S: There are a lot of perks to being God’s remnant.

MM: Does the Remnant Church exist today? If so, which church is it?

It's not out of context. You can read the whole letter and verify this. The whole point of the letter had to do with just what was quoted.



It was a private letter. The principles knew what the positions were. There was no need for her to state them.



It looks like you're misreading this, if you think this is cutting both ways. It's not. The "every one of you" is speaking of "Smith, Porter, Jones" and the others resisting what Waggoner was teaching. It's not referring to Waggoner. This can be verified by looking at her continued correspondence at this time, which is in the 1888 Materials, released by the EGW Estate around 1988.



It's speaking primarily of the issues. The persons referred to in the letter were rejecting "truth." She explained why. It wasn't simply a mental problem of incorrectly rejecting something which shouldn't be rejected. But primarily the issue was that truth was being rejected.

I take it from your remarks that you don't know the background as to what was happening when this letter was written. There is a specific reason as to why she wrote this letter.



This section talking about the law in Galatians, not the covenants. She wrote that Waggoner's view of the covenants was "clear and convincing" as well as "truth" and that the others were wasting their investigative powers trying to develop a position different than Waggoner's. Really, this is so clear, I don't see how one can argue against it.

When I presented the quote, I remarked I didn't think it would do any good. I've yet to meet someone read this quote and say, "Oh really? Then I wonder what Waggoner's position on the covenant's is. I better find out!" although I would think this would be a natural reaction.

No one researches the specifics. What was going on when this endorsement was made? Why did she make it? If one makes the effort to do this, it's very clear what the points of contention were, what she was endorsing, and why.



Do you disagree with the first point, that Waggoner's view on the covenants was "clear and convincing" and "truth"?

This is misleading. She makes a specific comment about a specific verse, or 2 verses, which is Gal. 3:24, 25. In 1SM 234, 5 she explains that the Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul was speaking especially of the moral law (this was in 1892 I think). There was also a secondary consideration, which she mentions later (in 1900 I think) regarding Gal. 3:24, 25.

She really didn't want to get into the issue, and wanted the breathren to hash it out themselves. Waggoner was willing to do so, and she commended him as comporting himself as a Christian gentleman. I am not aware of her ever being critical of Waggoner's conduct, in terms of his spirit or how he treated another. Anyway, he was willing, but his oposition was not. She, I'm tempted to say "nagged" as that seems the most accurate word, them to do so for years in which she wrote them dozens of letters. There are literally hundreds of pages involved. But they steadfastly refused.

She had the insight that more was involved than merely the law in Galatians. She saw that Waggoner had light on righteousness by faith, which is how she saw the issue.

Now there's a reason why Waggoner viewed the law in Galatians as being the moral law. Actually, there are many reasons, and these are brought out in his pamphlet "The Gospel in Galatians" which is available online. I'd encourage anyone interested in the subject to read it. It's very well argued.

Most people see the law in Galatians as dealing with the ceremonial law because they see the issue as dispensational. Waggoner didn't see it that way, and brings out an argument as to why this isn't the right way of looking at things.

Hi MM,

I believe God has always had a remnant and I believe that the SDA church has been called to give the message of the judgment to God's church and then to the world.

Does that mean I believe the church organization is the Remnant? Corporately no, but individually yes! I believe God's true church is people with the message of the gospel. Do I support with my finances and baptize people into the organized church? Absolutely, in the hope that they will become one of the remnant that takes the gospel to the world.

I believe that the SDA church was called to preach the everlasting gospel and that gospel is the character of God revealed through Jesus. Jesus spent His whole ministry talking about His Father and when asked by one of His disciples to "show us the Father" Jesus replied, "If you've seen me you've seen the Father!"

Jesus also said that to know God is eternal life! Thus I believe that the true everlasting Gospel is the revelation of the Father's love that Jesus gave us in His life and death. He destroyed all the barriers that kept us from the Father by dispelling all the lies about Him. We can now know, through Jesus, that we have nothing to fear from the Father and that He wants to be our Friend.

This is good news, but Adventism, as a whole, has not continued the reformation and discarded the Penal Atonement Model of Roman and adopted by the Evangelical Churches. We make a big deal about the fact that God doesn't burn the wicked for eternity, but He still is vengeful and vindictive and actually doesn't forgive at all, but demanded payment in full from His innocent Son.

Thus we have one of the God head who can't forgive and one who gives everything. God has called us out of this confusion, but not by prophetic decree. He has planted in our collective mind gems about God in the Great Controversy that no other church has and we know that the judgment is not God judging us, but placing Himself on trial and asking His remnant to vindicate Him of all the lies that He has been accused of.

Once the reformation is complete in the church, represented by the three angel’s messages, it goes to the world, represented by the 4th angel of Revelation 18:1. This last message is the exact same message that Christ taught and that is the loveliness of God's character, the very message that calls us to repentance and has the power to gain victory over self. "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation!" The good news that Jesus taught has the power to save us. And that salvation comes by changing our minds about God.

The question is who will believe Jesus! Even over the prophets! Even over the church! Who will let go everything with both hand and grab onto Jesus alone?

scott

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?

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.

scott

Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking? Where does she admit to having a harsh view of God's justice? Where does she admit to having a tainted view of penal atonement? It would mean more to me to hear it from her.

What about when she quotes holy angels in vision? Is there any evidence to support the idea angels compromised to meet her where she was, that what they told her in vision reflects her tainted theological views at the time? For example:

EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

Said the angel, "Satan is the root, his children are the branches. They are now consumed root and branch. They have died an everlasting death. They are never to have a resurrection, and God will have a clean universe." I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified. {EW 295.1}

Scott, what is your opinion of the following observations:

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.

Hi MM,

The debt we owe to sin is death. Sin is transgression of the law therefore one could say that our debt is owed to the broken law. I agree with this statement, but it means something much different to me that it does to you.

Justice is reconciliation by biblical terms therefore it is justice for God to forgive as well as allow men to destroy themselves.

The integrity of God's law is only as good as God's character since the law is a transcript of God's character. How could a sinner affect the integrity of God's character unless the sinner could provoke God to do something out of character like murder?

Love and law are identical since all of the law can be expressed in "love" and "God is love" and the law is a "transcript of God's character."

Do you really believe that God threatening us will safeguard future rebellion? Do you believe that a violent act from God, so that we all know exactly how vicious He can be against sin, will make us trust Him more?

I prefer to think of love overcoming violence rather than becoming violent itself to survive. Satan invented death and everyone who follows him will die. The question is if God has to kill them or is sin lethal enough to finish the job.

God gave us the cure for sin's folly in Jesus; a cure for death. Some refuse to take it. Does a doctor have to kill his patient who refuses to take the only medicine that will cure them?

scott

She changed her mind about the "closed door theory" that she got swept into early in the Advent movement. She quoted medical journals that were wrong. She edited her books and made changes which show that her first views needed revising. And she expressed the same idea, but with a lot less hell fire and brimstone. But most of all she talks about how Jesus changed her and she said that she was not infallible.

If you believe that every word in her writings and/or in the Bible are God’s words and infallible then, by every definition, you are a fundamentalist. Ellen didn’t teach “word inspiration”, but in “thought inspiration.” This simply means that God is not represented in the words, but that He impressed men and inspired them to write things down in their own words. The words are God's impressions in men’s words mixed with men’s thoughts about what God meant in the vision or dream. The written word is an expression of God given by inspired men, but the word made flesh, Jesus, is the perfect word of God and His exact expression.

scott