19).
NOTE: The idea that Satan answers prayers address to our heavenly Father not only contradicts the Bible -- it also makes a complete mockery of the power of God. Ellen White's "god" is so impotent that Satan can take His place!
Apologist: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:22,23)
If Jesus Himself claims He "never knew them" and yet they were casting out devils and doing wonderful works in His name, who was giving them the power to do this?
"If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me" (Psalm 66:18)
But Satan loves to listen to those who regard iniquity in their hearts.
"And he [the beast power] doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men" (Rev. 13:13)
This beast power is a religious, "Christian" power. Who is he "praying" to when this miracle happens?
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:14,15)
These are ministers of "righteousness" and yet they are called "his" (Satan's). Who are they really praying to?
"Even him, [the beast/anti-christ power] whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. 2:9-12)
Again, the beast power is a religious power and yet he is able to work signs and wonders in the power of Satan. Then those who go along with this receive "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." This means that they actually believe they are worshiping (and praying to) the true God -- the God who is answering all of their prayers with these marvelous signs and wonders.
"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:2
Do you suppose these sincerely deceived people ever pray during this time mentioned? And who do you suppose is "hearing" them and helping them persecute the faithful ones?
D&D add: "The idea that Satan answers prayers address to our heavenly Father not only contradicts the Bible -- it also makes a complete mockery of the power of God." The Bible teaches that when Revelation 13 is fulfilled we will see lots of prayers miraculously answered by Satan.
Summary: Yes, Satan can hear and send false miracles upon self-deluded "Christians" who receive not a "love of the truth" (2 Thess 2:10). D&D list two texts that say God answers our prayers. We readily agree, and Ellen White consistently taught this.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. After another long sermon by the apologists trying to “smoke screen” the reader, they fail to admit that the Bible never pictures Satan by the throne of God answering prayers of the Saints. Again, this is another of Ellen White’s lies.
2. Ellen White invented this vision after the Millerite failure in predicting the coming of Christ and the end of the world in 1844. She was attempting to show something happened in the 1844 debacle. Thus the "shut door" doctrine was invented. It is called the Investigative Judgment. She pretends that Christ moved from the holy apartment in heaven to the Most Holy to start a judgment of the saints. And anyone who did not pray to the Most Holy Apartment, their prayers were answered by Satan.
3. Would God let Satan answer the honest prayers of people that are requesting his spirit? No! Christians have never been commanded directing prayers to the Most Holy Apartment of Heaven. Christians direct their prayers to the Father in Jesus' name. There is no record of any Christians directing their prayers to the "holy apartment" before 1844.
49. WILL WE KNOW THE EXACT DAY AND HOUR OF CHRIST'S COMING?
EGW: YES "As God has shown me in holy vision ... we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus' coming" (Early Writings, pp. 15, 34, 285).
BIBLE: NO "Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour" (Matthew 25:13).
BIBLE: NO "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angles in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36).
Apologist: Jesus Himself didn't know the "day or the hour" when He was on the earth (Matt. 24:36), but He certainly does now. Ellen White in the above quote is simply stating that God will reveal this information to His "sealed" servants during the time of trouble to give them comfort that their deliverance is near. There are no Bible texts that say the redeemed will never know the day and the hour of the Second Coming after the close of probation.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists tell us that there are no Bible texts that tell us "the redeemed will never know the day and hour of the Second Coming." Yes there is! Matt. 24:42 through Matt. 24:45 (NIV) 42“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. If the redeemed know the day and hour, then they will know when to expect the return of Christ and the Bible tells us they will not know when to "expect him".
2. God has never shown any prophet the day and hour of His return. This proves EGW is a false prophet.
50. DOES JESUS RETURN TO EARTH AT THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT?
EGW: YES "It was at midnight that God chose to deliver his people. As the wicked were mocking around them, suddenly the sun appeared, shining in his strength, and the moon stood still" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 205).
BIBLE: NO "Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour" (Matthew 25:13).
BIBLE: NO "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority" (Acts 1:7).
Apologist: This is just not a contradiction. It is not declaring the day or the hour in any sense of letting
us in on a specific time to look for the cloud coming down through the sky. This gives us no clues as to when Jesus will come—something Ellen White warned against doing time and time again. Are we going to stumble over the word 'hour' in Christ's statement? "Midnight" was the time that God went through Egypt during the tenth plague and killed all of the firstborn there (and in Israel if they did not have the blood on the doorpost) (Ex. 11:4; 12:29). In Christ's parable of the ten virgins, it was at midnight that the cry was made "Behold the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him." (Matt. 25:6), and 5 of the virgins were unprepared. Job says "In a moment shall they die, and the people shall be troubled at midnight, and pass away: and the mighty shall be taken without hand." (Job 34:20) Bible prophecies that use such symbolic language are scattered all through the Scriptures.
We need to understand that "midnight" has a deeper significance than just 12 AM in a certain time zone. First of all, if she meant a literal "midnight," then for which time zone? When it is midnight in Battle Creek it will be noon on the other side of the world (and if we really want to be technical, it will be midnight somewhere on the earth, no matter when Jesus comes: she is, however, talking about something much more than this).
Amos describes the end of the world thus: "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day." (Amos 8:9) This text uses an "hour" in a way similar to Ellen White.
When Jesus literally comes to earth with all the holy angels our whole world will be thrown into such chaos that the sun and moon will not exactly be reliable as far as what time of day it is. The entire earth will be shaken and "turned upside down" (see Isaiah 24:1-6).
Ellen White's statement here is only giving prophetic/symbolic information, and in Early Writings and Great Controversy, similar statements show that she is talking about deliverance from the death sentence, not Jesus returning to the earth at that moment. This statement is in no way setting the "day or the hour" of the Second Coming, this is quite plain.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. Ellen was talking about a definite time of day. Read her statement carefully. EGW: "It was at midnight that God chose to deliver his people. As the wicked were mocking around them, suddenly the sun appeared, shining in his strength, and the moon stood still" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 205).
2. EGW points out that it was midnight, "and suddenly the sun appeared." EGW was pointing out a miracle was taking place at midnight, that the sun appeared and the moon stood still.
3. The term "midnight" is used in some cases as symbolism in the Bible, but this was not the case with this statement by EGW. The Bible tells us NO ONE knows the hour of Christ's return. More EGW fiction.
51. WILL THE SAVED HAVE WINGS IN THE RESURRECTION?
EGW: YES "We gathered about Jesus, and just as He closed the gates of the city, the curse was pronounced upon the wicked. The gates were shut. Then the saints used their wings and mounted to the top of the wall of the city" (Early Writings, p. 53).
BIBLE: NO "Who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will
transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body" (Philippians 3:21).
Apologist: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
1 Corinthians 2:9
"Delight thyself also in the Lord; and He shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Psalm 37:4
While it's true that the redeemed will be transformed to possess bodies like Christ's, this doesn't rule out the possibility of having wings. Paul was quite clear in the above text that God has prepared things for us beyond our limited imagination. Can we really picture, when we get to the New Jerusalem, watching the angels fly up to the top of the wall and knowing that we can never do such a thing?
"But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. Isaiah 40:31
Not until the other side of the Second Coming will we know if this text is symbolic or literal. Until then, there is nothing in the Bible that rules out the possibility of someday having wings.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists fail to give us the text that tells us that the saints will have wings.
The Bible does not agree with EGW and tell us the gates were shut. Rev. 21:25 through Rev. 21:27 (NIV) 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
3. EGW and the apologists fail to accept the Bible for what it tells us. The saints do not have wings nor will the gates of the city ever be closed, nor will the saints fly to the top of the wall of the city.
52. COULD JESUS SEE THROUGH THE PORTALS OF THE TOMB?
EGW: NO "The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice" (Desire of Ages p. 753).
Bible: YES "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again." (Luke 24:7 NIV) "Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (John 2:19 NIV) "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again." (John 10:17 NIV) "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (John 10:18 NIV)
Bible: YES ""Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (Mat 26:64 NIV)
Note: E. G. White tells us Jesus could not see through the portals of the tomb and yet he told his followers what would happen after his death, He would rise up after three days. Jesus also told Caiaphas, "In the future" he would return. Who is telling the truth, Jesus or EGW? Who or what prompted Mrs. White to tell us this deception?
Apologist: Yes, Jesus did know the outcome throughout His ministry; that is not the issue. At that moment on the Cross, however, Satan was tempting Him far beyond anything that other humans will have to go through, and the Savior cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Had God forsaken Him? The beauty of this is that Christ was willing to die for each one of us personally and never come out of the tomb again—He loved us that much. He did go through with the Plan because He knew that forsaking it would guarantee our loss of salvation, but His human feelings were telling Him that sin was so offensive to God that He might not come out again. Sin separates a soul from God (Isaiah 59:2). Now these are deep issues, of course. It's like trying to explain how God never had a beginning, and making it crystal clear. It's more than we can really grasp, but we do know that there was a terrible battle going on within Christ at that moment, and fortunately for us, He was faithful, come what may. We will stand behind EGW and the church's belief that Christ could not at that moment see through the portals of the tomb. We should remember that when He became human, He gave up (temporarily at least) some of His capabilities. In one place He revealed that He did not know the time of His own Second Coming, but the Father alone knew that (see Mark 13:32). This in no way lessens His position as God on earth.
