Skip to content
October 13, 2013

MORE CONCERNS ABOUT N.T. WRIGHT’S NEW THEOLOGY BYJ. LIGON DUNCAN III

                The modem New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, offers yet another variant on the theme of justification by experience. According to Wright, justification means God’s declaration that we are members of the covenant community. He accepts that in making this declaration God’s only requirement is faith, but rejects old Protestant view that the value of faith lies in the fact that it unites us to Christ and thus makes us partakers of His righteousness. Instead, according to Wright, God takes faith as a sign that the Spirit already at work in us and that we are already members of the covenant people. It demonstrates that we have a new, penitent heart; and God, seeing saving grace already at work, justifies us.
 
For all its laboured originality, this theory completely fails to escape the gravitational pull of the religion of self-justification. Wright’s basic thrust is that justification is no legal fiction: the believer is righteous. This righteousness may be the result of grace and of the Spirit’s work within us, but when all is said and done it is our own personal righteousness. It is inherent, not imputed. We asked to stand on the rock of our own covenant-keeping. Could that have given Martin Luther peace? Could it give any of us peace? On the contrary, our hope would ebb and flow with every rise and fall in the tide of our personal spirituality (A Faith to Live By, Mentor, 2002, pages 166-167).
 
Indeed, it is fair to say that the leading evangelical and Reformed scholars of our time (men who believe in biblical inerrancy and the Pauline authorship of all the New Testament books attributed to Paul – unlike N.T. Wright), think that the reformational exegesis of Paul on justification (while not beyond improvement) is better (that is, more biblical) than any of the various “new perspective” approaches. And furthermore, they believe that the errors promoted by Wright regarding justification, consistently embraced, undermine the gospel. It is also interesting to note that one of the major mainstream academic proponents of the new perspective has recently begun acknowledging in graduate seminars at Duke that Wright’s version of the new perspective “is not working as a reliable interpretive or explanatory framework for Paul.”
 
There are, no doubt, a very few men in the PCA who would suggest that one may embrace much of Wright’s view and lose nothing regarding justification that is vital. This is patently impossible by any historic Protestant and evangelical standard. Wright’s view necessitates the loss of the doctrines of imputation, the active obedience of Christ, the extrinsic ground of justification, and faith as the alone instrument of justification (to mention only a few). In other words, sola fide is mangled beyond recognition in Wright’s paradigm. To commend it as benign is the height of naivete. Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, as set forth in the Westminster Confession 11, is a non-negotiable in the PCA. For a Protestant pastor to want to “re-think” the core of the Reformation’s exposition of the Scripture’s teaching on justification, is like (to borrow an analogy) “a plumber who wants to re-think pipes.”
 
In connection with this it is important to note that a hallmark of the Reformed doctrine of the Christian life is that it highlights not only the imperatives, but also the great indicatives, and features not only the subjective work of the Holy Spirit in us but the objective work of God for us. It does so precisely because it believes (on exegetical grounds) that the divine monergism at work in regeneration and justification has a vital role still to play in sanctification. Sanctification, too, is by grace.
 
This emphasis, counter-balancing some aspects of what we might call a more fundamentalistic view of sanctification, is evident in many quarters of the PCA today, coming from many streams. Whether it is Tim Keller, Michael Horton, Bryan Chapell, Sinclair Ferguson, Skip Ryan, John Piper, Scotty Smith, Jerry Bridges, Paul Kooistra or the Sonship curriculum – there is a prevalent emphasis on the grace of God in justification and sanctification. That tendency should not be missed or unappreciated, even if we would want to put it slightly differently sometimes.
 
Now, understand clearly, if the systematic view of N.T. Wright on the Pauline doctrine of justification is correct, the exegetical grounds for this above-mentioned theological emphasis on grace are eviscerated. Why? Because this view of sanctification is inextricably tied to the historic Protestant doctrine of justification. This fact alone indicates that the risks are very high indeed in this discussion. Brethren who act surprised at strong responses from those who express these kinds of concerns about the teaching of N.T. Wright have not adequately considered the implications of the overall position and are not sufficiently sensitized to the pastoral and theological stakes of the discussion.
 
Now for those who are utterly lost in this debate, never having heard of “the New Perspective(s)” or N. T. Wright, let me offer the following. For around twenty years now, a “new” approach to reading Paul’s polemics with Judaism has been making waves in the field of New Testament studies, and gradually making inroads into evangelical circles. Actually, there is not just one approach but a group of approaches that are part of this movement.
 
