If you recall, there was only one "firm platform" for EGW's theology (EW 258): The Three Angels' Messages.

Who do you think it was that failed to accept the first and second messages? And why?

I dare speculate Reformed theology of every stripe has yet to enter into the Most Holy Place and Third Angel's Message, or what is the sanctuary's final cleansing of humanity's heart in preparation for Christ's return.

I believe it is at this precise juncture that our respective theologies part.

"And by rejecting the two former messages, they have so darkened their understanding that they can see no light in the third angel's message, which shows the way into the most holy place. . . the nominal churches had crucified these messages, and therefore they CANNOT be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there." EW 260-261.

Ellen White couldn't have been addressing Hodge, Warfield, or Barth in Protestant America, right?

You talk of "provisions of grace," and I say a true prophet has clarified exactly where these provisions may today be found!

Again, our theologies stem from different powers, if you will, and thus end in very different places in the eschaton.

BTW, the hoopster earlier referred to the term "true that" and I only wanted to credit him for being cool.

William

William, what I'm trying to say is that the pioneers, and especially Ellen White, did not create a theology ex nihilo. She gathered previous truths, separated them from error and put them within the framework of the sanctuary and the great controversy. This is true of the Sabbath, of Christ's second coming, of soul sleep, of righteousness by faith, of covenant theology, etc.
So, within a given doctrine, there are points on which we agree with other Christians, and points on which we disagree with them. Of course there are differences in our theologies, but you can't say our view is totally different from theirs in everything.

No, you're right. I would be foolish and a poor student of history to suggest otherwise. I'm certainly trying to be as objective as an "opponent" can be in interpreting both sides, which is hopefully fairly and accurately.

That said, you must admit that Ellen White took her DOA soteriology to its logical conclusion: Salvation from sin as opposed to in sin.

Ha, waiting with trembling hand for the Scholar-Baller rebuke.



William

I'm trying to quantify my observation that modern postlapsarians teach a different brand of postlapsarianism than the postlapsarians that EGW endorsed. Your inability to answer the question is revealing. Instead of saying Yes or No, you ask Why. It seems this is not as clear-cut in your mind as one would be led to believe considering your vehemence in defending your views.

Modern postlapsarians say they are upholding the 1888 teachings, claiming for themselves the positive reviews given by EGW, but I don't think a close look at the details bears that out. The quote we are looking at is one example.

The statements I have made about postlaps are based on the postlaps I have personally met, physically or online. Your assessment that my statements do not apply to Waggoner lend credence to my theory about modern postlap doctrine being different from Waggoner's version.


I wasn't asking to find out about what I should think. I wanted to find out about what you think. It would seem that my understanding of your theology might not be much more blurry than your own. It's OK. We non-postlaps find much on this topic that befuddles.

What it boils down to is that Waggoner taught a view of our fallen condition that does not apply to Jesus. He would probably be branded as a prelap by some of our more zealous postlap friends. So on that point, Waggoner and I are on the same side. Imagine that!

Kinda like Delonte West waiting for the Mamba?

OK, enough goofing around.

It's not an inability. It's a clarification for an odd question. Your response here helps me to understand. You're interested in something I wasn't discussing, which explains why I found the question odd. *I* wasn't discussing in the least your observation that modern postlapsarians teach a different brand of postlapsarianism than the postlapsarians EGW endorsed. I've been quoting very heavily from these postlapsarians. For example, I've quoted this several times:



This was a postlapsarian EGW endorsed. Do we agree that the above is true and well stated?



Again, you're being interested in something I wasn't addressing explains the odd question. You could have simply answered my question. If you ask an odd question from nowhere which doesn't flow into the conversation, am I not justified in wanting to know why you're doing this?



Again, my purpose in presenting the quote was to bring out that your generalities regarding postlapsarianism is false. You seem to have some subset in mind, which you don't quote, and of which I've had no interest and quoted nothing. I've been limiting my comments and observations to specifically the postlapsarianism that Ellen White endorsed, with the exception of pointing out that I personally know many modern postlapsarians who do not fit your characterizations.