Christ had to die the death that we should have died—the same death that the lost will die at the end of time. Do the lost at the end of time have a sense that their death will just be temporary and that they will soon be resurrected again? Or do they have a strange and horribly painful sense that they are being eternally separated from God, their Creator? If Jesus was truly to die our death — the death of the lost — then He had to experience exactly what they will and nothing less.
The chosen D&D texts are where Jesus predicted that He would rise again, but as stated earlier, it was at this moment on the Cross that Christ experienced this sensation and temptation of being totally—in His own words— "forsaken" by the Father.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists would have us believe that Jesus lost his faith in being victorious when he hung on the cross. Not so. Jesus felt the separation of his Father as he hung on the cross BECAUSE OF OUR SINS when he said, Matt. 27:45 through Matt. 27:46 (NIV) 45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”— which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
2. Jesus told the thief on the cross he would be with him in paradise. This was before Jesus died. If Christ could not see that he would be victorious, why would he make a promise of his victory over death to the thief? Was Christ a liar? Of course not. It is those that contradict Christ as EGW: The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice" (Desire of Ages p. 753).
53. Did Enoch think to save Sodom?
EGW: Yes " He [Enoch] did not make his abode with the wicked. He did not locate in Sodom, thinking to save Sodom. He placed himself and his family where the atmosphere would be as pure as possible. Then at times he went forth to the inhabitants of the world with his God-given message. Every visit he made to the world was painful to him. He saw and understood something of the leprosy of sin. After proclaiming his message, he always took back with him to his place of retirement some who had received the warning. Some of these became overcomers, and died before the Flood came. But some had lived so long in the corrupting influence of sin that they could not endure righteousness (MS 42, 1900). S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 1087, paragraph 10.
Bible: NO This statement contradicts the Bible, as there is no reference to Sodom existing before the flood. The first reference to Sodom is after the flood. There is no Bible truth that Enoch was thinking about saving Sodom when it did not exist in Enoch's day. Why did the publishers of Maranatha, leave out all EGW references to Enoch and Sodom? "He [Enoch] did not make his abode with the wicked. . . . He placed himself and his family where the atmosphere would be as pure as possible. Then at times he went forth to the inhabitants of the world with his God-given message. . . . After proclaiming his message, he always took back with him to his place of retirement some who had received the warning." Maranatha p. 184.
Apologist: This Ellen White statement was written in 1900. Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) and Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1 (1870) as well as a host of other sources, all show that Ellen White knew—long before this statement was made—the correct chronology of Enoch and Sodom. As in the case of the "Tower of Babel" question (see allegation #7), we must ask ourselves one question: Would Ellen White negate all of what she had previously written in great detail with one sentence like this? Did she somehow after years of commentary on the book of Genesis, suddenly decide to put the literal city of Sodom before the Flood for some reason? The honest researcher would have to say no.
Ellen White used the word "Sodom" symbolically in this statement just as she did elsewhere and just as the Bible itself did:
"Let it be your study to select and make your homes as far from Sodom and Gomorrah as you can. Keep out of the large cities. If possible make your homes in the quiet retirement of the country, even if you can never become wealthy by so doing. Locate where there is the best influence." Adventist Home, p. 139. (Note: This was written to Adventists in 1897: three years before the "Enoch and Sodom" statement and thousands of years after literal Sodom had been destroyed. She was referring to spiritual Sodom in both instances.)
"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Revelation 11:8. (also written thousands of years after literal Sodom had been destroyed)
Considering 1) Ellen White's previous books which detail Enoch and Sodom in the correct chronological order, 2) Her symbolic use of the word "Sodom" elsewhere, and 3) The Bible's symbolic use of the word "Sodom," it seems clear that Ellen White understood the correct relation of Enoch and Sodom and in this statement does not contradict the Bible.
So why did the publishers of Maranatha leave out this statement? This has nothing to do with the validity of Ellen White's writings and neither does it prove that the Maranatha publishers were being deceptive. The statement is confusing on the surface and especially to those who may not have read Ellen White's other symbolic references to Sodom or the use of the word in Revelation 11:8. The fact that this statement was selected for inclusion in the widely read SDA Bible Commentary, however, shows that the church has never tried to conceal it from anyone.
Reply to Rebuttal:
1. The apologists would have us believe that EGW was using the term "Sodom" symbolically. Read her statement carefully. " He [Enoch] did not make his abode with the wicked. He did not locate in Sodom, thinking to save Sodom. He placed himself and his family where the atmosphere would be as pure as possible."
2. If this was a symbolic "Sodom" as claimed by the apologists, Enoch obviously did not know Sodom, before the flood. What city was he attempting to save? If God inspired EGW she would not be making childish mistakes. I am sure it was difficult for EGW to get the chronology correct as she and her secretaries was stealing words and thoughts from her 1200 book library.
3. The facts are this; EGW did get the chronology wrong and she claimed God gave her the very word she needed. This is one of many situations that God gave Ellen the wrong word. It cannot be Ellen's fault, right???????
4. EGW "When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 51, 52).
54. Does Jesus Pray to the Father For Us?
EGW: YES At the very first expression of penitence, Christ presents the humble suppliant's petition before the throne as his own desire in the sinner's behalf. He says, "I will pray the Father for you." (Youth Instructor, Jan. 16, 1896 par. 4; see also Review and Herald, May 18, 1876 par. 38)
BIBLE: NO John 16:26 - 27(NIV) 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
ADDENDUM
Additions to EGW Contradictions
EGW: "Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, had invaded Canaan fourteen years before, and made it tributary to him. Several of the princes now revolted, and the Elamite king, with four allies, again marched into the country to reduce them to submission" (emphasis supplied). Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 134.
Bible: Gen 14:8 - Gen 14:9 (NIV) 8Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and drew up their battle lines in the Valley of Siddim 9against Kedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar and Arioch king of Ellasar—four kings against five.
"Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar)" (verse 2; cf. verse 8, where only the towns are mentioned).
The Bible itself explicitly summarizes the number of allies for us as "four kings against five" (verse 9), the four being foreign, and the five being local. We are not to consider the occurrence of 'four' in verse 11 in the NIV, as that isn't the original wording. In any case, it is obvious that Kedorlaomer had three allies. And yet, PP 134 contains this statement, "Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, had invaded Canaan fourteen years before, and made it tributary to him. Several of the princes now revolted, and the Elamite king, with four allies, again marched into the country to reduce them to submission" (emphasis supplied). So much for inspiration and visions of the great controversy! The visions seem to have been somewhat blurred.
SUMMARY
Ellen White once stated: "The Bible must be your counselor. Study it and the testimonies God has given; for they never contradict His Word" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32).
From the evidence you have seen, do you think Ellen White's writings ("testimonies") "never contradict" God's Word? Isn't it clear that even by denying that she contradicts the Bible, she is simply proving that she cannot be trusted?
ELLEN G. WHITE’S ADDITIONS TO THE HOLY BIBLE
The EGW Apologists did not reply to Additions because they believe it is proper for prophets to add to the teachings of our Bible.
1- DID SATAN REPENT AFTER HIS FALL?
EGW: YES "After Satan was shut out of heaven, with those who fell with him, he realized that he lost all the purity and glory of heaven forever. Then he repented and wished to be reinstated in heaven. He was willing to take his proper place, or any place that might be assigned him. ... He and his follower repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 18, 19).
Note: Not Biblical. But, in Matthew 18:21-22, Jesus told Peter to forgive seventy times seven (490 times). If Ellen White was right, then it is strange that God expected more from Peter than He was willing to do Himself by refusing to forgive Satan! Wouldn't Christ have been willing to die in Satan's place -- had Satan repented? Is God really unmerciful and unforgiving?
2. ADAM WAS MORE THAN TWICE AS TALL AS MEN TODAY.
EGW: Yes "As Adam came forth from the hand of his Creator....He was more than twice as tall as men now living upon the earth....Eve was not quite as tall as Adam. Her head reached a little above his shoulders." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. III p. 34).
"Adam’s height was much greater than that of men who now inhabit the earth. Eve was somewhat less in stature;" (Patriarchs and Prophets p. 45).
Note: Not Biblical. The Bible does not tell us the height of Adam and Eve, but Ellen does not leave us in doubt as to their height.