The ground-breaking work of E.P. Sanders (formerly Dean Ireland’s Professor of Exegesis, Oxford, and now Professor in the Divinity faculty at Duke) in the area of Palestinian Judaism (and its relation to Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings) prepared the way for this new resuscitation of some familiar approaches to interpreting Paul’s thought. British New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn (of Durham University) coined the term “the new perspective on Paul” (in his famous Manson Memorial lecture) and elaborated some ideas popular among various students of Paul in the post-holocaust era of New Testament studies (among them, Krister Stendahl).
 
But it is N.T. Wright (a prolific author and effective communicator, who is now Bishop of Durham [Church of England], and was formerly dean of Litchfield Cathedral, England, as well as former Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey), who has most prominently contributed to the propagation of this view in the evangelical arena.
 
At the heart of the new perspectives’ critique of both Protestant and Catholic interpretations of Paul is the charge that Reformation-era theologians read Paul via a medieval framework that obscured the categories of first-century Judaism, resulting in a complete misunderstanding of his teaching on justification. Protestant ideas of “the righteousness of God,” “imputation,” and even the definition of justification itself – all these have been invented or misunderstood by the Lutheran and Catholic traditions of interpretation.
 
In a nutshell, the new perspective (as set forth by Wright) suggests that: (1) the Judaism of Paul’s day was not a religion of self-righteousness that taught salvation by merit; (2) Paul’s argument with the Judaizers was not about a “works-righteousness” view of salvation, over against the Christian view of salvation by grace; (3) Instead, Paul’s concern was for the status of Gentiles in the church; (4) So justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology, more about who is part of the covenant community and what are its boundary markers than about how a person stands before God.
 
Thus the new perspective on Paul purports to help us (1) better understand Paul and the early church in their original context, (2) vindicate Paul and early Christianity from the charge of anti-Semitism; (3) slip the Gordian knot of theological impasse between Catholic and Protestant interpreters of Paul; and (4) articulate an understanding of justification that has inherent social dimensions and thus secure a better theological foundation for social justice and ecumenism among evangelical interpreters of the Scriptures; among other things.
 
So where does a busy pastor or church officer, who wants to know what’s going on but who doesn’t want to read thirteen books on something that’s not going to turn into a sermon or a Sunday School lesson, go? Let me suggest the following materials available via the internet at “The Paul Page” (a very one-sided and pro-New Perspective site) www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/  or, better, at the Web site of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals www.alliancenet.org (and look under articles for Kim Riddlebarger’s useful critique of the New Perspective) or visit the “Third Millenium Ministries” Web site (operated by RTS/Orlando Professor Richard Pratt) and read Chuck Hill’s and Reggie Kidd’s measured and helpful criticisms and descriptions of the New Perspective www.thirdmill.org. The articles listed below can all be found via one of these three sites.
 
Justified Hesitation? J.D.G. Dunn vs. the Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Lee Gatiss.
A very helpful article from the editor of The Theologian. Gatiss exposes significant gaps in James D.G. Dunn’s knowledge of historical theology, flaws in his argument and exegesis, and even his unfamiliarity with the writings and views of Martin Luther on justification and Israel.
 
A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul by Mark M. Mattison.
Mattison is an unabashed fan of the new perspective. He offers a helpful, if giddy, introduction to its history, agenda, and themes.
 
Reformed Confessionalism and the “New Perspective” on Paul by Kim Riddlebarger. This essay, by a friend of Michael Horton, is posted on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Web site. It comes at the New Perspective from the standpoint of Reformed orthodoxy. Very good.
 
For some of you, a passing, brief, second-hand account of the new perspective may not suffice. You may want to read a presentation of the new perspective from its most articulate advocate and then read an intelligent response from a scholar of equal standing. If so, then you’ll want to read the following books.
 
What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1997, is a short, popular summary of the new perspective (and more) by the chief advocate of this new approach, N.T. Wright
 
Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective by Peter Stuhlmacher and Donald Hagner (IVP), 2001, is relatively new. These lectures (given at Beeson Divinity School a few years ago, and appended with an article by Hagner) give a strong, if incomplete, critique of the New Perspective by two recognized New Testament scholars
 
Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper (Crossway), 2003. Piper, a pastor and first-rate New Testament scholar shows that if you lose imputation (a doctrine for which Wright explicitly denies there is any canonical grounding) you lose justification by faith. Piper is moving more and more to a classical covenant theology in his soteriology.
 
