Are Ellen White's writings the final authority on prophetic, doctrinal, or historical interpretation

I was going over Samuele Bacchiocchi, noted Adventist scholar and author article on ...A Reply To Criticism: Part I "The Use of E. G. White's Writings in Interpreting Scripture"

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html

He asks the right question, "Did Ellen White view her writings as the final authority for any prophetic, doctrinal, or historical interpretation of Scripture" and comes up with the right answer "The sampling of statements just cited, clearly indicates that Ellen White pointed to the Scripture as the final authority for defining church beliefs and practices", but then proceeds to give himself license then to challenge what is written in the Great Controvesy and insert his thesis as seen in the following. "It is evident that the editors were made aware of the fact that "the establishment of the papacy" did not begin in 538. In my dissertation I have shown that the development of the papal primacy began already in the second century, when the Pope exercised his ecumenical authority by imposing on Christian churches at large Easter-Sunday, weekly Sunday, and by condemning various movements like the Montanists."

This doesnt change the fact that the papacy was given formal authority in 538 by the Roman Emperor, while before it was just allowed to exist as a group of believers or religion, but not in charge or having political power. Here is the section of the article we are dealing with..


"..Did Ellen White view her writings as the final authority for any prophetic, doctrinal, or historical interpretation of Scripture? Did Ellen White ever sensed the need to revise and correct what she had published? Did Ellen White engage experienced workers to help her make needed corrections? Were the corrections made "peripheral" as alleged by my critics, or substantive? Are there still corrections that need to be made in Ellen White's writings?

It is evident that the questions we are addressing in this newsletter are most sensitive and fundamental to the Adventist understanding of the relationship between EGW's writings and the Scripture. We are dealing with a critical issue that is troubling our Adventist church today. It has been for me a most painful experience to read messages from a considerable number of former Adventists who have shared with me their disillusionment with Ellen White. Some of them used to be devotee of EGW's writings and lived by their teachings. Today, however, they feel so disillusioned and bitter that they have designed websites, exclusively devoted to attack Ellen White. This saddens me because Ellen White has made and is still making today an inestimable contribution to the message and mission of our church, and to the spiritual life of millions of believers around the world.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that as a church we have failed to develop rational criteria for a responsible and healthy use of Ellen White's writings. Over the years many Adventists have come to believe that Ellen White is the final authority on prophecy, history, diet, health, education, evangelism, etc. For them Biblical research consists primarily in searching out what Ellen White has written on the subject being investigated. In fact somebody wrote to me saying that I could have saved a lot of time if I had checked what Ellen White wrote about Islam. Why? Simply because she wrote nothing about it and consequently there was no reason for me to waste my time studying a subject ignored by Ellen White.

It would be presumptuous to think that this newsletter will change the mind of those who blindly believe that they can find in Ellen White's writings answers to all their questions. The most I can hope to accomplish is to lay the foundation for developing some sensible criteria for the proper use of EGW's writings in Biblical interpretation. Dealing with this divisive issue is very risky. This may explain why most Adventist scholars and church leaders prefer to ignore it. But, placing the issue under the rug only means postponing to the future the search for answers to questions many are asking today.

I anticipate that this newsletter will alienate a good number of current friends. This is not an encouraging thought. I wish I could avoid it, but my commitment is to be biblical rather than politically correct. May I kindly ask you to hold your judgment until you have had the opportunity to read my responses, which include at least the next newsletter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SEVENFOLD PROPHECY OF THE 1260 DAYS

In the next newsletter I will respond to the objections raised against my tentative interpretation of the 1260 days prophecy. My plan is to analyzes the sevenfold prophecy of the three and a half years, 42 months, 1260 days. The procedure I will follow is to consider each of the seven texts where this time prophecy is found (Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:2; Rev 11:3; Rev 12:6; Rev 12:14; Rev 13:5). This is a unique prophecy that is mentioned seven times in the Bible, with three different time designations, all of them adding up to three and a half years.

Through a careful analysis of the context of each text, I will attempt to define the various characteristics of this prophetic period given in each text. This definition will help us to determine if all the given characteristics of this prophetic period can be legitimately fitted in our traditional Adventist interpretation which delimits this prophecy to the period of the papal domination from 538 to 1798. The aim of this study is not to discard our traditional interpretation, but possibly to broaden it by including the historic antichristian manifestation of Islam.

If space allows, the next newsletter will also include my response to my critics, who content that the uprooting of the three horns of Daniel 7:20, refers exclusively to the establishment of Papacy supremacy. Our analysis of the text and of the relevant historical developments, will show that the antichristian power of Islam can be legitimately included in the historical outworking of the Little Horn Antichrist.

The ultimate aim of this study is to help us appreciate more fully the prophetic outworking of the controversy between Christ and the Antichrist during the Christian era until our times. This is a fascinating subject to explore both biblically and historically.

You might be interested to learn about a major study recently published on this subject. The title of the book is CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST IN PROPHECY AND HISTORY. The author, Edwin de Kock, is a retired Adventist professor from South Africa, now living in Texas. He has done a masterful job in reconstructing the historical setting of the controversy between Christ and the Antichrist. In many ways this study is an apologetic defense of the historical Adventist interpretation of the Antichrist. When completed the study will consists of three volumes.

I do not agree with everything de Kock wrote, but, as a church historian, I am very impressed by his historical reconstruction of events related to the outworking of the Antichrist. You can order now the first volume (390 pages) by contacting the author directly: Edwin de Kock, P O Box 2325, Edinburg, TX 78540-2325. E-mail: edwdekock@aol.com. Tel. (956) 583-2859.

Please remember that what I am submitting for your consideration is ONLY A PROPOSED INTERPRETATION, that may need to be modified, or even rejected, if proven to be devoid of biblical and historical support. Our common goal should be to come to a fuller understanding of biblical truths relevant to our lives. To accomplish this goal, it may be necessary to revise some of our traditional Adventist interpretations. This should not distress us because we are committed to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet 3:18).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE ROLE OF EGW'S WRITINGS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

A most serious criticism leveled by several respondents against my study on "Islam and the Papacy in Prophecy," is that my proposed interpretation of the 1260 days prophecy openly contradicts Ellen White's exclusive application of this prophecy to the period of papal supremacy from 538 to 1798. I will quote the comments of Kevin Paulsen, which are representative of several other respondents.

Paulsen begins his critique of my essay, saying: "Yet another challenge is being posed to historic Adventist prophetic interpretation--and from what many would consider an unlikely source. Samuele Bacchiocchi, noted Adventist scholar and author of various books on current denominational issues, now claims he is convinced that the Antichrist of Bible prophecy includes Islam as well as the Roman papacy, and that--in his view--the stated characteristics of Daniel's little-horn power more accurately reflect Islam than the papacy, specifically with regard to the uprooting of the three horns (Dan. 7:8,24) and the 'time and times and the dividing of time' (Dan. 7:25) during which this power would rule.

"Perhaps most seriously of all, when confronted by a respondent with Ellen White's clear endorsement of Adventism's historic dates for the 1,260-year prophecy, Bacchiocchi sought to weaken this fact by claiming that Sister White was 'committed to search for truth and recognized her limitations.'"5

Paulsen concludes his critique with these words: "Samuele Bacchiocchi has contributed many years of fine scholarship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. His books defending the Sabbath, the non-immortality of the soul, and our historic positions on such issues as alcohol, adornment, and rock music, have been a great blessing to Adventists throughout the world. But by seeking to alter our historic stand regarding the Antichrist prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, he has stepped into theological quicksand. His position contradicts the clear statements of Inspiration, as well as the plainly-documented facts of history."6

A Serious Criticism

These statements contain a serious criticism that need to be addressed. The implication is that by submitting an alternative interpretation of the 1260 days prophecy, I am rejecting the authority of Ellen White and undermining the positive contributions my books have made in defending historic Adventist positions. If this allegation were true, then no Adventist has the right to reexamine the traditional Adventist interpretations. We must accept them as Biblical sound, even if we find flaws in them.

Is this what it means to be a committed Adventist? Are Adventists close-minded Christians who blindly accept their traditional teachings without ever testing their biblical soundness? If this were true, then those who accuse us of being a cult are not far from the truth. But this is not what I have been taught during the years I attended the Adventist Academy in Italy, Newbold College in England, and Andrews University Theological Seminary in the USA. Furthermore, this is not what I heard and taught during the 36 years of teachings at Andrews University and overseas. What I always heard and taught is that Adventists are THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. We test our beliefs and practices first and foremost by Scripture. Let us honor this fundamental distinction of our Adventist church, and avoid becoming victim of a cultish mentality.

My Deep Respect for Ellen White's Writings

In formulating a response, I wish to state at the outset my deep respect for the writings of Ellen White. During the past 15 years, my wife and I have faithfully read EGW's writings every evening for our devotion. At the beginning of each year my wife purchases from the ABC the devotional book of the year. If the devotional book is not compilation from Ellen White's writings, chances are that we read it only for few weeks, because soon we sense the need to go back to EGW's writings. This we do by rereading one of the previous Spirit of Prophecy's devotional. For example, this year we are rereading Our High Calling, which was EGW's devotional book for 2001. The reason is simply. Ellen White speaks to the spiritual needs of our souls better than other contemporary writers.

The important role that Ellen White plays in our devotional life should serve to dispel the allegation that I fail to respect Ellen White by submitting a tentative new interpretation for the 1260 days prophecy. The question is: Does respect for the authority of Ellen White preclude any fresh investigation of Biblical or historical subjects discussed in her writings? Did Ellen White see herself as the final and infallible authority on prophetic, exegetical, theological, and historical interpretations? Did she expect Adventists to accept whatever she wrote without questioning? I do not believe this to be the case. To prove my point, I will submit two lines of evidences: (1) Ellen White's own understanding of the relationship of her writings to Scripture. (2) The 1911 revision of The Great Controversy.

Relationship Between EGW's Writings and Scripture

To my knowledge Ellen White never taught that her writings have the same normative authority of Scripture for defining church beliefs and practices. She unequivocally stated: "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. . . . Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline"7

What impresses me about Ellen White is her humbleness and respect for the normative authority of the Bible. She never claimed to be an infallible authority to be accepted without questioning. She wrote: "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in him is no variableness, or shadow of turning"8 A proof of the recognition of her fallibility and limitations, is provided by the 1911 revision of The Great Controversy. Shortly we shall see that in preparing this revision she asked responsible workers to help her remove disputed statements and to make the necessary corrections.

We never read that Paul, Peter, or of any other Bible writer asked competent people to help them edit their manuscripts and remove inaccuracies. Ellen White saw no problem in correcting her manuscripts, or in changing her views (like in the case of the "Shut Door"), or in asking others to help her make necessary corrections to The Great Controversy.

The most familiar statement of Ellen White's understanding of the relationship of her writings to Scripture, is found in Colporteur Ministry p. 125: "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light." Again she wrote: "The Testimonies are not to belittle the word of God, but to exalt it and to attract minds to it, that the beautiful simplicity of truth may impress all"9

The sampling of statements just cited, clearly indicates that Ellen White pointed to the Scripture as the final authority for defining church beliefs and practices. She wrote: "I recommend to you dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the 'last days;' not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth."10 In this statement Ellen White clearly acknowledges that her writings (visions) are to serve, "not for a new rule of faith," but to comfort and correct those "who err from Bible truth"

The 1911 Revision of The Great Controversy

The 1911 revision of The Great Controversy provides a helpful case study to understand Ellen White's recognition of her limitations. My comments are based on a 14 pages document supplied to me by the E. G. White Estate office of Andrews University. The document is entitled "The 1911 Edition of The Great Controversy. An Explanation of the Involvements of the 1911 Revision." This document, which is readily available to any interested person, contains a statement read by W. C. White (Ellen White's son) before the General Conference Council on October 30. 1911. Ellen White approved the statement of her son in a statement signed on July 27, 1911.

The need for a revision of The Great Controversy was precipitated by two factors: (1) The old plates for reprinting the book were worn out and new plates were urgently needed (2) Some people challenged some of the historical data and they wanted references for the historical quotations.

W. C. White offers us an instructive account of how the revision was done. Essentially the process was carried out in two steps. First, they asked anyone who questioned the accuracy of statements found in The Great Controversy, to submit their objections in writings. Second, Ellen White instructed competent workers in Europe and America to search in libraries for the books needed "to verify the quotations and to correct inaccuracies found."11 She thanked the brethren who devoted countless hours in libraries searching the needed material.

To establish the extent of the changes that were made, it would require a comparative analysis between the old and new editions of The Great Controversy. In this moment I have no time for such a laborious project. The report of W. C. White clearly suggests that some significant changes were made.

He writes: "On pages 50, 563, 564, 580, 581, and in few other places where there were statements regarding the papacy which are strongly disputed by Roman Catholics, and which are difficult to prove from accessible histories, the wording in the new edition has been so changed that the statement falls easily within the range of evidence that is readily obtainable."12

Willingness of Ellen White to Make Corrections

What amazes me is the willingness of Ellen White to make the necessary corrections. She went as far as to ask the various publishing departments and canvassing agents, both in America and overseas, to submit in writing their request for any correction to be done. To me this shows that Ellen White recognized that in her writings there were inaccuracies that needed to be corrected.

When reading the account of the participation of European and American researchers in locating documents needed to correct some of the historical statements that "were questioned and challenged," one gets the impression that Ellen White welcomed the participation of those who could help in making the necessary corrections in the new edition of The Great Controversy. She expressly stated: "I am thankful that my life has been spared, and that I have strength and clearness of mind for this and other literary work."13

If Ellen White was alive today, would she welcome the service of competent scholars willing to correct the remaining inaccuracies found in The Great Controversy and other publications? There is no reason to think otherwise, because she was a woman who recognized her limitations, and was committed to the search for truth.. On my part I would be glad to offer my services to her, because I can never stop thanking God for the inestimable contributions she has made to my spiritual life and to the message and mission of our Adventist church.

Ellen White was a humble and open-minded woman, fully ware of her limitations. As her son, W. C. White puts it: "Mother has never claimed to be an authority on history."14 Again, "Mother has never laid claim to verbal inspiration."15 He supports the latter by pointing to the fact that his mother corrected and revised her manuscripts...."

So it appears that Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, in order to support a theory on how Islam fits into biblical prophecy, a stronger postion of interpretation is pushed aside for a weaker one, what are your thougths.