3. IN THE FIRES OF HELL, DO THE WICKED FEEL PAIN AS LONG AS THERE IS ONE PIECE OF FLESH LEFT?
EGW: Yes "I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. ... Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering was there" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 217).
NOTE: Not Biblical. What if their brain is consumed first; will they still feel pain? Can a finger feel pain after the rest of the body is destroyed? Where is a Bible text to support this error?
4. DID JUDAS HAVE A CONVICTION TO CONFESS HIS SIN?
EGW: 1898 Yes "When the Saviour’s hands were bathing those soiled feet, and wiping them with the towel, the heart of Judas thrilled through and through with the impulse then and there to confess his sin." (Desire of Ages p. 645).
EGW: 1902 No "As Christ celebrated this ordinance with His disciples, conviction came to the hearts of all save Judas." (Evangelism p. 275).
Note: Mrs. White said yes in 1898 and God and Ellen changed their minds in 1902 and said no. This kind of inspiration is very hard to keep up with. I am thankful that the prophets of the Bible did not have this problem.
5. WAS JOHN CAST INTO A CALDRON OF BOILING OIL BEFORE BEING BANISHED TO THE ISLE OF PATMOS?
EGW: Yes " John was cast into a caldron of boiling oil; but the Lord preserved the life of His faithful servant even as he preserved the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace. By the emperor’s decree John was banished to the Isle of Patmos" (Acts of the Apostles p. 570).
Note: Not Biblical: The miracles of life preservation have been recorded in Scripture to glorify God and to give us confidence in God’s mercies. It seems strange that John chose not to glorify God with this miracle as Paul did when God delivered him and as recorded in Daniel of the fiery furnace and Daniel in the Lion’s den. If this miracle happened to me, being delivered from boiling oil, I would be shouting it from the housetops. It took God 2000 years to get this information to us by way of Ellen G. White. Why was it important for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to know about this miracle and not to have it recorded in Scripture for the encouragement of the Saints that went through persecutions? To believe this, one must have tremendous faith or be a deluded individual.
6. THE HEROD MISTAKE AND COVER-UP.
E. G. White was under the impression that the Herod that took part in Jesus’ trial was the same Herod that took the life of James. She did not realize that it was Herod Antipas who took part in Jesus’ trial and Herod Agrippa I who put James to death. This mistake was due to her ignorance of the Bible and Bible history.
Writing under inspiration; E. G. White wrote in 1858 that, "Herod’s heart grew still harder, and when he heard that JESUS had arisen, he was not much troubled. He took the life of James; and when he saw that this pleased the Jews, he took Peter also, intending to put him to death." (Spiritual Gifts Vol 1, p.71).
Note: The cover-up: This error was never corrected in the revisions of Early Writings. But when the error was discovered the authors tried to fix it by a footnote on page 185 of Early writings saying it was, "the same Herodian spirit only in another personality." Notice Ellen was talking under inspiration about an individual, Herod, not the spirit of an individual or their attributes. Jesus certainly knew the difference between the Herods and the reason Ellen did not, was that she was not inspired and did not have the gift of prophecy.
7. JOHN THE BAPTIST KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO DIE.
EGW: Yes "He knew that when Jesus should establish himself as a teacher, he must die" (Spiritual Gifts Vol. 1, p. 29).
Note: Not Biblical. There is no Bible record of John knowing when he was going to die.
8. MARY THE SISTER OF MARTHA AND LAZARUS, WAS MARY MAGDALENE, AND SHE WAS LED INTO SIN BY SIMON.
EGW: Yes The Feast At Simons’ House. "Simon had led into sin the woman he now despised. "It was Mary who poured upon His head the precious anointing oil, and bathed His feet with her tears. Mary was first at the tomb after the resurrection." (Desire of Ages p. 566,568).
Note: Mary, the sister of LAZARUS is never identified as Mary Magdalene, nor is it ever suggested from the Bible that Simon led Mary into sin and despised her.
9. JESUS’ BROTHERS WERE OLDER THAN HE AND THEY WERE THE SONS OF JOSEPH AND SIDED WITH THE RABBIS.
EGW: Yes "All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis. They insisted that the traditions must be heeded, as if they were the requirements of God." (Desire of Ages, p.86,87.)
Note: Not Biblical. Ellen G. White adds to the Bible the same way that Joseph Smith does in the "Book of Mormon". How can Adventist claim that the Bible is the source of their faith and accept this as "the truth", and do it with a straight face?
10. ANGELS NEED A GOLD CARD TO GET INTO AND OUT OF HEAVEN.
EGW: Yes "All angels that are commissioned to visit earth hold a golden card, which they present to the angels at the gates of the city." (Early Writings p. 39).
Note: Not Biblical. If this statement came from Joseph Smith would you accept it? No, because it is not found in the Bible. Then using the same principle for defining you faith how can you believe EGW's nonsense as truth? Does God who can number the hairs on our head, need a gold card to identify the angels? Why have angels at the gate when an ATM machine would work just as well?
11. ELLEN G. WHITE THE ONLY PROPHET GIVEN WINGS WHILE IN VISION.
EGW: Yes "The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious." (Early Writings p. 39).
Note: Not Biblical. No Bible prophet was ever given wings at any time. Why were wings given to Ellen White in her vision? In vision they would not be necessary for travel. She certainly had a vivid imagination.
12. MARRIAGES ARE TO BE DISCOURAGED.
EGW: Yes In 1885 EGW wrote, "In this age of the world, as the scenes of earth’s history are soon to close and we are about to enter upon the time of trouble such as never was, the fewer the marriages contracted, the better for all, both men and women." 5 Testimonies, p. 366.
Also in 1885, "The time has come when, in one sense, they that have wives be as though they had none." (Ellen G. White, MS 34, The White Estate, 1885. Quoted in "Are Seventh-Day Adventists False Prophets?" p.29 by Wallace D. Slattery).
Note: Not Biblical. To my knowledge Adventist Pastors today have not been discouraging any marriages. This is evident that they do not accept this teaching. The Bible was written for us and it does not ever discourage Christian marriages. The Bible does speak about marriage in the last days, calling those that forbid marriages, "liars."
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:1-3 NIV).
13. DO WE HAVE POWER IN OURSELVES?
EGW: No 1862 "If Satan can so befog and deceive the human mind as to lead mortals to think that there is an inherent power in themselves to accomplish great and good works, they cease to rely upon God to do for them that which they think there is power in themselves to do" (1 Testimony, p. 294).
EGW: Yes 1870 "We all have a warfare before us, and must stand in a position to resist the temptations of Satan; and we want to know that we possess the power in ourselves to do this (Councils on Diet and Foods, p.169).
14. IS TITHE PAYING A PRE-REQUISITE FOR PRAYING FOR THE SICK?
EGW: Yes "Prayer For the Sick ¾ We should first find out if the sick one has been withholding tithes or has made trouble in the church" (Healthful Living, p. 237).
Note: Not Biblical. This teaching would prohibit praying for sick non Christian friends and relatives as well as Christians of other faiths that are sick that do not believe tithing is a requirement for the Christian Church. I could not find any example of Jesus or the Apostles checking on anyone’s tithing performance before they healed them. I have never seen any Adventist Pastor follow Ellen’s ("inspired?") on this teaching. If you really believe that Ellen G. White is a prophetess then you will have to check and see if the sick is a tithe payer before you pray for them. Put your faith to the test, are you going to follow Jesus or Ellen?
15. THE REDEEMED ARE TO FILL THE VACANCIES IN HEAVEN LEFT BY SATAN AND HIS ANGELS.
EGW: Yes "The vacancies made in heaven by the fall of Satan and his angels will be filled by the redeemed of the Lord" (Watchman Nov. 78, 1905).
"It was God’s purpose to repopulate Heaven with the human race, if after the test and trial they proved to be loyal to Him" (Signs of the Times, May 29, 1909).
Note: Not Biblical. The Bible never mentions that the redeemed will take the place of Satan and the fallen Angels nor does Scripture say that it is God's purpose to repopulate heaven with the human race. The Scripture does say that God is creating a New Earth for the redeemed. See Revelation 21:1.
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST’S CLAIM
Seventh-day Adventist claim to be people of the Bible and that their beliefs are supported by Scripture. They reject the Roman Catholic Church beliefs such as, praying to Mary and the saints, the confessional, rosary, holy water, the Pope as head of the church, etc. They reject Joseph Smith and his book of Mormon, they reject Mary Baker Eddy and her book Science and Health with Keys to Scripture. They reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which have the Watchtower to guide them. SDAs reject all beliefs that cannot be supported by the Bible. The paradox is, that the church accepts Ellen White's additions to the Bible and her contradictions without question. And then, like any other cult, expects members to do likewise. These additions to Scripture may seem too trivial to even mention. However, the church insists all these additions and contradictions came straight from God, thus making God a part of their deception.
