We're getting there. Slow water runs deep.

But, I think we can leave the discussion of inspiration for the moment.

OK.

Regarding Ellen White.

First (in no order of importance) let me say the following:

1. I do NOT think EGW is a "false prophet."

2. I do NOT think that EVERYTHING she said, wrote, or was published is or was "inspired gospel" (for lack of a better term) and authoritative. (Recall my "continuum theory" of inspiration. ) (Daryl, that smilie doesn't seem to be working)

3. I DO think she was a godly woman trying her best to do the will of God as she understood it. (In some ways this is the most important point, because it removes any malicious or nefarious motives or intent from her part. She is not a Jesuit sleeper agent, a member of the Secret Order of the Hidden Hand, a tool of the devil...you get the point.)

4. I do think her "theology" (again, for lack of a better term) changed over time. This is both good and bad.

That being said...

These are some of the issues I have with EGW/Mrs. White/"The Pen of Inspiration"/"Spirit of Prophecy"/... I will enumerate each point and give a brief explanation of why I take issue with this, or why it causes me questions.

Again, do not apply priority to any point listed below based on its position in the list. The numbering is only to keep them organized.

1. Baggage. I immediately recognize that this relates to incorrect usage of EGW. In my experience, she is JUST NOT A NICE LADY.

2. Partial "Truth." I have this complaint against the church generally as well.* In the last 15 years or so, I have found that the things taught to me as "Truth" are actually "Truth (as seen by the SDA church through EGW glasses)" Thank God (Literally. Absolutely no blaspheme intended) for the Internet where I can research MANY views on a topic, not just be taught the party line.

3. EGW's changes (discrepancies, you might say) in her theology. If she is inspired, she MUST get it right the first time. Examples include, but are not limited to, the Shut Door doctrine.

4. EGWs use and application by the SDA church. This one is a lot easier to ascribe nefarious motive to.

5. Plagarism. No matter what your view on this topic, from "She did not plagarise" to "Everything whe wrote was copied," one has to admit she did borrow, sometimes heavily, from other writers without giving proper credit.

6. EGW's support of un-biblical doctrines. Examples include, but are not limited to, the Investigative Judgement (IJ) doctrine.

7. OK. Here it is. She was hit in the head with a rock. This put her into a coma for three weeks. After which she started having visions. To me, this is a no-brainer. ( I couldn't resist.)

8. Evangelism. If, in my discussions with people of other denominations or faiths, I resort to the use of EGW to support any point, and expect them to accept this authority, I must then, as a matter of academic and scholarly honesty, allow THEM to look for support to THEIR guru and accept THAT authority. I have found it far more convincing to simply appeal to one universally accepted authority,** The Holy Scriptures.

Therefore, given the above, there are just too many questions and uncertainties regarding Ellen White for me to either accept or study her writings as inspired gospel/Scripture, or to use her or accept her use to support any point of argument.



*(I was born and raised an SDA, and I love the church; I cannot imagine attending any else. But as Daryl has pointed out, I try to think of myself as a Christian who chooses to felowship with SDAs. This is a whole 'nuther topic.)

**By this I intend that most people recognize the place of Scripture in religion and the history of the world. They have never heard of EGW.

As we are moving on from here, I thought I would once again post this text that says it all in relation to all Scripture being inspired of God.

The Scriptures says of Itself:

Thanks for fixing the smilie.

Please note, when I referred to the "primary meaning" which you had spoken of earlier, I was assuming we were still speaking about the "private interpretation" phrase which occurs only in verse 20 of that passage. If we were to speak of the "primary meaning" of verse 21, which you appear to include in the discussion here, then I would say it has to do with the source of scripture. The catch is that verse 21, which tells us how scripture is given, is used to bolster the reason for not interpreting it "privately," as spoken of in verse 20 just before it. The two verses each have separate emphases and messages, but are put together in a logical way.

Peter tended to write that way. He would put together a logical essay the likes of which we hardly see elsewhere in the Bible.

Perhaps you disagree with me on verse 20, but I agree with you on verse 21.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

JAK,

Not ignoring you, but out of time. Expect a reply to post 151864 when I get a chance later.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Take your time. It covers a lot of ground.

I hope GC and JAK don't mind if I participate now and then in this discussion.

Which points do you disagree with besides the IJ?

She didn’t change her beliefs. She believed the shut-door doctrine to the end of her life.

What is the difference between what she did and what the biblical writers did?

Perhaps we can create a thread to discuss the IJ and why you find it unbiblical.

This is completely wrong. She started having visions some 8 years later.

This is right. EGW never should be used to support any point in discussions with people of other denominations.

Rosangela,

From my perspective, feel free to participate in this thread anytime.

Thank you, Daryl.