It is unsafe to read material like this in light of what we know about Satan's eagerness to deceive and derail us in these last days. If he can get people to set aside the SOP as irrelevant he will have accomplished his purpose. Nothing outside of the Bible encourages us to be more faithful and obedient like reading the SOP. Material like you have quoted above serves to turn people away from reading the SOP, therefore, it is dangerous and destructive. Here is how God sees it:

As the end draws near and the work of giving the last warning to the world extends, it becomes more important for those who accept present truth to have a clear understanding of the nature and influence of the testimonies, which God in His providence has linked with the work of the third angel's message from its very rise.--5T 654 (1889). {LDE 44.1}

Men may get up scheme after scheme and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White and has given her a message will be safe from the many delusions that will come in these last days.--3SM 83, 84 (1906). {LDE 44.2}

There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from Him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence, for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America.--2SM 72 (1905). {LDE 44.3}

One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's Spirit.--3SM 84 (1903). {LDE 177.4}

The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Prov. 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.--1SM 48 (1890). {LDE 177.5}

The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies. . . . This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life.--3SM 83 (1890). {LDE 178.1}

It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.--4T 211. {LDE 178.2}

Ellen White wrote that the truth should be investigated, and that there should be no fear or hesitancy in so doing. Bacchiocchi wrote:



I agree with this. Ellen White wrote something very similar, but I can't remember the wording well enough to find it. The general thought is that it is possible that some of our beliefs could have been in error and need to be revisited and that we should be open to investigate such things.

I see Bacchiocchi emphasizing as strongly as he can that what he is suggesting is a "proposed interpretation." I'm not agreeing with his interpretation. I think the traditional interpretation we have is correct. But he is correct is asserting that we should be able to substantiate our positions on the basis of Scripture.

I'll comment a bit further on something I inferred from Bacchiocchi and that I noticed while at the seminary, which is the common idea that there is a difference in the inspiration of EGW vs. Scripture, the idea I perceive being that EGW could well be incorrect, but not Scripture. So we can trust Scripture implicitly, but not Ellen White.

I disagree with this. I think Ellen White's writings are every bit as dependable and trustworthy as Scripture. How could they not be? They come from the same source. The Holy Spirit inspired her as much as any other writer, whether Paul or Moses or whoever. I see the difference between EGW's writings and Scripture as one of function.

The Bible is accepted by all Christianity. It is to be out accepted source for the rule and practice of our faith as well. So we should be able to substantiate our positions from Scripture.

Tom, B's proposed interpretation is so far off the mark as to warrant condemnation.

Is the following quote the one you are talking about:


This insight does not mean we are to doubt the correctness of the pillars of our faith; rather, we must study and investigate them to more thoroughly demonstrate their immovable truthfulness. Note the following passages:

UL 152
Do you wonder that I have something to say, when I see the pillars of our faith beginning to be moved? Seductive theories are being taught in such a way that we shall not recognize them unless we have clear spiritual discernment.--Manuscript 46, May 18, 1904, "The Foundation of Our Faith," a talk given at Berrien Springs, Michigan. {UL 152.6}

CH 521
No line of our faith that has made us what we are is to be weakened. We have the old landmarks of truth, experience, and duty, and we are to stand firm in defense of our principles, in full view of the world. {CH 521.2}

Here are several more quotes which establish the immovable truthfulness of our pillar doctrines:

Yes, MM, that's the one. Thank you.

Here are some interesting quotes from EGW on the subject...



"When I learned that Great Controversy must be reset, I determined that we would have everything closely examined, to see if the truths it contained were stated in the very best manner, to convince those not of our faith that the Lord had guided and sustained me in the writing of its pages.
"As a result of the thorough examination by our most experienced workers, some changing in the wording has been proposed. These changes I have carefully examined, and approved. I am thankful my life has been spared, and that I have strength and clearness of mind for this and other literary work." - Letter 56, 1911. {Spirit of Prophecy Volume IV 530}


She is not giving the slightest hint that changes were made as far as interpretation...only in the wording and typographical errors.... we are told:

The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.--1SM 48 (1890). {LDE 177.5}
The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies. . . . This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life.--3SM 83 (1890). {LDE 178.1}

We need to treat this subject with considerable care!

Personally, I disagree with Pr. Bacchiocchi rather strongly.
He would do away with the 1260 days, the dates of 538, and 1798, the day/year principle, and a few other items.

These are not just side issues -- these are foundation stones in the prophetic sequence and understanding.

God gave EGW visions of prophetic truths and to lightly push that aside is walking on very dangerous ground.

Now it is true that at times EGW fleshed out the historic story part of the Great Controversy by adding history from historians.
Read the introduction in Great Controversy which clearly presents the purpose of the book, and that God revealed to her the struggle between good and evil which puts a whole different perspective on history. It is not a history text book, but a revelation of the conflict between good and evil -- the Great Controversy -- behind the history.

So "In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; {GC xi.4}

You might want to read from the Biographical book 6BIO pages 303-322 as it gives insights into challenges and how they were met back then.

Prior to being republished in 1911, EGW had people go through the book "Great Controversy" to find, among other things, any historical errors. People sent in pages of recommendations which were all carefully studied.

For example --


So we see that EGW held firm to the 1260 years and the dates that mark their beginning and end.

As some challenged key portions in GC, several Adventist historical scholars did extensive research to find historical records that showed EGW's history was correct.

You can read more in 6BIO 303-321

Dedication, thank you.

I'm fairly sure that Sam was a Jesuit - this came to a head when he started to delve into how Islam fits into prophecy.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church was very supportive of the Mohammdean movement and devoted articles in our major publications showing how God used Islam as a hammer against the Trinitarianism of the apostate papal system.



Yes, Ellen's words ARE the final say for true SDA's, there is room outside of what she taught on but the things she taught on were not from her they were directly from God. God filled Sister White with His Spirit and she then uttered the sacred words which became texts.

Although I also did not agree with Bacchiocchi’s Islam understanding for the little horn power, I nonetheless defend my former professor, friend and inspirational mentor, pointedly for my WBSC plans on this proscribed false rumor-spreading, “false witnessing” charge of being a Jesuit: His abundant works speak for themselves and writing 4+ books fully upholding the Seventh-day Sabbath, not to mention his globetrotting, weekly Sabbath Enrichment Seminars; as well as other books against the “Popular Heresies” of the Catholic Church such as the Secret Rapture, Conscious Life After Death, Eternally Burning Hell, various Futurist-Dispensationalism Interpretations, Wine Drinking and also Biblical Festivals; among other less formal works, this most clearly is not the work of a Catholic-commissioned SDA underminer. Having sat in his classes, I can recall the many times, particularly during Church History classes where he all but blasted historical acts and practices in the Catholic Church.



Apparently, based on what you say here, you are anti-Trinitarian. That is quite contrary to the “light” and statements of the SOP which rightly corrected this false belief among early Adventists. That should be “final” for you.



“Throughout her ministry, Ellen White maintained the primacy of the Bible. In 1851 she appealed: I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged.. dcxci48 In 1901: \The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to take the place of His Word. This light [the gift of prophecy] is to bring confused minds to His Word.. dcxcii49" (From Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 176 [PDF p.135])



You need to thoroughly study out this topic of how the gift of prophecy and inspiration actually works.

Would you say that the materials produced in "1909" & "1926" should be considered "early Adventist" material?

Perhaps you could join in the discussion on the Trinity thread and offer up some of the corrections Sister White made on the issue of the Trinity.

As for the Bible I fully believe in teachings of Sister White about how we are to study the Bible - The Pioneers who were guided by Sister White were said to have been great Bible readers.

Close, my friend, but she's at most 2nd in importance, as the written Word is first. From what you say, here, we must separate verbal inspiration - every word is inspired (which we don't believe) - from thought inspiration - the thought is inspired: this is what Adventism has always believed, not so.

Ellen White's authority is Biblical, so she isn't a stand-alone writer with authority, and her writings - just like any singular, given Bible passage - must be compared with all of Scripture. The whole Bible is the final word, and the best writers today, within the church, I find are those who repeat from their own Bible study what SOP emphasised of Bible truths.

The Bible is the final authority, which EGW states herself.

In other words, if you find anything she says to be opposite to what the Bible says, which I don't expect you will find, the Bible is to be the final authority.

perfectly stated, we will not find anything in Sister White contrasting the Bible and given that Sister White makes things clear for us she explains Scripture exactly as Paul explains Scripture - I see no difference at all except Sister White spoke in our language so we are not bound to the so called "eperts" say such and such a word or term meant.

If the Bible says "Y" and Sister White says "Y" means such and such and this is the meaning from God Himself then it's not that the Bible plays second chair to Ellen only that God through Ellen is telling us what the Bible is teaching. It's God that's our teacher.

We indeed are fortunate to have a Prophet in our midst.

Ahhh, we are close, you view is essentially mine.







It was the same Spirit, God's holy Spirit that made Sister's White's words pregnant with meaning.

What statements/documents are you specifically referring to. Clearly chronologically they are, however, as far as I know, by then EGW and the SDA Church were Trinitarian in that they accepted Jesus and the Holy Spirit as Fully Divine Persons and part of the Godhead.



From what I have understood Early Adventist were Arian and anti-Trinitarian in their beliefs but changed over time to also see Jesus as God and believe in the Trinity.



That may be the case, scholarly, relatively speaking, however this still does not place EGW’s writings on the same level as the Bible, by her own consistent admonitions.

This is not to be overgeneralizingly understood as “verbal inspiration” where every words she said in that sermon or others, or in her writings where all directly from God. I rather see that this generally means that the message that she was bearing was from God. However the specific words which she uttered in conveying that message were hers. It is in this given freedom of communication that shortcoming of factual and/or theological “incompleteness” (again not “errors” per se) are tangibly see, though quite sparingly.

On that other proposal for the 1260 prophetic days, voiced by our late Dr. Sam, did anyone else spot in the small print back then how many of our scholars who write on prophetic interpretation, today, support the alternative?

Of the 8 Dr. Sam asked - and all answered - 6 favoured the new reading! I made special note of who the other two were. lol

Prof. Jacque Doukhan (Hebrew & OT exegesis, SDA Seminary), and Prof Ranko Stefanovic (NT).

How stable is the traditional interpretation of those 1260 prophetic days among our theologians, generally???

Seems like the two who opposed the interpretation substantively knew much better as Douhkan has done much work on the book of Daniel and its prophecies and R. Stefanovic has done the same with the book of Revelation. It would be interesting to see who the other 6 are?

I did not agree with that interpretation, because of the unsupported/unprecedented hermeneutically complete thematic shift between the two interpretations. I.e., little horn as the Papacy vs. little horn as Islam. Prophetic interpretation hermeneutic allows for a different application to prophecies, however only in a Present Day | Historical | Eschatological time period shifts (e.g., Christ’s Olivet Discourse). However the subsequent new applications will always agree thematically with the prior ones. I.e., just a new form of the previous power doing the same type of work. The Islam interpretation had no such matching spiritual purposes as the Papacy.

How do you know everything she wrote under inspiration agrees with the Bible? What if someone concludes, based on their study of the Bible, she was mistaken on a certain point? For example, Ellen wrote:


How do you know her understanding of the seven thunders is correct? How do you know it is incorrect?

I personally readily understand that if something is properly proven from the Bible and it contradicts what EGW has said, then as she counsels, the Bible is to be taken as the final authority. However, as already stated, from my observations, such actual “contradictions” are rare whereas one will find more “updated truths” which supercede what was “present truth” for her. Yet both views will still be in spiritual harmony, as in the three possible applications to Christ Olivet Discourse (i.e., Present Day (through 70 A.D.) | Church History | Eschatological Age).

Please, people, read page 6 and 7 of the following article - it fully demonstrates that once Sister White has spoken the matter is officially at rest.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19060208-V83-06__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6

Daryl, I don't see where you addressed my post to you (see above).

That is fairly clear I would say....
...As clear as the point Collin made above.

The example simply shows they are following EGW's counsel, it does NOT show they place her above the Bible.

You wrote, "such actual 'contradictions' are rare". Please cite examples of her actually contradicting the Bible.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=131284&page=4

Post #130896 - Sister White violently contradicts the so called Bible...
...Our whole Sanctuary Truth is based off that contradiction.
...And remains fundamental to our denominations life.

Ceph, who made the statements you posted above?

Not according to my study and reading of scripture!

Perhaps you could demonstrate how the texts I offered teach something other then what they appear to say???
...I would appreciate any efforts you put forward.

Ceph, who made the statements you posted above?

I said that Mountain Man...
...Sister White taught that Christ was subject to change.
...And the Bible says the direct opposite.
...As I demonstrated in a couple of posts already.

What is your opinion of Ellen White's prophetic gift, doctrine, and ministry?

Also, do you agree with her explanation of our Sanctuary Truth?

It is unsafe to read material like this [i.e. opening post] in light of what we know about Satan's eagerness to deceive and derail us in these last days. If he can get people to set aside the SOP as irrelevant he will have accomplished his purpose. Nothing outside of the Bible encourages us to be more faithful and obedient like reading the SOP. Material like you have quoted above serves to turn people away from reading the SOP, therefore, it is dangerous and destructive. Here is how God sees it:

As the end draws near and the work of giving the last warning to the world extends, it becomes more important for those who accept present truth to have a clear understanding of the nature and influence of the testimonies, which God in His providence has linked with the work of the third angel's message from its very rise.--5T 654 (1889). {LDE 44.1}

Men may get up scheme after scheme and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White and has given her a message will be safe from the many delusions that will come in these last days.--3SM 83, 84 (1906). {LDE 44.2}

There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from Him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence, for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America.--2SM 72 (1905). {LDE 44.3}

One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's Spirit.--3SM 84 (1903). {LDE 177.4}

The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Prov. 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.--1SM 48 (1890). {LDE 177.5}

The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies. . . . This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life.--3SM 83 (1890). {LDE 178.1}

It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.--4T 211. {LDE 178.2}

Sister White was more powerful than any Prophet which came before her....
...I've already established that by direct quotes.
...And proven that She easily outranked the so called Bible.
...When Michael talks to you - you will either listen or go about your business.


I believe you have missed the Sanctuary Truth fundamental teaching...
...And that teaching is that Sister White interprets the Bible for us and it ONLY means what she has said it means.
...I can demonstrate that with the ease of a hot knife going through butter.

Sister White was inspired PAST that of both Moses and John...
...She was God's ultimate Prophet - bar none!

I can't believe how people talk about "the enemy coming in", Satan stealing sheep and stuff like that! Sister White absolutely said that our children playing tennis, cricket and football was SATAN WORSHIP - for Pete's sake Mountain Man Sister White actually saw Satan on the playground right there with the kids.