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?
The Seventh-day Adventist Church tell us:
"The writings of Mrs. E. G. White were never designed to be an addition to the canon of Scripture. They are, never-the less, the messages of God to the remnant church and should be received as such as were the messages of the prophets of old. As Samuel was a prophet to Israel in his day, as Jeremiah was a prophet to Israel in the days of the captivity, as John the Baptist came as a special messenger of the Lord to prepare the way for Christ’s appearing, so we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the Church of Christ today. And the same as the messages of the prophets were received in olden times, so her messages should be received at the present time" (Review and Herald, October 4, 1928).
Note: Christians accept the writing of the prophets, Samuel, Jeremiah, as inspired by God and their writings as Holy Scripture. To follow what the SDA Church tells its members, then those who believe that E. G. White is inspired would have to regard her writings as Scripture (the same way) as they do the Bible prophets. But then the church tells them her writings are not "an addition to the canon of Scripture!" Does this confuse you? If you understand how it is possible, please explain it to me!
Did E.G. White claim infallibility for the Testimonies? Yes.
"Yet, now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You thereby insulted the Spirit of God." Testimonies 5, p. 64.
"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne." Testimonies 5 p. 67.
"If you lessen the confidence of God’s people in the testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as were Korah, Dathan, and Abriam." Testimonies 5 p. 66.
"The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. In arraying yourself against the servants of God you are doing a work either for God or for the devil." Testimonies 4 p. 230.
A Request to the Readers of This Paper
Many hours have gone into the research to make this material available to you at no charge. Please feel free to make copies to pass on to others. The only request I make is that you send the complete paper and do not alter the contents. God bless as we seek to present the truth in Jesus and his Word (the Bible) to others, and expose Ellen G. White and her fables (testimonies)
Todd,
ReplyDeleteI hesitate to join this debate regarding Adventism and Ellen G. White, for fear of being considered an Adventist basher. After much thought though I decided I couldn’t sit back and remain silent. Some times the truth must be spoken whether or not it is received.
While I’m not going to address every issue raised, there are a few points I’d like to comment on:
As for Seventh-day Adventists needing to accept Ellen G. White as God’s prophet: I don’t really think anyone who is or has been an Adventist can seriously contest this. After all, she is one of the founders of Adventism. Without her there is no Adventism. This is what I don’t get: when someone says they are an Adventist but don’t necessarily believe that Mrs. White was a prophet. Are you kidding me? You can’t have it both ways! Her writings are the foundation of the entire SDA belief system and dogmas. You’re either an Adventist or not; and a big part of being an Adventist is accepting the prophecies and other writings of Mrs. White. Also, while it may not be explicitly stated that one must accept her as a prophet in order to receive salvation, it’s certainly implied again and again.
Here is one example of what Ellen White wrote regarding having an assurance of salvation:
“Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith, but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation.” Compare this with the following Scriptures:
And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:47)
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13)
There are many such Scriptures I won’t take the time to quote here, but would be happy to send to you upon request. As you can see, there is nothing wishy-washy or iffy about these verses. God wants us to be secure in our salvation. Without faith it is impossible to please Him; but how can we have a confident, abiding faith if every other minute we must worry and fret about whether or not we’ll finally make it through Heaven’s gates?
The failed prophecies of Mrs. White make it impossible to take her seriously as God’s messenger, or prophet. According to Deut. 18:22 NIV): “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”
True, there are conditional promises. One such is found in 2 Chronicles 7:14:
“IF my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, pray, seek my face and turn from their wicked ways I will hear them from heaven and heal their land.”
Mrs. White’s failed prophecies regarding, for instance, the Second Coming, do not fall under this category of conditional promises. When she gave such prophecies there was no IF attached; the IF was added on later, after Christ failed to return according to her predictions.
Something else worth noting is that Jesus said that not even He nor the angels knew the day and hour of His return, but only God in Heaven. And yet Mrs. White claimed to have been told by an angel of when the Second Coming would take place. God does not contradict Himself; if there is a contradiction here it is with Mrs. White.
In Testomonies to the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131, Mrs. White claims that an angel told her some of the company present at the Conference “would be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.” My goodness, this was over 100 years ago! How old would that make them now? If you read the entire passage you will not find any conditions placed upon this prophecy, no hint that this would happen only if this and that condition was met.
According to the Old T. test of a prophet, one must have a 100% success rate in order to be considered a true prophet of God. One’s predictions cannot be hit and miss, for there is no error with God. If He sends a message via one of His prophets, it is sure to come to pass exactly how and when it is promised.
Lastly, I’m saddened by your comment to Travis where you said you could care less what he (or anyone else) thinks of EGW. Surely, if you believe her to be God’s prophet—which you attest to by accepting Adventism as your belief system—you would care very much what others think of her teachings. You would want everyone to know, for she (allegedly) taught special truths upon which hinge the salvation of mankind. How can you not care if others accept this truth or not? As for the whole issue of plagiarism, again I find it hard to believe that you don’t care if she stole the words of others to express truth. Is it okay to steal money as long as we use it to feed the poor? Does the end justify the means?
Todd, I know how hard it is to hear unpleasant things which have the power to threaten one’s belief system. I’ve been there. I have no axe to grind with Adventism even though I have felt it necessary to break away from it. But when I see how dogmatic you are (with all sincerity, I have to believe), I must speak out. I fear that your need to cling to your SDA faith is blinding you to obvious truths. We are not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits.
I hope that you will give this prayerful thought, and that in your zeal for the Lord you do not become as the Pharisees who were rigid in their thinking that they rejected Jesus because He didn’t fit into their preconceived ideas of the Messiah.
Deb, Thank you. That was spoken with Grace, kindness and eloquence. I Praise God for your honest heart.
ReplyDeleteYou are truly a blessing to the body of Christ
Travis
Travis, I had to stop reading around #9, as the list is quite long. But I'll keep reading it as time goes on.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can say at this point is that I agree with the apologist on all counts I've read.
Deb, thanks for the comment. The part that gets confused is the difference between things generally needed to be an Adventist and things needed for salvation.
As I've pointed out to Travis, whether or not a person believes Ellen White has nothing to do with their salvation.
That being said, I've also said to Travis that Adventists should believe Ellen White was a prophet. Because, like you said, the fact that God revealed so much precious truth to His end-time people through a prophet is a foundation of the Adventist church. If one doesn't believe in Ellen White, I suppose it wouldn't matter because I learned and believe all the Adventist doctrine based only on Bible texts.
So, I agree...when someone says they are an Adventist but don't believe in Ellen White...it's ridiculous. As you said, you can't have it both ways. You can still be a saved Christian and not believe in Ellen White, but an Adventist who doesn't believe in Ellen White? Crazy. That's one of the reasons I think so much liberalism and worldiness has crept into the Adventist church in these past decades...because a growing number of Adventists, generally young people, are not giving heed to the messages God sent to His people through the prophet Ellen White.
"Her writings are the foundation of the entire SDA belief system and dogmas." - That's an incorrect statement, though.
As I've stated before, I became a Christian and joined the Adventist church around 4 years ago, and I learned and accepted all the doctrines from the Bible and the Bible only. All the evangelists I've listened to teach all the fundamental Adventist beliefs only used Scriptures and never used Ellen White.
So, the actual foundation of the entire SDA belief system is the Bible, not Ellen White.
"Also, while it may not be explicitly stated that one must accept her as a prophet in order to receive salvation, it’s certainly implied again and again." - That's not true.
In the entire 4+ years I've been an Adventist, I have never ever ever heard any Adventist preacher declare or even imply that anyone must accept Ellen White to be saved. Never. And I have listened to many many many many sermons, seminars and presentations from a wide variety of Adventist preachers and evangelists.
If I ever ran into someone that was teaching that you must accept Ellen White to be saved, I would know they were teaching falsehood. It's that simple. Yet I would not condemn the church as a whole for the misguided beliefs of a few wackos, every church has a few wackos.
"“Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith, but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation.” Compare this with the following Scriptures:
And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:47)
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13)"
I see no contradiction in that Ellen White statement with those Bible verses.
Ellen White, correctly, taught against the false doctrine of "once saved always saved," we know that we're not saved by a single decision you made at one point in your life. You cannot make a decision for Christ and then go back to living like the devil and expect to be in the kingdom of God. It doesn't work that way. I've already shared with Travis a few Bible texts that clearly show that believers can always choose to turn their back on God and go back to the world. God doesn't take away our free will, ever.
Conditional promises like the one you stated that state "if x, then y" are not the same as conditional prophecies.
Jonah didn't say "if you don't turn from your ways, then after 40 days ninevah will be destroyed."
Instead, God spoke through him and said plainly "in 40 days ninevah will be destroyed"...yet when ninevah repented God spared them.
Jonah was not a false prophet simply because he said "in forty days ninevah will be destroyed" but then it didn't happen.
I'd be interested to know where Ellen White said that God showed her when the second coming would be?
Again, when she stated that some would be alive...look at Jonah's prophecy which also didn't contain an "if."
Do you think that, according to the Old Testament, Jonah was a false prophet because ninevah wasn't destroyed?
"Lastly, I’m saddened by your comment to Travis where you said you could care less what he (or anyone else) thinks of EGW. Surely, if you believe her to be God’s prophet—which you attest to by accepting Adventism as your belief system—you would care very much what others think of her teachings. You would want everyone to know, for she (allegedly) taught special truths upon which hinge the salvation of mankind. How can you not care if others accept this truth or not?"
I don't care what anyone thinks of Ellen White because ALL saving truth comes from the Bible and the Bible only. Like I said, Ellen White has nothing to do with salvation. I DO care whether others accept the truth she taught...but that truth can be found in the Bible, as I learned them, apart from any Ellen White writings.
So, like in Ellen White's comment...if she's a stumbling block to someone...lay her to one side and concentrate on the Bible alone! For in IT are all the truths necessary for salvation. Ellen White's mission was to fully remove the cloud covering Bible truth that had been partially removed from the reformers. Her mission was to finish the work of revealing to those living in the end times what the Bible really teaches, and what the reality of this life really is.
You don't need to apologize, it isn't hard for me to hear critics of Ellen White at all. It is a little saddening though. I never have been able to understand why people get so hung up on Ellen White when all the truth they argue against comes from the Bible.
I hope that all of us don't become like the Pharisees...it wasn't a lack of truth that destroyed them...it was a lack of love. A lack of abiding in Christ. In all things, remember that the Gospel is an abiding relationship with Christ, and being filled by Him with a love for God and a love for people.
I have tried the spirit of Ellen White, and I found only love.
Todd, I will pray for you.
ReplyDeleteBut I will no longer debate with you.
You are loved in Christ
Travis
Thank you, I'm glad to hear it.
ReplyDeleteLike I said in the beginning, I don't want to debate about Ellen White. To me, it seems pointless. I just wanted to point out the false statements you posted regarding Adventist beliefs and doctrines.
Thank you for the prayers. :-)
Comments Regarding Unusual Statements
ReplyDeleteFound In Ellen G. White's Writings
Introduction: Among the 100,000 pages of Ellen G. White's writings, some have pointed to several statements that are difficult to understand. A few of these statements are perplexing only because they have been lifted from their immediate contexts. Other statements pose problems for those who believe God's messengers are infallible, their predictions unalterable, and that their words and expressions are communicated verbatim by the Holy Spirit. Seventh-day Adventists believe that such views are incompatible with what is observed in Scripture. They are certainly counter to what Ellen White claimed for either herself or her writings. One may also find statements that seem to defy a ready explanation or lack current scientific confirmation. Regarding such, we are reminded of the following statement concerning supposed difficulties in the Scriptures:
"While God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all excuse for unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them. And those who refuse to accept and obey God's Word until every objection has been removed, and there is no longer an opportunity for doubt, will never come to the light" (The Great Controversy, p. 527).
Statements Taken Out of Context
"Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved."
A closer look at Ellen G. White's cautions regarding this subject reveals that, in context, she is not speaking against the certainty of a believer's present standing with God. She is warning against the presumptuous "once saved, always saved" teaching of eternal security--those who claim "I am saved" while continuing to transgress the law of God. Here is her full statement:
"Peter's fall was not instantaneous, but gradual. Self-confidence led him to the belief that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the downward path, until he could deny his Master. Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Everyone should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation. God's Word declares, 'Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried' (Dan. 12:10). Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life (James 1:12)" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 155, emphasis supplied).
That Ellen White understood the proper basis for true Christian assurance is evidenced by the following remark she made before the church's General Conference session:
"Each one of you may know for yourself that you have a living Saviour, that He is your helper and your God. You need not stand where you say, 'I do not know whether I am saved.' Do you believe in Christ as your personal Saviour? If you do, then rejoice" (General Conference Bulletin, April 10, 1901).
To a woman who was struggling with doubts Ellen White wrote:
"The message from God to me for you is 'Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out' (John 6:37). If you have nothing else to plead before God but this one promise from your Lord and Saviour, you have the assurance that you will never, never be turned away. It may seem to you that you are hanging upon a single promise, but appropriate that one promise, and it will open to you the whole treasure house of the riches of the grace of Christ. Cling to that promise and you are safe. 'Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.' Present this assurance to Jesus, and you are as safe as though inside the city of God" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 175).
"I do not claim to be a prophetess."
ReplyDeleteWhy does the Seventh-day Adventist church believe that Ellen G. White received the gift of prophecy when she said that she did not claim to be a prophetess? The misuse often made of this Ellen White statement is an illustration of the importance of proper context. Here, in her own words, is what Ellen White did and did not mean by her statement:
"Some have stumbled over the fact that I said I did not claim to be a prophet; and they have asked, Why is this?
"I have had no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus.
"Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be His messenger. 'Your work,' He instructed me, 'is to bear My word. Strange things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. It shall not be as a strange language. In the true eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the messages that I give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and My power shall be with you.' . . .
"Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies. . . .
"To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger, sent to bear a message from the Lord to His people, and to take up work in any line that He points out.
"When I was last in Battle Creek, I said before a large congregation that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Twice I referred to this matter, intending each time to make the statement, 'I do not claim to be a prophetess.' If I spoke otherwise than this, let all now understand that what I had in mind to say was that I do not claim the title of prophet or prophetess" (Review and Herald, July 26, 1906, reprinted in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 31-35).
"During the discourse, I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ.
"My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people" (Letter 55, 1905; quoted in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 35, 36).
Unusual Statements Regarding Scientific Issues
ReplyDeleteAmalgamation of man and beast
Some have charged that Ellen White wrote in 1864 (and republished in 1870) that humans once cohabited with animals and that their offspring produced certain races that exist today. The statement reads: "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him." [1]
No dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. The primary use of the word describes the fusion of metals, the union of different elements such as in making tooth cements. Nineteenth-century usage included the mixing of diverse races.
Granted, her statement could appear ambiguous: Does she mean "amalgamation of man with beast" or "amalgamation of man and of beast"? Often, repetition of the preposition is omitted in similar construction. [2]
On other occasions, when Mrs. White used the word "amalgamation," she used it metaphorically, comparing faithful believers and worldlings. [3] She also used it to describe the origin of poisonous plants and other irregularities in the biological world: "Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. . . . All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares." [4]
Recognizing that Satan has been an active agent in the corrupting of God's plan for man, beast, plants, etc., we can better understand what Ellen White may have meant when she described the results of amalgamation. That which "defaced the image of God" in man and that which "confused the species [of animals]" has been the handiwork of Satan with the cooperation of humans. Such "amalgamation of man and [of] beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men," becomes understandable.
Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. She did speak of "species of animals" and "races of men" but not any kind of amalgam of animals with human beings.
We recognize, however, that serious students of Ellen White's writings differ on what she meant by "amalgamation." "The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term." [5]
For further study of this issue, see "Amalgamation" in the Reference Library.
Astronomical statements
ReplyDeleteAttention has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen White made grievous errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called to update encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to be made "an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to the highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these "standards" change, even for the experts), we would have cause to reject Isaiah for referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) and John for writing that he saw "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1).
Some point to the phrase, "As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun," charging that Ellen White was untrustworthy in scientific matters. [1] But most readers would recognize this use of "stars" for "planets of our solar system" as a non-technical description easily understood by laymen.
Some have declared Ellen White was in error when she allegedly said that she had visited a "world which had seven moons," [2] and that the planets visited were Jupiter and Saturn. In point of fact, she never named the "world which had seven moons." But there is more to the story.
Less than three months after she and James were married in 1846, she had a vision at the Curtis home in Topsham, Maine, in the presence of Joseph Bates. Although Bates had seen Ellen White in vision on several occasions, he still had doubts about her prophetic gift; but through the Topsham vision he was convinced that "the work is of God." [3] James White reported that, in this vision, Mrs. White was "guided to the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their moons, etc. It is well known, that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision." [4]
What was it that convinced Bates, the old sea captain and amateur astronomer, that Ellen White was "of God"? After the vision, she described what she had seen. Knowing that she had no background in astronomy, Bates said, "This is of the Lord."
Obviously, what Bates heard corresponded to his knowledge of what telescopes showed in 1846. Almost certainly this vision was given in Bates's presence to give him added confidence in Ellen White's ministry. If she had mentioned the number of moons that modern telescopes reveal, it seems clear that Bates's doubts would have been confirmed. [5] (See "Avoid Making the Counsels 'Prove' Things They Were Never Intended to Prove.")
Notes
[1] Education, p. 14 (same statement, The Desire of Ages, p. 465).
[2] Early Writings, p. 40. This vision was first described in the Broadside, To those who are receiving the seal of the living God, first published Jan. 31, 1849.
[3] A Word to the Little Flock, p. 21, cited in F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 581.
[4] Ibid., p. 22. Ellen White wrote: "I was wrapped in a vision of God's glory, and for the first time had a view of other planets" (Life Sketches, p. 97; see also Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 83). No evidence exists that this is the same vision described in Early Writings, p. 40. See pages 144, 145.
[5] Further information regarding this 1846 vision is found in Loughborough, The Great Second Advent Movement, pp. 257-260. For a discussion of how Loughborough's memory of his conversation with Bates many years earlier fits into this memorable moment for Bates, see Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 93-101.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 490, 491.
Death from cosmetics?
ReplyDeleteIn an article describing unhealthful fashions, Ellen G. White included the following statement in an article regarding dangerous fashionable fads:
"Many are ignorantly injuring their health and endangering their life by using cosmetics. They are robbing the cheeks of the glow of health, and then to supply the deficiency use cosmetics. When they become heated in the dance the poison is absorbed by the pores of the skin, and is thrown into the blood. Many lives have been sacrificed by this means alone" (The Health Reformer, October 1871).
Some have wondered how the use of cosmetics alone could prove fatal. In today's world, with government testing and consumer safety guidelines, adverse reactions to cosmetics are essentially limited to skin irritation and allergies. But this was not the case in the 19th century, as noted in this consumer bulletin issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: "The European cosmetic known as ceruse was used faithfully--and fatally, because it was mainly white lead--by wealthy women from the second century until well into the 19th century to make their faces look fashionably pale" (Dori Stehlin, FDA Consumer, November 1991; revised May 1995).
In 1871, when Ellen White prepared the article in question, "enameling" was the latest cosmetic fad, "which is nothing less than painting the face with lead paint, and for this purpose are used the poisonous salts of lead" (Sara Chase, M.D. in The Health Reformer, October 1871, p. 125). Another deadly concoction was vermilion, made from mercuric sulphide. In such an environment, it is not surprising that Ellen White should alert her readers to the real life and health threats posed by such products.
Physical and spiritual dangers of masturbation or "self-abuse"
ReplyDeleteFew topics have generated more ridicule from critics than Ellen White's statements regarding "self-abuse," "solitary vice," "self-indulgence," "secret vice," "moral pollution," etc. Ellen White never used the term "masturbation."
Her first reference to this subject appeared in a 64-page pamphlet, An Appeal to Mothers, April 1864, nine months after her first comprehensive health vision. Primarily devoted to masturbation, pages 5 to 34 were from her own pen; the remainder consisted of quotations from medical authorities. [1]
Ellen White did not say that all, or even most, of the potentially serious consequences of masturbation would happen to any one individual. Nor did she say that the worst possible degree of a serious consequence would happen to most indulgers.
Modern research indicates that Ellen White's strong statements can be supported when she is properly understood. The general view today, however, is that masturbation is normal and healthy.
Two medical specialists have suggested a link between masturbation and physical abnormalities due to zinc-deficiency. Dr. David Horrobin, an M.D. and Ph.D. from Oxford University, states:
"The amount of zinc in semen is such that one ejaculation may get rid of all the zinc that can be absorbed from the intestines in one day. This has a number of consequences. Unless the amount lost is replaced by an increased dietary intake, repeated ejaculation may lead to a real zinc deficiency with various problems developing, including impotence.
"It is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that 19th century moralists were correct when they said that repeated masturbation could make one mad!" [2]
More recent research has confirmed the critical role of zinc as a principal protector of the immune system, with a host of physical illnesses attributable to zinc-deficiency.
Two professionals in the area of clinical psychology and family therapy have compared Ellen White's statements on masturbation with current medical knowledge. [3] Dr. Richard Nies defended Ellen White's general counsel on masturbation, making four main points:
(1) Masturbation leads to "mental, moral, and physical deterioration. . . . It is not the stimulation, per se, that is wrong. It's what's going on in . . . [persons] when they're becoming self-referenced and self-centered."
(2) Masturbation "breaks down the finer sensitivities of our nervous system. . . . It is not difficult to see in terms of the electrical mediation of our nervous system, how disease becomes a natural result of individuals who have placed their own gratification at the center of their being. . . . Disease is the natural result of this."
(3) Masturbation is a predisposition that can be "inherited and passed on and transmitted from one generation to another, even leading to degeneration of the race."
(4) In dealing with others, especially children, Ellen White's counsel lies in the direction of dealing with the consequences, of showing them that we should be training for love and eternity, not self-gratification with its terrible consequences. Dr. Nies concluded his paper, "Self-gratification is synonymous with destruction."
Alberta Mazat observed that Ellen White's concern regarding masturbation was primarily on the mental consequences rather than the "purely physical act. She was more concerned with thought processes, attitudes, fantasies, etc." Mazat quoted Ellen White's references to the fact that "the effects are not the same on all minds," that "impure thoughts seize and control the imagination," and that the mind "takes pleasure in contemplating the scenes which awake base passion."
ReplyDeleteMazat further noted that some may be embarrassed by Ellen White's strong statements regarding masturbation. However, many of Mrs. White's other statements also seemed "unrealistic and exaggerated before science corroborated them, for example, cancer being caused by a virus, the dangers of smoking, overeating, and the overuse of fats, sugar, and salt, to name a few. . . . It seems worthwhile to remind ourselves that medical knowledge at any point is not perfect." [4]
Looked at from another perspective, God always upholds the ideal for His people through His messengers. However one reacts to Ellen White's specific counsel, clearly masturbation was not what God had in mind when He created man and woman, united them in marriage, and then instructed them to be fruitful and multiply. God's ideal in regard to sexuality is the loving relationship that exists in marriage between husband and wife. Anything else, including masturbation, falls far short of God's ideal.
Notes
[1] An Appeal to Mothers was reprinted in 1870 as part of a larger work, A Solemn Appeal Relative to Solitary Vice and Abuses and Excesses of the Marriage Relation. A facsimile reprint appears in the Appendix to A Critique of Prophetess of Health (by the Ellen G. White Estate).
[2] David F. Horrobin, M.D., Ph.D., Zinc (St. Albans, Vt.: Vitabooks, Inc., 1981), p. 8. See also Carl C. Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D., Zinc and Other Micro-Nutrients (New Canaan, Conn.: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1978), p. 45.
[3] Richard Nies, Ph.D. (Experimental Psychology, UCLA, 1964; equivalent Ph.D. in clinical psychology, including oral exam, but died during dissertation preparation), Lecture, "Give Glory to God," Glendale, Calif., n.d.; Alberta Mazat, M.S.W. (Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, Calif.), Monograph, "Masturbation" (43 pp.), Biblical Research Institute.
[4] Mazat, Monograph, "Masturbation."
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 493, 494, with additional comments.]
Volcanology
ReplyDeleteSome charge that Mrs. White's statements regarding the cause of volcanoes reflected the myths and fanciful thinking of age-old theories. Her writings contain eight relevant concepts [1] that have been debated since they first appeared in 1864. [2]
This list includes: (1) Formation of coal beds is linked to the Flood; (2) Coal produces oil; (3) Subterranean fires are fueled by the burning of both coal and oil; (4) Water added to the subterranean fires produces explosions, thus earthquakes; (5) Earthquake and volcanic action are linked together as products of these underground fires; (6) Both limestone and iron ore are connected with the burning coal beds and oil deposits; (7) Air is involved in the super heat; (8) Deposits of coal and oil are found after the subterranean fires have died out. [3]
Many theories abound as to the causes of volcanoes and earthquakes and the formation of oil and coal. Most earth scientists base their ideas on the plate-tectonic theory. Nothing in Ellen White's comments rules out that theory. Further, nothing in her writings states that all volcanoes are the product of burning coal fields or that all earthquakes are caused by subterranean fires. When she links earthquakes and volcanoes together, one immediately thinks of the Pacific Ocean "ring of fire" and its high potential for disasters from both.
