Hello friends

I mentioned Mr. Ratzlaff's comments on Acts 10, in which he gives the idea of Peter preaching the end of all the dietary rules.

Well, we discussed that and other points regarding the dietary laws in another topic of this forum, with a complete assessment of the arguments presented by opposers of our positions, which I indicate below:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forum...=true#Post46698

We sent Mr. Ratzlaff the study and he reacted asking me my address for sending me a CD with a lecture of his on the subject. I am waiting to receive it, this time hopefully having his promise fulfilled.

But I should add an introductory part that was composed later on and is not there, which I do below:

Any discussion regarding the Bible’s dietary rules should take into account three basic questions that need to be well defined. These three questions really set the foundation of the discussion on these divine laws, and they are:

1 – Why did God create these laws of dietary limitations, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain meats were bad, without any clear reasons, and that was it?

2 – In what aspects were the dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they were not ceremonial? In what did they point forward to Christ's atoning sacrifice?

Note: Somebody suggested they would symbolize the separation between Jews and gentiles. But if that is true, would God include in His law a feature of something He, Who is not a respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11), condemns?

3 – How the shed blood of Christ would have been efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, serpents and lizards? Had it operated some change in the structural composition in a way of turning them adequate to human consumption?

Best regards

I am pleased to inform that all this discussion about the Ratzlaff challenge is translated into Spanish, in the 'Foro Adventista'.

Those who want more information where to find it there could send me a private message.

Have a nice week

These articles on the Ratzlaff challenge are being posted in another 02 forums in English and 01 in Spanish.

An update on the publicizing of this material: Now we have 04 forums in English and 01 in Spanish where this same articles are being posted.

“Discovering the Adventist Jesus”—The Contradictory and Confusing Theology of Proclamation Magazine’s Editor

In her article, “Discovering the Adventist Jesus”, Colleen Tinker, who is the editor of Proclamation magazine and a former Seventh-day Adventist, says something very interesting in one of the first paragraphs of her article, recalling something of her religious experience:

“It was May 1996, when Richard and I attended an Adventist Forum meeting in San Diego, California, and heard Dale Ratzlaff explain that the New Covenant, unlike the Old Covenant, was an unconditional promise. Where the Old Covenant promised Israel blessings in exchange for obedience, the New Covenant unilaterally promised that God would write His law on human hearts. This covenant did not depend upon promises of obedience from me. Dale explained that Jesus fulfilled the covenant obligation on behalf of humanity by fulfilling the law, by dying for sin, and by conquering death. In the New Covenant, God’s blessings are ours when we place our trust in Jesus. Our own behavior and performance are not involved in our acceptance into the New Covenant. God Himself makes and keeps the terms of the New Covenant. Jesus represents humanity before the Father, and the New Covenant blessings are ours when we are in Christ”. – Op. Cit., May/June edition, 2007.

Besides the poor theology of that statement, the incredible contradictions found in it shows additionally how confusing is this supposed “new alliance” message of Ratzlaff & Co.

First, Jesus said: “If ye love Me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15), while Mrs. Tinker says that our “own behavior and performance are not involved in our acceptance into the New Covenant”. Now, how someone can keep Jesus’ commandments without involving his/her behavior and “performance” she didn’t explain.

Well, there is that beautiful Evangelical Hymn that really says, “Just as I am, without one plea but that Thy blood was shed for me, and that thou bid’st me come to Thee, O Lamb of God, I come, I come. . .”.

But, another hymn completes the picture: “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey. . .”

Both hymns are part of the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal (respectively ## 590 and 314) and sang regularly in our churches. They simply teach that we go to Jesus just as we are, but that is because He promises to FORGIVE OUR SINS. And, again, let’s not forget the Bible’s definition of sin: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). What law? Wouldn’t that be exactly the one that Mrs. Tinker confirms that God writes on human hearts? The context of Heb. 8:10 says that it is “My laws” (God’s), the same that Jeremiah knew, because this text is a mere reproduction of what Jeremiah says in Jer. 31:31-33.

Someone could allege that Jesus, in the context of John 14:15, refers to the commandment of loving one another. That is true, but doesn’t He also imply the other part of His double “golden rule” of loving God above all else and loving the neighbor as oneself? He certainly does. After all, the word “commandments” in John 14:15 is plural. So, it must be, at least, two.

But still we have the law that God writes on human hearts. What law is that? God’s law, certainly. And isn’t God’s law also Christ’s commandments? Isn’t it expressed in the double principle of love to God above all else, and love to the neighbor? For centuries Baptists and Presbyterians say that the first four commandments have to do with our relationship with God, and the last six, the same regarding our neighbor. . . Have they being wrong all that time? I don’t think so. . . Don’t also Mr. Ratzlaff and his followers?

Related to that there is that very special question that I asked Mr. Ratzlaff months ago, and so far he gave me no answer. Who knows his editor-in-chief is better at answering questions? Well, let’s try, then, to address her the same question he snubbed:

Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), He

a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;

b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week?

OR

c – includes the 4th commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and non-obligatory principle that can be reinterpreted as any day or time which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)?

Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27.

Now I will act differently. As I do in some discussion groups and forums, when I address this question to “new alliance” adherents, since they normally show no disposition to answer, preferring rather to continue trying to manipulate the debates through the well-known technique of ignoring questions and questionings, I set a deadline for having it responded. If not, I advise that I will publish what I deem to be the CORRECT ANSWER at the end of the time set. Then, the opponents have two options: a – to accept the answer as correct; b – to refuse it offering convincing arguments to prove that it is not correct.

So, Mrs. Colleen Tinker has 10 days to give us a good and convincing, Bible-based answer. If not, we will offer the CORRECT ANSWER and she has the two options above to deal with.

Now, we find something very strange as we read further Mrs. Tinker understanding of the New Covenant in her article: “God Himself makes and keeps the terms of the New Covenant”.

But a “covenant” is tantamount to a contract, a pact, an alliance, or an agreement. And there are always at least two parties involved in any of such deals. What is she really saying? It seems very confusing on the light of her own context.

Does that mean that God does everything that the New Covenant comprehends, including “our obedience”? Oh, Jesus fulfilled the law for us, of course. But what does that mean, in practical terms?

* Did He fulfill the law of not having other gods? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free for worshipping other gods?

* Did He fulfill the law of not utilizing sculpted image in our acts of worship? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free from obeying this principle? Then the Roman Catholics and members of the Orthodox Church are right, we can’t criticize them for utilizing images and icons in their churches and homes. . .

* Did He fulfill the law of not pronouncing God’s name in vain? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free from obeying this principle?

* Did He fulfill the law of respecting the parents, of not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to give false witness against the neighbor, and so on? He certainly did. Does that mean we are free from obeying all these commandments?

The apostle Paul, the great champion of justification by faith, said something so much different from Mrs. Tinker’s theology to those who live under the new covenant. He wrote to the Romans in the 7th chapter of his epistle to the Christian community there that God’s law is holy, just, good and pleasurable, and that He obeyed it with his mind. That he refers to the 10 Commandments is clear comparing vs. 25 with 7 and 8—it is the law that brings the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet”. Which one is that?

The entire chapter speaks of a new life for those who abandoned sin (remember, “transgression of the law”) and “got married” with the new “husband”, Jesus Christ (vs. 4-6). And this new life is one of struggle against temptation, because, as he adds in the following chapter, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7, 8).

Then, in another paragraph, the author shows how far she was from being a well knowledgeable believer regarding the official teaching of the church she decided to abandon:

“My entire worldview changed at that moment [as she heard Ratzlaff’s explanation on the contrast between covenants]. Jesus was no longer a piece of the salvation puzzle. Instead, He IS salvation. In order to be saved, all I needed was Jesus. A flood of emotion overflowed in tears, and I felt something completely new: awe, reverence, and love for Jesus”.

She goes on speaking of her lack of knowing the “real” Jesus in Seventh-day Adventism. Another poor lady who missed some important materials that only the SDA Church has to provide its members and the public in general, two magnificent works especially dedicated to lead people to this wonderful Jesus that she alleges having discovered only after she left the SDA Church, to embrace this confusing and contradictory “new alliance” current: Steps to Christ and The Desire of Ages.