I bring this up and some folks claim the 'little kids' were too much into the sport! Come-on! School kids who are exercising for an hour or less in school are not doing that!

Most of our schools have full gyms, play basketball, flag football, have a tennis club and everything else. And people think I've lost it!!!

Ceph, you seem to have strong feelings about students playing sports at school - "Satan worship".


Also, it sounds like you believe there's more to the Sanctuary Doctrine than Ellen wrote about. What might that be?

Yes, it is Satan worship.




Here is what you left out of Sister Whites words.



I can see why you left out that last part....
...It demonstrates that Satan communicates within his species of sports.
...And God's Angels DISAPPROVE that Adventist children would participate in the activities of Babylon!

It blows me away to have people grip and blather about Spiritual Formation classes being offered....
...Yet at the same time purchase their children footballs, etc.
...They might as well have bought their kids a witch board.
...Or loaned out their kids to Gypsies for card reading training.






Come on folks, people spazz out about a "dance" and some colored hair at an Adventist Univ!!!!
...Where have they been? Sister White rebuked the gentile sports.
...But because people cherished their SINS they discounted God's holy Prophet.
...And choose to justify the sins and thereby insulted the Spirit of God.
...Sister White being the very Sock Puppet of God.



It's the Pioneers who discovered the Sanctuary Doctrine and wrote the MAJORITY on it....
...Sister White confirmed THAT Sanctuary Doctrine as 'Truth'.
...This is how our Doctrines were established.
...Sister White didn't think these things up - others did.
...Sister White only sorted out what was truth and error.

The old saying "if you can't beat em join em" has new meaning for us as a Church...
...Our Church body has cherished the Gentile sports.
...And now boldly uninates on God and His holy Prophet.
...By asking for donations so that WE can put on add on the greatest Gentile sport the WORLD has ever known.

Watch it and weep.

http://www.goallpower.com/superbowl/


Tell me something is not rotten here.

The following is what should be blasted on the "Big Game".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCDfSwPVdqY

I'm sorry you feel as though I intentionally left out an important part of the quote. I agree with you that Ellen condemned sports as satanic. Do you think church members who play sports are willfully worshiping Satan?


What do you think I'm missing?

Only the ones who have read the Rebuke Sister White wrote and cherish their sin are willfully worshiping Satan....
...Most people don't even realize Sister White spoke on this.
...I'm sure Lucifer absolutely loves it this way.

I will get my papers in order and show you what the Sanctuary Truth is according to the Pioneers....
...God has a real body of flesh! So did Michael the archangel AND Lucifer.
...It's all part of the Great Conflict.
...I'll try to get it all posted this weekend.

Ceph, how many people do you know of who read Ellen's counsel regarding sports and concluded it is akin to worshiping Satan? And, how many did not?

I thought you were addressing me personally when you said, "I believe you have missed the Sanctuary Truth fundamental teaching." Nevertheless, I look forward to a short summary of what you believe is fundamental.

Every single person who believes the Spirit of Prophecy was FULL manifested in the person Ellen White...
...The individuals who have read it and brushed off the S.O.P.
...Are classified by the S.O.P. as "cherishing their sins".
...Like the C.O.I. who prostrated themselves to the golden calf.
...They engage in worship to Satan and God's Angels along with Michael the archangel FROWN.



Anyone who rejectes that Father God has "a body of flesh" is rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy...
...So that was addressing anyone who brushes off Sister White ( God's own sock puppet ).
...Because it's not the flesh which made these statements but God operating the Puppet.

I thought, sock puppet, is usually used as a derogatory term. Do you mean that?

Also, I do not understand how you answered MM's question about sports.

In other-words what Sister White said was not created up in her own mind....
...She was INSPIRED directly by God like a sock puppet does not come up with it's own material - the person controlling it does.

Whats not to understand? Sister White condemned Sports, as in condemned the actual "character" of sports....
...That removes the possibility of playing sports as long as you do it right.
...That would be like saying you could go to the movies as long as it's a good movie.

Understand this isn't an issue about Sister White observing Children taking sports too far.....
...This issue is ALL about the actual character / nature of 'Sports' ( even w/out any people playing them )being "Satanic'.

EGW on sports:

Ellen flatly said that “Satan...invented sports and games,” in which spectators lose their souls. She named “horse races,” “shows,” “theaters,” “tennis” and “football matches,” “exacting games,” that give “attention with trivialities” as unacceptable to Christians. She called “dancing, card playing, chess, checkers” as “dangerous amusements.” When men play “cricket, baseball or other pugilistic contest” Satan “is playing the game of life for their souls” and God cannot find a place in their hearts. “Satan is delighted when he sees” us playing these games because they do “not educate…While the youth are becoming expert in games that are of no real value to themselves or to others.”


White declared that “amusements, such as dancing, card playing, chess, checkers, etc., which we cannot approve because Heaven condemns them,” and they “lead to gambling and dissipation. All such plays should be condemned by Christians.” When “students (in) the spirit of fun and frolic” become “so interested in playing games that the Lord” is “crowded out of their minds.” Ellen believed that the “passion for games” crowd Jesus out. Ellen believed that the money spend on these games would be better spent in “bring the word of truth to souls in darkness,” reminding us that Jesus “did not live to please himself”

Well-voiced Frank. Welcome.

Well, I guess I'm the voice of dissent on this one. I don't think EGW's position can be supported from Scripture.

Ahhh, wait a second, Sister White was the "Spirit of Prophecy", she was God's Sock Puppet...
...It wasn't Sister White saying those things - it was God.
...Frank and Gordon said what I should have said!

It's good to know I'm not alone - I actually was starting to wonder.

Hi everyone. I just wanted to share a post from another forum which is quite relevant to this discussion. It's quite a very good study of the Laws of Moses regarding a true prophet and a false, plus what authority any prophets has via Moses, and that Moses was more than a prophet which is compare to some extent to Ellen White authority versus Moses. He does relate to Ellen White being a false prophet when she commented concerning the death of Nadab and Abihu. This whole study of Nadab and abihu is not in this post. If you request to see it, I can find it and post it here. Also, Moses was a false prophet twice. Anyway, this is quite a very good study.

To read the full disussion is available on Adventist Online.

Blessings!

---- writen by Myron on Adventist Online
I've never claimed to be a prophet. That is something you are putting on me that simply is not there. My calling, which God brought to my attention when I was 11, is to be a teacher. In the hierarchy of gifts of the spirit, or church offices, however you wish to interpret it, which Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 12:28 lists, “first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues”. Teacher is third on this list and is directly below the calling of prophet. So I am well aware that I am not a prophet, nor do I try to be one in the sense given here. Further clarification is given to at least one, maybe two of these offices when Paul subdivides them in Ephesians 4:11 placing evangelists, then pastors between prophets and teachers. My interpretation is that those two offices are higher levels of teachers. I know others who believe they are prophets. Scripture gives no clear definition and it could be evangelists are low level prophets and pastors are high level teachers. It does not matter so long as each of us knows our own calling and do not act beyond the level God has called us to. The thing is, the callings come from God, and are discerned by those who are able... but if you can't even admit something is in scripture when it is right in front of you, your discernment (or maybe your honesty) is such that you are unlikely to see anyone else's calling, and possibly not even your own. Yet you put yourself in God's place to tell me what my calling is or is not.



It is extremely important that we follow God's definitions of these offices, not man's. There is usually a difference and it is usually pretty huge. Dwight Nelson likes to make distinctions between capital letter and small letter things. To a certain extent this is valid, although I think he over does it, nor does he necessarily follow God's definitions when doing so. A prophet is defined in the Law of Prophets in Deuteronomy 18, and in the law of the False prophet in Deuteronomy 13. A further definition, including the distinction between prophets and Apostles, with the clearest definition of apostle to be found in scripture is found in Numbers 12. Since you seem to need it and, I would assume from past experience, unlikely to look these up for yourself we will examine all three here.



14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

17 The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.So the simplest definition of a prophet is someone who is repeating God’s word to people who cannot, or will not (as was the case of Israel at Mt. Sinai), hear God’s voice for themselves. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul tells us that we are to aspire to these higher level offices and gifts, and in fact, as I will show later, we will all attain the calling of apostle at some future time. I’m not there yet; I have not even made prophet. Yet the simplest definition of a prophet is one who is repeating God’s word to someone else who does not know it and cannot or will not even read it in scripture for himself. In that regard God has made me a prophet to you. We also see two simple definitions of a false prophet: a) One who speaks in God's name something God has not said or b) One who speaks in the name of other Gods.



This simple definition of the prophet is very similar to the situation with Moses and Aaron when God commissioned Moses to go to Pharaoh and Moses tried to beg off because of his speech impediment. God said he had already called Aaron to come to Moses and be his assistant, saying, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.” In God’s eyes these things are relative. I know this goes against standard SDA teaching, but I do have scripture on my side in this. There is also Psalm 82:6 which Jesus quoted to the Pharisees in John 10:34 defending himself against those who were attempting to use their own definitions to convict him of blasphemy rather than using God’s definitions.



Here in this discussion and especially in our previous discussion about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 I knew something about scripture that you at first did not know, and once it was called to your attention you refused to acknowledge. In that regard God HAS made me a prophet to you. You may listen or you may choose to continue to disregard. That is up to you. I have given you the warning I was called to give you in those lessons. However, this still does not make me a Prophet with a capital P; my calling is only as a Teacher with a Capital T.



Before we continue on to the other texts defining prophets and apostles I want to also make a point about the lowest level gift of the spirit in Paul’s hierarchy which is tongues. This is not properly taught by any denomination I know of, and the definition of apostles given in Numbers 12 points this out and emphasizes it. While the biblical type for tongues was seen at the first fulfillment of Pentecost in Acts 2 this does not actually define the antitype for tongues. This antitype is largely a matter of education. Tongues is really about the prophetic symbolisms of types and their antitypes which God uses in all prophecy, including the law. I will not give a full study of tongues here, but I am quite able to give such a study and prove my case. And so we go on to Numbers 12 where God’s definition of the prophet and his distinction between the prophet and some higher calling relies on this definition of tongues.



“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the LORD, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

When God speaks to a prophet and has the prophet relay his words to us he always speaks in some form of symbolism. The KJV renders the word translated here as riddles as “dark sayings”; in other words, their meaning is not clear. This is why NIV and some other translations render this word “riddles”. SDA’s are very familiar with this idea of symbolism, but they like to pick and choose what is to be interpreted symbolically and what is to be interpreted literally. According to God’s word in this text all of it is to be interpreted symbolically, and this includes what Moses relayed to the people, and what other apostles relay to the people.



The word Apostle is not used here but it was clear that God was telling these three prophets that Moses was something more than a prophet and the other two should have known enough about their own prophetic calling to recognize this and not presume themselves to be equal to or greater than he. When using this definition for Apostle, it is clear to see that Paul was much more concerned about the anti-types than the types themselves in his writings on the various laws, even when speaking of marriage and sexuality and how it should be handled in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Actually this is one of the clearest passages in anyone’s writings that marriage is a type for our relationship to God. There are clearer passages in the Old Testament prophets showing that our sexuality is a type for this relationship. In fact, to anyone with a good foundation in the law and especially the prophets will have no difficulty seeing that Paul is making these correlations here and that the antitypes are his largest concern in these passages.



Also in proving that Moses was an apostle we look at the meaning of the Greek word itself, which means one who is sent. Moses clearly was one who was sent. First he was sent to lead Israel, and second he was sent to tell Pharaoh, “Let my People go.” Using either definition, one who is sent, or the office of leadership above that of the prophet, Moses is an apostle and apostles did exist in the Old Testament. They were simply called by other names, including prophet. And at this point in time, prophets were more often called seers, not because they could see the future, but because they had “eyes” to see spiritual things.



Adventists point to the Law of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 18, claiming that any prophet working signs and wonders comes from God and this is their proof that Ellen White is a true prophet. Of course, they make exceptions if a prophet they choose not to accept comes along performing signs and wonders, claiming that Satan and his prophets can counterfeit these. They point to Revelation 16:13 & 14 as their proof text although there are other texts that speak of false prophets being accompanied by signs as well. And they ignore the clear testimony of the Law of the False Prophet which was given before the law of the Prophet (thus superseding it?) which is found in Deuteronomy 13.



1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

This states clearly two things that SDAs miss every time in their teaching of their doctrines on true and false prophets. First, if a prophet is accompanied by signs and wonders it is God himself who sent that prophet, but second, the signs and wonders are NOT the test of a true prophet. There is only one valid test and it is whether the prophet’s message is in keeping with God’s law and all the previous revelations God has sent. So how are we to determine if a prophet’s message is true or not? First we will refer back to Deuteronomy 18 and the Law of the Prophets where God tells Moses, I will send a prophet like you from among your brothers. There is only one way to determine if a prophet is like Moses and that is to compare that prophet’s message to the writings of Moses.



In keeping with the law of double witness God gives us further testimony of this in Exodus 19. 9 The LORD said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” Moses is the only prophet in scripture where the people were actually able to witness God speaking directly to him. Even with Ellen White and the signs that accompanied her visions no one actually saw God speaking to her, and I cannot recall clearly that she ever reported speaking directly to God himself. In most of her visions it was an angel who spoke to her, although I vaguely recall that on one or two occasions she spoke with Jesus. We only have her word to prove this. With Moses the entire assembly witnessed this from a distance and the 70 leaders along with Aaron and his sons Nadab and Abihu, and Moses personal assistant Joshua witnessed this at close hand. The purpose for witnessing that God spoke to Moses personally was so that everyone would put their trust in Moses; but it was also to establish Moses as the standard by which all other prophets were to be compared to determine whether they were true or false.



Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. God’s commandments were given to Moses, in part in the presence of the people. I have detailed in many other posts that from the scriptural viewpoint these commandments are not limited to the 10 Commandments. The 10 were all that the people would tolerate God speaking directly to them (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 18.) Throughout scripture it can be shown rather easily that references to the commandments and to the law spoke of the entire law given by God at Sinai, the 10 he spoke to the people until they refused to hear directly from God anymore, and the rest of that law that he dictated to Moses after that refusal and their request that he speak to them through a mediator. I even quote Ellen White in some of them, so you would have to accept those statements. I won’t spend any more time on the matter here.



