"line upon line, here a little, there a little"

Here are two posts that illustrate a point of concern with hobby theology and private interpretations far too often encountered within fundamentalist adventism.


http://www.sdanet.org/archive/recent/0068.html

I agree with you that building our doctrines by piling up proof texts
regardless of their content is at least problematic. In fact, the very
reason we give for building our doctrines that way -- "line upon line, here
a little, there a little" -- is a good example of the very thing.
I have sometimes mentioned in Sabbath School classes or other discussions
with fellow members that the proof text from which we take that
instruction, i.e., Isa 28:10, in context seems to say the very opposite of
our familiar interpretation. Instead of God's direction to learn by taking
a little here and a little there, the context seems to show it instead as a
consequence that comes upon God's people (especially the priests and
prophets) who are drunk, careless, and refuse to hear His word. It is to
those who would *not* hear that the word of the Lord becomes "precept upon
precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line." See the
whole chapter, and especially Isaiah 28:11-13.
My New American Standard version has an interesting note about verses 10
and 13. Where we read "precept upon precept... line upon line..." the
original language has a short, repetitive sound which resembles baby talk,
as if those people have failed to heed God's word, and as a result their
understanding and their judgment has become meaningless babbling. Today we
might say that when they refused to hear, God made his word to be just
"blah-blah-blah" to them.
So I don't use that passage as direction for how to study the Bible. But
neither have I ever seem to get anywhere with my friends about it. I've
felt like my comments have just sailed past my friends' attention without
hitting anything.

http://www.sdanet.org/archive/recent/0092.html

I am tempted to blame Ellen White for our over-use of the Isaiah text,
but I have recently found it used also by Charismatic and independent
conservative churches, so I am probably wrong. Her use no doubt
popularised it among us. It is, of course, an excellent verse for
biblicists of any kind. The phrase "to the law and the testimony" is
also problematic, as it seems to be a criticism directed to Isaiah's
opponents, who will not accept any message unless it is already written
in Scripture. It may, in context, be a denial of prophetic preaching
rather than a defense of Scriptural authority.
Despite our pride in having a 'real' prophet, I have found that in
general most SDAs are very wary of the idea - or, more correctly, the
practice - of God still speaking. We tend, apart from our position on
Ellen White, to be more comfortable with deism than with the Hebrew idea
of a God who is always ready to communicate directly. Perhaps that is
why we like to apply the text from Joel solely to Ellen White rather
than looking forward to (or even anticipating) God pouring out his gifts
on all and sundry. Having so many prophets and visions just would not
find any place to fit in the usual SDA program.
Just for interest, the words from Isaiah are "tsaw latsaw, tsaw latsaw,
qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, ze'eyr sham, ze'eyr sham". Tsaw is apparently
meaningless in Hebrew; qaw means 'measuring line'; and ze'eyr is assumed
to mean 'little', but it is used only one other time, in Job 36:2 where
it means 'a short time'; and sham is 'there' or 'then'. That Isaiah
goes on to speak of stammering and of speaking in foreign languages
makes it very unlikely that these words were meant to convey anything as
important as a major hermeneutic rule.

I share the concern. Many seem to think that God speaking to one person who died over a hundred years ago counts as us having the Spirit of prophecy. If so, we could just look for one person who was obedient, and claim that we all keep the commandments of God.

God still speaks. The problem is that few listen.

Is there a prophet or prophetess nowadays whom God is speaking through within the SDA Church? I mean someone whom God has especially endowed with the gift/spirit of prophecy?

Is it possible for a person to have the gift of prophesy without this being public knowledge?

Mike, unless the answer is yes, would that not suggest that the Spirit has abandoned the SDA church? Where ever the Spirit is, the Church is and there the gifts of the Spirit give fruit of the Spirit. And prophecy is given as an important gift of the Spirit to the Church. As far as the SDA church is part of the Church, this must also be true within this denomination.

Tom, even though we usually only hear about the prophets who prophecy to the king (GC president?), these high profile prophets would hardly have been in majority during any time would they?

Thomas, do you believe God is speaking through someone nowadays whom He has gifted with the spirit of prophecy (in the same way and sense He gifted the apostle John)?

Prophesy and prophecy - what's the difference?

“Prophecy,” the noun, (pronounced “PROF-a-see”) is a prediction. The verb “to prophesy” (pronounced “PROF-a-sigh”) means to predict something. When a prophet prophesies he or she utters prophecies.

(http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/prophecy.html)

Mike, most prophets have not been given the task of bringing apocalyptic prophecy to the people. We only know of 3 or 4 apocalyptic prophets, while even in the bible, other named prophets count in the dozens. Not to mention all the prophets we only hear about in group references, like Elishas prophet students, or the prophets in the Acts churches.

Prophesy is a verb and Prophecy is a noun, according to Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/prophesy

Thank you both for the definitions.

Thomas, I agree. But do you know of anyone today through whom God is speaking to Christendom, someone whose words are inspired and authoritative (like Moses, Elijah, Peter, Paul, John, etc)?

Hebrews 1
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

I believe there are many men and women through whom God is today speaking to Christendom, although I could not make a case for proving any of them. Anyone who God speaks through would be inspired, although the verse above suggests none of them would be authoritative like Moses and Elijah. The apostles authority would be based in being the ones who:

Acts 2:32
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

1 Peter 5
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

1 John 1:3
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

And of course all such authority given to men and women is of Gods choice and makes its work through Gods power and the Spirits work on the prophet as well as on the one who listens.

Yes, there are people who are speaking the truth throughout Christendom today. But what I'm asking is if you believe any of them have the gift/spirit of prophecy in the same way other biblical authors did? And, can you name a few?

I thought I answered this question already by pointing out that the authority formerly given to the prophets now resides with Jesus, who through being God wont be looking for a replacement any time soon.
In a way, anyone who has a testimony about Jesus does have the spirit of prophecy but no, I cant name anyone.