Seventh-day Adventists are really privileged to have these books available in their publishing houses and ABC stores. There is no need to discover that “special” Jesus with Ratzlaff or whoever intends to be the “guru” of a new alliance that doesn’t have anything new to tells us regarding the plan of salvation.

For one thing, I already published topics 9, 10 and 18 of our 28 basic beliefs, and there is nothing, but absolutely NOTHING, that Mrs. Tinker alleges about “discovering” the real Jesus that is not part of the mentioned topics, wonderfully enriched by the two books. The first of them had its first editions published by the Evangelical publishing company Revell, because its editor saw its Christ-centered character and evangelistic potential.

After discussing her own feelings and supposed lack of clear understanding of the real Jesus in 7th Day Adventism, she enters a new field, trying to discuss our understanding of the Godhead, presenting a brief history of what the SDA pioneers said about, later dealing with Ellen White’s treatment of the subject, coming to the absurd conclusion that she taught a tritheist Godhead. That is certainly strange, because if she had that view, how come the Church, either in her own time or in the future, never adopted such a position?

For now I will just discuss the first part of her discussion on that, reproducing the introduction of the book Questions on Doctrine, where the problem of the SDA pioneers who dealt with the Divinity question is fully clarified. Later on I will discuss how Mrs. Tinker presents Ellen White dealing with the Godhead in a totally distorted way.

The SDA Pioneers’ Struggle to Form a New Church

The founding fathers of the SDA Church over a century ago came out of various denominational backgrounds. While all were premillennialists, some were Trinitarians, others were Arian. The majority were Arminians; a few were Calvinists. Some insisted on immersion; a few were content with sprinkling. There was diversity on these points. And as with various other religious groups, our early days were characterized by transition and adjustment. As these men were already born-again believers, the initial study and emphasis was placed upon the distinctive teachings of the movement. And they were similarly occupied in developing an effective organization.

In those early years relatively little attention was paid to the respective merits of Arminianism in contrast with the Calvinist position. The historic differences of thought involved had reached back to Augustine and Chrysostom. They did not concern themselves with “absolute decrees”, “divine sovereignty”, “particular election”, or “limited atonement”. Nor did they, at first, seek to define the nature of the Godhead, or the problems of Christology, involving the deity of Christ and His nature during the incarnation; the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit; the nature, scope, and completeness of the atonement; the relationship of law to grace and the fullness of the doctrine of righteousness by faith; and the like.

But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by the great majority on such doctrines as the Godhead, the deity and eternal pre-existence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-cut views were established on righteousness by faith, the true relationship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the complete sacrificial atonement for sin.

A few, however, held to some of their former views, and at times these ideas got into print. However, for decades now the church has been practically at one on the basic truths of the Christian faith.

The very fact that our positions were now clarified seemed to us sufficient. Our teachings, we felt, were clear. And no particular statement of change from those earlier ideas appeared necessary. Today the primary emphasis of all our leading denominational literature, as well as the continuous presentation over radio and television, emphasizes the historic fundamentals of the Christian faith.

But the charges and attacks have persisted. Some continue to gather up quotations from some of our earlier literature long since out of date, and print. Certain statements are cited, often wrested out of context, which give a totally distorted picture of the beliefs and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of today.

Another consideration should be taken into account. Is it that Seventh-day Adventists, having no formal creed, do not rigidly bind the thinking of their ministry. It would be strange indeed if from some Adventist writer there did not appear an occasional statement that was out of line with the consensus of Seventh-day Adventist belief. Most religious bodies face this problem and embarrassment from time to time.

All this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position anew upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second person of the Godhead, was not one with the Father from all eternity, and that His death on the cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement. The belief of Seventh-day Adventist on these great truths is clear and emphatic. And we feel that we should not be identified with, or stigmatized for, certain limited and faulty concepts held by some, particularly in our formative years.

The statement should therefore nullify the stock “quotations” that have been circulated against us. We are one with our fellow Christians of denominational groups in the great fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints. Our hope is in a crucified, risen, ministering, and soon returning Savior. -– Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Review and Herald Publ. Assn., Washington D.C., 1957), pp. 29-32.
_______

Indeed the different origins of our pioneers explain certain doctrinal points they still adhered to for a time, among which we also can identify what characterized the consensus of the conservative Christian churches: a) The Ten Commandments as God’s law in all their precepts; b) Within the Ten Commandments, its principle of a day of rest derived from the creation of the world, thus being of moral and universal character; c) the divine laws being classified as “moral” (the Decalogue), “ceremonial” (the prefigurative rites of Christ’s atoning death, abolished on the cross), “civil”, “judicial”, etc.

Do Mr. Ratzlaff and his admirers admit these three historic “non-negotiables” in the understanding of the Bible among Evangelical-Protestants, brought into the SDA Church by its pioneers? Or is he, rather, pioneering other views that won’t match the typical doctrines of the Protestant Christendom (even Roman Catholicism) on these points?

Ellen White’s Discussion on the Trinity—Not According to Mrs. Tinker’s False Allegations

As I pointed out in my last analysis of Mrs. Tinker study on Ellen White’s discussion of the Godhead, if Ellen White were to start a new view on the subject, like the tritheism that our opponent suggested as being Ellen White’s stand, that would have been adopted by the Church as a whole, which never was the case.

To discuss things pertaining to God is not easy and our poor human language will always be inadequate to express exactly how the Godhead “operates”. So, one can easily stumble on words in exploring EGW’s attempt to make sense of the “heavenly trio” (an expression of hers), which is exactly Mrs. Tinker's problem in her tritheism interpretation of the SDA author’s language.

Proclamation magazine’s editor makes certain statements that are purely speculative and have absolutely no basis. She says, at a certain point in her article: “While Ellen White grew up believing in the Trinity, she changed her views in adulthood. No doubt James influenced this change, but she claimed that her visions established her unorthodox beliefs. Early in her career she was overtly Arian, and although her later views endorsed ‘a heavenly trio’, she never taught an orthodox Trinity”[1].

The evidence for that statement is simply absent. What she presents as “proof” is no proof at all. It’s the text when Ellen White simply discusses the attitude of the rebel angel in Heaven, envious of Jesus’ privileges and proximity to God, as is well known to SDA’s [Spiritual Gifts, Vol., 3, p. 37]. But Mrs. White never gives the least impression that because of that she is considering Jesus inferior to the Father. What Mrs. Tinker does is no more than engaging herself in an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, quoting the Adventist pioneer out of due context, jumping to biased conclusions of what could be going on in Ellen White’s mind, which is simply speculation of the worst type.

If we study seriously Ellen White’s writings unbiasedly we will come to at least two conclusions: 1. Her understanding of the Trinity question was gradual; as she received more light on the issue, she expressed her opinion; 2. It can’t be proved that in any moment she had gone against the Trinity, but for some aspects of what doesn’t match with what the Bible says, among which the position of a certain SDA medical doctor (Kellogg) that was totally in contradiction with the SDA viewpoint, and a Methodist confessional document that said that “there is only one living, eternal and true God, without a body or parts”.

Dr. Jerry Moon, Ph. D., who is the chairman of the Church History Department of the Andrews University Theological Seminary, discusses that in a very illuminating essay that I would recommend to Mr. Ratzlaff and his associates, especially Mrs. Tinker, “Ellen White and the Trinity”, that can be found in Dr. Bacchiocchi's webpage
(http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_150.htm), he says:

“Perhaps her first statement that clearly disagreed with [Ellen White’s SDA leading contemporaries] . . . came in 1869 in a landmark chapter, ‘The Sufferings of Christ,’ where in the opening paragraph she asserted on the basis of Heb 1:3; Col 1:19; and Phil 2:6 that Christ in His pre-existence was ‘equal with God.’[2] Here it became evident that if no one else was listening, her husband was. Though James White’s early statements about the Trinity were uniformly negative,[3] by 1876 and 1877 he was following his wife’s lead.