In some of our past exchanges you have used Ellen White to refute Moses, particularly in our discussion of the deaths of Nadab and Abihu. There is no statement in that story that Nadab and Abihu were drunk. That is only the first thing Moses considered in his investigation of the matter. And since drunkenness is symbolism for self-righteousness it makes perfect sense to consider this as a probability anytime God makes any form of judgment against a priest. However, Moses investigation continued, and the true cause of death for Nadab and Abihu was stated clearly by Moses in Leviticus 10:16-20. It was not drunkenness. Your argument was that Moses findings were invalid since Ellen White only spoke about their drunkenness and stated explicitly that they were drunk where Moses never wrote that into his account of the story. You called Moses a liar. The law of God calls Ellen White a false prophet, at least in this one matter.



Ezekiel 14 gives further information on determining the source of information for some false prophets, and on how to determine if they are false. We already know from Deuteronomy 13 and 18 that God empowers and sends some (not all) false prophets specifically to see if we will really follow him or if we will instead follow our own hearts. Ezekiel 14 expounds on this theme.



1 Some of the elders of Israel came to me and sat down in front of me. 2 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 3 “Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces. Should I let them inquire of me at all? 4 Therefore speak to them and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When any of the Israelites set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet, I the LORD will answer them myself in keeping with their great idolatry. 5 I will do this to recapture the hearts of the people of Israel, who have all deserted me for their idols.’

6 “Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!

7 “‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer them myself. 8 I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign LORD.’”When God sends a false prophet into our midst God not only empowers that prophet and provides the signs and wonders that prophet uses, but he also tells that prophet what to say. Now, we know two important things about the word of God – God does not lie (Titus 1:2) and God himself sends the prophet and tells that prophet what to say. Therefore the word of God is in that prophet and if you can get past the filtering of the heart idols (preconceived ideas) you will always find something of value in the words of such a false prophet. So the source of the message a false prophet gives is not necessarily what determines a prophet to be false. If a prophet speaks for himself in God’s name, for another God in God’s name or simply for another God, that prophet is to be ignored or stoned (stones represent God’s law, so this means the prophet is to be confronted with God’s law, not literally stoned to death; and repentance is the second death.)



All of us have heart idols. Some of us will acknowledge those heart idols and seek the truth which will overthrow them. Others of us wait until God speaks something through one of his prophets that we can easily filter through our idol as “proof” of what we believe. I saw an perfect example of this on the forum a couple of weeks ago, but I cannot find the thread now. The poster said that when checking these things he almost always finds that this first belief was right. While this is not proof positive that the idols of his heart are guiding his study and redefining the word of God for him, it is a strong indicator. I find that no matter how well I know a subject or a passage, nearly every time I take another look at it I find something that needs correcting in my understanding. Something new almost always comes to me either correcting my understanding, or deepening it. If this is never or seldom happening to us it is a pretty good sign that it is a heart idol, and not God that we are following.



The heart idols that apply here take two forms; either or both will be acting to turn the word of God into a lie. First there is the idol of the person inquiring of God. The prophet (or teacher) the person inquires through is supposed to have adequate discernment to identify these heart idols. If they are detected the prophet is not to give him an answer at all. For this reason if the prophet does give an answer to a person with a heart idol that will prevent him from properly interpreting God’s word, that prophet is held responsible for the misinterpretation that person applies to God’s word. It does not matter that God takes credit for enticing the prophet to give this advice and tells the prophet what to say. The prophet in this situation has a problem with the truth himself, so that prophet shares in the responsibility for the misapplication of God’s word.



The second form is a heart idol in the prophet himself. In such cases the prophet does not limit their answers to, “Thus sayeth the Lord;” instead they add their own commentary and interpretation. The nature of the calling of teacher allows for a certain amount of this, but both the teacher and the student must always be aware that what is happening is you get the teachings and understandings of a man, not the express word of God. “What this means to me” has its place. We all need to say this from time to time, especially in the presence of teachers so our beliefs can be evaluated against fact and if necessary corrected. But it is never to be held up as the standard for belief. Only the clear word of God is to be used for that. There is only one standard for the clear word of God; that is the writings of Moses and anything found to be in agreement with Moses, even if it adds a new layer of revelation.



Moses himself is seen to be a false prophet on two occasions recorded in scripture. The first is when he opted not to await God’s timing, which he could have learned through God’s prophecy to Abraham (Genesis 15:13-16). The only real uncertainty here is when the 400 years started. Moses was the fourth Generation in Egypt so he knew it was during his lifetime that the people would come out, and he knew he was the leader prophesied to bring about the release. But he was impatient and refused to await God’s timing and his revelation of how the people were to be brought out. He killed an Egyptian task master and it cost him the throne of Egypt.



On the second occasion Moses is seen to be a false prophet the people were nearing the end of the additional 38 years they were forced to stay in the wilderness because of their lack of faith at Kadesh Barnea. They were once again grumbling against Moses and against God. They were once again without water and refusing to have faith in God’s promise to care for them. They were once again at Meribah where God had given them water from the rock before. When Moses consulted with God he was told to speak to the rock. However, Moses was frustrated and angry with the people and not in a terribly obedient mood. He stood before the people and with Aaron took personal credit for bringing them water rather than giving the glory to God, then he struck the rock with his staff. God sent water to the people anyway, refusing to punish them for Moses’ sin, but he did tell Moses he had now lost the right to enter into the Promised Land.



So we see that God’s law defines a prophet as something other than we define it. We find that it also defines a false prophet in a manner other than what we define it, and it also shows us that a false prophet can be sent from God and will even give us a message that comes from God. It is not the source of the prophet’s message or power that makes him false. It is what he does with that message and power that makes him false. All other prophets are to be compared to the prophecies of Moses which are the statutes God dictated to him, and you are always in the wrong anytime you quote the words of another prophet to refute what Moses says. If that other prophet’s words do not agree with Moses it is that other prophet who is false. Always.

How many people do you personally know who believe playing sports is akin to worshiping Satan?

Also, what is your opinion of Christian sports stars who use their fame and fortune to help spread the Gospel?


I don't understand how your response addresses my comment and question.

I do not equate the voice of EGW with the voice of God. EGW was human, and as such she was subject to error. Everything she said or wrote must be compared to Scripture. We (I, at least) have no other standard but Scripture to determine what the voice of God is.

Hardly anyone to be honest, most people don't know - because...
...The Spirit of Prophecy has been suppresed in this area.
...When the Testimony is that explicit and clear.
...What do you think is the reason?

Christian sports stars? That's like saying Christian drug dealers or Christian [censored] Stars...
...The public simply has not been educated as to the S.O.P. in this area.
...Sister White was as clear on this issue as she was on other issues.



It would sure be nice if the Sabbath thread could adjusted to allow attachments...
...The "Sanctuary Truth" dove-tails very well with the Sabbath issue.
...I want to link both subjects so pray we can see something happen here soon.
...You will understand my responses when you can start to see the attachments.
...A picture is worth a thousand words if not more.

While I appreciate your facts I would appreciate it more if you would call Sister White by her appropriate Title; Spirit of Prophecy, God's holy Prophet or God's sock Puppet. When you say "Ellen" it could be thought you were agreeing she said those things yet do not agree with them. I.E. like you don't believe Ellen fully manifested the Spirit of Prophecy.

Please don't take it wrong - it's just when I've heard People call Sister White "Ellen" they usually are being critical of her.

This issue is quite pertinent to this topic. I have just posted on my blog a SOP correction, from EGW’s own writings which substantively showed that she incorrectly placed the vision of the Ascension of Christ at the end of DA instead of between Chapters 82 & 83 when Christ first ascended to Heaven after his resurrection. See Note #14 in this post. Let me know what you (substantively) think.

Since the majority have no idea playing sports is akin to worshiping Satan, it makes me wonder if they are worshiping Satan. Wouldn't it be similar to Christians who have no idea they are worshiping the papacy when they observe the Sunday rather than the Sabbath day?

Also, would it serve the mission of the SDA church (i.e. proclaim the 3AMs) to make it well known Ellen White taught playing sports is akin to worshiping Satan? Ellen also wrote;


I wonder how many SDAs are ready to hear what Ellen wrote about playing sports?


Still not sure why believing the Father has a "body of flesh" helps flesh out the Sanctuary Truth.

For some strange reason I have the hardest time with your style of writing. It has something to do with the timing of events as it relates to what Jesus did and how Ellen recorded those events in the DA.

That's my whole point Mountain Man....
...I'm talking about "US" ( as in Seventh-day Adventists ).
...When Sister White said for us not to make prominent our distinctive doctrines to Gentiles.
...Until those OUTSIDE of SDAism know that we believe in Christ.

That hardly could mean SDA's can participate in sports!
...Are you saying SDA's don't know they are believers in Christ's divinity?
...So the Spirit of Prophecy should be hid from them until they get it?

I couldn't have made my point better than you just did...
...How long has our 'schools' been urging our youth.
...To participate in sports?

Answer: long AFTER the death of God's holy Sock Puppet.

In my blog, I have and do state things succinctly as each point could potentially be a dissertation in itself. My point here is indeed that EGW was shown a vision of Christ’s ascension to heaven but was not pointedly told when it occurred. She therefore thought it occurred at the final ascension stated in Acts 1:9 40 days after the ressurrection, however the content of that revelation which shows that Jesus then insisted that his sacrifice must first be approved by the Father, among other points mentioned in that post, shows that this was a vision of Christ ascension immediately after his resurrection, and indeed should have been related between Chapters 82 and 83 of DA.

This post also challenges and corrects Stephen Bohr’s claim that the 24 elders were not the resurrected ones at Christ death who then ascended to heave with him on that Sunday morning since he says that these 24 elders were already seated in Rev 4:1 which he believes is being described by EGW in the final Chapter of DA. As explained there (1) these resurrected ones could have found their place to these thrones during the time when Christ was being examined by the father, however for the substantive reasons stated in that Note #14 and also throughout the post, I do not see that Rev 4:1 was a vision of what took place during Christ’s ascension but only later, after the early/literal NT Church days (Rev 1-3) a little after the 70 A.D. destruction when the Historical wave of Bible Prophecy (i.e., Rev 6ff; Christ’ Olivet discource) now had to find their fulfillment due to this, though not necessary, prolonging of time beyond the Apostolic Church age.

Do you think SDAs are any more ready to learn what Ellen wrote about playing sports than non-SDAs? If not, what do you think is the best way to lead them to that point?

Ellen wrote:


In the DA quote above she clearly says that on Sunday Jesus was raised from the grave, spoke to Mary, ascended to heaven, met with the Father, returned to earth, and met with His disciples. Is there doubt regarding this testimony?


Ellen wrote:


In the quotations above Ellen makes it clear "the multitude of captives" Jesus raised on Sunday ascended to heaven with Him 40 days later. Is there any doubt?

PS - I wouldn't be surprised to discover after we arrive in heaven with Jesus that the 24 elders consist of Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and 21 others who were raised with Jesus.

There are many substantive reasons that challenge the statement of EGW here. She also indicates in DA that this occurred from the ascension with the disciples, however this may be all due to here prior mistaken conflation here. (Also the Manuscript 115, 1897. {CTr 286.6} statement was made in 1897, a year before DA was published.) So my point is, for the substantive reasons I’ve cited above and in my blog, that this vision related what had occurred at the ascension which followed Christ’s appearance to Mary at the tomb. Look over those substantive points (e.g., approval of sacrifice, wavesheaf typology, 40 days of available time, etc.,) and address them head on.

I can see your understanding here and given that these three indeed fill the role/mold for those redeemed ones, this can very well be the case.

Regarding what happened when Jesus ascended and arrived in heaven with the multitude of His resurrected trophies, Ellen wrote in the DA:


It is obvious from the account above that the things that happened when Jesus ascended alone to heaven the Sunday He was raised (see list above) were not repeated 40 days later when He ascended to heaven with the multitude of His trophies. I'm not sure why anyone would think she indicated otherwise?

Saying she was mistaken is another thing altogether. What proof, though, is there she was mistaken?

As EGW says in DA 793 (notice DA 833 & 834 similarities allusions in bold):



(1) All of these would have occurred again, and that exactly as stated here, at the 2nd ascension.

(2) the Waving of the Wavesheaf of the firstfruits was to be done on the day after passover and not ‘40 days later’. EGW is most deliberate to say in DA 833ff that this is what typologically significant enough, occurred at that “second ascension” (actually, by now, at least 5th ascension since Jesus returned to Earth on Resurrection Sunday Evening (=2 Luke 24:13ff), then 8 days later (=3 John 21:26ff), then later again by the Sea (=4 John 21:1ff). Clearly God was in Heaven for most of these 40 days as his recurring visits to earth did not last more than one day. In that case, then why would he not have had his sacrifice approved by the father as described in DA 833 during that time.

(3) Also if the resurrected one did not ascend to Heaven until that 40-day ascension then where were they all this time. Matt 27:53 could also say ‘“with” (i.e., at the same this as) his resurrection’ (Greek: “meta”) and not necessarily ‘after...”. As EGW describes in EW 184.1, their resurrection occurred: “while the earth was reeling and the glory of heaven shone around the sacred spot, many of the righteous dead, obedient to His call, came forth as witnesses that He had risen.” These descriptions match what was recorded in the Bible on the resurrection in Matt 28:2, 3. EGW says they ascended at the resurrection (I do not see that she says that Jesus ascended alone), then why are they again mention in this supposed 40th day ascension. These appearance of these resurrected ones could not have lasted long, probably ca. one hour, (and they weren’t all buried in the same place throughout the land of Israel), because as EGW says:



So if they stayed for 40 days doing this witnessing, their would not have been this perplexity of the disciples prior to Christ’s appearance to them later that evening. They surely would have convinced all of Israel in those 40 days.

It is these substantive incongruences that show that the placement of the EGW vision at the 40th day ascension is evidently a chronological mistake.

Aren't we, like, way off topic?

JAK, do you have a different example you'd like to study to answer the question that serves as title of this thread?

I thought this understanding of the 24 elders was pertinent to this topic of “Are Ellen White's writings the final authority on prophetic, doctrinal, or historical interpretation?” as this involves a conflict with many Biblical issues vs. the location of the ascension vision in DA.

Who said Ellen White's appropriate title is the "Spirit of Prophecy"? According to scripture, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. Don't you believe John, Paul, etc. had the Spirit of Prophecy? How about, inspired messenger?

to the Maritime forums.

Could you give us references where EGW said this so we can check it out for ourselves?

You're arguing the example, not the question.

As I see it, it is only by ascertaining the concrete truth from pertinent examples that this particular question can ever be substantively addressed and answered/resolved. Otherwise it would merely be stating one’s (private) opinions about EGW’s SOP gift.

