Scott asked, "Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer?" Does it?

Yes, I believe she grew in her understanding of the truths God revealed to her. I do not, however, believe God revealed things to her later on that contradicted what He revealed to her earlier on.

I cannot think of an example of her learning something later on that led her to realize she was wrong, or that led her to change her thinking on a particular point of truth. Can you?

In particular, can you think of her ever saying something to effect - Earlier in my ministry I wrote stuff that reflected a harsh view of God, but I was young and ill informed, nowadays my views are more accurate, they represent the truth about God, about His love and mercy and compassion. I no longer believe He directly or personally punishes or destroys impenitent sinners. Instead, I have come to realize and believe He reluctantly withdraws His loving protection and either commands holy angels to allow man and nature to unleash their pent up power, or He gives evil angels permission to manipulate man and nature to cause destruction proportionate to the sinfulness of the person or people who have resisted and rejected His loving entreaties and protection.

What about Ellen’s early rejection of a prohibition on pork?

What about her position on the “Shut Door Theory”?

What about her position on masturbation?

What about her learning about the Sabbath?

What about her statements that contradict each other such as her taking a dogmatic stand that God punishes the wicked by violently destroying them and then making a statement that God’s punishments are not to be seen as God doing anything other than allowing men to suffer the consequences of their own choices?

What about Her insistence that we are the ones being judged in the IJ and then clearly explaining that God has placed Himself on trial in the IJ.

What about her embracing the 1888 message and getting excited that the truth was being presented so clearly?



This makes no sense to me. What you are purposing is that if Ellen didn’t say it, it isn’t true! Thus all truth is in Ellen! She makes it pretty clear that if we study the sanctuary there are vast truths to be gained. If we looked at things the way you do how could we ever advance from her understanding at all? Every time a person advances in truth the past truths take on new meanings and become clearer. Ellen didn’t see everything, but what she did see will make sense when understanding truth clearer.

Not that the law lacks “the legal right to be merciful”, but that the law lacks the revelation of God’s mercy.



This offends me that you could say such things about God after Jesus spent so much time talking about God’s acceptance and revealing His love.



Sinners condemn themselves to death and God cries like a mother morns over her dead child!

Scott, I have not read where Sister White wrote - I no longer believe the things God initially revealed to me. Neither have you quoted her.

The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.(GC 541, emphasis mine)

Post #100897

Mountain Man: Scott, I very much appreciate you answering my question. Thank you. Do you think Ellen White is partly to blame for SDAs believing in the atonement the way most do? For example, she wrote:

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man’s stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

The NC relied on Jesus paying our sin debt of death on the cross. Law and justice, as established by God Himself, demands death for sin. Jesus' death was required to preserve the honor and integrity of God's law. In so dying, God demonstrated the truth about His law and love. He also thereby safeguarded redeemed and unfallen beings against rebelling in the future.

Is this how you see it, too?

Scott: Hi MM,

I don’t see that Ellen has any blame for anything. She came from a Methodist background with a very legal view of the atonement and justice. She wasn’t instantly changed, but over the years saw things that are diametrically opposed to her view. Ellen believed in penal atonement. But she also says many things that do not fit that view. Abraham believed in having multiple wives, but that doesn’t mean He was not called of God.

If you read the 1858 version of the Great Controversy you will find her picture of God much harsher than in the 1905 version after 5 editions. Her view of God softened and she moved from a strictly penal view to a more natural view of the destruction of the wicked.

Why would we assume that the minute God calls a prophet that the person has every theological misunderstanding straightened out immediately? Ellen was a pork eating Sunday keeper when God called her. It took her years to change her mind and her habits. And I think that she is one of the biggest blessings to the church simply because we got to see the prophetic gift in progress for over 60 years and now we know how all the prophets were changed by their message.

Ellen’s message dynamically changed her, but our fundamentalist attitude toward the prophets doesn’t allow for her to grow. If she saw something clearer 10 years after she commented on it last and she changed her position everyone cried, “False prophet”. Remember that she said that she was not infallible. That simply means that she made mistakes!

Does your theology allow her to make mistakes or change her mind as things grew clearer? If not you might want to consider rethinking your position.

Regarding your question as to whether God condemns sinners, the following speaks to this:

Scott wrote - "If you read the 1858 version of the Great Controversy you will find her picture of God much harsher than in the 1905 version after 5 editions. Her view of God softened and she moved from a strictly penal view to a more natural view of the destruction of the wicked."

Do you agree with him?

Tom, my question was - "Scott, do you agree that the law condemns sinners to death?" What thinkest thou?