I'm not sure the topic is about the Holy Spirit and who is inspired as much as it is about "hobby theology". (Very appropriate phrase.)

Sometimes a passage just does not say what we think it says, or what we want it to say, or what we have been taught it says. Examples include:

Isaiah 28:10, which Vastergotland already quoted.
John 5:39, used to encourage Bible study, but is actually a condemnation of the Jews for not understanding Scripture.
Genesis 31:49, often used as a parting blessing but is actually a curse or threat.
Exodus 20:7 is not about swearing or using the Lord's name in vain, but about keeping your word.

Good points JAK.

Thomas, fair enough. I'll drop it. But I don't agree that having a personal testimony counts as having the gift/spirit of prophecy in the biblical sense.

Regarding proof-texts, though, I'm all in favor of the method. Paul used it very effectively. Scripture is pregnant with meaning. Limiting a passage to the immediate context robs it of its richness.

Paul didn't use this method. I'm curious as to why you think he did. The only thing I can think of is that Paul quoted Scripture, and since you quote Scripture, you reasoned Paul must have been doing the same thing you do(?).

Yes, a personal testimony does not equate having the spirit of prophecy. However, history suggest that having received this gift, it is impossible to remain without such a testimony.

Yes, it is easy to multiply richness by creative quoting. Taking a verse which describes priests and prophets who stagger around the temple courtyard with a wine-bottle in one hand and a can of beer in the other when they are not busy throwing up on the temple furniture, to take the text which describe how they who should speak truth and blessing mumble in their drunken haze and say, this is prescriptive of how we will go about studying the bible. Yes, richness of meaning is certainly being multiplied and overflowing. It is certainly easy to see why anyone who insists on taking this verse as prescriptive will want to avoid context as far as possible since adding it would wreak havoc on the church absolutist position on drunkenness.

Or the example JAK pointed out, where Jesus rebuke of the Pharisees whose intense bible-study in believing the knowledge would grant them life lead them to neither hearing Gods word or meet Jesus, either of which would have let them reach their goal. In context, this kind of bible-study is empty and dead piling of knowledge. Again it is certainly understandable why anyone who wish to read this sentence prescriptively must be scrutinous to avoid any of the context.

Thomas

I'm not sure the idea of "inspired and authoritative" is a correct idea. I think what gives something authority is truth, if it makes sense to put it that way. To discern truth, we need the Holy Spirit. Truth, regardless of who says it, is authoritative.

FWIW, EGW referred to Jones and Waggoner as "prophets."

Tom,

Would you consider yourself a prophet? What about other believers? What about christians who belong to other denominations?

Paul and others often took passages out of context and applied them in ways which resulted in new truth. The book Great Controversy does it repeatedly. Scriptures that describe events that failed to materialize in the past are reapplied to contemporary and/or future events. We also glean principles from passages and apply them to other areas of life. This is what some people refer to as proof-texting. Of course, there are perversions of proof-texting which must be avoided.

Im not sure why denominational affiliation would have anything to do with this question.

Mike, do you have examples where Paul or anyone else of the canonical authors take a text out of its context and use it in a way which is diametrically opposed to the original context?

Vaster,

Tom said, "Truth, regardless of who says it, is authoritative." But suppose the person mixes some truths with some doctrines which are not true (although the person believes sincerely in them), like soul immortality or the secret rapture. I just wanted to know his opinion about whether people from other denominations can be prophets or not.

I guess if only part of the sentence is true, it would not constitute Truth..

Yes, I believe that, too. And this is an important characteristic of a true prophet - that in doctrinal matters his/her statements must be free from error.

Then again, it would be presumptuous to assume that "I" have the one and only correct understanding of Truth. Therefore Pauls advice to make good consideration to the evidence before deciding whether it contains error or not. It might be that "he" is right and "I" am wrong, even if "he" is not SDA..

(Ellen White made doctrinal statements throughout her calling as a prophet. But some things she said in her early years are not congruent with some things she said in her later years. Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore I cannot agree that a prophet is infallible on doctrinal matters.)

No. I've not received messages from God where He told me to give these messages to others.



It would depend upon how you defined "prophet."



Same answer. If you mean like Ellen White, I'd say no. Light builds on light. I think any modern day prophet, along the lines of Ellen White, would have to build upon her.



This is, of course, a well known latter rain verse. Along the lines Joel is speaking of here, I would expect that there would be prophets in the last days, but along the lines that Ellen White was a prophet, I doubt there will be another one, but this is just a personal opinion; I certainly wouldn't say it's not possible.

Another possibility is that Paul didn't take things out of context, and was expounding existing truth rather than making up new people, and that people who didn't understand what Paul was saying got this confused.



Paul didn't write the Great Controversy. We were talking about Paul. You could give a Great Controversy example if you wish though. It would be interesting to see what you are thinking.



Because the principles apply. This has nothing to do with the proof text method.



Same comment.



What is?



How did Jesus teach? Might that be a good model to follow?

While I would tend to also not expect one like Ellen White, but I see others who I would say have "prophetic insight", whatever that would mean. Wright is one which comes to mind.

Tom, I agree that current prophets (if any) or future prophets would have to build upon what God revealed through Sripture and Ellen White. They certainly could not contradict what He revealed through them or her. And, I believe the difference between teachers who repeat what previous prophets wrote and modern-day prophets has to do with the content of their message. To classify as a modern-day prophet, it stands to reason, in my mind, that they must receive something new from God through dreams and/or visions.

Thomas, there are many examples of Ellen White writing things that were not revealed to her by God which may or may not be inspired. However, whenever she wrote what God specifically revealed to her in dream or vision it is most definitely inspired and authoritative. I realize you personally do not believe this, but the SDA church certainly does.