If you wish to make some sort of case regarding modern day postlapsarians vs. those of the time of Ellen White, please go ahead and do so. Present some quotes. Make your case.

If you agree with the writings of Jones, Waggoner and Prescott, and see them as in harmony with what Ellen White wrote, that's plenty for me.



You've presented absolutely no evidence to support your position. None. Until you do, I don't think you should make negative characterizations. If you're going to make public accusations, please present evidence. That's a reasonable request, isn't it? Again, I hasten to add, defending the postlapsarians you are referencing is in no way a burden of mine, but it only seems fair to them, whoever they are, that you should present evidence when making accusations, and would make the same request if someone were doing the same in regards to prelapsarians. (I was going to say modern day prelapsarians, but that would have been redundant )



I was doing the same, and did so first. This was the point of my presenting the Waggoner quote. What I think is that your characterizations of postlapsarianism have been inaccurate and unfair.



I would that you were on Waggoner's side all the way. Waggoner was the one (along with Jones and Prescott) endorsed as having a message from God. I couldn't care less if you agree with Kilpatrick or whoever the people you know personally are.

Whidden wrote:


In all fairness and for the sake of rationality, Arnold, what you or I banter about on this fun forum, or even privately believe about a certain truth, is far less significant for the annals of history than what our denominational thought-leaders leave recorded for later generations.

I know. Not fair. But like it or not, our leading administrators and academicians (et al) have the final say-so, so to speak, on theological matters when they publish their books and leave an indelible impression upon the church. See QOD and 28 FBs. Et cetera. Nothing new.

So, sadly (or not), if Woody writes for the QODC, for example, that there's an HOC thread between Waggoner and Kirkpatrick or Jones and Priebe, well, let's just say when it's all been written, it's their word against ours (pun intended).

This is simply a historically-verifiable reality. Like it or not. Know what I mean?

William

Something big and black is going to devour that little redheaded stepchild. . . now we're done!



William

Sorry, mate. Didn't mean to make you gag by associating our new postlaps with the old!

William

Of course! Righteousness by faith must be given prominence. “The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster.” “Christ and His righteousness--let this be our platform, the very life of our faith.” Ellen White was an extremely balanced person. The Savior must be exalted – the rest were details which would be gradually understood.


True, this is what she was trying to do. But this did not prevent her from disagreeing with Waggoner. She said, “Dr. Waggoner has spoken to us in a straightforward manner. There is precious light in what he has said.” But she also said, “Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views...” She took exception to some of the things he said, this is obvious.


She obviously disagreed with Waggoner’s view that Christ had a beginning, yet she never corrected him personally about it.


It wasn’t the cornerstone of her theology. At that historical moment what mattered, and what the Church needed, was for Christ to be exalted as the only hope of the sinner. I also don’t consider this subject the cornerstone of my theology. I see this as a peripheral issue which won’t prevent anyone from being saved. In fact, I don’t see how it’s possible to consider this fundamental for salvation and not cherish a judgmental attitude.


This is a good example. She endorsed Waggoner’s view on the law in Galatians, but Waggoner was just partially right. He was more correct than Butler, but still just partially right.

“He [Ellen White's angelic guide] stretched out his arms toward Dr. Waggoner and to you, Elder Butler, and said in substance as follows: ‘Neither have all the light upon the law, neither position is perfect.’”--Letter 21, 1888, pp. 6,7. (To G. I. Butler, October 14, 1888.) {9MR 218.1}


I disagree with what is not in harmony with what Ellen White wrote. That’s your problem. You judge Ellen White by Jones and Waggoner, when it should be the other way around. Ellen White was inspired, they weren't.


As I said previously, their perspective of things, and yours, may be totally wrong.


No. The point is that Ellen White’s endorsements considered just the general thrust of a message and did not refer to all the specific points involved in the subject. This is valid for one endorsement or for a thousand.


Of course I think the same about your arguments.