Summarily said right at the top, which has been the basis for my approach here, EGW’s counsel is to make the Bible the final arbitrator/authority. That is perfectly in step with Biblical counsel Isa 8:20 & 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11.



Not its not, however, as explained before the Bible writers had many natural advantages that kept them from making exegetical errors with all that is involved here, namely, lexis/vocabulary, syntax, context, culture, custom, history, eye-witness/first hand experiences, etc.




I Biblically understand that the human elements kicks in once the vision/revelation is completed. Prior to that God had been directly supernaturally working. It also may take supernatural power to accurately record that revelation in the receivers own words. The prophet Daniel did not understand his own visions and also God chooses to use veiled symbols when relating to a prophet (Num 12:6-8), probably so that it can be related in this veiled from, thus not leaving this work to even a prophet. So it then is not surprising, nor even unbiblical if EGW did not properly understand a vision that she had been given. And as Peter pointed out Paul said some things which are considered as Scripture, that many people could not understand.



I would like to see her precise statement, and in context. I would say that she was right in the sense that she was not advancing what she honestly did not think was her own ideas, however just by her simple self corrections it can be seen that this did not mean that everything she said was inerrant or directly inspired.

Case in point: Christ’s response to His Mother at the Cana Feast (Thompson, Inspiration, p. 291), at first in 2SP 101, 102 (1877) she had said that ‘Christ had rebuked His mother as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways’ however by 21 years later for DA 146.1 (1898) she completely flips that statement to imply that it was far from a rebuke but “ in accordance with Oriental custom”. So she may have made that switch upon reading up on this in e.g., the works of others who had written on the life of Christ.



See opening summary statement above. Everything must be tested, including what Bible writers have written/said. As far as I see, they have passed the test in terms of Theological soundness. EGW is not above that OT & NT Biblical Testing requirement.

In fact, as it was shown to her in vision, the Apocrypha also must be tested for it contains some truths, even veiled truths key for the last days.



I see that Bible writers remained within their capability. E.g., Luke did not presume to try to make Theological statements. He just remained within his capability of being a precise historian. Also he faithfully recorded the theological teachings experiences of the early Church pioneers.

The fact that EGW complained/“lamented”/wished that she was more of a scholar loudly speaks to her realized crucial deficiency in this exegetical regard.

So since I see that what she claims of the plagues contradicts the exegetical testimony, both linguistically and textually, I see that the Biblical view is not affected by her view.

Not in the sense you are saying. She said that the Bible should be used as a means to settle issues such as the law in Galatians, for example, as opposed to relying upon her to make pronouncements. But she never said when there were disagreements between her and Scripture that what Scripture says should be chosen instead of what she said. Rather, she asserted that what she said agreed with Scripture.



What about those who relied upon the Septuagint?




What about during the vision itself? Doesn't that depend upon the human element? After all, it's a human being who is perceiving what God is communicating. Wouldn't that have to involve the human brain?



And the human being was also working, not supernaturally, but humanly.



Accuracy isn't the issue I'm getting at. Perception is. A human being perceives things as a human being, not as God. No matter how accurately a revelation is recorded, it's still going to be the record of the perception of a human being.



Leaving what work? The prophet would be doing the same thing regardless of whether "veiled symbols" are used or not in regards to relating the vision. So "this work" is left to the prophet in either case (whether a "veiled symbol" is used or not).



But it would be surprising of Ellen White said what the vision meant, claiming that she did so under direct guidance from God, and was not presenting merely her own ideas, if this was not the case.



Peter said some of the things Paul said were difficult to understand.



Try 3SM around page 50. There's a whole section around there which speaks to her understanding of her own writings.



What you're saying in regards to "inerrant" agrees with her thought, but regarding "divinely inspired," it disagrees with her thought.



What does the phrase inside single quotes mean? Especially "as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways." I have no idea what this means.



I don't see what was flipped.



I'm not seeing from what you wrote what was switched. If you could present what Thompson wrote, that would be great. I should get his book.



This has nothing to do with why "I was shown" statements should have more weight than other inspired statements she wrote.



Same comment.



Ellen White wrote over 100,000 pages, so it's to be expected that she would write about many subjects which wasn't within her category, which would be what anyway? Housewife?