I have a larger bibliography available on these themes that will be made available in the next two weeks in connection with a paper that I have produced on the subject. I will send it to the PCANews when it is readied.
============
TE J. Ligon Duncan III is senior minister of First Presbyterian Church (PCA), Jackson, Mississippi and adjunct professor of Reformed Theological Seminary. 
Leave a Comment
October 11, 2013

THE HERESY OF TULLIAN TCHIVIDJIAN & THE NEW CALVINISTS

THE HERESY OF TULLIAN TCHIVIDJIAN & THE NEW CALVINISTS
 
“Just as I am without one plea” is just as true for sanctification as it is for justification.
 

Think about it.
Just as you are – no spiritual growth or maturity, no increased knowledge of Jesus Christ or God’s Word is needed. According to Tchividjian, none of that is necessary. It’s all grace, baby. Once you’re in Christ, you don’t need to do a thing. Cruise through life ‘just as you are.’ That’s what the man is teaching.

There are what? 700+ commands in the Bible?
If what this man is saying is true, was Jesus Christ wrong in commanding us the Great Commission? Of course not. Is God wrong when He tells us to put off anger, malice, jealousy, etc? Of course not. Or were these merely suggestions for us to consider as options?
This man is a heretic, and the new Calvinism that he espouses is heresy of the worst sort. Tullian doesn’t want you to mature in Christ. He doesn’t want you to do anything, just continue ‘just as you are’ – and he calls that sanctification! being made holy!
Now, before you swallow this antinomian lie from Hell, be aware of what God has said:
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God – Hebrews 6:1 (NASB)
When we were born again, we were born again as infants, babes in Christ. It’s perfectly natural for a babe to grow up and become an adult, but Tullian wants you to remain a babe. Why?
Brethren, this is contrary to all things Christian.

Grace alone and gospel contemplation will not cut the mustard when it comes to your sanctification.
Sanctification is about growth in the knowledge of the Christ and God’s Word, of prayer and of fighting, mortifying sin in our lives, of becoming holy in word and deed, increasingly set apart from the world, it’s lusts and its culture – sticking out like a sore thumb. It is not about remaining ‘just as you are’. Indeed, the only way to grow in grace is to grow, increase, in your knowledge of Christ. 2 Peter 3:18
Prayer and no action against sin is an abject failure and a rejection of God’s will. So then, at best, listening to and believing Tullian Tchividjian will keep you in spiritual infancy contrary to God’s plan while you reject God’s clearly communicated will. At worst, Tullian is leading people to Hell and damnation with an antinomian lie.
This ‘pastor’ is not a mere miscreant muttering in some dark corner. No. The Gospel Coalition has given him a platform from which he reaches untold numbers with this new Calvinist lie. He is one of many babblers masquerading in effulgence and with much alacrity. With his own words he combines sanctification with justification, and therefore this is no calumny on my part.


This is not a knee-jerk, snarling petulance on my part. I have, with great interest on behalf of the Church, attempted to warn readers of this dangerous new Calvinist fusion of justification with sanctification, often times, seemingly, with little success. It can be frustrating.
Yet the brutish stupidity of this man’s theology needs to be made public, and indeed he has done that for us. Any believer who has spent serious study in God’s word can see the folly of this man’s teaching.

Leave a Comment
October 11, 2013

WHY I AM A SIX-DAY CREATIONIST

Why I Am a Six-Day Creationist

October 11, 2013.  From http://www.challies.com

I spent a couple of days this week speaking at a conference at the Creation Museum—my first time visting it. Before I arrived I decided to put a little bit of thought into why I am a six-day creationist. I wanted to affirm in my own mind that I was walking into the museum already convinced of a position.

I believe God created the world in six days—six literal twenty-four hour periods. I believe the earth is young—probably less than ten thousand years old. I have always believed this. But why? As I considered this position, I realized there are three main reasons I hold to it.

THE BIBLE TEACHES IT

God created all that exists, from nothing, in six literal days.

The first reason I am a six-day creationist is this: I believe it is what the Bible teaches. There have been endless debates about the meaning of the word we translate as “day” in Genesis 1 and so much of the debate stands or falls right here. There have been many attempts, some of them quite compelling and some bordering on the ridiculous, to make it express something other than “day.” But in the end, I believe a natural reading of Scripture, and a natural reading of the author’s intent in the passage, leads to the most natural and obvious conclusion: God created all that exists, from nothing, in six literal days. This is what the author said, because this is what the author meant to convey, because this is what the author believed, because this is exactly how God did it.

 

THE WRITERS BELIEVED IT

The second reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what the other biblical writers believed. When the subject of creation arises elsewhere in the Bible, I see no evidence that the writers held to any position other than literal six-day creation. If we hold that Scripture interpets Scripture, I see the Bible confirming the simplicity of God creating all things in six literal days.