Who do you see as the Sons of God in Job?

It is ALL "(private) opinion."

To restate the subject of this thread:
Subject: Re: Are Ellen White's writings the final authority on prophetic, doctrinal, or historical interpretation

Regarding prophecy, may I suggest "England will join the (Civil) war, which was clearly not correct.

Regarding doctine, may I suggest the "Shut Door" theology, (which she supported) but was clearly wrong.

Regarding historical interpretation, may I suggest her belief that Paul wrote Hebrews, to which theory NO Biblical scholars (including SDA) any longer adhere.


This is not to be taken as "disbelief" in EGW, or whether or not she is a "true prophet." But rather it addresses the question of whether or not her writings are the final authority for SDA interpretation.

I found this statement ONCE, in RH, September 10, 1901 par. 5, and it was not worded in a way to imply the same understanding as I get from reading your post. Interestingly enough it followed this statement, condeming photographs:

As I visited the homes of our people and our schools, I see that all the available space on tables, what-nots, and mantelpieces is filled up with photographs. On the right hand and on the left are seen the pictures of human faces. God desires this order of things to be changed. Were Christ on earth, He would say, "Take these things hence." I have been instructed that these pictures are as so many idols, taking up the time and thought which should be sacredly devoted to God. {RH, September 10, 1901 par. 2}
These photographs cost money. Is it consistent for us, knowing the work that is to be done at this time, to spend God's money in producing pictures of our own faces and the faces of our friends? Should not every dollar that we can spare be used in the upbuilding of the cause of God? These pictures take money that should be sacredly devoted to God's service; and they divert the mind from the truths of God's word. {RH, September 10, 1901 par. 3}
This making and exchanging photographs is a species of idolatry. Satan is doing all he can to eclipse heaven from our view. Let us not help him by making picture-idols. We need to reach a higher standard than these human faces suggest. The Lord says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Those who claim to believe in Christ need to realize that they are to reflect His image. It is His likeness that is to be kept before the mind. The words that are spoken are to be freighted with heavenly inspiration. {RH, September 10, 1901 par. 4}

How many of us ban photography with the same vigor we object to "competitive sport"?

Here's what she was shown:


Why do you think she was shown "England will join the (Civil) war"?


Please post a quote where she said "I was shown" or "I saw", etc, as it relates to the Shut Door.


Please post a quote where she said "I was shown" or "I saw", etc, as it relates to who wrote the book of Hebrews.


Whenever she prefaced something with "I was shown", or "I saw", or something to this effect, we can be absolutely certain it represents the word of God. Otherwise, she did not possess the gift of the spirit of prophecy.

I agree with Ellen concerning who the "sons of God" in Job are. She wrote:


The "sons of God" in Job = holy angels. Do you agree?

I thought that my statement would be glibly understood. What I meant in including (private) vs. mere opinion is, as you yourself have done, you have cited examples as to wy you think the SOP is to be subject to the Bible as a final arbritrator. So saying things merely along the lines of, e.g., ‘I do not think so’ or the converse, to this discussion question would be stating a private opinion, i.e., one that is not based/supported by concrete examples.

To succinctly address your cited examples:

-Civil War: As shown by Mountain Man, the statements about England were conditional, as in dependent on what the circumstances could/should have been.

-Shut Door: As I mention in this post on the Shut Door, (see also in this MSDAOL thread) EGW and other SDA Pioneers were not wrong that there had been a shut door, but that it had been shut to everyone. As it was inferentially subsequently shown to her, it was only “shut” to those who had had ample opportunity to understand the testing truths at issue then. As I further understand it, involving the Biblical view of ”God and the Future”, this was all because God could have, and wanted to, effectuate the Second Coming around that time, had dependent conditions on the earth surrounding these Adventists had been fully/adequately met. I also, out of this view, understand that God did not directly tell these Adventist & EGW that they had been wrong, not only because they actually potentially were not, but also because that telling them these details would have adversely changed their understanding of God and the Future, a passable “known future” view which God wanted to maintain so as to build up/strengthen/sustain their faith and thus soon effectuate the Second Coming, as it indeed could be done by God if all was finished then.

-Paul’s Authorship of Hebrew:
To succinctly summarize my study on this topic of the authorship of Hebrew. I believe, as Church fathers did, that the Epistle was originally written in Hebrew by Paul for his fellow Hebrew countrymen, even Jewish Believers probably under the inspiration from God that Jerusalem and the Temple would soon, literally pass away. The epistle was therefore circulated amongs Jewish people and was only later, probably after 70 A.D., translated into Greek by someone other than Paul (resembling the Hebrew OT vs. the LXX, especially in style). That is also why it does not have the traditional greetings and even ending of Paul Letters, since these would not have been pertinent to these Gentile Believers. So only the body was translated and circulated. This would also show how strictly it was transmitted as a Pauline salutation was not added. It was probably only orally stated that the Letter was from Paul. (That translating person also deliberately remained in the shadows so as to not discredit the epistle, preferring it to only be said that it was Paul’s work.) Really, only someone with the authority of Paul could make such theological statements. Perhaps Paul was even put to death before he could take on this task of the Greek Translation himself.

Quite succinctly summarized here, the expression “son(s)(/daughter(s)) of God in the Bible involves more than angels, but any created being that comes to life their lives according to the will of God “their Father”. Many Biblical examples show this (e.g., Matt 5:9; Luke 20:36; Rom 8:14,19; Gal 3:26) It thus also could, and does, include, thus righteous, men and women on earth. So it is not limited to angels, but to any created being.

I just noticed this question of yours Mountain Man.
-These contradictions are indeed rare and my example of the chronological location of Ascension vision is one of them.
-I can also cite the ones mentioned by Alden Thompson in the book Inspiration p. 290-295, which she however, later corrected herself.
-Her implied understanding that, e.g., oysters were not unclean food until post 1896 is another applicable example.
-Most of what could be cited as contradictions, are actually merely incomplete understandings.

Actually, I was referring to the first couple of chapters.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." [Job 1:6} I suspect the "sons of God" named here are the same as the ones named in chapter 38. What do you think? Do you think there is a connection to the 24 elders named in the Revelation?

Good point. I agree. However, do you agree that the three places in Job where the title "sons of God" appears refers exclusively to holy angels?

Yes, she grew in her understanding of truth and changed her mind when she discovered she was in error. However, the question is - Did she ever write "I saw", or "I was shown", or "Said the angel", etc, followed by insights and information that was incorrect or contradicted the Bible? In other words, while under inspiration did she ever convey an untruth?

PS - I hate to say it, but I'm not convinced she botched her description of events related to Jesus' Ascension on Sunday and again 40 days later.

Actually no, since the term is inclusive of any created being faithful to God. I therefore see it as a reference to representative created humans (i.e., in the same form as us. Vs angels) from other unfallen worlds. I also do not see why “angels” already living with God in would need to ‘come and “present” themselves before God.’ That rather seems applicable to beings/humans living outside of God’s Heavenly Realm, per se.

I would surfacely (i.e., without having analysed each of these revelations) agree that this was indeed the case with such “directly revealed” statements, however, as seen with a woman she “saw” would be part of the 144,000 (which did not transpire as such), even those revelation were
also conditional, as is Bible prophecy.


[“Time of Trouble” occurs after the sealing and work of the 144,000]

So the issue of “God and the Future” (i.e., as I Biblically understand it: “the future is not known, thus not set in stone) also applied here.


How about, so that your stance can be objectively/transparently verified, giving the substantive proof of your belief here in the light of my previously listed (substantive) objections i.e., approval of sacrifice, wavesheaf timely typology, resurrected saints on earth for 40 days??, and the others.

Please post a quote where she said "I was shown" or "I saw", etc, as it relates to this idea you have here.

Evidently I read this SOP statement incorrectly. Mrs Hasting’s was shown to be standing with the 144,000 apparently at the final resurrection and not prior to that to participate in the work that these will do.

Although I see no requirement that they be the same, I also see no requirement that in Job 38 it means angels. Specifically, it says "and" the sons of God which could be a redundant thought or it could be separate ones.

As NJK stated, they are coming to present themselves. The question must be asked why, and why only 24 of many angels, what was this meeting for, why did satan think that was an appropriate time to come. It would be my thought that they are somehow held accountable for those under them. Which could be angels if they have such a hierarchy but could also be those who are leaders over the worlds. One way you could read it is that God sees satan and says, who invited you here. He responds that he was the leader of the earth and therefore has a right to their meeting. Which God then asks about Job who does not follow satan's leading. Which satan then admits he does not have full control over the earth, but that God is unduly protecting Job.

The 24 elders of revelation appear to have some honor or responsibility different from others. No reason to not consider they could be connected with those of Job.

Sorry, MM, I did not realize that you were unfamiliar with EGW. From other posts by you I assumed that you were well read in this area. My bad.

These controversies (and others) regarding EGW are well known to any Adventist that does any amount of studying and/or thinking. I would prefer if you did not use amaturish delaying/redirecting tactics, but rather address the issue with your own ideas and opinions.

There are four places in the KJ that state that WE are the sons of God. John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Phil. 2:15 and 1John 3:1.
Nowhere does it say that any angels are sons of God.

He's supposed to know everything Ellen White wrote by heart, or he's "unfamiliar with EGW"? That seems rather harsh. If you're familiar with her, it should be easy for you to answer his request, shouldn't it?



Maybe his idea is that she never said what is commonly thought. There are a lot of apocryphal EGW statements running around. I get misquoted all the time, and often ask for quotes regarding things I've said. Asking for evidence is a very reasonable request.



His idea may be that there is no such quote. He's addressing the issue by asking you to produce a quote.

There are places where the phrase cannot be referring to human beings. For example:

I understand the approval of Christ's sacrifice in Christ's first ascension was something just between Christ and the Father, whereas the approval in His second ascension was a public one, before all the universe. It seems to me the sheaf weaved at Passover represented Christ's resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23), not the resurrection of this special group. And, finally, I don't believe the resurrected saints and Christ were in heaven during the 40 days. Trying to ascertain where they were is speculative, but the ascension of the resurrected saints is associated with Pentecost, and so with the second ascension of Christ. "Therefore He saith, 'When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men'" (Eph. 4:8). Both the biblical context and EGW make clear that the "gifts" mentioned here are the spiritual gifts showered upon Christians on Pentecost.

Rosangela,
I would like to know more about these 2 ascensions you wrote about:


In my reading I understood that when Christ arose, and a special group also was risen, that these represented the first fruits as represented in the Sanctuary Services.

If there is more to it I would like to know, it's been an interesting theme for me to study.
God Bless,
Will

These are interesting replies Rosangela, but they are variously, and in various degree, actually not exegetically, deeply rooted enough:



I do not see anything in the SOP, as presently organized/related, that describes what happened between Christ and God in the first ascension. So to say anything of that first ascension is only speculation. What I see described in EGW’s 40th-day ascension in DA 834.2 all speak of spiritual themes and elements that would have been needed to be approved at that first meeting, as they all focus on the triumph of Christ at the Cross.

Also, as related by EGW in that passage, the meeting with the Father in this vision took place in seclusion with the Father and was not a public one. It was only when this was approved, in seclusion, that Jesus reappeared before the awaiting “public”, not to be publically approved, but to receive the worship due to him, and also that these beings had, without any doubt or question, always wanted to give to him. So they were not at all first desiring to have a “public” approval done.



In saying “first fruit” and not actually “wave sheaf”, was Paul not actually saying that Jesus was the “wave sheaf” but simply a “first fruit of those who are asleep”. I.e., he may not have been making any connection to the Sanctuary “wave sheaf” symbology here even though he mentions the thematically linked “first fruit” term. Indeed/of course, not every time that the term “first fruit” is mentioned does it mean ‘the sanctuary’s “wave sheaf” symbol, but merely something that occurs first/as a prime example. (E.g., Rom 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15; James 1:18; Rev 14:4). Indeed the Law on this symbol in Lev 23:10 implies that many things could be associated with “first fruit” and so in that passage “sheafs” (Heb. “omer” = Greek (LXX) “dragma”; and simply is ‘a (handful) measurement’) had to be specified as what is understood as these “first fruits”.

EGW also pointedly apply this meaning to the resurrected saints: e.g., DA 834.2:



Notice also what EGW says of the wave sheaf in 1SM 306.4 (August 11, 1898):



It seems to me here that EGW was also saying that the wave sheaf symbol itself was an antitype of Jesus and that it came to have a fulfillment in those who were resurrected with him.



I’ve tried to avoid a Mormonic quip here, but where else would Christ and these saints be during these 40 days -preaching to Native Indians and transplanted Jews from Jeremiah’s time (supposedly) living in North America then???

EGW says that these resurrected saints were raised up and ascended upon Christ’s ascension:



They therefore would have been, and could only have been, on the earth until this ascension. Since, as stated priorly here EGW also says that they convinced people of the resurrection. Then, if they were doing this for 40 days, as it is strongly, and solely implied by the “ascending (from earth)” notion involving them then how did they not convince everyone in Israel of the resurrection, including the disciples earlier on??

Also, going around to unfallen worlds, if that is thought to be the case, would really futile since if His sacrifice was not yet approved of by the Father, indeed in the only way that it needed to, there was really not substantive “proof” that it was accepted and complete and parading these resurrected said to these other worlds would not be saying/showing anything definitive.



From what I’ve seen and as further shown below, that is merely from EGW’s understanding.



Paul’s statement here does not say that these “gifts”, indeed the Pentecost gifts, were immediately given to men. Indeed 10 more days passed between Christ’s final ascension and the outpouring of these Gifts to the Church. So that statement could just as easily apply to an understanding that ‘Jesus ascended (e.g., with his first ascension) and some time in the future (in this case 50 days later), these gifts were given to men.’

In Matt 28:16-20, which manifestly is the final ascension, Jesus tell his gathered disciples that:
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” and he also accepted worship, as in prior times. However that does not seem to be in agreement with a claim that he refused to receive worship from the Angels just a few instances later when he ascended to heaven for the final time.

Indeed upon his resurrection, he had not merely told Mary no to detain him (John 20:17), but had actually refused for her to even begin to worship him. He had literally said, as exegetically shown, (see in this post): “I prohibit you to even begin to affectionately (= worshipfully (Matt 28:9)) cling to me. EGW points out that she was beginning then to adoringly lunge for his feet (DA 790). As EGW adds there:



This all shows to me that after that first ascension Christ had all the assurance and authority to no longer put off any worship of him.