Tom, regarding Paul extrapolating new truth from OT passages the book of Hebrews comes to mind. I realize you believe the truths he presented were inherent in the Pentatuch, but where does it say so as plainly as Paul does? For example, where in the Pentatuh does Moses clearly say the Son of God would become a human being and pay for the sins of the world on the cross?

Also, in the GC Ellen White applied many OT prophecies to end-time events which should have been fulfilled by post-exilic Jews returning to Jerusalem from Babylon. This is an excample of God working through a modern-day prophet to reapply prophecies in ways not envisioned by the original prophecy. She cites such prophecies as proof of what she's saying about end-time events. This is a form of proof-texting and taking things out of context and reapplying to them a different time and circumstances and people.

Explaining something clearly is a far cry from taking things out of context and inventing new truth.



Indeed. But then, Paul doesn't say this either. (That would be an example of his inventing new truth, if there were such a place where he said this).



Let's discuss one person at a time. Right now we're discussing Paul.

Are you saying Paul never said Jesus became a human and paid our sin debt of death on the cross?

You wrote:



I'm saying Paul didn't say this. If you disagree, cite a place where Paul said, "Christ became a human being and paid for the sins of the world on the cross." Actually, that Christ became a human being you can skip. Just provide a statement where Paul said, "Christ paid for the sins of the world on the cross." Or, if you prefer the other wording you just used, "Christ paid our sin debt on the cross." You could provide a statement where Paul says this.

On this topic Ellen wrote:

Even when we were under the control of a cruel master, even when the prince of darkness ruled our spirits, the Lord Jesus Christ paid the ransom price of His own blood for us. {SD 238.3} Oh, what is man, that such a price should be paid for his redemption! {2T 211.2} We have been purchased with a dear price, even the sufferings and death of the Son of God. {2T 354.2}

The justice, the moral excellence, of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe. And that holy law could not be maintained at any smaller price than the death of the Son of God. {2MCP 565.2}

Obedience and submission to God's requirements are the conditions given by the inspired apostle by which we become children of God, members of the royal family. Every child and youth, every man and woman, has Jesus rescued by His own blood from the abyss of ruin to which Satan was compelling them to go. Because sinners will not accept of the salvation freely offered them, are they released from their obligations? Their choosing to remain in sin and bold transgression does not lessen their guilt. Jesus paid a price for them, and they belong to Him. They are His property; and if they will not yield obedience to Him who has given His life for them, but devote their time and strength and talents to the service of Satan, they are earning their wages, which is death. Immortal glory and eternal life is the reward that our Redeemer offers to those who will be obedient to Him. He has made it possible for them to perfect Christian character through His name and to overcome on their own account as He overcame in their behalf. He has given them an example in His own life, showing them how they may overcome. "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." {3T 365.1}

Jesus paid an infinite price to redeem the world, and the race was given into His hands; they became His property. . . Christ prepared the way for the ransom of man by His own life of suffering, self-denial, and self-sacrifice, and by His humiliation and final death. {3T 372.1} With His own blood He has paid their ransom. {CT 14.1} Christ's death on the cross paid the ransom for every human being. {LHU 235.7}

She also wrote:

We were all debtors to divine justice, but we had nothing with which to pay the debt. Then the Son of God, who pitied us, paid the price of our redemption. {CC 267.5}

The transgression was so great that an angel's life would not pay the debt. Nothing but the death and intercession of God's Son would pay the debt and save lost man from hopeless sorrow and misery. {EW 127.1}

Those only who acknowledge the binding claim of the moral law can explain the nature of the atonement. Christ came to mediate between God and man, to make man one with God by bringing him into allegiance to His law. There was no power in the law to pardon its transgressor. Jesus alone could pay the sinner's debt. But the fact that Jesus has paid the indebtedness of the repentant sinner does not give him license to continue in transgression of the law of God; but he must henceforth live in obedience to that law. {1SM 229.2}

Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial. {FW 30.1}

When our Redeemer consented to take the cup of suffering in order to save sinners, His capacity for suffering was the only limitation to His suffering. . . . By dying in our behalf, He gave an equivalent for our debt. Thus He removed from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin. By virtue of My oneness with the Father, He says, My suffering and death enable Me to pay the penalty of sin. By My death a restraint is removed from His love. His grace can act with unbounded efficiency. {TMK 69.3}

MM, I wrote:



Here's what I requested:



I really don't understand how you didn't understand this, MM. This was really explicit.

Quoting Ellen when trying to prove something about Pauls views suggests that direct quotes by Paul are scarce.

I posted the quotes from the SOP before reading your request regarding Paul. Nevertheless, I believe the quotes I posted agree with Paul's insights on the subject. And, I also believe my conclusions concerning the matter are supported by the quotes. I take it you see things in a different light?

MM, you asked me:



I responded:



Do you agree with what I wrote? If not, please post something that Paul wrote which disproves my assertion that Paul didn't say what you asked me about.

Well then Mike, should be easy enough to show from primary sources that Paul agrees with your quotes from Ellen, should it not?

I have a few ideas, but I'd like to see what Mike says.

In the following passage Paul uses a form of proof-texting to prove Jesus died for our sins:

Hebrews
2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
2:10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Paul uses proof-texting to prove Jesus is a high priest:

Hebrews
5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
5:6 As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews
9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
9:12 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].
9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
9:16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
9:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
9:18 Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.
9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
9:20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
9:23 [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Now, as sure as the day is long, each of you have an idea of what Paul meant regarding the death of Jesus as it relates to our sin debt. Would it be wrong to include the inspired insights of Ellen White in the mix?

More about it from the Bible:

Romans
3:25 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;
5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
5:10 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.

1 Corinthians
15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Ephesians
1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Colossians
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.

1 Peter
1:18 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;
1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1 John
1:7 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.
2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Revelation
1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

This isn't what you said.