Let's consider the health message. She wasn't a physician. Is it your belief that her counsels regarding health were mistaken?



Please quote what she said. I'm not aware of her complaining, or lamenting, not being more of a scholar. That doesn't sound like her to me. Feel free to prove me wrong here please.



I see that what you believe in regards to the plagues contradicts both Scripture and her writings, and that you perceive the contradiction between your views and hers, but not between your views and Scripture. I believe she and Scripture are correct.

I don’t see that a discussion on Inspiration is pertinent or crucial to this issue here. The substance is in the exegetical analysis itself. The facts are clear that EGW made mistakes and even corrected herself. And the Bible is provedly the Final authority over EGW’s writings, even when she had stated something on a Biblical passage in question. I have seen way too much evidence of this to not objectively understand this, nor see this as not possible/applicable in the Plagues.

So contrary to your view stated above, I see that her views does not agree with the Testimony of Scripture. Therefore, I choose the Bible.

By the way, how exactly do you hold your view on ‘God and the Future’ in the light of what you claim here to believe about EGW writings?? EGW clearly believed that God knew the future.

Also, as seen in this thread, you don’t even follow what EGW says about e.g., the death of Nadab and Abijuh, the War in Heaven and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (seeing here a validity in a volcano view from a non-inspired writer, as if EGW couldn’t see that if that was the case, as she patently does when such “third parties” are involved), etc, then I concretely see that it is the view of God that you privately have and want to have that is the final arbitrator for you and not Scripture or the EGW/SOP. There therefore is no need to continue a discussion on this topic with this unbiblical basis.

As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? What, or how, was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?

Why not?



What's your last sentence mean? She writes something under divine inspiration in regards to a passage of Scripture, but that has no authority if you disagree with what she says? For example, she writes point blank, 'The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is referring to the moral law' in regards to a dispute in Galatians which was going on in the 1890's (I'm using your convention of single quotes indicating a paraphrase). Are we to understand she might be wrong here, and Paul didn't really have the moral law in mind?



Or anything else, I suppose.



That's what I said.

1.(You believe) you agree with the Bible, and disagree with Ellen White, and that I disagree with the Bible, but agree with Ellen White.
2.(I believe) I agree with the Bible and Ellen White.



God does know the future. He knows it as it is, which is Open. She has a number of statements which make this evident, including the one you cited in Early Writings.

In DA 49, she says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. If God saw the future as is traditionally understood, she couldn't have said that. In DA 131 she says something similar, that Christ "He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss." In COL somewhere she writes that Christ risked all, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. So this is a number of statements which disagree with the traditional view.



What I quoted didn't have to do with a volcano view. I just said there were people who saw that as a possibility. Many see that Sodom and Gomorrah could have been a natural disaster.



Anybody's view of God is a final arbiter in how thy interpret inspired writings. I've been saying this all along. Our view of God influences how we perceive things.

The question is, how should our view of God be obtained? I've been saying that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and what He revealed should be the foundation of our view of God's character.



It's completely Biblical. I realize the following is from the SOP, but it's based on John 17, and explains the Biblical basis eloquently, so I'll quote it here:



Also, from the same article:



John, in particular, has the theme throughout his Gospel of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God, even referring to Him as "the Word of God," God's thought made audible.

I could easily refute all of the points you have raised up Tom however you just continue on the same frustrating method of obfuscating whatever you have no answer to or entirely ignoring them, including exegesis, which as a (purported) seminarian you have no valid excuse to do so, yet still claiming to see a ‘dense forest.’ Perhaps if you address the key points that I mentioned in that post, I consider that you are being sincere in this discussion. And EGW makes other definite statements on the future and citing the ‘possible view’ of someone does not actually address the issue or answer the question at hand.

As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

"Purported"? I went to Andrews in 1990-1992. Why would you write such a thing? You write many mean-spirited things. I don't know if you do this on purpose, or you don't realize how the things you write will be taken, or what, but this is a forum where Christians from the same church meet together to discuss spiritual things. Please bear in mind that the people you are addressing have feelings, and that, as Christians, we bear the name of Christ.



What key points?



Possible view? I cited the actual quotes. That's not a "possible view," but an actual view.

"All heaven was imperiled for our redemption." How could this possibly be true under the traditional view?