 

 

SCIENCE CONFIRMS IT

The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.

MY CONVICTION

I believe the Bible speaks with greater clarity and greater authority than what I believe I see or what I believe I experience. Where many interpretations of science appear to contradict a literal six-day creation, I am not ready to re-interpret a clear and natural reading of Scripture to make it fit with these observations. The Bible is infinitely more stable than science and infinitely more reliable. G.I. Williamson recently said this well: “ I do not believe that there is, or ever will be, any scientific discovery that will be able to discredit what God has spoken. Yes, scientific theories do appear to discredit that creation account. But be patient. In time it will be seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was a six-day creation.” I believe this too.

I was and I remain a convicted six-day creationist, something that seems to increasingly be a minority position in the church. I do not make belief in a six-day creation a necessary mark of orthodoxy or a necessary mark of a Christian. But I do believe it is correct (I wouldn’t believe it otherwise, would I?) and I do believe it matters. How and why it matters is a topic for another day.

Leave a Comment
October 6, 2013
Image

ARE YOU FEEDING SHEEP, OR JUST AMUSING GOATS

Feeding sheep or Amusing goats

According to William Still. We are called to feed the sheep, even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it out in goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to their goatishness. Do we really believe that the Word of God, by His Spirit, changes, as well as maddens men? If we do, to be evangelists and pastors, feeders of sheep, we must be men of the Word of God” (p. 23).
 Sheep need to be rescued
 A sheep can be totally lost within a few miles of its home. With no sense of direction and no instinct for finding the fold, a lost sheep usually will walk around in a state of confusion, unrest, and even panic. It needs a shepherd to bring it home.
And so when Jesus saw the crowds, lost, spiritually disoriented, and confused, He likened them to sheep without a shepherd (Matthew 9:36).
Like lost sheep, lost people need a believer,  a shepherd–to lead them to the safety of the fold. We do  that by pointing the lost toward Jesus, the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11).
Sheep need to be fed
 Sheep spend most of their lives eating and drinking, but they are indiscriminate about their diet. They don’t know the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous plants. Therefore we must carefully guard their diet and provide them with pasture rich with nutrients.
In His encounter with him described in John 21, Jesus drove home to Peter the importance of feeding the sheep. Twice in His command to Peter, Jesus used the Greek term bosko, which means “I feed” (vv. 15, 17).
Our  goal as believers  is not to please the sheep, but to feed them–not to tickle their ears, but to nourish their souls.  We are not to offer merely light snacks of spiritual milk, but the substantial meat of biblical truth. Those who fail to feed the flock are unfit to be shepherds (cf. Jeremiah 23:1-4; Ezekiel 34:2-10).
Sheep need to be led
Peter challenged his fellow believers  to “shepherd the flock of God among you” by “exercising oversight” (1 Peter 5:2). God entrusted them with the authority and responsibility of leading the flock. We  are accountable for how we lead. (Hebrews13:17).
Besides teaching, the pastor exercises oversight of the flock by the example of his life. Being a pastor requires getting in among the sheep. It is not leadership from above so much as leadership from within. An effective pastor does not herd his sheep from the rear but leads them from the front. They see him and imitate his actions.
The most important asset of spiritual leadership is the power of an exemplary life. First Timothy 4:16 instructs a church leader to, “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.”
Sheep need to be protected
 Sheep are almost entirely defenseless–they can’t kick, scratch, bite, jump, or run. When attacked by a predator, they huddle together rather than running away.
Christians need similar protection from error and those who spread it. We need to guard the spiritual sheep from going astray and defend them against the savage wolves that would ravage them. Paul admonished the overseers  at Ephesus to stay alert and to protect the churches under their care:
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:28-30).
Sheep need to be comforted
Sheep lack a self-preservation instinct. They are so humble and meek that if you mistreat them, they are easily crushed in spirit and can simply give up and die. The shepherd must know his sheep’s individual temperaments and take care not to inflict excessive stress.
The Good Shepherd and His Undershepherds
Jesus is the perfect example of a loving shepherd. He epitomizes everything that a spiritual leader should be. Peter called Him the “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4). He is our great Rescuer, Leader, Guardian, Protector, and Comforter.
 The pastor is called to feed the sheep, even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it out in goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to their goatishness. Do we really believe that the Word of God, by His Spirit, changes, as well as maddens men? If we do, to be evangelists and pastors, feeders of sheep, we must be men of the Word of God” (p. 23).
About these ads
Leave a Comment
October 1, 2013

HOW TO PREACH SO AS TO CONVERT NOBODY

 

How to Preach so as to Convert Nobody!