Here's what I requested:



First you switched from Paul to Ellen White. Now you're using Paul, but changing the words.

I'm not disputing that Paul said that Christ died for our sins. I'm disputing that Paul said that "Christ paid for the sins of the world on the cross." or "Christ paid our sin debt on the cross."

MM, here is what I hear you saying,
You are saying that although Paul may not have actually said Christ paid for the sins of the world on the cross, you feel Paul agrees with it and if Paul agrees with it, that is the same thing as saying it.

I believe Paul and Ellen are in complete agreement regarding Jesus paying our sin debt of death on the cross. I believe Ellen clarified what Paul wrote so that we don't have to rely on our own uninspired ideas about it. What she did is the essence and epitome of "line upon line, here a little, there a little."

MM, 2 days ago I wrote this:



To date, you have provided no texts from Paul to support the idea that Paul said either of these two things. Do you agree that Paul, in deed, did not say this? If you disagree, please provide some text from Paul which says either of these two things.

I agree with you that Paul did not use those exact words. I hope that answer your question. Now, do you agree with me that Ellen elaborated upon what Paul and others wrote about it? If so, do you also agree with me that she conveys the idea expressed in the following sentence - "Jesus paid our sin debt of death on the cross"?

Well, it seems we have managed to clear Pauls name from the accusations of despising context. I guess we can now turn to Mikes primary evidence and look at how Ellen views prooftexting and whether she is guilty of it.

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/spectrum_interview/2010/07/23/bible_church

Thomas, as the texts I posted earlier demonstrate, Paul strung together short excerpts from the OT to establish and prove his point. He did not quote the entire passage. In the examples I quoted above, he used one sentence and partial sentences to arrive at conclusions not inherent in the context. Personally, I have no problem with him or anyone else employing the Bible in this fashion (so long as their conclusions are biblically sound).

He didn't just not use "those exact words." He didn't say what you claimed in any way, which is why you're unable to produce any statement of his saying that he did.



It took awhile, with the false starts, but it's a beginning.



Ellen White's function wasn't to turn off our thinking, as this seems to be suggesting. Ellen White lived in a different century, millennium even, in a different culture. It wasn't her function to clarity Paul's writings. She never suggested such a thing. Why do you have an idea like this? She never explained her role in any way even remotely resembling this idea.



I disagree with this too, at least as I'm perceiving your understanding of the idea. Kevin wrote about Ellen White's function as a prophet. Do you remember this? It's been awhile. I thought it was an excellent explanation.



I made no comment about what Ellen White wrote. I agree Ellen White said what you quoted her to say.

Do you agree that Paul didn't say this?

In agreement with vaster, I'm glad we cleared that false accusation up. I will assume what you make it appear to mean and attempt to dismiss the qualifier, "exact".

I have learned that in hebrew schoolarship, where everyone knew the Torah by heart, everyone educated knew the Torah plus the prophets by heart, and the schoolars knew the Torah plus the prophets plus the commentary by heart, quoting one sentence or even one phrase was a common technique for "tagging" the whole context of the quoted phrase into your own argument. Thus, what you would write is a short reference, but what your audience hears is a two page insertion referencing a particular passage of scripture. Maybe a prophecy by Isaiah or a psalm by David or a law of Moses.

Besides, prooftexting is entierly infeasible when your audience knows the correct context of the passage you atempt to misuse. Prooftexting is entierly reliant upon it ignorance of your audience as to what the text is really talking about. (As hearing someone wrench a word you are well familiar with to a purpose which is alien to it makes you uncomfortable and suspicious of the motives and intent of the speaker.)

What's an example of this? I.e., of Paul's using sentences or partial sentences to arrive at conclusions not inherent in the context.

This is an interesting point!

Thomas, how would anyone arrive at new truth if everyone believes the same thing about the context of a passage?

Mike, I didnt realise that you view confusion/missunderstanding to be a conductor of truth.

To clarify myself, believing the false thing about a passage is not expected to facilitate a correct understanding of what it tries to teach. God can still use it to lead a person to the truth, but laying aside our best effort to reach a correct understanding through honest study while expecting God to make up the difference is an approach which is not supported by neither the bible nor by Ellen (who repeatedly refused to let vision replace acctual biblestudy). Therefore learning the right context, understanding the text properly and then puting it in a right relationship with the rest of the biblical teaching seems to be the way to proceed. Taking a view that is foreign to the immediate context and the larger biblical teaching simply because this erronous understanding is "hallowed" by lengthy use and denominational tradition is then the wrong way to proceed. We have yet truths to learn and falsehoods to unlearn, as Ellen once wrote.

Defining prooftexting as a use of selected parts of a source document where knowledge of the context is not assumed and or actively discouraged. Where the context if explored would be found to make the text either irrelevant for the purpose it was used for or sometimes even disprove the point the prooftexter tried to make. Examples of use among authors who assume the audience will not try to explore context, in guided biblestudy where line comes upon line in such a speed that any wish to look at context is rendered impossible, or when the precise source of the prooftext is actively hidden making its use nothing more than elaborate name-dropping.

Defining responsible use of the bible as giving quotes which not only give immediate support for the point being made but where the context if known or researched will strengthen the point further. Opportunity and encouragement to learn the context is also supported and facilitated.

Thomas, could you produce some examples of this?

Rosangela:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/prophet-15.htm

Vaster,

This is an example which shows that we shouldn't accept at face value what other people say. Dr. Graeme Bradford says:


You will notice that he mentions no reference that can be verified by the reader. In which page of the book Sketches from the Life of Paul does Ellen White say that the law in Galatians is the ceremonial law alone? In none that I am aware of.

He still says:

Another unsubstantiated claim. Neither the word schoolmaster nor any allusion to Gal. 3:24 can be found in AA.

What she did say about this:

In 1896 - "In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially [not exclusively] of the moral law" (1SM 234.5).