However, notable scientists have confirmed Ellen White's observations. Otto Stutzer's Geology of Coal documented that "subterranean fires in coal beds are ignited through spontaneous combustion, resulting in the melting of nearby rocks that are classed as pseudo volcanic deposits." [4] Stutzer listed several examples of such activity, including "a burning mountain," an outcrop that "lasted over 150 years," and "the heat from one burning coal bed [that] was used for heating greenhouses in that area from 1837 to 1868." [5] Modern confirmation exists for the igniting of coal and oil with its sulfur constituent "seen around the eruptions of hot springs, geysers, and volcanic fumaroles." [6]
References to rocks "which overlie the coal [and] have suffered considerable alteration because of the fires, being sintered and partly melted," correlate with Ellen White's statement that "rocks are heated, limestone is burned, and iron ore melted." [7] Further research in the western United States has produced conclusions and language very similar to Mrs. White's writings of a century earlier: "The melted rock resembles common furnace clinker or volcanic lava." [8]
One last charge has been that melted iron ore is not found in connection with burning coal and oil deposits. However, a United States Geological Survey paper records the discovery of hematite (an iron ore) that had been "formed in some way through the agency of the burning coal." [9]
The suggestion that Ellen White was wholly dependent upon existing sources for her scientific information is without merit, because some of this verification only became known many years after her death. Further, "It is much more unlikely that she resorted to the published ideas of contemporary Creationists on the subject, since their views were relics of wild cosmological speculations." [10]
Notes
ReplyDelete[1] See Warren H. Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 1," Ministry, August 1977, pp. 9-12.
[2] Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 79-80 (1864); see also The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pp. 82, 83 (1870); Signs of the Times, Mar. 13, 1879; Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 108, 109 (1890); Manuscript 21, 1902, cited in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 946, 947.
[3] Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 1," Ministry, August, 1977, p. 6.
[4] Otto Stutzer,Geology of Coal, translated by Adolph Noe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 309, 310, cited in ibid., p. 19.
[5] Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," Ministry, October 1977, p. 20.
[6] Ibid. See also Thomas Gold, Profesor Emeritus of Astromomy at Cornell University, "Earthquakes, Gases,and Earthquake Prediction" (1994), at www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Earthq.html
[7] Stutzer, Geology of Coal, p. 310; Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 108, cited in Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," p. 20.
[8] E. E. Thurlow, "Western Coal," Mining Engineering, 26 (1974), pp. 30-33, cited in ibid., p. 21.
[9] G. Sherburne Rogers, "Baked Shale and Slag Formed by the Burning of Coal Beds," U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 108-A (1918), cited in ibid., p. 21.
[10] Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," p. 22. "The coal mines of Germany have become a veritable gold mine in a study of Ellen White's scientific declarations, indicating the intermingling of the divine and human in a unique way" (ibid.).
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 492, 493.]
Wasp Waists Inherited?
ReplyDeleteEllen G. White often addressed the subject of how practical Christianity relates to fashion. She pointed out the duty of dressing healthfully and not being a slave to the dictates of "style." Like other health reformers of her day, Ellen White protested vigorously against the unhealthful practice of "tight-lacing" associated with the wearing of corsets. She noted:
"The corsets which are again being generally worn to compress the waist is one of the most serious features in woman's dress. Health and life are being sacrificed to carry out a fashion that is devoid of real beauty and comfort. The compression of the waist weakens the muscles of the respiratory organs. It hinders the process of digestion. The heart, liver, lungs, spleen, and stomach, are crowded into a small compass, not allowing room for the healthful action of these organs. . . .
"By lacing, the internal organs of women are crowded out of their positions. There is scarcely a woman that is thoroughly healthy. The majority of women have numerous ailments. Many are troubled with weaknesses of most distressing nature. These fashionably dressed women cannot transmit good constitutions to their children. Some women have naturally small waists. But rather than regard such forms as beautiful, they should be viewed as defective. These wasp waists may have been transmitted to them from their mothers, as the result of their indulgence in the sinful practice of tight-lacing, and in consequence of imperfect breathing. Poor children born of these miserable slaves of fashion have diminished vitality, and are predisposed to take on disease. The impurities retained in the system in consequence of imperfect breathing are transmitted to their offspring" (Review and Herald, October 31, 1871).
Some have questioned Ellen White's credibility for suggesting the possibility that some women may have inherited small waists from their mothers--as if she were claiming divine revelation on this point. Her cautious, qualified assertion ("may have inherited") indicates that she was not claiming revelation here. Even if she was mistaken in her understanding on how some persons may have acquired their physical deformities, it does not gainsay the health principles she was advocating, or the wisdom of her counsel that women should abandon such unhealthful practices. (See "Avoid Making the Counsels 'Prove' Things They Were Never Intended to Prove.")
Wigs and Insanity?
ReplyDeleteIn the October 1871 issue of The Health Reformer, [1] Ellen White wrote of "hurtful indulgences" that militate against the highest interests and happiness of women. Among these "indulgences" she included wigs that, "covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain." As a result of "following this deforming fashion," she said, "many have lost their reason, and become hopelessly insane."
In the context of today's comfortable wigs, critics tend to ridicule this statement. But Mrs. White was referring to an entirely different product. The wigs she described were "monstrous bunches of curled hair, cotton, seagrass, wool, Spanish moss, and other multitudinous abominations." [2] One woman said that her chignon generated "an unnatural degree of heat in the back part of the head" and produced "a distracting headache just as long as it was worn."
Another Health Reformer article (quoting from the Marshall Statesman and the Springfield Republican) described the perils of wearing "jute switches"--wigs made from dark, fibrous bark. Apparently these switches were often infested with "jute bugs," small insects that burrowed under the scalp. One woman reported that her head became raw, and her hair began to fall out. Her entire scalp "was perforated with the burrowing parasites." "The lady . . . is represented as nearly crazy from the terrible suffering, and from the prospect of the horrible death which physicians do not seem able to avert." [3]
With reports such as this in the public press, it is easy to understand why Ellen White would warn women against the possible dangers of wearing wigs and trying to "keep pace with changing fashion, merely to create a sensation." [4]
Notes
[1] The Health Reformer, October 1871, pp. 120, 121.
[2] Ibid., July 1867.
[3] Ibid., January 1871.
[4] Ibid., October 1871.
Unfulfilled Predictions?
ReplyDeleteEngland to Declare War During the U.S. Civil War?
Did Ellen G. White predict that England would declare war against the United States? Here is the context of her comment:
"England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A portion of the Queen's subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).
Note the conditional character of these statements: "She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But if England thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England does declare war. . . ." It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word "when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In fact, if we do not thus understand the word "when" in this connection, we have an unusual situation--a series of problematical "ifs" is followed by a simple statement that England is going to declare war. Thus Mrs. White's last sentence would make pointless her preceding sentences.
A similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue that the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement concerning a future fact that will undebatably happen.
An inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is found in Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in Palestine rather than going down into Egypt:
"If ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10.
"But if ye say, We will not dwell in this land. . . ." Verse 13.
"If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15.
"When ye shall enter into Egypt . . . ." Verse 18.
It is evident that the phrase "when ye shall enter into Egypt" is synonymous with "if ye shall enter into Egypt."
With the clause "when England does declare war," understood as synonymous with "if England does declare war," the statement changes from a prediction to a statement of mere possibility, but a possibility, however, whose full potentialities many might not realize.
[Adapted from Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 122, 123.]
Jerusalem Never to Be Rebuilt?
ReplyDeleteEllen G. White wrote in 1851 that "old Jerusalem never would be built up." [1] By itself, the statement looks unsustainable. But when the setting is reconstructed, we find Mrs. White counseling the growing Adventist group that both time-setting [2] and the "age-to-come" notion [3] were incompatible with Biblical truth. She emphasized that the Old Testament prophecies regarding the establishment of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine were conditional on obedience and forfeited by disobedience. Unfulfilled prophecies would be fulfilled to "true Israel" as unfolded in the New Testament text.
Thus the popular movement of the 1840s and 1850s to promote a Zionist state in Palestine was not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and not a quest in which Adventists should become involved. Her warnings and instruction were designed to turn the interest away from Palestine and toward the work God had opened up before them.
In a September 1850 vision she saw that it was a "great error" to believe that "it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. . . ; for those who think that they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get themselves and others there." [4]
Less than a year later, August 1851, she wrote with greater emphasis "that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of the Lord." [5]
How did Ellen White's readers understand this statement? That there was no light in the popular "age-to-come" teaching, that there is no Biblical significance in the Jews' returning to Palestine, that Jerusalem will never be rebuilt in a future millennial period. She was not talking about a possible political rebuilding of Jerusalem but of a prophetically significant rebuilding of Old Jerusalem. To continue to think that way, she emphasized, was to sink further into Satan's deceptions and away from present duty.
For further study of this topic, see Julia Neuffer, "The Gathering of Israel," in the Reference Library.
Some in 1856 Alive When Jesus Returns?
ReplyDeleteConcerning a conference in 1856 Ellen White declared: "I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.' " All who were alive then are now dead. Does this prediction mean that Mrs. White is a false prophet?
Numerous statements made by Ellen White in the decades following the 1856 vision demonstrate her clear understanding that there is an implied conditional quality to God's promises and threatenings--as Jeremiah declared--and that the conditional feature in forecasts regarding Christ's Advent involves the state of heart of Christ's followers. The following statement, written in 1883, is especially relevant on this point:
"The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the Word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional. . . .
"It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in 'because of unbelief.' Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them.
"For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years" (Ms 4, 1883, quoted in Evangelism, pp. 695, 696).
We can better understand Mrs. White's prediction of 1856 by examining it in the light of the conditional character of prophetic promises found in the Scriptures. For further study on this topic see "The Predictions of the 1856 Vision," in the Reference Library.
Alleged Historical Errors
ReplyDeleteWhile many events of the past were shown to her, neither Ellen White nor her son ever claimed that every historical detail mentioned in her works was provided by the Lord in vision. Ellen White says that she used "facts" which were "well known and universally acknowledged." (See The Great Controversy, pp. xiii, xiv.) She wrote, for example, "In 1816 the American Bible Society was founded" (The Great Controversy, p. 287). There is no reason to believe that this type of information was supplied in vision.
W. C. White [Ellen White's son] states:
"The framework of the great temple of truth sustained by her writings was presented to her clearly in vision. In some features of this work, information was given in detail. Regarding some features of the revelation, such as the features of prophetic chronology, as regards the ministration in the sanctuary and the changes that took place in 1844, the matter was presented to her many times and in detail many times, and this enabled her to speak very clearly and very positively regarding the foundation pillars of our faith.
"In some of the historical matters such as are brought out in Patriarchs and Prophets and in Acts of the Apostles, and in Great Controversy, the main outlines were made very clear and plain to her, and when she came to write up these topics, she was left to study the Bible and history to get dates and geographical relations and to perfect her description of details" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 462).
In a letter to W. W. Eastman, W. C. White declared:
"When Controversy was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it as authority on historical dates or use it to settle controversy regarding details of history, and she does not now feel that it should be used in that way" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 447).
W. C. White also wrote S. N. Haskell on the same subject, stating that:
"We will make a great mistake if we lay aside historical research and endeavor to settle historical questions by the use of Mother's books as an authority when she herself does not wish them to be used in any such way" (W. C. White to S. N. Haskell, October 31, 1912).
In making her case for the future, Ellen White built not only on the revelations God gave her, but also on the records of the past. She made no attempt to write an authoritative history textbook. Rather, in the words of W. C. White, "The principal use of the passages quoted from historians was not to make a new history, not to correct errors in history, but to use valuable illustrations to make plain important spiritual truths" (W. C. White to L. E. Froom, February 18, 1932).
[Excerpt from R. W. Olson, 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White, pp. 48, 49. Available from the Ellen G. White Estate.]
Apparent Discrepancies and Contradictions
ReplyDeleteCritics of Ellen White contrast certain of her statements which appear to contradict either herself or the Bible. Some of these "contradictions" are merely distortions of her words by the critics; others may be accounted for by the fact that the statement in question is only part of an idea more fully developed elsewhere in her writings. For a helpful review of such misrepresentations, see "A Closer Look at: 'Ellen White Contradicts the Bible Over 50 Times.'" But to attempt to prove that all the alleged "errors" in Ellen White's writings are not actually errors, is unprofitable for at least two reasons.
First, a person who looks for contradictions and errors in inspired writings will always be ready to supply new difficulties to replace those that have been removed. This has been demonstrated for centuries by those who take delight in looking for "mistakes" in the Bible.
Speaking of such, Ellen White wrote, "All the difficulties will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth" (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 16).
Second, Seventh-day Adventists (including Ellen White herself) do not claim that either she or other inspired persons were infallible, either in their writing or living. Alleged discrepancies and factual errors are only fatal to views of inspiration that demand perfection in human language and in the human instrument presenting the divine message. Such views run counter to what is observed in Scripture--the standard by which we are to judge our conceptions of how God speaks.
In evaluating so-called errors, one needs to consider whether the perceived "error" is central to the divine message, or inconsequential. Even when it is central, we need to allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit may "correct" the prophet in a future communication. See 2 Samuel 7:1-17 for an example. If, in their prophetic teachings--those messages presented as revelation from the Lord--Ellen White or any other claimant were to be found contradicting the teaching of the Word of God, then such claims would fail the Biblical test "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).
For further study, see "Realize That Prophets Are Not Verbally Inspired, Nor Are They Infallible or Inerrant." See also "Infallibility: Does the True Prophet Ever Err?"
"The Shut Door"
ReplyDeleteWhat is "the shut door" and what did Ellen White believe about it?
William Miller likened his message of the soon return of Jesus to the "midnight cry" of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). He interpreted the ten "virgins" as those summoned to meet the returning Lord, the "wedding" as the eternal kingdom, and the shutting of the "door" (verse 10) as "the closing up of the mediatorial kingdom, and finishing the gospel period"--in other words, the closing of the "door of salvation" or the close of human probation. According to Matthew 25:10, "The bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut" (Matt. 25:10).
Because they expected Christ to return at the close of the 2300 prophetic days of Daniel 8:14, Millerite adventists had emphasized that probation would close at the end of that period. Therefore, for a short period after the disappointment of October 1844, Miller and many of his followers, including young Ellen Harmon (later Ellen White), felt that their work of warning sinners was finished for the world. While a majority of Millerites soon gave up their belief that prophecy had been fulfilled in 1844, a small group continued to hold that the time had been correct, but that they had been mistaken in the event expected. They were convinced that the movement was of God, that the 2300-day prophecy had been fulfilled, and that the "door" referred to in the parable was therefore shut--whatever that might mean. Thus, to believe in the "shut door" became equivalent to believing in the validity of the 1844 movement as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
What is important to recognize is that the term "shut door" underwent a change in meaning among those who saw that the 2300-day prophecy referred to a change in Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The "shut door" was seen as applying to the closing of the first phase and the opening of the second and final phase of Christ's intercession in heaven. It is erroneous to read into all of Ellen White's "shut door" statements the initial Millerite definition.
Ellen White maintained, and the evidence supports, that, while she and others believed for a time that no more sinners would be converted after 1844, she was never instructed in vision that the door of salvation was shut for the world.
Here is Ellen White's explanation of what she believed regarding the "shut door:"
"For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. [Emphasis supplied. Here Ellen White states that her visions were not the source of her belief in this Millerite error.] It was the light given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position.
"I am still a believer in the shut-door theory, but not in the sense in which we at first employed the term or in which it is employed by my opponents.
"There was a shut door in Noah's day. There was at that time a withdrawal of the Spirit of God from the sinful race that perished in the waters of the Flood. God Himself gave the shut-door message to Noah:
"'My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3).
"There was a shut door in the days of Abraham. Mercy ceased to plead with the inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot, with his wife and two daughters, were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven.
"There was a shut door in Christ's day. The Son of God declared to the unbelieving Jews of that generation, 'Your house is left unto you desolate' (Matt. 23:38).
"Looking down the stream of time to the last days, the same infinite power proclaimed through John:
ReplyDelete"'These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth' (Rev. 3:7).
"I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844. All who saw the light of the first and second angels' messages and rejected that light, were left in darkness. And those who accepted it and received the Holy Spirit which attended the proclamation of the message from heaven, and who afterward renounced their faith and pronounced their experience a delusion, thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer pleaded with them.
"Those who did not see the light, had not the guilt of its rejection. It was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that the Spirit of God could not reach. And this class included, as I have stated, both those who refused to accept the message when it was presented to them, and also those who, having received it, afterward renounced their faith. These might have a form of godliness, and profess to be followers of Christ; but having no living connection with God, they would be taken captive by the delusions of Satan. These two classes are brought to view in the [first] vision--those who declared the light which they had followed a delusion, and the wicked of the world who, having rejected the light, had been rejected of God. No reference is made to those who had not seen the light, and therefore were not guilty of its rejection" (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 62-64).
For further study, see the following documents in the Reference Library:
"Open and Shut Door" Article from the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia
"The 'Shut Door' Documents," by Robert W. Olson
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual
ReplyDeleteAll of the above were taken from this site above. Links are there also.
Thank you, anonymous. Very insightful and accurate thoughts you've given. :-)
ReplyDeleteTour is always exciting and interesting. If it is night tour, it is more enjoyable. Night tour in new york city is really magical . The high line, a public park built on a historic freight rail line elevated above the streets on Manhattan’s west side is mind blowing. New york’s night harbor cruise, with awesome views of New york’s unforgettable skyline as well as opportunities to take up-clore and personal photos of status of liberty removes the monotonous of life. Anyone can see the beauty of Chinatown, soho and Green village by the luxurious coach. The tour will continue to gran central station and Rockefeller center which is exceptional for you. At last one can enjoy the sight of 50th street of New york city at night, you can’t believe your eyes. So everyone should go on a tour like New-york city in any age.
ReplyDeletetours in washington dc
Washington DC tours
Day and night tours washington dc
USA Guided tours
Adventism garbagetism
ReplyDeleteRespect and that i have a neat offer: Can You Hire Someone To Renovate A House home remodeling services
ReplyDelete