 

 *  Do not to say anything to offend and if you don’t offend you can’t convert anybody.

 

*  Let your sermons be literary, flowery, ornate, flowing beautifully so your hearers never remember the lack of content. Be sparing of thought lest your sermon contain enough truth to convert someone. 

 

* Avoid preaching doctrines that are offensive to the carnal mind. Deal with sin, hell, and judgment in the abstract and make no allusion to the sins of your audience.

 

 * Preach salvation by grace,  but ignore the condemned and lost condition of the sinner, lest he should understand what you mean by grace, and sense his need of it. 

 

*  Make no appeal to the fears of sinners, such as hell and judgment,  but make the impression that they have no reason to fear.  After all, God loves them.

 

*  Preach the love of God and ignore the holiness of His love. Do not rebuke the worldly tendencies of the church, lest you should hurt their feelings and convert some of them.

 

 * Select your themes and so present them as to please the sport’s minded, the academic, the wealthy, the self-indulgent, the extravagant, the pleasure-seeking classes, and you won’t see any of them repent of their sin, confess their sin, acknowledge, and confess  Christ as Lord.

 

 * Ridicule solemn earnest Christianity which  pulls sinners out of the fires of hell.  Instead, discuss fantasy literature and and sinners will have little respect for serious preaching.  Tell your audience that the first 3 chapters of Genesis don’t mean what they say.  This will help them to doubt the truth found in the rest of the bible.

 

 * Cultivate fastidious tastes in your people by avoiding all disagreeable allusions to the existence of a literal hell, the last judgment, and final retribution. 

 

 * Ignore  biblical and uncomfortable doctrines as obsolete and out of place. And so exhibit religion as to encourage the selfish pursuit of it.

 

* Make the impression upon sinners that their own safety and happiness is the supreme motive of being religious. And see to it that you say nothing to any of your hearers that they are lost sinners on the road to hell who need a Savior.  

 

That’s the way to preach so as to convert nobody!!  What you are left with is, words full of nothing, devoid of truth  that fails to convict nor leads to the conversion of anyone. 

 

Leave a Comment
September 25, 2013

IS FANTASY LITERATURE NOTHING MORE THAN HOCUS-POCUS?

  Recently one of my students asked me to comment on the tsunami of fantasy literature that has flooded the world.  From authors such as C.S. Lewis’ s Narnia, J.R. Tolkien’s hobbits,  J.K. Rowling’s witches and wizards, and Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight vampires.
 
To begin with I really don’t have a lot of thoughts about Narnia, Hobbits, witches, wizards and vampires.  My initial thought is that it is all silliness and  foolishness.  It seems ridiculous to have a dialogue with Lewis’s talking animals.
 
Fantasy is folly to me. Of all the things that could be learned in the world that are helpful, fantasy doesn’t fit into that category. I am not even much of a devotee of people like C.S. Lewis and the “Chronicles of Narnia,” and Tolkien  and others that have some kind of remote Christian overturns. Just give me a good dose of reality.
 
 You can forget the fantasy. I really can’t build my life on a fantasy. I have to build my life on reality. People have asked me through the years if I want to write novels. You know, why do I want to write fiction? Who needs fiction? I don’t want to write fiction. I don’t even like to juxtapose fiction with fact, or reality with non-reality because I think that’s confusing. So from that standpoint, just a common sense standpoint, it’s silly, it’s Superman at best.
Fantasy is anything that’s not real. Where you have certain elements of miracles and then you add the more serious matter, then you’re not dealing with a world of spirit,  but you’re now in the fringe of the demonic realm. And I think that’s a very serious thing. I don’t think that’s helpful. I don’t think that that’s necessary. 
 
You know, you could sit back and say that these fantasy authors are good writers,  and very, very clever. You don’t sell millions and millions of books unless people like reading them.   These  authors are very talented writers and you could sit back in a critical way…I could read those things and appreciate art for art’s sake.
 
But I think for young children to be exposed to that kind of fantasy world, and to get lost in all of that,  is really in a way to check out of reality. And the more and more people that check out of reality, the less and less likely we are to have an influence on their lives with the reality of the scriptures. And I don’t think people need to get caught up in it. Whether it’s Star Wars or any of that hocus-pocus stuff that deals with fantasy, I don’t think it’s helpful to people.
 
And I think particularly children and young people don’t need to think that there’s some mystical spirits moving around in the world. Even if Harry Potter in the end is a good guy. I think there is spiritual reality in the world and they ought to know what the spiritual reality is, forget the fantasy! 
 
e
Leave a Comment
September 24, 2013

DEMOLISHING DARWINIAN DECEPTION BY DNA

Here are some interesting thoughts on DNA and Genesis 1:1
 
It was over a hundred years ago that Louis Pasteur proved that spontaneous life cannot occur. A cell cannot increase its complexity. A cell cannot add information necessary in its DNA, or its genetic code, to take itself to a higher level. That is impossible. It has never been done, it has never been seen.
 
Nothing mutates upward. Cancer cells are an example of this.   In fact, Darwin’s natural selection, or the process of change or mutation is always downward, never upward. 
 
Individual lifes who vary too much from the center of the species go downward, according to the law of entropy. Thus, mutants don’t improve the species, they are a decline. Inevitably they die at the cellular level.
 
 Natural selection then is only downward, not upward, and natural selection actually prevents evolution from taking place. No species is capable of moving up. It can decrease itself by a decrease in its information, but it cannot increase what it is because it cannot come across new information.
 
 
Herbert Spencer, a non-Christian evolutionary scientist, hailed as one worthy of many prizes in science, died in 1903. His greatest achievement  was that he discovered that everything that exists, fits into one of five categories. 
 
time,               force,               action,                  space,                   matter,
  
Herbert ol’ chap!       How  about Genesis 1:1,
 
“In the beginning,”                  that’s time, 
 
“God,”                                         that’s force, 
 
“created,”.                                   that’s action, 
 
“the heavens,”                            that’s space, 
 
“the earth,”                                 that’s matter. 
 
Everything that Herbert Spencer discovered in 1903, is in the first verse of Scripture. The Bible says that God created everything, and in saying that, the Bible gives us all the categories that exist. And He did this out of and from nothing, that is with no preexisting material, and He did it in six days.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment
September 22, 2013

ELLEN G. WHITE – FALSE PROPHET EXPOSED

INTRODUCTION

  • Please note that all material herein can be fully documented. There are no falsehoods or misrepresentations concerning Ellen G. White, the Seventh Day Adventist background and doctrine. All quotes are taken directly from Ellen G. White’s writings, newspaper & historical documentation or the Bible.
  • This book has been kept brief even though much more material could have been added.
  • We hope that the following will be an eye opener and that the reader will gain a more thorough understanding of Seventh Day Adventism.

ELLEN G. WHITE CONTRADICTS the BIBLE

(again and again)

Truth or Fable

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

(2 Timothy 4:4)

A Partial List (pp. 1- 8) Compiled by:

Pastor Sydney Cleveland, former Pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Robert K. Sanders, former Elder and 37 year member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

“There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical

sentence in that which I have written.”

( Ellen G. White, Letter 329A, 1905 )

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, Ellen White continues to hold the role of prophetess, and is commonly referred to as “the Lord’s Messenger” to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As a denomination, Seventh-day Adventists have long believed themselves to be the “successor and completer” of the Protestant reformation. They have long proclaimed themselves as “people of the Book,” a reference to their belief that all their doctrines are grounded in the Bible. This is why, when debating doctrinal points with Christians, Seventh-day Adventists are quick to pull out their Bibles to “prove” that they alone have the “truth.” However, the Adventist eagerness to open their Bibles is strangely lacking when it comes to the teachings and writings of Ellen White. Thus the need for this material.

Examples of Ellen White Contradicting the Bible is written as a direct challenge to Ellen G. White’s followers to simply 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.

Biblical Contradictions

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: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” (1 Pet 1:18-20).

BIBLE — NO: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” (Eph 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.

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: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6).

NOTE: There is no record in the Bible of angels warning Even of being separate from her husband.

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 deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:14).

Note: Who showed EGW that Satan deceived Adam, when the Bible says Adam was not deceived?

4. 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 earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: 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 admits EGW was simply wrong.

5. 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: “In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. (Genesis 7:13,16).

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. SDA’s 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!

6. 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: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” (Gen 10:32;11:4).

NOTE: This was one of the first EGW contradictions that SDA’s found and corrected. They claimed it was just a typographical error, forgetting that EGW claimed every word she wrote came from God! (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 2, p.293).

7. 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: “And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. So he went and did according unto the word of the LORD: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.” (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, written in 1916).

8. WAS THE MAN JESUS CHRIST ALSO TRULY GOD?

EGW — NO: “The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty.” (Letter 32, 1999, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p.1129).