In 1900 - "I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments" (1SM 233.1).

About the "daily," we have discussed it in the past here.

As any normal person, she did have her personal opinions, which did grow with time, or simply had no opinion about some doctrinal points. But, when she wrote about doctrinal matters, she didn't express merely her personal opinions.

Having the right idea in regards to the context of a passage is a good *starting* point. There's a lot to learn beyond simply what the context of a passage is.

In other words, if everyone agrees on this and that passage, this and that doctrine, how would anyone arrive at new truth? Wouldn't it render the Bible a done deal and make discovering new truth impossible? That is, if we've discovered everything there is to know about truth and doctrine and salvation what more can we hope to learn? The Bible would be a kind of dead end.

I know you addressed this to Thomas, but I'm jumping in anyway.

Why would you equate knowing the context of a passage with knowing all truth? This seems to be what you're doing. Thomas' comment was dealing with understanding the context of a passage. Simply because one understands context doesn't mean one is therefore free from error, of which point the Pharisees are an example.

I guess I'm equating "everyone educated knew the Torah plus the prophets by heart, and the scholars knew the Torah plus the prophets plus the commentary by heart" with knowing and understanding the truth. But in reality memorizing words is not the same as knowing and understanding their meaning.

Right, it's not the same. Thomas' comment was in relation to understanding the context. Paul could apparently be not taking things in context to someone who was not knowledgeable as to the context. But Paul, writing to ones who understood the context, would not need to go into detail to establish it. This is the point I believe Thomas was making.

Yeah, I think you're right. Knowing the content and context of the Torah and applying it to life and living here and now is what Paul did. My point is that's not what Moses did, that is, he didn't apply it to the lives of people living in the future.

Why would Moses be applying the scriptures he wrote to people living 5000 years later? How would it have been helpful for anyone if the advices Ellen had been making would have primarily related to the situation of someone living around 4500, or even 2050?

As I read the parable of the ten virgins, I note that when the Bridegroom comes, 5 will have the oil and 5 will not. If the parable has an application to Christ's Second Advent, then the thing that separates the virgins that are ready from those that are not is the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

It is the Holy Spirit that gives the gift of prophecy and prophetic discernment. Thus as I read it, the remnant Church will be filled with the gift of prophecy (and all that it involves like prophetic understanding and discernment).

Blessings upon the saints everywhere

If I might join in at this point. EGW's comment: "Even the prophets who were favored with the special illumination of the Spirit, did not fully comprehend the import of the revelations committed to them. The meaning was to be unfolded, from age to age, as the people of God should need the instruction therein contained." {GC88 344.1}

The example that comes to mind is Daniel. After he wrote his book, he declared "I don't understand it." But as I read EGW, I believe that her statement applies to her as well. There were some things that she explained as far as she understood them and as time goes on we will understand them more fully.

And example of the progressiveness of truth: "The prophecies of Daniel and of John are to be understood. They interpret each other. They give to the world truths which every one should understand. These prophecies are to be witnesses in the world. By their fulfillment in these last days they will explain themselves." {7BC 949.6} And the fact that "By their fulfillment in these last days they will explain themselves." It is clear that EGW expected them to say more after her passing.

What of Paul's statement in Romans 5:11 "And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." Even though Paul does not use those very words, does not the process of Christ making atonement for our sins include the cross?

EGW put it this way "Some will take a text, wrest it from its true bearing, and force it into service to sustain some preconceived opinion. By linking together isolated passages of Scripture, they may deceive others. But what appears to be Bible proof for their position is no proof whatever; for the scriptures are not used in their true setting. In this way error is often magnified, and truth diminished. Those who thus wrest the scriptures to sustain error, greatly dishonor God...." {RH, August 13, 1959 par. 6}

In my opinion, this is an excellent point that should not be set aside to quickly. Since truth is progressive and one may read a passage of Scripture repeatedly and gain a new understanding each time. But when some things are settled and we go no further, light stops with that level of understanding. And that does not mean that more light is not shining on that text, it just means that we have stopped seeing it.

Paul took what Moses wrote and applied the principles contained therein in ways that resulted in new truth not applied by Moses.

Amen! Also, welcome. I look forward to studying with you.

Thank you for you welcome.

Are you saying that Paul was building on the foundation laid by Moses?

That is certainly likely as in the fullness of time things that the prophets did not understand became more fully revealed.

Great quote. Thanks.

To take what Moses wrote and find the principles therein, understanding the context is critical. And as long as you work within and being true to the principles laid out by the source you are quoting, the result is not prooftexting but rather genuine scholarship/study.

I agree with the thought that we need to study, interpret, and understand the message and intent of Bible passages within the context of the period in which each passage was written, which goes along with the "line upon line, here a little, there a little" title of this thread, which is actually taken from the Bible itself.

I agree with what you are saying in principle, but sometimes a principle set forth in a Bible or Spirit of prophecy statement transcends the context of the statement.

An example: Have you ever read a text and got a different understanding from the text? Or perhaps there is a certain passage that you have had that experience many times.

The different meanings that come to us when we read Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit telling us what we need at that time. But if we set a hard fast rule about the meaning of Scriptures because of their context, the principles that are at work in those passages under different circumstances will be more difficult to see and apply to other situations.

Here's a concrete example: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain.

OK that's don't cuss - don't swear
but it is also
don't claim to be a Christian and live in open sin.
To live a life of vain self-seeking while professing to be a child of God is also to take the name of God in vain.

Thus a premature understanding of a text can slant its meaning and obscure other treasures that God would have us to find

I am not sure that this example you give actually illustrates what you write above, His Child. This because restricting the understanding of the law to cussing or swearing seem to me more a case of time honed interpretation rather than a conclusion drawn inevitably from context.