Fair enough. God never told Ellen the door was shut or that Paul wrote Hebrews. Not everything she wrote was inspired by God. Again, she is clearly speaking for God when prefaced things with "I was shown", "I saw", "Said the angel", etc. For example:


Of course, there are many other ways in which we know she saw details not recorded in the Bible. For example:

Hi, Will. In the day Christ arose, He ascended to heaven and was there during some hours:

Jesus quickly ascended up to his Father to hear from his lips that he accepted the sacrifice, and that he had done all things well, and to receive all power in heaven, and upon earth, from his Father. {1SG 73.1}
Angels like a cloud surrounded the Son of God, and bid the everlasting gates be lifted up, that the King of glory might come in. I saw that while Jesus was with that bright, heavenly host, and in the presence of his Father, and the excellent glory of God surrounded him, he did not forget his poor disciples upon earth; but received power from his Father, that he might return unto them, and while with them impart power unto them. The same day he returned, and showed himself to his disciples. He suffered them then to touch him, for he had ascended to his Father, and had received power. {1SG 74.1}

And then He ascended a second time after 40 days (Acts 1:9).

Thanks Rosangela, I think I'm more confused and this is just due to my narrow understanding of something so wonderful, vast, and eternal as Jesus Christ's ministry, and eternal Glory

My confusion stems from looking at the Sanctuary Services as they pointed to Christ and how those services typified Christs ministry and resurrection, and I am confused if there is anything that points to that which would illustrate His ascension briefly right after He rose from the grave.
My purpose is to learn more, cause I don't doubt that He could have gone up briefly, anything is possible. However in considering comparing Scripture upon Scripture, it would really help me.
God Bless,
Will

In the DA quote above she clearly says that on Sunday Jesus was raised from the grave, spoke to Mary, ascended to heaven, met with the Father, returned to earth, and met with His disciples.


In the quotations above Ellen makes it clear "the multitude of captives" Jesus raised on Sunday ascended to heaven with Him 40 days later.


In the quotes above she makes it clear Jesus, not the people who were raised with Him, is the first fruits of the wave sheaf.

Will,

In the quotes above, Ellen uses the Bible to support her explanations.

DA 790.3 seems to imply it was a private meeting between Christ and the Father.
However, on studying a little more about the subject and taking a look at other sources, like 3SP 202, 203; 206.1, I realized that the accounts of the two ascensions do seem to be very similar.
Yet I don't see why the facts described, although very similar, can't have happened twice.

It wouldn't make sense for Christ to have been 40 days in heaven without being enthroned. Besides, the ceremony of His enthronement couldn't have lasted 50 days, being interrupted several times while He returned to earth.

Christ's ascension to heaven was the signal that His followers were to receive the promised blessing. For this they were to wait before they entered upon their work. When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. The Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven's communication that the Redeemer's inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people. AA 38, 39

Ellen White says that Christ was on earth during the 40 days:

For forty days Christ remained on the earth, preparing the disciples for the work before them and explaining that which heretofore they had been unable to comprehend. He spoke of the prophecies concerning His advent, His rejection by the Jews, and His death, showing that every specification of these prophecies had been fulfilled. He told them that they were to regard this fulfillment of prophecy as an assurance of the power that would attend them in their future labors. "Then opened He their understanding," we read, "that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." AA 26.3

I don't see them MM, unless its cited in the book the quotes came from?

Will, No, I don't think there is something in the sanctuary service which typified this. It's a detail added by Ellen White. However, it helps us to understand why Jesus didn't permit Mary to touch and worship Him, saying He hadn't ascended to the Father (John 20:17) but later, on the same day, permitted other disciples to do it (Matt. 28:9).

Thanks Rosangela, that's what I'm talking about Makes perfect sense why Jesus would say one thing and do another, when the reason was regarding His ascension.
God Bless,
Will

Rosangela and Mountain Man: In reading your SOP statements which you have found, I actually find more support for my initial observation on EGW and this Ascension event: She was given a vision of what occurred but was not told sepcifically when it occurred. This chronological detail was left to her understanding and at first, in e.g., 3SP 202, 203; 206.1 and even in 1SG 74.1 she tied it to the first ascension. However, ca. 20 years later, in DA she tied it to the last ascension. It seems to me that this switch was done by “permission” and not “commission” (i.e., I was shown). As she indeed does not make explicit “I was shown” statements in the Conflict of the Ages books, it is difficult to know what was direct revelation and what was her understanding, however, based from her own past “corrections” it is easy to understand that even in saying “as Christ ascended from his disciples” that may not have been from a direct revelation, but merely an assumption. An example of this is seen in one of Alden Thompson’s (Inspiration p. 290-295) examples of such SOP corrections with EGW understanding of Christ’s words to his mother at Cana in 2SP 101, 102 vs. DA 146.

As quoted by Mountain Man, DA 790.4 shows that Christ began “receiving gifts” from the time of his first ascension. Again EGW in AA ties it directly to the end of a seemingly 10 day celebration of Christ coronation. However, while I believe that there was an extended coronation ceremony in heaven, that could have typologically lasted 50 days from Passover to Pentecost, I think again here that EGW was not precisely told that it was directly stemming from the final ascension. In other words that royal/coronet ceremony could have indeed begun with the first ascension and been celebrated for a few hours each day, over 50 days, probably as details in the GC up to then were gradually adjudged and resolved amongst the angels and other Heavenly beings. Christ would then occasionally make returns (at least 5 in total) back to earth.

Seems to me that EGW understood the wavesheaf to be perfectly applicable to both Christ and the resurrected saints.

So like many visions of EGW where she was given a series of events in succession, but later was given more information and revelations that showed that other things occurred in between, I also see that her ascension and coronation celebration visions were given as a whole, covering those 50 days, however she did not see this delineation and so, finally in DA and early AA and just tied everything together there.

I’ll add here, not as a knock against the SOP, but in proper understanding that EGW was first and foremost human, I always found AA and PK to be quite filmsy and relatively, in terms of revelatory content, “weak,” and that is understood by me to be because they were both hastily written and also while EGW was getting much older i.e., published in 1911 and (1917), respectively. By then, ca. 4 years from her death, old age was really taken its tole on her and she had indeed considerably curtailed her past active work, indeed to focus more on her writing. So I have found particularly AA in certain areas to be readily exegetically disproven as she was then mainly just restating things as they appeared in her main Bible version then. Indeed deeper exegesis on simply the translation of the Bible (e.g, KJV, ASV).

So I actually have found further substantiation for my chronological confusion observation here. To me, if she wrongly placed this event at the end of DA rather than right after the resurrection, does not affect my view of the SOP in any way. If she did not think that this could ever occurred. She would not, pre-emptively actually, urge SDA’s to make the Bible the final arbitrator in such matters.

So as her prior first ascension view best harmonizes all of the involved elements here, I see it as being the correct and only occurrence of this Heavenly procession, approval and ensuing coronation before Christ returned on earth, but also the start of a celebration/judgement (= a second fulfillment of Rev 12:7-12, completing this long lasting (state of) “war” and its aftermath) that probably lasted for 50 days.

Please point out the 5 times Jesus ascended to heaven.

In what ways? They seem to be more dissimilar.

I have enumerated and referenced these visits (and by natural implications, also “ascensions” even if solely to “return” to Heaven, which manifestly needed “powered assistance” e.g., Acts 1:9) in this prior post.

I think the cited SOP accounts on this clearly speak for themselves, actually, exactitude. One, the DA account, simply goes into deeper details, but the outline, issues and developments of events are identical. Which leads me to see that they are indeed one and the same. Which is why I ask, why would the same things occur twice when, in that first ascension account (3SP 203.1) the issue was already fully resolved as Jesus did go on to receive worship from the angels. A “redundancy” here really makes not Spiritual, Theological or Logical sense, at least to me. So the only issue here is how and why EGW was "chronologically" mistaken.

I don't believe that. I believe she knew exactly what she was doing. She didn't expand in her description of the first ascension in DA exactly because the account of the two ascensions would have been very similar.
I also don't believe the ceremony of Christ's enthronement extended for 50 days. Her words in AA are clear:

"When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents."

I don't even think it must have lasted 10 days - perhaps the trip took longer because Christ and the resurrected saints visited other worlds on their way to heaven.

She also says clearly that Christ was on earth during the 40 days, not in heaven.

I think the answer to this issue is actually seen from the account in 3SP for when in describing the ascension with Jesus after the 40th day in 3SP 249-253; she makes no mention of the approval halting scene which she had tied to the first ascent, immediately after the resurrection. (3SP 202, 203). So it seems to me that she later, in DA conflated these two events. Apparently, the angels then, at that last ascension decided to have a royal procession. But the refused approval episode, which is actually more fully described in the DA account 833-834, had already taken place in the first ascension.

Also it could be that Jesus as a wave sheaf himself did fully the typology, and that as related in 3SP, the resurrected saints then ascended with him. Although I think they had been hidden somewhere until this ascension and were not still walking about ‘convincing people of the resurrection for 40 days’.


Where exactly are you reading this? It may be possible, though Christ clearly did ascend immediately after the resurrection, and, as I see it, as related in 3SP 202, 203. However I still see that his worship refusal and his royal procession were two distinct events, however for some reason EGW conflated them in DA.

So my view is actually as described in 3SP and not in the last chapter of DA.

Based on this view, the enthronement ceremony, which as I now see it, only started from that last ascension, though Christ had been adored previously, may have lasted 10 days and when it was completed, the Holy Spirit was poured out. Christ may also have gone on an extended tour of other world as part of this enthronement ceremony, following his arrival first to heaven, which added to its celebration time.

So the real issue here is why EGW’s conflation in DA of the events that were seperatedly related in 3SP.

(Still against Bohr’s view, I do not see Rev 4 & 5 as being substantively descriptive of the final royal ascension, though EGW does quote from this in the DA account of the final ascension, and so, as he says, the 24 elders had to already be in place then, so they could not have been these resurrected saints. I rather see Rev 4 & 5, describing events that took place sometime after the 70 A.D. destruction, and thus those 24 elders had ample time to be enthroned.)

Yes, similar, but definitely not “exactly”. Jesus first goes to the Father without the resurrected saints to learn of the Father’s acceptance of His sacrifice. Forty days later He appears again before the Father with the resurrected saints. For the benefit of the resurrected saints, the Father repeats what He told Jesus forty days earlier.


She makes it very clear that waving before the Lord the wave sheaf of the first fruits two days after the Passover symbolizes Jesus' resurrection, which, in turn, symbolizes the resurrection of the saints at the end of time. Ellen wrote:


The wave sheaf symbolizes the resurrection of Jesus, whose resurrection symbolizes the resurrection of all the saints at the end of time. Yes, Ellen also wrote:


The reason she refers to them as "the wave sheaf" in these passages is because they are a kind of wave sheaf - tokens, trophies. But they are not "the" wave sheaf. All those years the Jews waved the first fruits before the Lord did not symbolize the saints resurrected with Jesus; instead, it symbolized Jesus' resurrection.


Ellen wrote:


She makes it clear Jesus remained on the earth during the 40 days.


DA 790 makes it clear Jesus first learned of the Father’s acceptance of His sacrifice on Sunday the day He was raised and first appeared in the Father’s presence.


There is no mistake. Ellen clearly says the resurrected saints ministered on earth during the forty days and then ascended to heaven with Jesus. Besides everything posted above, she also wrote:


On the road to Emmaus, the two sorrowing disciples had not yet heard Jesus was alive, despite the fact the resurrected saints were circulating the good news. The eleven disciples were hiding for fear, so it should come as no surprise they hadn’t heard from one of the resurrected saints that Jesus was alive. They even rejected the testimony of the women.

I appreciate your detailed reply here, Mountain Man however, I am not sure you first had read my latest post as I now have the view EGW first related in 3SP (1878) where she place the “approval events” at the first ascension (3SP 202, 203) and the royal procession at the last (3SP 249-253). (see also the 1858 1SG 73-74 & 77-80 account). After a more careful reading, I indeed see that they are not “exact”. I had thought I read the same things in those passages.
So I am now wondering why she conflated them 20 years in DA. This may be the only case in her writings where her “correction” actually caused a mistake.



Presuming this to be the underlying case, where are you reading this notion in the SOP?

Wave Sheaf
From the SOP comments I see that both Jesus and the resurrected saints fulfilled the wave sheaf. So it seems to me, based on my latest understanding, that Jesus timely fulfilled the symbol with his first, lone appearance (where he refused worship until his approval a little while later (3SP 202, 203); and the resurrected ones also fulfilled it (also timely with their resurrection on that Sunday. Jesus was the “firstfruit from the dead” (1 Cor 15:20, 23) while they were more specifically “first fruits of the fuller harvest” and also of other redeemed saints.



Where do you see that these resurrected ones “ministered” during those 40 days?
As stated in my prior post above, I am willing to accept that they had remained on earth during those 40 days, but I do not substantively or logically see that they were “ministering” (i.e., convincing people of the resurrection) during these 40 days.

I am however willing to accept from your concrete SOP quotes that Jesus was with his disciples during those 40 days, however, I have to personally adjust my understanding that in John 20:26, it was Thomas who was absent from the disciples and Jesus for those previous 8 days and that in the meeting by the sea, the disciples were mere surprised to see Jesus on the shore simply as they had not expected him to be there and not because they had not seem him fro a while. Indeed as it is said in DA 809.1, that meeting was according to Christ’s appointment. So he apparently only left them for that prior night.



A simple sermon by Peter 50 days later that ‘the Jews had crucified the Messiah, but He had been raised from the dead’ resulted in 3000 (mainly foreigners) being baptized. The work of the apostles soon after that caused many of the priests (Acts 6:7) to also believe as well as 5000 (Acts 4:4) more (or perhaps 2000 added to the previous 3000) to be baptized. So it seems to me that if the resurrected saints were preaching that message in ministering for 40 days, given that many would know who they were, with the evidence of their opened graves as proof, these mass conversions would have occurred much sooner.

I don't understand why you think she combined them into one description in DA. Please post the passage you believe does this.


I'm using logical deduction. Who else would benefit from it?


Ellen wrote:


I cannot fathom the resurrected saints testifying to the resurrection of Jesus for the first few hours or days and then laying low for the remainder of the time. To what purpose would their silence and/or absence serve? Indeed, the very reason they were raised was to proclaim Jesus' resurrection.


Wasn't it the outpouring of the Early Rain on the day of Pentecost that made the difference? All the witnessing that happened during the 50 days preceding Pentecost could not have had the same affect.

Read the separated accounts of (1) the resurrection ascension+worship halting+approval+allowed and given worship in 1SG (1858) 73-74 + 3SP (1878) 202, 203 and then read the account of solely a royal procession at the ascension 40 days later in 1SG 77-80 & 3SP 249-253. Their they are distinct and do not repeat each other. However DA (1898) 833-834, they are indeed conflated together into one event taking place solely at the 40th day ascension. In fact nothing is said about the details of a first ascension as in those prior SOP accounts.



Still I do not see this as a logical deduction, i.e., a entire royal procession involving all of the angels solely for (24) resurrected redeemed people. I rather see that the prior ascension and worship was deemed not worthy enough by the angels and they here, effectively threw Jesus a more fitting, (perhaps even “surprise”) celebration and ceremony, indeed welcoming him to his thrown as he deserved. Also the mentioned ‘great preoccupation’ of Christ for his heartbroken and confused disciples, which EGW pointedly ‘was shown’|“saw” (1SG 74.1) may have dimmed the mood of the first celebration so it was redone those 40 days later when everything was finally, conclusively resolved on earth.

I agree with you that EW 184.3 speak of the work that the resurrected ones did, however I do not see there that this lasted for 40 days. ‘News spreading (i.e., e.g., by horse-riding messengers) from city to city and from town to town’ could only take a few hours and does not necessarily imply “40 days”



Why would this be so hard to “fathom”?? To me the Biblical evidence in terms of conversion points to a short and most limited work. God usually uses “faith” rather than such powerful demonstration to convince people. However He usually does start this work of faith with a strong demonstration that is then taken away so that the needed “faith” will prevail. Having resurrected “glorified” bodies (EW 184.1), possibly very similar to Christ’s own, they may have been able to disappear at will as Christ was able to. So will they may have remained on earth all of this time, they may have remained “unseen”. I however rather believe that they were led by God to a secluded retreat, which would not be that hard to find, awaiting these 40 days of final sorting out before their ascension.



That would, “unTheologically”, mean that it was the Spirit that convinced these priorly non-believing people to here believe. I do not see a precedence of this in the Bible. Rather I see the Holy Spirit was solely poured out on the disciples, and as stated in this blog post with the Jews then being devote Jews who thus probably spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, at least, the ability of the disciples to speak in their various foreign languages, was merely done to impress them.

Moreover, if it was the Holy Spirit that caused these non-believer to accept this message, it was extremely selective as only 3000 out of hundreds of thousands believed. In fact, some in the audience mockingly thought the disciples were drunk (Acts 2:13ff).

Also, as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit here was merely on the disciples and as a sign to these unbelievers, what is more “convincing”: speaking to perhaps Jeremiah, Joshua, Abraham and/or John the Baptist, or hearing someone speak in your native tongue, with both saying the exact same message? Seems to me that a sustained, day in/day out, public, 40-day ministry of the resurrected saints prior to that Pentecost event would have had much more of a “convincing” impact, indeed as it would have been more visibly ascertainable through such live witnesses.

She describes the first ascension on page 790:


She does not combine the first and second ascensions on page 834. Both ascensions are covered separately.


Fair enough. She didn't explain why parts were repeated.


Yes, much ground would have been covered rapidly within a few hours.


Interesting. To what purpose, though, did they disappear and remain out of sight?


I think you are undervaluing what happened on the day of Pentecost. Perhaps we should study it in more detail on a new thread.

Yes! However, it serves the student well to study the sources Ellen cited in her books. Having done so myself I was amazed to discover how often those books arrived at conclusions completely opposite of the ones Ellen came to. Even reading the sermons William Miller preached during the Millerite Movement and comparing them to the conclusions Ellen arrived at later on is startling.

Manifestly you have misunderstood/misconstrued what I am saying was conflated. I am not saying that both ascensions were conflated. I am saying that in taking the details of a halted worship from the first ascension and entirely transposing them to the second ascension, which she did not mention at all in her prior accounts, she conflated the details of these two ascensions in DA. In her prior accounts there was not hesitation or halting of worship in the second ascension. However in DA, there suddenly is, and no mention of this with the first one in DA 790.



Nonetheless her I was shown detail here can lead to an understanding that the return was not fully celebrated as the angels wanted to in the first ascension, thus hence, possibly a second, now unobstructed and fully joyful celebration.



Indeed, but more to the main issue here, to me that means that these resurrected saints did not have to minister for 40 days to accomplish this, but just a few hours. This news spreading was also done by others than them.



As I had stated there, because on one hand, the belief in the resurrection had to mainly be out of faith, nonetheless God, as usual, had provided with them, substantial evidence upon which this faith could be built, and on the other hand, these were manifestly not “scheduled” yet to ascend to Heaven. They had to first wait for Jesus to complete his 40-day, post-resurrection work. So because of these two reasons, I see that they were probably led to a hidden place to await that last ascension. So if these were not hidden for these remaining 39+ days, people would have believed in the resurrection solely because of such “loaves and fishes” evidence, but not out of the GC needed faith and involved Spirituality. (Cf. John 6:26-38ff).

Incidently, as hinted there, I do not actually believe that humans (unlike angels and also Jesus) will have this ability to disappear, even when the redeemed will receive perfect bodies. I indeed see this as a capability of heavenly beings. So I therefore see that these had to physically be led away into hiding.



My view here is based upon my exegetical studies for that post on my blog. I am personally satisified that it is Biblical: i.e., the gift of the Holy Spirit enables believers and receivers of it to do physical and spiritual works that they normatively, of themselves may not be able to (readily/feasibly) do, however it certainly does not “compel” non-believers, nor even believers to believe something they otherwise would not. It does however serve to provide a “sign” to unbelievers, upon which faith can be built.

This topic is really not a main priority for me at this time, however I do see how it could be an interesting topic for a new thread.

I actually do not see that the aim of this topic/question was EGW vs. other writers. Perhaps the starter of this can specify, however from that thread starting post which poses the question of Bacchiocchi of:



It seems to me that the question is, (perhaps also) asking: ‘When EGW says so and so about Scripture, is her statement the final authority on that understanding and/or interpretation. For many substantive reasons, and also for reasons of still unfolding truth, I have to say a resounding “No”. I.e., the deeper, especially more exegetical, study of the Scripture has, and will continue to reveal further understanding and interpretations. I think EGW’s own counsels, especially parting counsel, clearly say the same thing.

I see that EGW understandings were for an Historical Wave of prophetic interpretation, however, through many Biblical studies, as, e.g., culminated, detailed/explained and demonstrated in this blog post, I substantively understand that there is still an applicable, and currently fulfilling Eschatological Wave, which has spiritually similar/equivalent, but applicationally distinct/different, interpretations.

NJK, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I enjoyed studying with you.

No problem, Mountain Man. Same here. Your contributions have been very helpful.

Are those 'sons of God' angels in Job for sure, or are they possibly human beings from other places? I wouldn't jump on either. We just don't know. If God wanted us to call angels His sons, I am almost sure He would have said so.

Harold, Ellen was convinced the "sons of God" in Job 38:7 were angels. What do you think?

Seems to me from the following SOP statements that it was EGW understood that it was pointedly when the Sabbath was instituted, after Creation was complete, that this “rejoicing” took place. If that was the case then Adam and Eve where already created, and thus could have been the “sons of God” (cf. Gen 6:2).

















see also:



-Also was this Earth the very first world that God created, if not then “sons of God” in other worlds could have been rejoicing here for this Creation?

It exegetically is in this preponderant SOP light that EGW’s application of Job 38:7 in GC 511.2 should be understood:



Seems to me that this is harmonized if it is seen here that it is the “morning stars” who are the angels and “the sons of God,” which could also potentially be humans in other worlds, were not pointedly being spoken of here. GC 511 also speaks of a completed creation. I.e., when these foundation were laid (and not “being laid”). So, again, Adam and Eve would have been created by then and thus pointedly fulfilled the secondary “sons of God” portion in this particular SOP application.

Also, as in PP 65.3 (‘plan of redemption rejoicing’ which also could include humans in other unfallen worlds), this use in GC 511 may have been only thematically related to this text by her and not substantively. Though not quite a “proof text”, she, as she does many times in her writings, (indeed as I understand her quoting of praises in Rev 4 & 5 for the last ascension vision), only used it to thematically illustrate a point. The point in GC 511 was that ‘angels existed before man, so, at least, that is how they were also present at the completion of Creation.’

So I see that the “sons of God” in Job 1 & 2 are referring to other created humans, as also the (post-Sabbath institution) one in Job 38:7, which could also have included Adam and Eve.

(Although I do not agree with Bohr’s view on the 24 elders, I think he makes a good, related exposition on this issue in this sermon (esp. 16:10ff; 24:51ff =(God instituted the Sabbath only after He rested on it. E.g., PP 47.3)).)

Although I see no requirement that they be the same, I also see no requirement that in Job 38 it means angels. Specifically, it says "and" the sons of God which could be a redundant thought or it could be separate ones. I would agree that morning stars probably are angels. While I agree with most of what NKJ said above, I would not use the word "humans" but say created beings from other worlds.

As NJK stated, they are coming to present themselves. The question must be asked why, and why only 24 of many angels, what was this meeting for, why did satan think that was an appropriate time to come. It would be my thought that they are somehow held accountable for those under them. Which could be angels if they have such a hierarchy but could also be those who are leaders over the worlds. One way you could read it is that God sees satan and says, who invited you here. He responds that he was the leader of the earth and therefore has a right to their meeting. Which God then asks about Job who does not follow satan's leading. Which satan then admits he does not have full control over the earth, but that God is unduly protecting Job.

The 24 elders of revelation appear to have some honor or responsibility different from others. No reason to not consider they could be connected with those of Job.

In passing defence of my chosen use of “humans” vs. the more ‘knowledge/certainty cautionary’: “created beings”, from what I read in the Bible/SOP, I only see other created beings, just as in our for, existing outside of the Heavenly Realm. In Heaven, there are indeed several types of creations: Mighty Angels (7 - see esp. Note #11 & #12 in this post)) = Cherubim, Angels, Seraphim, (perhaps, literally, the 4 Living Creatures who in non-symbolic reality may actually be 4 of the 7 Mighty Angels/Cherubim = Ezek 1:3, 5ff = 10:15), etc. However in the other created worlds, which are indeed like ours, I can only see a necessity for humans like us. I.e., all of God’s created beings are so particularly created because of an actual function that they have, and not merely for “creative physical diversity” reasons (e.g., as in a George Lucas’ Star Wars world). That is e.g., why the Seraphim have 6 wings (Isa 6:2), since, besides the 2 that they needed to fly; the other 4 were used to easily, continually cover uncovered body parts i.e., head and feet. As only Mighty Angels are able to accede into the immediate presence of God, i.e., within the glow of the “unapproachable light, it seems to me that Seraphims are so “outfitted” so that they can continually cover themselves to, at times, also be within this immediate presence, perhaps as physically present worshipping and witnessing representatives of/for the rest of the angels. Indeed in the same way that God covered Moses with His hand so that the glory of His face/front side would not consume Moses (Exod 33:17-18, 20-23).

It relatedly is interesting to see that the Hebrew word “Seraphim” (Strong’s #08314b) comes from the Hebrew word for “to burn” (#08313). So they evidently are “subject to burn” by being in this immediate presence of God, i.e., if they should ever be “uncovered”, which is most likely to occur with their face and feet, hence the special covering wings for these.

So I the only needed difference I see with us and other created “beings” outside of Heaven itself, is that we sinned, and thus variously degenerated, and they did not and thus are perfect versions of us. Which is why/how I see that the term “sons of God” can be inclusive of all of those created humans. And as seen in the quite possible separation/distinction with “morning stars” (indeed = “angels”; cf. Rev 12:4 & 9), Job 38:7 could be referring to only these two actual classes of created beings: ‘Heavenly ones’ and ‘humans.’

Ellen refers to "angels" and "heavenly beings" in the context of Job 38:7. She wrote:


Her application of Job 38:7 to angels, who existed before the creation of mankind, is too clear to be misunderstood. Neither the "morning stars" nor "all the sons of God" can refer to mankind. Nor does it make sense to call Adam and Eve "all the sons of God." Perhaps the son and daughter of God, but certainly not "all the sons of God." However, it could be that "all of the sons of God" refers to beings on other planets.

Yes, that's what I was saying.

NJK, wasn't there something about human beings being created, which were different from all other prior creation being created, in the likeness of God?

I think when all of EGW statements that include the words of Job 38:7 are all taken into consideration, as they exegetically, duly should, it seems to me that EGW just blanketly, (i.e., non specifically) used/applied that phrase. Indeed as seen in her use of it in PP 65.3 to speak of the celebration for Christ’s First Advent. So she uses it to speak of the first day’s light, the completion of creation, the institution of the Sabbath (also around the time when Adam and Eve were created, and thus “married”). So she may not be making any specific timing claim when she uses it, but merely that this is what occurred at some point during creation week.

Perhaps, most possibly, it could have occurred repeatedly, i.e., with each new “good” and “very good” creative work of God, and so, as this is the only Biblical passage that makes any allusion to this rejoicing, she repeatedly applied to such applicable circumstance.

It is in this ‘multiple application’ sense that this passage could first have applied to angels and indeed other created humans from other worlds. Perhaps a convocation took place in Heaven for these other “sons of God” for them to witness the creation of our World.

“All the sons of God” could easily include “Adam and Eve”, and I further think that it could, gender inclusively, as normative in the OT, and spiritually speaking, with Adam (and Eve) representing the (potential, future) “sons of God” for this world and/or if Adam and Eve then represented ‘“all” of the “sons of God”’ (i.e., created humans) in the universe at that time if other worlds had not yet been created, indeed could only include Adam and Eve, in the celebrations for their post-creation events (Sabbath, (marriage), end of Creation Week). (It would be quite uncanny that this world would have been the very first one created and the only one to fall!)

So, in summary here, I see that the 4 SOP passages that you’ve cited that speak of “heavenly being” only refer to the “heavenly part” of the solely pertinent Biblical illustration of Creation celebrations found in Job 38:7, if other humans had not yet been created. However the other SOP passage which tie it to a Sabbath celebration, could, variously inclusively, (also) involve Adam and Eve.

The key here is to take everything into consideration on this “sons of God” topic in the Bible and SOP in order to arrived at an harmonize and reconcilable understanding, and not just based our understanding on 4 passages, especially when many others point to a wider understanding.