BIBLE — YES: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6).

BIBLE — YES: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:7-8).

BIBLE — YES: “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” (Phil 2:9).

NOTE: The deity of Christ is a fundamental doctrine. Any other belief is HERESY.

9. 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: “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” (Luke 6:13-16; John 6:70-71; John 15:16).

10. WAS THE ATONEMENT FOR SIN COMPLETED AT THE CROSS?

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).

BIBLE — YES: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” (John 19:30).

BIBLE — YES: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;” (Rom 3:21-25).

BIBLE — YES: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 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 onlyso, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Rom 5:9-11).

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. There is not a verse in the Bible to support the SDA sanctuary doctrine.

11. 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 whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;” (Eph. 1:7).

BIBLE — YES: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7).

BIBLE — YES: “Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” (Rom 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 SDA’s agony as they question whether or not they will be saved.

12. WHO BEARS OUR SINS?

EGW — SATAN: “It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, … so Satan, …will at last suffer the full penalty of sin.” (Great Controversy, p.422,485,486).

BIBLE — JESUS: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1 Pet 2:24).

13. 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: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24). “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13).

NOTE: The reason the apostle John wrote his letter was to assure the believers that they had eternal life.

14. 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: “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9).

15. 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: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7-9).

BIBLE — NO: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9).

16. 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: “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isa 64:6).

BIBLE — NO: “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:11).

17. 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 by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9).

BIBLE — NO: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:” (Col 1:21-22).

18. DID JESUS ENTER THE MOST HOLY PLACE OF THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE BEFORE OCTOBER 22, 1844?

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 1844. 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: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Hebrews 9:12 written in 60 AD).

NOTE: This Bible text was written in 60 AD, and it states that Jesus was already ministering 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!

19. 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 His 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: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” (Gal. 1:11-12, 16-20).

20. 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: “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,” (Eph 1:13).

BIBLE – HOLY SPIRIT: “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Eph 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 Sabbath-keeping 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.

21. 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: “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” (Mat 25:13).

BIBLE — NO: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32).

22. 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 shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” (Phil 3:21).

NOTE: The Bible says the resurrected saints will have a body like Christ’s resurrected body. Nowhere in scripture is there even a hint that Jesus had wings.

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?

(Copyright © 1998 Robert K. Sanders)

Back to Index   Back to top

ELLEN G. WHITE’S ADDITIONS TO THE HOLY BIBLE

1. 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. 3 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.

2. 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? The teaching of annihilation is not Biblical. (Please see Chapter 22 that deals with this subject.)

3. 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.

4. THE HEROD MISTAKE AND COVER-UP

EGW 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; EGW 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.

5. 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. EGW adds to the Bible the same way that Joseph Smith does in the Book of Mormon. How can Adventists claim that the Bible is the source of their faith and accept this as the truth, and do it with a straight face? The Bible clearly states that Jesus was the firstborn of Mary. (And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.) How can the firstborn have older brothers? (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7).

6. 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 your 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?

7. 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.

Back to Index   Back to top

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST’S CLAIM

Seventh-day Adventists 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. SDA’s 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. The SDA 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. White were never designed to be an addition to the canon of Scripture. They are, nevertheless, 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 Ellen White is inspired would have to regard her writings as Scripture, the same way, as they do the Bible prophets. But 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 Ellen 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, Vol. 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, Vol. 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 Abiram.” (Testimonies , Vol.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, Vol. 4, p.230).

Back to Index

Page 1 of 4

Ellen G. White Controdicts the Bible

Ellen G. White’s Additions to the Holy Bible

Seventh-Day Adventist’s Claims

 Page 2 Page 3 Page4         P
2 Comments
September 17, 2013

SALVATION IS NOT BY RELIGIOUS RITUAL OR RELIGIOUS HERITAGE – PHIL 3: 5

Here are some implications arising from Phil 3:  5….

 
Paul’s says I was, “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin.”
 
Salvation is not by ritual. Paul says the first thing that was profit to me and I came to count as loss was that I was circumcised the eighth day.  In Genesis 17:12, Genesis 21:4, Leviticus 12:31, God institutes circumcision, that physical operation as a sign of His people. And He said it is to be done on the eighth day after a male child is born.
 
 That was a strict Jewish rite. And what is Paul saying? He’s saying I started with the most essential rite and sacrament which they felt was absolutely necessary for salvation. So he said I look at that circumcision that you see as so vital to salvation, and I’m telling you it’s rubbish.
 