“In an editorial comparison of the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists with Seventh Day Baptists, James included the Trinity among the doctrines which ‘neither [SDAs nor SDBs] regard as tests of Christian character,’ that is, tests of fellowship. James now held that one could believe in the Trinity and still be an Adventist in good standing, because the Trinity was not a test of membership. ‘Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian,’ he continued, ‘that we apprehend no trial [controversy] here.’[4] Clearly James was moving away from his early polemics against trinitarianism. A year later, 1877, in a Review article titled, ‘Christ is equal with God,’ he showed he was in sympathy with certain aspects of trinitarianism. ‘The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three is bad enough,” he wrote, “but ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.’[5]

“In asserting Christ’s equality with the Father, James was echoing what his wife had written eight years earlier. For another evidence of her leading her colleagues, note that her assertions that Christ was uncreated[6] preceded by more than two decades Uriah Smith’s published acceptance of that concept”.[7]

The problem with Mrs. Tinker presentation of the matter is twofold: bias and lack of objectivity. Both are connected, because when someone acts under a prejudiced standpoint, objectivity is what cannot be found. Is Mrs. Tinker really interested in presenting a balanced view of Ellen G. White’s ministry and work? That I think is something we could hardly see in her writings, as a former Adventist who just wants to disparage not only Ellen White, but everything that is related to the teachings of the Church she now clearly despises.

But then, as her guru, Mr. Ratzlaff, is so ready to recommend books to better clarify his positions, how about he giving us a chance to also recommend books to clarify ours? I have another very special one to recommend to him and his editor-in-chief, as I will mention a little later.

The Real Role of a Prophet

Many problems related to Ellen White’s articulation of doctrinal material doesn’t take into account that the Adventist pioneer didn’t intend to act as the “final word” on these matters. Actually, the function of a prophet is not to set doctrinal matters, even though reference to doctrinal understanding of the leaders of the Church could be alluded to.

Paul sets the role of a prophet, writing to the Corinthians: “But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement, and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:3).

Once, Ellen White admitted frankly: “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.”[8]

Even though in occasions when the SDA Church faced serious challenges, as in certain crisis, like Dr. Kellogg’s pantheistic ideas, Ellen White stressed the importance of following her writings as a source of divine truth, she also stressed the importance of the Bible as our only source of truth and in many other places she even says that we should not use her writings to settle doctrinal issues. For instance, “The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God.”[9]

Authorities of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, in response to requests for a clarification of the relationship between the Bible and EGW’s writings, affirmed that “The ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy, that her writings . . . are applicable and authoritative especially to Seventh-day Adventists.” But the statement also denies that “the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of the Christian faith as does Scripture”.[10]

In fact, the 28 Fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists document makes clear that we believe that “The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines.”[11]

EGW’s Role in the Development of the SDA Church

Now, undoubtedly, Ellen White had a very important role and authority in the development of the SDA Church. As the author of More than a Prophet, Prof. Graeme Bradford, a book that I would highly recommend to our opponents, comments:

“There can be no doubt that she earned tremendous respect from her contemporaries in Adventism as they found her able to give advice and counsel that was so often correct and timely. When a person is in close contact with God over so long a period of time, as she was, their abilities in the area of wisdom and discernment can be sharpened. She herself was conscious of this when she wrote to her critics:

‘For the last forty-five years the Lord has been revealing to me the needs of His cause and the cases of individuals in every phase of experience, showing where and how they have failed to perfect Christian character. The history of hundreds of cases has been presented to me, and that which God approves, and that which He condemns, has been plainly set before me. . . .With the light communicated through the study of His word, with the special knowledge given of individual cases among His people under all circumstances and in every phase of experience, can I now be in the same ignorance, the same mental uncertainty and spiritual blindness, as at the beginning of this experience? Will my brethren say that Sister White has been so dull a scholar that her judgment in this direction is no better than before she entered Christ’s school, to be trained and disciplined for a special work? Am I no more intelligent in regard to the duties and perils of God’s people than are those before whom these things have never been presented? I would not dishonor my Maker by admitting that all this light, all the display of His mighty power in my work and experience, has been valueless, that it has not educated my judgment or better fitted me for His work.’

“She earned the respect of her contemporaries and, in turn, they gave her authority. She was established, in their minds, with prophetic authority because of her wise counsel. However, umpires in sport can have authority even when they make a wrong decision. Today we can see that, in hindsight, she did at times make some wrong calls. But that does not rob her of her prophetic authority anymore than Nathan lost his when he gave the wrong advice to David regarding the building of the temple. Or when John the Baptist got it wrong regarding the nature of the kingdom that Christ was setting up”.[12]

Ellen White didn’t claim infallibility, on the contrary, she asserts that she never claimed that, for “God only is infallible. His word is the truth, and in Him there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning”.[13]

And Bradford adds, “Accepting her prophetic authority does not involve laying aside our mind or personal judgment. It means that we will listen carefully to what she has to say and, guided by the same Spirit who gave her a prophetic ministry, we will make valued judgments as to the wisdom of the counsel as Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 14: 29 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 21”.[14]

Well, let’s see what these texts say: “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge”; “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”.

Briefly on the Plagiarism Accusation

One of the accusations from critics of Ellen White is about her borrowing material from other authors, but in his book, Bradford shows that borrowing from other sources was a common practice in the nineteenth century, which was demonstrated through wide documentation by an independent consultant, Vincent Ramik, a copyright-law specialist. He researched the legal aspects of her use of other writers and came to the conclusion in his report that there would have been no legal case against her in her day, and that he, particularly, had his life changed forever by reading her books.

As Bacchiocchi clarifies additionally, “She used historical sources, not to approve or correct them, but to teach the way of salvation. She never claimed to be an authority on history or theology. In fact, she asked for help both in gathering the information and in correcting any inaccuracies”.

And he says further: “. . . she makes no attempt to exegete the text [of Col. 2:14, that he discusses giving a different interpretation from Ellen White’s]. The reason is simple. As Prof. Bradford’s chapter explains, she never claimed to be an exegete. She uses Bible texts homiletically to proclaim religious truths, not exegetically to explain their meaning.

“The recognition of this fact has led to a gradual acceptance of new historical and biblical interpretations. For example, today, I do not know of any scholar who uses Colossians 2:14 to teach the termination of the ceremonial law at the Cross. The reason is simple. They recognize that this is not what the text is talking about. There are plenty of other texts that can be used to support such teaching.

“This positive development gives me the courage to continue my ministry of Biblical research. It is my conviction that Adventists are committed to search for truth. To use Ellen White to stifle any new investigation of Bible teachings run contrary to her clear teachings, as Prof. Bradford shows. It is this commitment that ultimately allows our church to grow in the understanding and experience of Bible truths”.[15]

Notes

1. Proclamation, May/June issue, pp. 11, 12.

2. Ellen G. White, “Testimony 17 (1869),” in Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (1855-1909; reprint Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 2:200; cf. “The Son of God was in the form of God, and he thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy [1877], 2:10).

3.”To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God” (James White, “The Faith of Jesus,” Review and Herald, Aug 5, 1852, p. 52).

4. James White, “The Two Bodies,” RH Oct. 12, 1876, 116; cf. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 178.

5. James White, “Christ Equal with God,” Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877, p. 72.

6. Ellen G. White, “The First Advent of Christ,” Review and Herald, Dec. 17, 1872, par. 4; later published in Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2 (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing Association, 1877), 9-10; cf. E. G. White, “Bible Study,” Review and Herald, Jan 11, 1881, par. 3.

7. Uriah Smith, Thoughts on the Revelation (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing Association, 1865), 59, calls Christ the first created being; a view repudiated in Looking Unto Jesus (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1898), 17, 12.

8. Counsels for Writers and Editors, p. 37.

9. Evangelism, p. 256.

10. “The Inspiration and Authority of the Ellen G. White Writings,” Adventist Review 159, December 23, 1982, p. 9.

11. Fundamental Beliefs, No. 1.

12. Quoted in Elder Samuele Bacchiocchi’s, “Endtime Issue Newsletter”, # 151 (electronic e-mail messages).

13. Selected Messages, Liv I, p. 37.

14. See note 12.

15. In Samuele Bacchiocchi’s Editorial Comment on the discussion “Ellen White and the Bible”, Endtime Issues Newsletter, # 150.