Except of course that if the principle of studying the text is brought to bear on the chapter where this sentence occurs, it is clear for all to see that it is not one about principles or practise of study but rather is one long exhortation for the priesthood to "get their act together"..

You may be right about the example not illustrating the point as I intended. I posted just after midnight, my neurons might not have as awake as they should have been. When I just reviewed some other posts to be sure that I up to date on the context of the thread, I see that I said something very similar a few posts earlier from a slightly different angle.

To follow up on your point: is or can "time honed interpretation" be a problem? If time honed interpretation casts a Scripture in a certain light (which is true in its Scriptural context) can that become a stumbling block when more light is given at a later date?

As I read Scripture that has been the case.

Example Cain refused to offer a blood sacrifice - he was wrong. Blood sacrifices continued from Eden to Calvary. If someone were to believe that we were obligated to offer a blood sacrifice now that would be to deny the blood of Jesus - it would be wrong.

Thus the time honed interpretation that blood sacrifices are required that is substantiated in the Bible, is a principle in context that we should apply in a context that is different from the context that the principle is in. (tricky diction???)

Context: Cain MUST offer blood sacrifice
Still required?
YES
but if the principle is forced to remain in the context as it was in the days of Cain, it becomes sin to us.

The application of the principle is valid, the original context is valid, and Paul could change the context and rightly apply the principle to Jesus

Amen!

For example, Moses wrote about Isaac and Paul took what he wrote and arrived at new truth not specifically spelled out by Moses.

Genesis
15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Galatians
3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

His Child

The solution, in my opinion, is to consider the wider context and teaching of the entire scriptures as the next step after considering the immediate context. Then time honed interpretations follows as the third step. For instance the church fathers, the reformers, sda pioneers. I would add telly evangelists (like Ascherick & Bachelor et al), but am not sure any of them could fill the shues of Augustine, Luther, Wesley or White.

The initial steps sound solid.

But the time honored interpretations get onto "shaky ground."

Sabbath and Sunday for example. The third step: time honored view of many if not most is that Sabbath was changed to Sunday. So if the time honored view is not biblical, rather than help our understanding, it will lead us astray.

And of course the next step is just as dangerous: the church fathers, the reformers, sda pioneers. They did not get everything right in their day and by using them as "authorities" we run the risk of perpetuating their errors. On some matters the SDA Pioneers will disagree with the Church fathers and the Reformers.

I'm not saying that their counsel is not worthy to consider, but they are not the final word and in some instances we might do better to not have to sort through the conflicting positions.

And the telly evangelists (like Ascherick & Bachelor et al)might right-on on some issues, we are warned by EGW that in the endtime some will be basking in the sparks of their own kindling.

In the book "The Last Church Meets the Obama-Nation" some great EGW quotes are given that I find very helpful.







Even if these quotes are found not to be in context, the principles that they outline may safely be applied to many different areas of life.

Be blessed

There is a reason it is the third step rather than the first or the second step.Orthodoxy, and the united voice of the Church is to some degree a defence against fanaticism and herecy, which easily overcome the one who has all his trust in himself.You might learn that there is nothing new under the sun, that the questions we raise today has been raised before, through all the phases of the Church. I see that we all choose which authority to listen to. The title you mention here together with reading between lines that it is a quote collection makes it one I personally would place no trust in. (Quote collections bring the message of the compiler, not the message of the person whom the compiler choose to name drop to gain support by association from.)Sentences or short paragraphs are often not enough to discern what is being said, and especially so regarding Ellen. A chapter the very least size of context when it comes to her work, unless you are happy to be lead around by the one who provide you with the quote.

But does that not go full circle to "line upon line, here a little, there a little"? Connecting the dots to get the full picture with a "little"?

You seem to be saying "line upon line, here allot, there allot"

As I understand it, the Holy Spirit is the inspiration behind inspired writings and He is the interpreter that knows what settings are appropriate when truth progresses from generation.

When we remember the parable of the 10 Virgins, 1/2 of them are lost because they lack the Holy Spirit that is to give them discernment in Holy things. Thus even though 5 of the Virgins think that they are rich with the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy, and the Sabbath Truth, they are lost. Why? Because they do not have the Holy Spirit to give them the "Spirit of Prophecy" which is more than some books on a shelf, but it is the Spirit moving them to understand prophecy.

In my humble opinion, all prophetic understanding is a private interpretation apart from the Holy Spirit no matter how well we might think that we understand the context, the history, the Church Fathers, or the Spirit of Prophecy (I am a firm believer in the SOP, but apart from the Holy Spirit to impress it upon our hearts, private interpretations and traditions can skew it like the Bible itself).

His Child

I didnt realise I had been so difficult to understand.
No, what I mean to say does not go a full circle to "a big quote here and a big quote there and I will convince you that I am right". In the part you quoted above, I am merely pointing out that reading as little as the surrounding chapter may be enough to illustrate that you are led around in a dance by the one who compiled the quote collection. I dont see why you go from there to suggesting I would promote leading others around in bends and circles with thicker and more wordrich quote collections.

As I understand it, the Holy Spirit is the inspiration behind everything that is truth, whether anyone recognize it as inspired or not and whether it is considered theology or not.

Half of the virgins dont have the Holy Spirit to give them the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Prophecy? I thought it was Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Prophecy to the Church? Yes, I regard "the Holy Spirit" and "the Spirit of Prophecy" to be two names for the same person. Thus the Spirit of Prophecy is a book nor a collection of books no more than is Truth a proposition written down in such a book. They are both words representing persons of the trinity.
I can only agree. However, I was not aware anyone was contesting this particular point.

Inspired writings (the Bible and the SOP) seem uninspired to people not led by the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers can read them and feel unblessed, even indignant and outraged. If Jesus really is the one and only way, and all other ways lead to punishment and death, then Christianity is the only right way and all others ways are wrong. To unbelievers it most certainly sounds bigoted, arrogant, and unendearing.

Inspiration is in the eyes of the beholder. When equipped with faith and eyes anointed with spiritual "eyesalve" the Bible and SOP are rich veins of gold and treasure. Otherwise, they must necessarily be offensive and despicable.

Ellen White used the expression "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little" to point out the importance of slowly indoctrinating people in their understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus.

Do you agree with the above use of the expression?

I agree that your selection of quotes, such as they are above posted, do indeed have Ellen teaching that people (especially children it seems) should be taught in small portions received often. Or as you say, slow indoctrination.

This is then (with the caveat that I did not check the context of these paragraphs) the correct interpretation of Ellens use of this phrase.
It does not change that this is the wrong interpretation of Isaiahs use of the phrase (or the passage translated into this english phrase).

Noted that Ellens use of said phrase use did not support prooftexting, but is a method of dispersing truth arrived at through real education and study.

What was the "new truth" you think Paul wrote? That Christ was Abraham's seed? Or that the promises were made to Abraham and His seed? Or something else?

Isaiah
28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.
28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:
28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
28:12 To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
28:14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which [is] in Jerusalem.

Thomas, do you think Ellen's use of the expression is taken out of context? If so, what do you think is the proper meaning of the expression?

In Genesis 15 God makes it clear to Abram that Sarai will bear him a son whose descendants will inherit Canaan after a period of captivity and be in number as the sand and stars. "Thy seed" in this passage does not refer to Jesus.

I dont think Ellen is trying to exegete what Isaiah is saying in his prophecy in any of your quotes. She is most likely squarely within her own context, and unless you can show otherwise never tries to be within Isaiahs context with this phrase. As for what I think is the proper context of Isaiah chapter 28, I refer you to the beginning of this thread.

Thomas, do you agree with the following observation (quoted by you in the opening post): Isa 28:10, in context seems to say the very opposite of our familiar interpretation. Instead of God's direction to learn by taking a little here and a little there, the context seems to show it instead as a consequence that comes upon God's people (especially the priests and prophets) who are drunk, careless, and refuse to hear His word. It is to those who would *not* hear that the word of the Lord becomes "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line."

Personally, I think the context indicates Jesus was forced to share truth slowly, methodically with the mismanaged Jews. Their retarded, stunted state required it. Paul addressed a similar situation when he wrote: "We have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Ellen applied this principle to teaching the truth to children and new converts.

You're saying this is the context of Isa. 28:10?



This seems to make clear the point that was made in the OP.

Jesus began sharing truth through parables so that they who would not understand could not understand. Matt 13:12ff Luke 8:9ff
Paul chides the hebrews for not moving on in their understanding and discussion; Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Have we understood these and moved onward, or would Paul find reason to chide us also for insisting on milk rather than meat?
Ellen of course used the phrase as pointed out in the above posts.

It thus seems to me that though all three mentioned persons discussed the education of the people, each come from a distinct angle not shared with the others and all are different from Isaiah 28.

I was referring to Isa 28. And, as you say, Jesus did something similar while here in the flesh. Paul and Ellen, too. Why do you think it's different in Isa 28?

I already pointed out that what Jesus did is almost diametrically opposed to what Ellen taught that the indoctrination of children should be. And Paul is on the hebrews case for getting stuck at debating or perhaps disputing basic theological points... And Isaiah is still on the levites case for spending more time with the wine-sack than with any kind of teaching, and chiding them that what teaching they manage to fit in between their drunken sleep comes out as incoherent mumbling.
What if you read the passage something like this?

precept upon precept, precept upon precept;
-rules and more rules, ever more rules..

line upon line, line upon line;
-repeating sentences time upon time because of an drunk haze inability to keep the thought long enough to spell it all out at once

here a little, [and] there a little
-instead of a coherent argument, the end result is a more or less random collection halfthought sentences..

Verses 7-8, the leaders of Israel are drunkards
Verse 9, whom is in a state to listen, the Lord wonders, must he go to toddlers to find a sober person?
Verse 10, precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little
Verse 11-12, very well says the Lord, you refuse to hear so I will speak in tounges(think pentecostal style) (like Jesus did speak in parables they could not understand to those who refused to listen)
Verse 13, thus the word of the Lord will be for these who will not hear precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little and they will be mighty confused through it.

Thus, nowhere near Ellen, and differing from Jesus in that the parables could be understood by those who would seek their meaning.

Right. What I'm saying is it is Jesus, not Isaiah, who is speaking to the Jews in the following passage:


Jesus stooped to make it crystal clear. The principle here involves making things very easy to understand.

MM, what you're suggesting doesn't seem to fit the context. That doesn't mean that the principle doesn't apply, just that it's not the point Isaiah was making. Isaiah was dealing with an issue that was going on in his time. Verses 9 and 10 make the point clear:

I think our differing views have now been presented satisfactory and the conclusion is that we have major differences in how we understand this text. Is there anything to add?Did He? What then about His own answer to this question?

10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'

The principle that careful study of the scriptures is important exists, but it is not made by Isaiah in this 28th chapter. Trying to shuehorn in a verse that does not apply creates a weak link to the otherwise strong chain of support for the principle in question.

Thomas, I'm saying it is Jesus who is speaking to the Jews in Isa 28 back when Isaiah wrote it - not Jesus speaking to the Jews in the NT. It was Jesus who said, "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing." It goes on to say:

30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.

Earlier it says:

14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve.

Mike, as I said, we must either agree to disagree or keep walzing around this topic in an neverending loop.

I'm still trying to figure out who you believe said, "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing." Also, when was it said, and to whom?

Isaiah cries out to the people (those whom will not hear) what the Lord sent him to say.

Lets try this version for emphasis, I dont think we tried it yet.

Isa 28:10-13
For it is precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little.
For with stammering lips and with a strange tongue shall it be spoken to this people;
To whom it was said: 'This is the rest, give ye rest to the weary; and this is the refreshing'; yet they would not hear.
And so the word of the LORD is unto them precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. {P}
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1028.htm

((Daryl, could hebrew fonts be added to the forum?))

Did you answer the following question?

Try reading the first sentence for the short answer?

The "he" in "to whom he said" is referring to Isaiah talking to the Jews?

28:12 To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The "he" in "to whom he said" is referring to Isaiah talking to the Jews on behalf of the Lord..

Okay, then, if Isaiah is merely repeating to the Jews what Jesus told him to tell them, isn't it safe to say - Jesus said, "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing."

Mike, It is fascinating that you are trying to prooftext your way through this chapter after 13 pages of discussing the relative lack of merit with this strategy of study. Verses do not come one by one. They do not even come chapter by chapter. We read that Isaiahs prophecy was delivered as one piece when his scribe read it to the king, not select parts piecing together what Isaiah thought the king might need to hear.

I'm sorry you believe I'm trying to proof-text Isa 28. I am merely trying to establish who said what to whom and when and the methodology they employed. I believe if we can nail down these facts then we will be in a better position to apply the principles to other situations.

The methodology employed was - "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." The question is, What did this method look like and sound like to the Jews during the time Isa 28 was unfolding in real time?

Here's the text:



It seems very clear from simply reading this translation what the answers to your questions are, MM.

The Amplified Bible:

9To whom will He teach knowledge? [Ask the drunkards.] And whom will He make to understand the message? Those who are babies, just weaned from the milk and taken from the breasts? [Is that what He thinks we are?]

10For it is [His prophets repeating over and over]: precept upon precept, precept upon precept, rule upon rule, rule upon rule; here a little, there a little.

11No, but [the Lord will teach the rebels in a more humiliating way] by men with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people [says Isaiah, and teach them His lessons].

12To these [complaining Jews the Lord] had said, This is the true rest [the way to true comfort and happiness] that you shall give to the weary, and, This is the [true] refreshing--yet they would not listen [to His teaching].

13Therefore the word of the Lord will be to them [merely monotonous repeatings of]: precept upon precept, precept upon precept, rule upon rule, rule upon rule; here a little, there a little--that they may go and fall backward, and be broken and snared and taken.

The answer seems to be, Repeating the same message over and over again in the simplest terms possible. Ellen White suggested employing this method when leading young people and non-SDAs unto a knowledge of all truth.

You are, in my opinion, still making the mistake of assuming that "line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" was a method. You can only analyse its use as a method if in fact it was a method (at least if it ever was a method before the late 19th century when Ellen devised a method based on this phrase). You have to begin by establishing that Isaiah intended it as a method and further that he employed it as a method in this verse or anywhere else before analysing this verse or any other verse by a method based on this phrase can make any kind of sense.

Perhaps process is better than method?

Ok, replace "method" with "process" in my post above and proceed with replying towards my concern shown there. :P

If not a method or a process - what then? What does it mean?

Mike, you previously gave biblical examples which you think parallel this chapter. Let me try doing the same.

God told Israel, I will feed you. And God gave Israel manna to eat.
But Israel said, we dont like manna, we want chicken like we ate in Egypt.
God replied, lets try it your way, and gave them chicken.
Many in Israel died from overeating on chicken.

God told Israel, I will be your king. And God put Samuel as His PM.
But Israel said, Your PM Samuel is old and his sons are no fit replacements, we want a king like our neighbours have.
And God said, lets try it your way, and gave them a king.
And Israel was alternately oppressed and lead astray by kings to their own demise.

God told Israel, "Come now, let us reason together," (Isa 1)
But Israel said, Your words are "bla, bla, bla" ("precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." )
And God said, lets do it your way, and let them hear only "bla, bla, bla", (precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.)
And Israel went into Babylon for 70 years of captivity to learn that the words of the Lord are indeed meant for reasoning together and not a divine form of "bla, bla, bla" (precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.)

Okay, so I hear you saying, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" is a type of expression or colloquialism that basically is the same thing as saying, "Blah, blah, blah". Now, since we're from two different parts of the world, what does "blah, blah, blah" mean to you? To me it's a verbal ellipse (...). Rather than taking the time to repeat everything someone said you rather rudely truncate it indicating you are bored and disapproving.

Your understanding of the phrase "bla, bla, bla" is a good summary of the reaction some people have towards God and His communication with humans.
This is indeed one side to the use of this phrase as found in Isaiah 28. Other sides have been (apparently unsuccessfully) presented in some of my previous posts. The general idea remains the same throughout them all, the drunk priests expressing their disapproval with God and His prophet Isaiah.

Note again that it is the rebellious people who bring this attitude to the discussion.

In terms of what you are saying Isaiah meant, this would be the same prophet speaking the same words over and over again in a simple way. However, the "line upon line, precept upon precept" method (as we commonly understand it) applies to something altogether different, which is to take little bits of verses and phrases from many different authors, and piece them together.

Still trying to wrap my mind around what you're saying. So, "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" is an expression in the Bible that represents "the drunk priests expressing their disapproval with God and His prophet Isaiah" - is that what you're saying? It's akin to saying, "blah, blah, blah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yadi yadi yada, whatever."

PS - I understand you disagree it means gathering everything the Bible has to say on a certain topic and then arriving at a theological conclusion. I also understand you disagree it means gingerly, gradually indoctrinating young people and non-SDAs in the 28 fundamental beliefs.

Yep, thats exactly what I am saying. Now the topical study of the scriptures is a biblical concept (For instance this: 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.), it just isnt an Isaiah 28 concept.

And your second example is most likely the meaning given the sentence by Ellen, wherefore it is within its context if you specify that you are quoting her and not Isaiah.

Got it. Thank you for explaining your take on Isa 28.