 Because salvation is not by ritual, it is not by rite, it is not by ceremony, it is not by symbol, it is not by sacraments, it is not by masses, it is not by routines and rituals and washings and baptisms. Regardless whether you’re talking about Jewish symbols and Jewish sacraments and Jewish ordinances and rituals and ceremonies.  
 
Or whether you’re talking about Roman Catholic ones, Roman Catholic rites and rituals, or whether you’re talking about Protestant baptism or Protestant sacraments or the Lord’s table or some other ritual.  
 
Or whether you’re talking about lighting candles or praying through beads or praying certain formula prayers, or holding Keller multi colored prayer ropes;  ceremonies, rites and rituals don’t bring salvation. That’s what he’s saying.   As far as salvation is concerned Paul considered rituals to be useless dung, and and totally worthless.  σκύβαλα (skubala) 
 
There are some today who want to affirm household salvation as a replacement for circumcision. They twist the Philippian jailer’s story that he was saved and his whole household and they assumed that when parents are saved that the children born of those parents are in covenant relationship to God. And that’s why they engage in infant baptism which is a form of covenant identity.
 
They say  Infant baptism is how you identify a child as having been born into covenant identity, household salvation by virtue of parents. Not so!  Your religious family grants you no standing with God. The fact that you were born into a Christian nation grants you no standing with God. The fact that you were born into a Christian family grants you no standing with God, no salvation, it’s useless, it’s garbage, it’s rubbish.
 
No noble religious heritage can make you right with God. You can even be a priest, you can even be a religious person, you can be a religious leader, you can be a teacher in a religion, you can be in a religious family, you can be a PK or an MK, that’s a preacher’s kid or a missionary’s kid, you can be born into a religious family, a ministry family, God is not impressed.  Religious heritage  has nothing to do with salvation. And where you are in the social strata of religiosity is immaterial to God.
 
If you look around the world and see people like this? Very religious…up to their ears in religion. I’ve seen them all over the world, wearing robes and doing all of their religious activities, many of them functioning as priests, sacrificing, taking on themselves unbearable burdens, living in poverty and loneliness.
 
Many of them in pain and deprivation, functioning to fulfill a religious pattern that they believe will please God. The bottom line, He’s not impressed. He’s not impressed with any of it…whether it’s Judaistic religion, whether it’s Buddhistic religion, whether it’s Islam, whether it’s Roman Catholicism, whether it’s Protestantism, the religious form does not impress God. And religious devotion can’t save you. 
 
  As far as salvation is concerned Paul considered Religious Heritage to be useless dung, and and totally worthless.  σκύβαλα (skubala) 
 

 

Leave a Comment
September 10, 2013

TEN REASONS WHY I REJECT INFANT BAPTISM.

Recently I was asked to list some reasons why I reject infant baptism.  These ten are off the top of my head; I may think of more and add to the list later.
 
1. Infant Baptism is not in the Scriptures.
 
2. Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel.
 
3. Baptism is never referred to as a replacement sign for circumcision. In fact, the two are never compared at all in the Scriptures.
 
(If baptism replaced circumcision, why did the Council at Jerusalem fail to tell the Gentiles that they did not need to circumcize BECAUSE circumcision was now replaced by baptism?)
 
4. The New Covenant is comprised of the elect only. (Jer 31:31-34; 1 John 2:20; Hebrews 8) Why would we give the covenant sign to one who is not in the covenant? We are not in the New Covenant until we are saved.
 
5. Infant Baptism, and Full Covenant Theology, denies the doctrine of Unconditional Election. God does not elect you based on who your parents are and what they believe.
 
6. Infant Baptism denies Limited Atonement, too. The New Covenant is a Covenant in Christ’s blood. For whom did He die and shed His blood? The elect. To say one who is not elect and not atoned for is in the covenant of His blood, means Jesus died for all men and those excluded are excluded by their choice, or by their failure to take advantage of the atonement, potentially made for them.
 
7. Infant Baptism denies the regenerate nature of the church by purposefully including some non-elect in the membership of the church. One is a sheep or a goat. Goats are not members of the herd! (1 John 2:19; Matthew 7:21-23)
 
8. Baptism is a public profession of personal faith in Christ, signifying the reality of being born again. Can an infant profess faith?
 
9. If God promises that the children of believers are in covenant with Him, why then are there some children of believers who are never saved? 
 
10. As Jesus is the only Mediator between God and men, what is His role as Mediator in the New Covenant? Part of that role as mediator is that He intercedes.  Jesus does not pray for the world, but only for the elect. (John 17:9). 
 
 
 
Leave a Comment
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »