Originally posted by Link:
I have heard the SDA described this way--that there are two wings to the movement. The 'conservatives' tend to be very fanatical about EGW's writings, almost treating them like scripture, and tend to think it is a sin to eat pork or meat in general and things of that nature. The 'liberals' are more similar to other evangelical Christians.
Personally, I do not care for the more radical SDA teachings. God gave Gentiles pork, shrimp, etc. to eat in the time of Noah. He required Israel not to eat it partly so that they would be distinct. Pork is to be unclean _to them._ Why should it be to me if God gave it to me and my ancestors. I am a Gentile saved by grace.
As with almost every group there are conservatives, liberals and then the main stream that is some place in the middle.
The conservative and mainstream group all tend to accept the writings of Ellen White as examples of the 1Cor 12 gift of Prophecy.
The liberals are generally lucky to know that the Bible contains 66 books. (But that is probably no different than liberals in any other denomination).
You would have to "define" evangelical doctrinally or "in practice" for me to say which ones fit that model. I am probably more mainstream but I certainly enjoy attending non-SDA evangelical worship services.
As for the Lev 11 issue of unclean meats that you see in Genesis 6, 7 and 8. This is actually a stated "Doctrine" of the church that has nothing at all to do with "proof via Ellen White".
The case for it is made on the Bible "alone" by the mainstream group AND in the published 27 Fundamental Beliefs. (Recently changed to 28)
Link
Neither the Old Testament nor New Testament required Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, with the one exception being the Gentiles who lived in the land of Israel. Gentile slaves living in Jewish homes had to be circumcised as well.
As far as I know - no gentile was compelled to be circumcised -- they could be if they chose to be - but were not required to do it.
The doctrine on Sabbath is also a non-Ellen White based Bible teaching that is found in the 27 FB. So even new SDAs that do not read Ellen White - would hold to the Sabbath teaching based on the Bible based proofs.
LINK
If all of these legalistic teachings come from EGW's writings, I see no reason to further examine her claim to be a prophet.
First of all you are wise to look at specific doctrinal statements.
But you have been mislead if you think that these doctrines are "based on Ellen White" inside Adventism or in its published doctrinal statements.
The case for them is based only on the Bible. Which means that "testing/rejecting/accepting" them is ONLY done sola-scriptura.
But your point about Ellen White is also a good one in that she does claim to have messages from God that are in support of these Bible based doctrines. As she also claims about the Trinity.
That means that anyone who reads their Bible and finds that these doctrines can not be supported would have to quickly conclude that not ONLY are Adventists wrong about thinking these doctrines are Biblically sound - but Ellen White is also not a true prophet.
This is the right way to resolve the issue.
LINK
There are enough people with strange teachings going around today claiming to be prophets for me to dig through EGWs books to wade through the sea of adjectives.
Here again - I think you are taking the right approach. Once the claim is made that Ellen White DID have visions affirming these doctrines there really is no need to read anything she wrote to "Test" her since any interest at all in the doctrinal differences can be researched "sola scriptura".
And lets face it - there is a lot of room for studying the Bible.
LINK
Another thing that concerns me is the tendency from some SDA radicals to consider all of EGW's writings to be inspired. I can understanding paying attention to 'thus saith the Lord' type prophecies. But treating a library of books on health and interpretations of church history almost as if they were scripture
WEll of course this is a discussion on the very points that the argument above has been trying to negate... but since you bring it up...
Inspiration (regarding the gift of Prophecy) works just as God describes in Numbers 12 and in 1Cor 12. Not much we can do about that.
In regard to the topics you mentioned - IF Ellen White was writing in things like "I think we should all eat cake on tuesdays" that is certainly nothing to change your diet over. But if she says that "God showed me that..." and spoke about education, health, doctrine etc.
Then you have the "Basic" question for any group that has an accepted prophet among them (as in the case in 1Cor 14 and the many prophets in that church).
LINK
I see no reason from scripture to think that Michael is the preincarnate Christ.
This is not actually a doctrine of the Adventist church. But many do believe it as they believe that the "3 men" of Gen 18 are in fact 2 Angels plus God the Son.
LINK
The only argument I can see for this is that his name is 'who is like God?' But is that reason to consider Michael to be God?
No the reasons given for Michael are that in Daniel Michael is called "The Prince of your People" and in Isaiah 9 we are told that the PRINCE that is given to us is none other than God the Son.
In Rev 12 Michael has HIS angels. But the angels have allegiance to God "alone" so Michael has to be God.
And as you point out - the name for Michael indicates that in fact He is really God and not a created Angel.
LINK
I do not think so. "For to which of the angels said he at any time, thou art My Son, this day have I beggotten Thee?"
This is true - but remember Adventists don't claim that Michael is actually a real angel any more than the 3 men of Gen 18 were real men.
LINK
If Michael is the prince of God's people, does that make him divine?
Not that alone. But the Prince given to US in Isaiah 9 is divine. And in fact there is only one Prince in heaven that is given to us.
That is God the Son.
Is 9
6For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
LINK
Look at 'Elijah's' name. There were people named 'Yeshua' before Jesus Christ. What if someone tried to claim the OT priest in the time of Zechariah was Christ?
Someone can "claim" anything - the question is what is the Bible position?
And as I said - this particular point is not even a Doctrine of the SDA church. It is just that many of us find evidence in scripture to support this role of God the Son in heaven among the Angels of God.
LINK
There is no strong argument to believe that Micahel is Christ. This seems to be a case of unfounded speculation on the scriptures being turned into doctrine.
AS I said - this is not a Doctrine in the Adventist church.
In Christ,
Bob
