|
|
Ellen G. White Contradicts By Robert K. Sanders Click here for: 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.
"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. Consider a few facts: 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) 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.
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" 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:
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 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 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! 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!" 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. 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:
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 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.) 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?”
Jesus is the Lord God
Almighty 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:
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:
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). 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! 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: 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: 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. 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. 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." 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 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:
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. 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" 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). 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 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 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." "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.
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? 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. 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)
ADDENDUM
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). 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.
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).Contents
of Ellen G. White Contradicts the Bible Over 50 Times 1. WAS THE PLAN OF SALVATION
MADE AFTER THE FALL? 2. WAS ADAM WITH EVE WHEN SHE
WAS TEMPTED IN THE GARDEN? 3. WAS ADAM DECEIVED BY SATAN? 5. DID PRE-FLOOD HUMANS MATE WITH ANIMALS AND GIVE BIRTH TO NEW SUB-HUMAN SPECIES AND RACES? 6. DID GOD OR AN ANGEL SHUT THE DOOR OF NOAH'S ARK? 7. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT BEFORE THE FLOOD? 8. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT TO ESCAPE ANOTHER FLOOD? 10. WERE THE ISRAELITES
DESTROYED BY GLUTTONY? 11. DID GOD SEND RAVENS TO FEED ELIJAH? 12. DID SAMSON DISOBEY GOD WHEN HE MARRIED A PHILISTINE? 13. DID THE HIGH PRIEST
CARRY THE BLOOD OF SACRIFICED ANIMALS INTO THE HOLY PLACE EACH DAY? 14. DID CHRIST RESEMBLE
OTHER CHILDREN? 15. WAS THE MAN JESUS
CHRIST ALSO TRULY GOD? 16. WHILE TEMPTING JESUS,
DID SATAN CLAIM TO BE THE ANGEL WHO HAD SAVED ISAAC FROM CERTAIN DEATH? 17. WHO CHOSE JUDAS TO BE
ONE OF JESUS' TWELVE DISCIPLES? 18. DID DOGS EAT JUDAS'
REMAINS? 19. DID HEROD PLACE A
TATTERED ROBE ON JESUS? 20. DID JESUS FAINT THREE
TIMES UNDER THE CROSS? 21. WAS THE COUNTENANCE
OF JESUS MARRED? 22.
WAS MARY LED AWAY FROM THE SCENE AND JESUS' BONES BROKEN DURING HIS CRUCIFIXION? 23. DID JESUS' HUMANITY
AND DIVINITY DIE ON THE CROSS? 24. DID JESUS DIE TO
GIVE US A SECOND PROBATION? 25. WAS THE ATONEMENT
FOR SIN COMPLETED AT THE CR0SS? 26. DOES THE BLOOD OF CHRIST CANCEL SIN? 27. ARE CONFESSED SINS
TRANSFERRED TO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? 29. DOES GOD REQUIRE A
TRESPASS OFFERING BEFORE HE PARDONS US? 30. CAN WE SAY WE ARE SAVED
RIGHT NOW BY CHRIST'S GRACE? 31. CAN THE FAITH OF
BELIEVING PARENTS SAVE THEIR CHILDREN? 32. WILL THE SINS OF THE
SLAVE BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SLAVE MASTER? 33. CAN IGNORANT SLAVES
BE SAVED? 34. CAN WE LEGITIMATELY SAY "I HAVE CEASED TO SIN? 35. WILL OBEYING THE
COMMANDMENTS EARN ME GOD'S FAVOR? 36. DOES OUR OBEDIENCE
AND FAITH RECONCILE US TO GOD? 37. AS A CHRISTIAN DO I
STILL STAND CONDEMNED BEFORE GOD? 38. MUST I BE PERFECT
BEFORE CHRIST WILL ACCEPT ME? 39. DID JESUS ENTER THE
MOST HOLY PLACE OF THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE BEFORE OCTOBER 22, 1844? 40. ARE THE FORGIVEN SINS OF
THE SAINTS NOT BLOTTED OUT UNTIL THE GREAT DAY OF FINAL AWARD? 41. DID PAUL LEARN THE
GOSPEL FROM MEN IN THE CHURCH? 42. WHAT IS "THE SEAL
OF GOD"? 43. ARE WE REQUIRED TO
KNEEL EVERY TIME WE PRAY? 44. WILL PEOPLE BE LOST
BECAUSE THEIR PASTOR IS UNTIDY? 46. WILL GOD PREVENT THE
WICKED FROM KILLING HIS PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO RECEIVE THE MARK OF THE BEAST? 47. DO THE WICKED TRY TO
REPENT AS THEY EXPERIENCE THE SEVEN LAST PLAGUES? 48. CAN SATAN ANSWER
PRAYERS DIRECTED TO GOD? 49. WILL WE KNOW THE
EXACT DAY AND HOUR OF CHRIST'S SECOND COMING? 50. DOES JESUS RETURN TO
EARTH AT THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT? 51. WILL THE SAVED HAVE
WINGS IN THE RESURRECTION? 52. COULD JESUS SEE
THROUGH THE PORTALS OF THE TOMB? 53. DID ENOCH THINK TO SAVE SODOM? 54. DOES
JESUS PRAY TO THE FATHER FOR US? Ellen G. White's Additions to the Holy Bible 1. DID SATAN REPENT AFTER HIS
FALL? 2. ADAM WAS MORE THAN TWICE AS TALL AS MEN TODAY. 3. IN THE FIRES OF HELL, DO THE WICKED FEEL PAIN AS LONG AS THERE IS ONE
PIECE OF FLESH LEFT? 4.DID JUDAS HAVE A CONVICTION TO CONFESS HIS SIN? 5. WAS JOHN CAST INTO A
CALDRON OF BOILING OIL BEFORE BEING BANISHED TO THE ISLE OF PATMOS? 6. THE HEROD MISTAKE AND
COVER-UP. 7. JOHN THE BAPTIST KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO DIE. 8. MARY THE SISTER OF MARTHA
AND LAZARUS, WAS MARY MAGDALENE, AND SHE WAS LED INTO SIN BY SIMON. 9. JESUS’ BROTHERS WERE
OLDER THAN HE AND THEY WERE THE SONS OF JOSEPH AND SIDED WITH THE RABBIS. 10. ANGELS NEED A GOLD CARD TO
GET INTO AND OUT OF HEAVEN. 11. ELLEN G. WHITE THE ONLY
PROPHET GIVEN WINGS WHILE IN VISION. 12. MARRIAGES ARE TO BE
DISCOURAGED. 13. DO WE HAVE POWER IN
OURSELVES? 14. IS TITHE PAYING A
PRE-REQUISITE FOR PRAYING FOR THE SICK? 15. THE REDEEMED ARE TO
FILL THE VACANCIES IN HEAVEN LEFT BY SATAN AND HIS ANGELS.
|