I personally don’t recall, nor have found, something like that in the SOP. Perhaps someone else knows of this statement. My internet-based search revealed nothing. (That would have also been “fodder” for her “knee-jerk” critics out there). (Perhaps you are confusing this with her infamous ‘amalgamation statement’?? (1SP 69.1; 78.2)). However here is what I see EGW saying about other worlds:



It is also significant to me that EGW says here that wings had to be given to her to fly to this other world. Perhaps sort of a temporary jet pack consisting of powered wings. That all highlights to me that God’s diversity in creation, i.e., different from the basic template of a “human” figure, which actually, in God the Son, particularly, is indeed the “image and likeness of God”, is indeed out of a tangible necessity. Thus Angels/Beings who need to constantly fly around to other worlds have permanently been given wings. Or, as they seem to be able to lose them when taken on a strictly human (i.e., Earthly) form, it may actually be this sort of add-on “wings/jet pack”.

In other words, I do not see God’s created beings deviating from this main template of His actual “image/likeness” without a practical reason.

NJK, according to the quotes below, it seems clear that humans were created after the inhabitants of all the other worlds were created:

Thanks for those SOP quotes Mountain Man. They also indicate to me that, at least, our Earth was not the first world to be created with other inhabitants, (which by the way, I also understand to be humans. As stated in my prior post, I see that all of God’s creation have this basic image/likeness-reflecting “human” template, with slight practical, even removable add-ons.)

So the “Sons of God” here could easily be those inhabitants of other worlds, perhaps representatively convened in Heaven to witness the Creation of this Earth. Still, for my reasons cited before, I see that Adam and Eve could have joined in this celebration following their own creation.

-Also in passing, as EGW exegetically wrongly cites Isa 46:10a as “knows” vs. the actual “declare” (significant difference here), though she (rightly, and perhaps knowingly) limits this to “God knowing His (own )works” (=Acts 15:18 KJV) (i.e., what He will do; - adding, perhaps definingly elsewhere “All His plans are perfect.” {OHC 251.3} = Isa 46:10b), and as also revealed in her own vision on the circumstances in Heaven surrounding the Fall (EW 149-153), though God surely knew of the possibility that Free Man could sin, and He also knew of exactly what it would take to redeem him, it was still a great struggle for both Him and Jesus to finalize this previously envisaged plan, perhaps just now, going over all of its intricate details, and agree to go through with it, because of the reality that the outcome of this “plan” was itself not known, as it entirely depended on the free will actions of people, including the then incarnated Christ.

I don't know, MM. I just read everything I had on Job/Angels and didn't find anything. Perhaps this is one of the things God said would be a mystery. I personally don't think it is a salvation issue.

Pertinent to this discussion, if the theological understanding of EGW that “the plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth” is all based upon her reading and manifest misunderstanding of Rev 13:8 (KJV), as strongly hinted by her linking “for” statement in PP 63.3, it could easily be disproven as the more accurate exegetical understanding of that passage is:



vs. the KJV’s:



This ‘pre-fall establishment’ indeed seems to contradict EGW’s direct (i.e., ‘I was shown’ type) revelation on this in EW 149.2 which says:



So I am exegetically inclined to believe, contrary to what I had previously stated, that, though the possibility of the fall of man was surely known by God, the “way of escape” itself, i.e., the plan of salvation, may not have been drawn out until after the fall, as EGW directly saw in this vision.

I see harmony in her statements above. The plan of salvation has existed from all eternity. God knew with absolute certainty men and angels would fall and that men would require redemption. In the case of angels "no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law (SR 18)." They had passed that point of being able to sin and repent.

A plan could exist as a possibility of man's fall, but it doesn't require God to know with absolute certainty.

I make plans according to if this happens, or if that happens, or if some other thing happens. Plan A, B, C. That doesn't mean I know which of the three will happen nor if any will happen, but it means I am prepared if those three do happen. Don't you make similar plans?

In many points Mountain Man, I see that our difference of understanding stems from a difference in deeper Theological Views, however not in all. Point by point:



I think that the text of EGW statements vs. her ‘I was shown’ type vision are saying two completely different and irreconciable things. On one hand (statement) she claims ‘no afterthought’ and the other hand (vision) she saw actually relates ‘no thought’ or at the very least ‘no deliberation for a way of escape.’



That is part of EGW’s contradictory statements, which may be personal beliefs, which she was guilty of faultily making at times. She did not fully grasp, and thus rightly express, all of the compacted explicit and/or implicit theology she was shown in her visions.



I Theologically have a difference with an “absolute certainty” claim here as it goes against the Biblical View, as I and many others have seen it, on ”God and the Future”. I thus Biblically understand that God knew of such a “possibility” (i.e., not even a “probability”). He also may not even have chosen to plan ahead for this “possibility” especially given the harsh emotions that would be involved. So He just waited until it became a reality to deal with it, as this would not be a detriment to anyone.



(As shown in Alden Thompson book: Inspiration the expressed view of EGW on a chance of repentance for pointedly Lucifer (‘the one from which this sin and rebellion had originated’) changed with her own proper understanding of the Law. E.g., in 1SP 19, 20, 29 (1870) there is absolutely no hope for them because the Law of God is unforgiving; however 20 years later in PP 39 (1890) God Himself bears long with Lucifer and he is even given a chance at full reinstatement should he repent.)



It does not seem to me that these rebelling angels passed any God-established ‘point of no return’ but merely, decidedly chose of themselves to persist in their rebellion right through to their losing of the War that took place, thus thereby sealing their own utter rejection. Interestingly enough, EGW “no provision” statement (1SP 22.3) comes after Lucifer and these angels had resolutely decided to engage in this War (1SP 22.2). Any “repentance” now would not be of faith, as earlier, but merely in fear being physically defeat, and later of being expelled. So that is why their sin of rebellion could no longer be forgiven.

Though I Theologically agree with your conclusion kland, I think that it is incorrect to either have it established, or even be corroborated by how Man does something. God is clearly above ourselves as many Biblical passages show. The truth of this matter stems from the fact that, as Isa 46:9-11 states God “plans” the future according to His perfect Wisdom, i.e., what is best for the future development of this GC. (This is further developed in my blog post on: "God and the Future".

True, but I was trying to put it in a way MM could relate. Because, as he would not know something with absolute certainty, God also doesn't know everything with absolute certainty. At least using "as" as to relate to.

Though I can see your ‘relating attempt’ here kland, I personally can only see that such a comparison in entirely moot by the fact that it is a comparison between what God would be able to do vs. what (now fallen) man can do. Many passages in the Bible will speak to the utter futile of such a Divinity-Creation comparison (e.g, Isa 55:8; cf. Psa 50:21). To me that is equivalent to saying that: ‘just as a car (barring artificial intelligence presetting by a human) does not know where it is going, then the driver also does not know where s/he is going.’

So that is why I see the only valid way of supporting this view is not through anthropomorphic or philosophical arguments/rationales but by what is concretely expressed in the Bible. If the Bible actually taught that: (1) the future existed in any tangible form, or (2) God tangibly knew that future in any degree/extent, then it would easily be possible that ‘God could know everything with certainty (i.e., the Future, as He, being Omniscient, does now everything (in the present and pass) there is to be known with certainty) while man does not’.

God is not bound by space or time. He existed for an eternity before He created time and space. Nevertheless, He can interact with created beings in time and space, even more so now that Jesus is human and divine. He exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously. Time and space, as we know it, having a beginning and no end, is like a capsule surrounded by timeless, intangible eternity, the dwelling place of God. There are two eternities - ours and His. Eternity, as we know it, fits comfortably on a slide on God's microscope. He is, in the ultimate sense, omnipresent, which enables Him to know the future like history. He knows the end from the beginning because both the end and beginning exist. He has known from the beginning of our time what each person will think, say, and do because, from His perspective, our eternity has already played out. He doesn't know what each person will do because He's a good guesser; instead, He knows precisely what each person has done because He knows the end from the beginning.

Honestly, with all due respect, Mountain Man, I seriously could not help but laugh as I struggled to read through your defense of the Classical View of Foreknowledge here because non of these arguments are actually supported by Biblical facts (and that includes SOP “I was shown” statements). Merely stating/restating them does not make them a truth. I became strikingly aware of this between 1999-2002 as I then engaged on an indepth and original study of this Theological topic. The resulting study of the Biblical “Foreplanning ” View is posted on my blog, (which I don’t see/think you had first/previously considered.) These philosophical arguments of the Classical View hold no water and they also impinge the Character of God. Fundamentally and for starters, why proceed with a sinful world when you know “for a fact” that it could result in over 99% of all persons being born ending up suffering punishment in Hell?? Why not just show to the angels at the first inkling of Lucifer’s nefarious intentions a panoramic video in Heaven of “all that will surely take place” if (or is it “when” [if this is really ‘the already existing Future’??!]) and destroy him, sparing the lives of billions, even trillions!??

NJK, we may have to live with our opposing views of God.

Cordially and mutually agreed Mountain Man... However I just personally knew, and concretely now know, that I could not “live”, accurately understand and soundly/sequiturly explain the Bible/GC (particularly seeming errors/inconsistencies), evangelistically preach, and variously minister with the Traditional/Classical View of Foreknowledge!

NJK, how long did God exist alone before He created the universe and FMAs (free moral agents)?

By the way Mountain Man, if you are interested, I am open and willing to further discuss this topic on God’s Foreknowledge in this Maritime... thread. There is indeed much that can be brought to the table from purely a substantive Biblical level, vs. a philosophical one. I always prefer to deal with more objective, substantive vs. the more subjective, ideological.

Eternally, of course (e.g., Psa 90:2; 93:2; Hag 1:12). However, if that is what you are, as common, also getting at, that does not establish a distinct time, but simply one that existed prior to when God created other beings. Then His time simply concurrently continued with the same one of these ones.

[As I had said, before noticing your post here, I think this discussion should be continued on that other thread, as it will may get involved and completely off-topic here. Other watching posters there would also probably participate]. Also I recommend first reading my (interactive) blog post on this topic. It is not fair to me to have to rediscuss all of these point again. This ‘God vs. our Time’ issue was discussed there. If, however, you then ‘still do not understand something’, I’ll clarify it here.

The idea that time and space existed before God created FMAs is new to me.

That manifest concept that it didn’t/couldn’t exist is itself new to me. On what, presumably, Biblical statement (i.e., vs. mere philosophical assumption), did you base/derive this view from?

As I straightforwardly see it, FMA’s were just inserted in that already unrolling time when God decided to create them.

Ok, that makes sense. I'm afraid I still had a leftover portion, much like MM's view, that the future actually existed.

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Jesus created time and space. They do not exist naturally. They are not co-eternal with God. Thus, God existed before time and space. Which, to me, implies He can exist inside and outside of time and space. He is not bound by or limited to time or space. Time and space plays out within a capsule enclosed within something we cannot define or explain.

Who says that “time” has to be a tangible entities. Sure we can come to measure it, but is it an entity in itself. (Interestingly enough the sun and moon (=day and night) serve to measure this time). I can see that “space” as a place to live and for galaxies to be placed in, could have been created by God, however “time” as the non-physical entity that it innately is, could easily have always existed with God. I.e., Because God always was, the “time” made existent simply because He exists, was naturally also present, though, again, not as a distinct, made-to-be tangible entity (e.g, measured time). You may also be conflating “time” with what the Bible calls “an age” (Greek: aion), which is only a period of time in that larger time. So our “age” was created by God (Heb 1:2; 11:3 = “world(s))) after he existed, but it is just in the continuum of “God’s Time”. Time is an ethereal concept, not a physical entity, though capable of being kept track of (= “measured”).

God's ability to know the future like history is, no doubt, beyond our ability to comprehend. The idea that He is nothing more than a good guesser is, in my opinion, an ignorant attempt at explaining something we are incapable of comprehending. Prophecy is too clear and concrete to dismiss as nothing more than a good guess.

Mountain Man, you are just rotely and defensively restating the Classic View “talking points.” My view is based upon what God has said and revealed in the Bible. That is how we come to know what God does and not by mere assumptions. I do not at all believe that God “guesses” the future. He instead detailedly plans it through His perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is best for this world and then when the time comes He summons whatever and whoever is necessary in order to carry this foreplan out. Prophecy is the perfect demonstration of this.

If you want to engage in a Biblical study on this topic, I’ll do it. However just repeating rote maxims and truism about what we think God should be like vs. what He Himself has said and revealed is not worth the time. The foreplanning view is firmly rooted in the Bible.

So if you are interested in a Biblical discussion (i.e.. Cited Bible and SOP (“I was shown”) passages to present your view I’ll do it. And that on the other pertinent thread on this topic referenced above. Also I recommend first reading my blog post on this as I have already discussed this in great and interactive deatils. You can see for yourself there how the Classical View has no Biblical and SOP-direct revelation (i.e., vs. EGW personal understanding), support.

No, thank you.

Absolutely no problem!! And thanks for being up front about this! (That is of course, as proposed, 'not wishing to have a, what would need to be, Biblical discussion on the topic!').

Perhaps later on.

Fine. In the mean time and/or in preparation, do read up on my already expounded view on this topic on my blog. I think the responding SDA Pastor there (51 total comments) has made the same comments you may.

It is resolved then - Sister White faithfully transmitted God's Word that at least some sports are devilish...
...They are the sport of demons and a medium for Satan to get into supple minds.

Team sports seem to have less potential for corrupting young people. They provide opportunities to exercise basic biblical principles. For the most part, though, sports have an ungodly affect on players and spectators.

Sock P. simply relayed God's own intructions into this matter and specifically called out soccor, tennis, fotball...
...As being mediums for demons to enter the youth.
...Mind you these are young kids she is speaking about.

What you are saying to me almost sounds like a teaching where young kids shouldn't smoke and drink...
...But after they are grown up it's really "ok".

G.S.P. flat out said the SDA people should not participate in these demonic activities.

What happened to NJK?

Not excusing or justifying sports. It's just that some people are able to do it in ways that teach valuable lessons. Most people go overboard with it, though. That is, they spend a disproportionate amount of time playing and/or watching sports.

NJK? His strong views and verbal abuse reached unacceptable levels. He also believes God has replaced the SDA church as the remnant with his one man ministry.

It was cast in a worse way than playing cards, drinking & other things I'll not mention...
...God must have had a reason to release this information through S.P.




??? I must have missed all that. There is little doubt the GC is rank with apostasy....
...However I believe IF the Church holds onto the teachings of Ellen White it will end up just fine.