Succinctly said:

-“Purported” - I have not seen evidence in your responses that you are exegetically cognisant, functional or knowledgeable/competent, for lack of more descriptive term.

-Key points - try the pertinently related ‘War in Heaven’, which you always ignore, as well virtually all exegetical points, as if you cannot understand/deal with them. Quoting the Amplified Bible is not tantamount to exegesis. (I’ll pass on Nadad & Abihu given your discussion with MM). Re-read that post for more. The same thing has been patently occurring in literally every other posts you’ve made in response to mine in this thread!!

By the way did you even read the SOP references for the Cana Feast statements before answering?? By your replies, it does not seem so

-EGW and Future - look up EGW’s: ‘opened the future’ type of statements

-‘possible view’ - Your reply to why you did not go by EGW’s account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was the ‘possible volcano view’ of a non-inspired source (i.e., vs. the Bible and SOP). How does become the authoritative source. As I said, I go by the Bible (exegetically), and EGW if/when she agrees/harmonizes with the Bible; and not, as you resort to do, against and/or oblivious to, both of them, even for the suppositions of Man. It is most clear to me that it is the view you want to have of God that leads to this haphazard and subjective selectiveness. How can a Bible-based, SDA Theology, discussion be conducted with that basis??

One would think someone as critical as you are could write sentences that have at least reasonably proper grammar and correct spelling. It's really amazing that someone who writes as poorly as you do is as critical as you are.

I love discussing the issues being discussed on the threads I'm participating in. Sure, I would like it if everybody agreed with me, but that's not reality. My hope in these discussions isn't to try to convince others to agree with me (although when that happens, rare that it may be, that's nice), but to try to understand the point of view of others better, and to sharpen my own understanding of issues.



I don't "always ignore" anything. Whatever points one makes, I'll address. There's no call for you to make an accusation like this.

Your writing is both voluminous and difficult to parse. I've tried to address key points you make, and keep up with what you've written, and have repeatedly said that if I miss something, to please just repeat it. Anything I'm not addressing is not by design, but due to just missing it through the sheer volume, or not understanding what you're trying to say, due to poor writing.



Of course I made no such claim.



For more what?



The same what thing? Your just rambling all over the place. Place be clear in what you're talking about, or what it is that you want. You're not making any points that have to do with our discussion.



Before answering what?



Replies to what?



This is extremely vague, but I'll take a shot here. My understanding of the future is that it is comprised of possibilities, all of which God foresees. The future doesn't become a reality until it occurs. Agents with free will have the ability to choose to act how they wish, so that what specifically will happen cannot be known as fact, given there is an actual possibility that the given agent will make either this choice, or that one.

Also, in reference to future events that God is Himself to actively take place in, it's trivial for Him to foresee His own actions.

Even we humans, with our puny intelligence compared to God, can foresee the future in certain contexts. That the future is open to God is to be expected. The problem with the traditional view is that asserts that there is one specific future which God sees, which causes logical problems.



I never said anything like this! I never said, "The reason I do not go by EGW's account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was (anything)."

I made no comment whatsoever about Ellen White's account.

You are continually inaccurate in what your claiming I'm saying. I've asked you to quote things I've said. Please do so, or be less dogmatic about your statements as to what I'm saying. If you're going to be dogmatic, please support your assertions with evidence.



This is missing a noun. How does what become the authoritative source?



This is incoherent.



I didn't start with a view of God that I wanted to have. I evolved into the view of God that I have over many years by reading things and meditating upon themes.

The Great Controversy theme made a huge impact upon me as a young man. It led, to a great degree, to my becoming a Seventh-day Adventist.

The 1888 message had a tremendous impact on my thinking.

The Desire of Ages had a tremendous impact, as well as the Great Controversy.

George Fifield had a tremendous impact.

Jesus Christ's words, "When you've seen me, you've seen the Father" had a tremendous impact.

Ty Gibson as well.

I read different things, and sometimes they impress me, especially things which cause me to consider God in a more positive light. I believe the truth about God is better than we can imagine, that we are always on the side of thinking of Him as less gracious, humble, kind, wonderful, loving than He really is, and that Christ has given us but the briefest glimpse, not because of any lack on Christ's part, but because our senses are so dim.

Here's something from Ty: