Why or why not accept Mrs. White as a prophet?

Green Cochoa, I'm glad you started a thread on EGW. I don't mind talking about her and her role, if only to clarify for myself how I think about her. It's a complex issue usually involving a lot of bagggage.

I would like this conversation to proceed in a respectful manner, understanding that we two have differing views on the subject. I respect your position on her, and assume that you do the same for mine.

However, you or I can not assume that we make the same assumptions, and things that are a given to you are highly questionable to me. Therefore, all our statements must be backed up by some kind of authority, never assuming that the other will accept them carte blanch.

If others want to join the discussion I'm OK with that, but I will not put up with asinine inuendo regarding my Christianity or intelligence, or with stupidity. If it degrades to that I will simply drop out; or we can continue as a PM thread.

"If you lose confidence in the Testimonies you will drift away from Bible truth. I have been fearful that many would take a questioning, doubting position, and in my distress for your souls I would warn you. How many will heed the warning? As you now hold the Testimonies, should one be given crossing your track, correcting your errors, would you feel at perfect liberty to accept or reject any part or the whole? That which you will be least inclined to receive is the very part most needed." [VOL. 5, P. 98 (1882).] {5T 674.2}

I would be happy to have Johann post support for his view from Mrs. White's writings. I think he does not do so because she does not support his view the way he would like.

Mrs. White was abundantly clear on the headship issue. She criticizes ungodly men for lording it over their wives when they themselves are not subject to Christ, but completely upholds the husband's place as the head of the house when he is subject to Christ. This is balanced, and according to the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
[quote]This is why I accept that Ellen White's writings are scripture. This is why her statements on headship, the topic for this thread, are valid and important, just as they would be for any other topic on which she may have written.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Member of the SDA Church?: I am a Christian who chooses to fellowship with Seventh-day Adventists

The Bible is its own expositor. Scripture is to be compared with scripture. The student should learn to view the word as a whole, and to see the relation of its parts. He should gain a knowledge of its grand central theme, of God's original purpose for the world, of the rise of the great controversy, and of the work of redemption. He should understand the nature of the two principles that are contending for supremacy, and should learn to trace their working through the records of history and prophecy, to the great consummation. He should see how this controversy enters into every phase of human experience; how in every act of life he himself reveals the one or the other of the two antagonistic motives; and how, whether he will or not, he is even now deciding upon which side of the controversy he will be found. {Ed 190.2}

Terms for Mrs. White's writings:
Lesser light
Testimonies
Messages

Terms for the Bible
Scriptures
Testimonies
Word of God
Law and Prophets

...and will have to defend my position without support from anyone else.

The question came up as to why or why not should one accept Mrs. White as a prophet. I'm especially interested in JAK's or in anyone else's perspective as to why they might not choose to accept her writings as inspired.

I'm glad that you find her a blessing, MM. I don't.

JAK,

Speaking of "enemy territory," I am in mosquito land and will be entering a "closed country" later today.

I don't know how much internet I may have over the rest of this week or so. So bear with me, as I likely won't have opportunity to respond quickly on various points.

For now, I think we should next determine why or why not Mrs. White's writings should be seen as inspired, and leave the "usage" question alone until the inspiration question is resolved. What do you think? It seems to me this would be the logical sequence, for the usage may be different based on whether or not it is viewed as inspired.

2 Timothy_3:16 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

JAK, I don't think I could enjoy life if I wasn't 100% certain the entire Bible is inspired.

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

So, JAK, am I understanding you correctly, that you also don't believe the Scriptures are completely inspired, as in the whole Bible?

If so, then I can understand why you would also question the inspiration of the writings of Ellen White.

This brings up the whole question of "inspiration" generally, from "This morning I felt inspired to jog 10k." to God dictating the 10 Commandments. Where does EGW fall in this continuum?

Well, I do believe she falls within it somewhere, at least in some of her writings. (That'll be a shock to many. :o)

SDA typically espouse the "thought" inspiration rather than "verbal" inspiration, and I would agree with this...mmmostly. I believe some parts of the Bible were dictated verbatum. But I think the majority of Scripture is "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

I DON'T think she is a "false prophet." I disagree with the position that says: "Well, she is either true or false. There's no other choice."

To me, there are several choices. I believe she was a godly woman sincerely trying to do God's will as she understood it. She was influenced by the times, society, and environment in which she lived. I believe she made mistakes, and I believe some of the stuff she wrote was just plain wrong. Period.

I also believe that some of what she wrote is very useful, bordering on inspired, but NEVER at a Scriptural level.

In both statements I must emphasize the word "some."

This post is getting way too long.

This question has caused me to think seriously about Biblical inspiration. First, I believe Scripture*. Period. However...

Much of Scripture is simply stories of what happened to people, especially in Genesis, Exodus, etc. and Moses just wrote it down. Or it is the record of the kings of Israel, or whatever.

So, are the events and doings of the people inspired, or the writing-down that is inspired...

In books like the major and minor prophets, Psalms, etc. I can see a better case for inspiration in the context of 2 Peter 1, but in other cases it seems to be just stories that we draw lessons from. The characters in the stories are doing good things and bad things, and we draw lessons from it. If this is the case a story of God's guiding and leading in the life of a missionary such as you, GC, could be considered as inspired as the story of Abraham going to Egypt, for example. The key here would be to give credit to God for His leading, blessing, etc.

What about things like lists of geneologies, descriptions of boundry markers, etc.? Are they inspired? If so, to what purpose? Perhaps they are "less inspired" than Jeremiah or Daniel. They are in Scripture simply because they were part of the oral tradition and laws and agreements which make up the Hebrew/Jewish heritage, and they really play no part in "divine inspiration."

As I said in an earlier post, in my opinion there are degrees of inspiration, and not all inspiration is to be considered equal.





(*Scripture says what it says; it is our interpretation of what Scripture says that is the significant thing. This is where the Holy Spirit guides.)

Third, this statement, even if taken to refer to inspiration, does not rule out the possibility of varying levels of inspiration. It simply states that it all comes from the same source. So before I accept this as a comment on the nature of Scriptural inspiration, you will have to connect the dots for me.

I don't believe that inspiration is ever "just plain wrong."

It might be helpful at this point to provide some statements that you feel fall into this category, and we can examine them.

Basically, it appears you believe in an "inspiration continuum" in which the level of inspiration can vary from "not at all" and/or "just plain wrong" all the way to "word-for-word dictated." Would this be an accurate representation of your view?

If so, how would one ever know for sure if something were sufficiently inspired to be of any usefulness to his or her spiritual life? How could one put faith into God's Word without being presumptuous?

If I were to summarize what I perceive from this post as a whole, it would be the thought that "A statement of scripture is inspired inasmuch as it is useful to me." Put another way (as I'm not sure that wording is fully clear), "The parts of scripture that are most useful to me are consequently the most inspired. Parts of scripture that are not useful (to me) must not be inspired on the same level."

Does this accurately represent your view? I'll start with this summary, and let you clarify your position before commenting further.

"A statement of scripture is inspired to me inasmuch as it is useful to me." Put another way (as I'm not sure that wording is fully clear), "The parts of scripture that are most useful to me are consequently the most inspired to me. Parts of scripture that are not useful (to me) must not be inspired on the same level."

So, MM, could it be said that, in your view, inspiration is "all or nothing?" IOW, all of Scripture is equally inspired, equally valid, and equally authoritative, including descriptions of boundries, geneologies, descriptions of Paul's missionary routes, as well as the 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount? (These are just random examples.)

But that brings up the whole question of the meaning of the phrases "useful to me" and "inspired to me." That should probably be another thread. (Ie: All of it is God's Word, but is all of it God's Word TO ME?)

At the end of the day, each person decides for themselves what is or is not inspired.

Yes. Even the discrepancies are inspired, that is, the Holy Spirit permitted them.

But that puts the person above the Scriptures. And each person decides what he/she will follow or not. The source of authority and truth is transferred from the Scriptures to the individual.

M: Yes. Even the discrepancies are inspired, that is, the Holy Spirit permitted them.

J: So if there is a discrepancy ("error") in translation, which is more correct, the original or the translation?

Ultimately the authority is with the individual.

If a book is from God and someone claims to have authority over the book, that person is ultimately claiming to have authority over God.

Discrepancies like this: "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" and "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice".

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God". The Holy Spirit was involved in every aspect of the Bible. He chose not to intervene and prevent Matthew, Luke, and John from recording incorrect facts regarding Jesus' prediction pertaining to Peter's denial. In this way the Holy Spirit managed the outcome, that is, it was not left to chance or fate.

The apostle Peter says that there are in Scripture "things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest . . . unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. The difficulties of Scripture have been urged by skeptics as an argument against the Bible; but so far from this, they constitute a strong evidence of its divine inspiration. If it contained no account of God but that which we could easily comprehend; if His greatness and majesty could be grasped by finite minds, then the Bible would not bear the unmistakable credentials of divine authority. The very grandeur and mystery of the themes presented should inspire faith in it as the word of God. {SC 107.1}

There are many things apparently difficult or obscure, which God will make plain and simple to those who thus seek an understanding of them. But without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we shall be continually liable to wrest the Scriptures or to misinterpret them. There is much reading of the Bible that is without profit and in many cases a positive injury. When the word of God is opened without reverence and without prayer; when the thoughts and affections are not fixed upon God, or in harmony with His will, the mind is clouded with doubts; and in the very study of the Bible, skepticism strengthens. The enemy takes control of the thoughts, and he suggests interpretations that are not correct. Whenever men are not in word and deed seeking to be in harmony with God, then, however learned they may be, they are liable to err in their understanding of Scripture, and it is not safe to trust to their explanations. Those who look to the Scriptures to find discrepancies, have not spiritual insight. With distorted vision they will see many causes for doubt and unbelief in things that are really plain and simple. {SC 110.1}

...weirdly worded wordsmith.

JAK, you may be right. However, I prefer to believe the Holy Spirit managed the outcome of every detail and particular. I would not do well believing otherwise. There's too much uncertainty and ambiguity in the world to include the Bible in the mix. I need at least one rock solid anchor to do life and believing "all scripture" is inspired is needful for me.

This is a misinterpretation of the situation. I am not claiming people have authority over Scripture. We do, however, have our own authority to decide what it is that we will take as authoritative. In other words, humanity has free will. WE can decide.

The entire Great Controversy hinges on this point:

To WHOM will WE submit OUR God-given authority?

Do YOU, Rosangela, decide for humanity what is authoritative, and what the correct interpretation of Scripture is?
Perhaps it's Mountain Man who decides.
Maybe it's Daryl. After all, he runs this forum.
Or perhaps it's the Pope. After all, 2.2 billion Catholics can't be wrong.

Do you get my point? Each individual decides for themselves who they will submit their authoity to. This makes THEM the ultimate authority.

As I've stated, I choose to submit my authority and my will and desires to God.

JAK, let's go back to Adam and Eve. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? God does (this is authority).

Who decides if they will follow what is right or not? Human beings (this is free will). Eve thought that she could decide what is right and what is wrong, but this didn't make right what she thought was right.

The existence of erroneous facts do not prove they are uninspired or unsupervised. They didn't become a part of the Bible against God's will. He permitted them thus demonstrating His approval and their inspiration - inspired discrepancies.

An example of such would be the 6th commandment, translated in the KJV as "Thou shalt not kill." Does this mean:

A. All life is sacred and you should not kill any living thing. This includes all Humans, animals, fish, birds, bugs etc.
B. Animals, fish, birds, etc. are OK, but don't kill humans.
C. Don't kill humans, unless its a war or self defence, etc.
D. Don't kill humans unless God tells you to.
E. Don't murder humans.
F. Don't ever kill a human being for any reason.
G. Add your own interpretation.

R: Who decides if they will follow what is right or not? Human beings (this is free will). Eve thought that she could decide what is right and what is wrong, but this didn't make right what she thought was right.
J: I'm not sure what Adam and Eve have to do with anything in this discussion.

The Word of God should be used to interpret itself.
A. No, because God permitted man to kill animals for sacrifices/food.
B and C. No. See D.
D. Yes.
E. See D.
F. No, because of D.
G. No, because the Word of God interprets itself.

Roseangela, the very act of anwering my questions makes YOU the authority!!! That's what I'm trying to say.

We cannot obtain wisdom without earnest attention and prayerful study. Some portions of Scripture are indeed too plain to be misunderstood, but there are others whose meaning does not lie on the surface to be seen at a glance. Scripture must be compared with scripture. There must be careful research and prayerful reflection. And such study will be richly repaid. As the miner discovers veins of precious metal concealed beneath the surface of the earth, so will he who perseveringly searches the word of God as for hid treasure find truths of the greatest value, which are concealed from the view of the careless seeker. The words of inspiration, pondered in the heart, will be as streams flowing from the fountain of life. {SC 90.3}

He could have prevented it, but He didn't. He allowed it.

Thus, it is inspired (whatever the Holy Spirit does is inspired).

The erroneous facts are not inspired.

The fact the Holy Spirit permitted it to be a part of the Bible is what is inspired.

As for the "murder/kill" text you brought out, anyone who looks at the Hebrew will know that the KJV mistranslated that word to "kill" when it should have been "murder." The Bible itself further defines/distinguishes the two concepts.

"Murder" is a special class of killing that is done out of hatred. If it is pre-meditated, it is "murder."

If it is done strictly out of compliance with God's law

and without hatred, it is not murder, simply killing.

Such was the condition in cases of capital punishment, war, or the avengement of blood as commanded by God.

The "avenger" (the nearest of kin to the one who was killed/murdered (note that this was to be determined by a judge, with at least two or three witnesses, as to whether the one killed had been "murdered" or was accidentally killed)) was asked to kill the one who had slain his relative without hatred, lying in wait, or pursuit.

He was to execute the killing as an act of justice if/when he chanced to meet the killer of his kin. If he did so out of hatred or by pre-meditation/lying in wait, then he was a murderer and himself must face capital punishment.

The cities of refuge were setup for those who killed, and they must live there to the death of the high priest if their case was not one of murder. If it was a murder, the judge in that city delivered him up to capital punishment.

It's a bit involved to explain the whole system in one paragraph,

but the fact is, the Bible defines "murder" and "killing,"

and we have no need to presume to interpret the Bible based on our own opinions.

JAK, I'm just using my free will to accept the Word of God and, ultimately, God Himself as my authority.

Do you equate free will with authority?

JAK,

I've been unable to participate in this discussion recently, and see now that there is much that has been commented here since I last posted. The direction seems to have adjusted to focus upon errors in the Bible and/or whether or not the Bible is fully inspired. I hope we do not ultimately decide that our authority includes choosing how much of God's Word is God's Word. (If it isn't inspired, it isn't from God, right?)

As for the "murder/kill" text you brought out...

As the Bible puts it, scripture is not of any "private interpretation." It defines itself.

JAK, certain passages are too plain to require private interpretation. In such instances no one can justify odd or original conclusions.

35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.
35:13 And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.
35:14 Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, [which] shall be cities of refuge.
35:15 These six cities shall be a refuge, [both] for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.
35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
35:17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
35:18 Or [if] he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
35:20 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;
35:21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote [him] shall surely be put to death; [for] he [is] a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
35:22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
35:23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing [him] not, and cast [it] upon him, that he die, and [was] not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
35:24 Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:
35:25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
35:26 But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;
35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:
35:28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.

(If it isn't inspired, it isn't from God, right?)

I would need to know what you intend by this phrase before agreeing or disagreeing.

As for the "murder/kill" text you brought out...

This text was used for illustrative purposes to show how many variations in interpretation there are. Which one is correct, and who determines that?

(If it isn't inspired, it isn't from God, right?)

So we have the following logic:

A) Given: If it is "good" it comes from God. (James 1:17, Deut. 26:11)

B) Given: If it is "scripture" it is given by "inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16)

C) Given: The word of God is "good." (Hebrews 6:5)

D) Therefore: Based on (B) above, if it isn't inspired by God, it cannot be scripture, for "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16); and joining (C) with (A) renders that all scripture must be good and come from God, inspired by Him. If, therefore, something is not inspired, it cannot be from God, nor part of "God's Word."

As I have brought out, it is not of private interpretation, for the Bible itself defines it.

(Please see my post to kland for details.)

This has all been a sidetrack. But the Bible is clear. There are more passages that add more clarity to it. If you still have questions, you should look for them and study them for yourself.

I would classify this type of passage, with the explicit details in it that God has given, as one of those that should be "too plain to be misunderstood."

I'm still thinking about this.

OK, I'll accept that, although I'm not sure "good" really means anything, but I'll let that go.

Agreed, no argument.

Again, agreed.

After much thought, I'll agree with this. I don't think I have said anything counter to this, at least not intentionally.**

Now I have to know what "private interpretation" means. I maintain that this phrase refers primarily to the giving of Scripture, in that it comes from God and not the prophet/writer. A secondary understanding is that the reader should try to understand what the prophet/writer was trying to say. In this, he seeks the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who alone is the final interpreter of His words.



**There are some loop-holes in this statement, however, and that is the meaning of "all Scripture." Is the intent of this to say:
A) that all of Scripture is inspired or
B) that the sum total of all Scripture has been given, ie: contained in the Judeo-Christian canon; there is no other Scripture to be revealed.

We have a good discussion going. kland is a side-track. I'll not be distracted.

To me, "private interpretation" means the placement of one's own opinions or ideas into the interpretive process relative to the scriptures such that God's Word and His Holy Spirit are not allowed to interpret the scriptures to us themselves.

Speaking of "all scripture is inspired," I understand this to mean that God's Word is always inspired by Him. I do not believe this statement has any relationship to the quantity of scripture nor to the sum of it. If it did, the "scripture" the text refers to is specifically that of the Old Testament. We would then have nothing to verify the inspiration of the New Testament.

M: JAK, certain passages are too plain to require private interpretation. In such instances no one can justify odd or original conclusions.

J: I agree with that 100%. There are some passages I take at absolute face value and there is (essentially) no discussion.

Hebrews
3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

2 Peter
3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The word of God, like the character of its divine Author, presents mysteries that can never be fully comprehended by finite beings. The entrance of sin into the world, the incarnation of Christ, regeneration, the resurrection, and many other subjects presented in the Bible, are mysteries too deep for the human mind to explain, or even fully to comprehend. But we have no reason to doubt God's word because we cannot understand the mysteries of His providence. In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with mysteries that we cannot fathom. The very humblest forms of life present a problem that the wisest of philosophers is powerless to explain. Everywhere are wonders beyond our ken. Should we then be surprised to find that in the spiritual world also there are mysteries that we cannot fathom? The difficulty lies solely in the weakness and narrowness of the human mind. God has given us in the Scriptures sufficient evidence of their divine character, and we are not to doubt His word because we cannot understand all the mysteries of His providence. {SC 106.2}

The apostle Peter says that there are in Scripture "things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest . . . unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. The difficulties of Scripture have been urged by skeptics as an argument against the Bible; but so far from this, they constitute a strong evidence of its divine inspiration. If it contained no account of God but that which we could easily comprehend; if His greatness and majesty could be grasped by finite minds, then the Bible would not bear the unmistakable credentials of divine authority. The very grandeur and mystery of the themes presented should inspire faith in it as the word of God. {SC 107.1}

The Bible unfolds truth with a simplicity and a perfect adaptation to the needs and longings of the human heart, that has astonished and charmed the most highly cultivated minds, while it enables the humblest and uncultured to discern the way of salvation. And yet these simply stated truths lay hold upon subjects so elevated, so far-reaching, so infinitely beyond the power of human comprehension, that we can accept them only because God has declared them. Thus the plan of redemption is laid open to us, so that every soul may see the steps he is to take in repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to be saved in God's appointed way; yet beneath these truths, so easily understood, lie mysteries that are the hiding of His glory--mysteries that overpower the mind in its research, yet inspire the sincere seeker for truth with reverence and faith. The more he searches the Bible, the deeper is his conviction that it is the word of the living God, and human reason bows before the majesty of divine revelation. {SC 107.2}

To acknowledge that we cannot fully comprehend the great truths of the Bible is only to admit that the finite mind is inadequate to grasp the infinite; that man, with his limited, human knowledge, cannot understand the purposes of Omniscience. {SC 108.1}

Because they cannot fathom all its mysteries, the skeptic and the infidel reject God's word; and not all who profess to believe the Bible are free from danger on this point. The apostle says, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." Hebrews 3:12. It is right to study closely the teachings of the Bible and to search into "the deep things of God" so far as they are revealed in Scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:10. While "the secret things belong unto the Lord our God," "those things which are revealed belong unto us." Deuteronomy 29:29. But it is Satan's work to pervert the investigative powers of the mind. A certain pride is mingled with the consideration of Bible truth, so that men feel impatient and defeated if they cannot explain every portion of Scripture to their satisfaction. It is too humiliating to them to acknowledge that they do not understand the inspired words. They are unwilling to wait patiently until God shall see fit to reveal the truth to them. They feel that their unaided human wisdom is sufficient to enable them to comprehend the Scripture, and failing to do this, they virtually deny its authority. It is true that many theories and doctrines popularly supposed to be derived from the Bible have no foundation in its teaching, and indeed are contrary to the whole tenor of inspiration. These things have been a cause of doubt and perplexity to many minds. They are not, however, chargeable to God's word, but to man's perversion of it. {SC 108.2}

If it were possible for created beings to attain to a full understanding of God and His works, then, having reached this point, there would be for them no further discovery of truth, no growth in knowledge, no further development of mind or heart. God would no longer be supreme; and man, having reached the limit of knowledge and attainment, would cease to advance. Let us thank God that it is not so. God is infinite; in Him are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Colossians 2:3. And to all eternity men may be ever searching, ever learning, and yet never exhaust the treasures of His wisdom, His goodness, and His power. {SC 109.1}

God intends that even in this life the truths of His word shall be ever unfolding to His people. There is only one way in which this knowledge can be obtained. We can attain to an understanding of God's word only through the illumination of that Spirit by which the word was given. "The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God;" "for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." 1 Corinthians 2:11, 10. And the Saviour's promise to His followers was, "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. . . . For He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you." John 16:13, 14. {SC 109.2}

God desires man to exercise his reasoning powers; and the study of the Bible will strengthen and elevate the mind as no other study can. Yet we are to beware of deifying reason, which is subject to the weakness and infirmity of humanity. If we would not have the Scriptures clouded to our understanding, so that the plainest truths shall not be comprehended, we must have the simplicity and faith of a little child, ready to learn, and beseeching the aid of the Holy Spirit. A sense of the power and wisdom of God, and of our inability to comprehend His greatness, should inspire us with humility, and we should open His word, as we would enter His presence, with holy awe. When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM. {SC 109.3}

There are many things apparently difficult or obscure, which God will make plain and simple to those who thus seek an understanding of them. But without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we shall be continually liable to wrest the Scriptures or to misinterpret them. There is much reading of the Bible that is without profit and in many cases a positive injury. When the word of God is opened without reverence and without prayer; when the thoughts and affections are not fixed upon God, or in harmony with His will, the mind is clouded with doubts; and in the very study of the Bible, skepticism strengthens. The enemy takes control of the thoughts, and he suggests interpretations that are not correct. Whenever men are not in word and deed seeking to be in harmony with God, then, however learned they may be, they are liable to err in their understanding of Scripture, and it is not safe to trust to their explanations. Those who look to the Scriptures to find discrepancies, have not spiritual insight. With distorted vision they will see many causes for doubt and unbelief in things that are really plain and simple. {SC 110.1}

Disguise it as they may, the real cause of doubt and skepticism, in most cases, is the love of sin. The teachings and restrictions of God's word are not welcome to the proud, sin-loving heart, and those who are unwilling to obey its requirements are ready to doubt its authority. In order to arrive at truth, we must have a sincere desire to know the truth and a willingness of heart to obey it. And all who come in this spirit to the study of the Bible will find abundant evidence that it is God's word, and they may gain an understanding of its truths that will make them wise unto salvation. {SC 111.1}

Christ has said, "If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching." John 7:17, R.V. Instead of questioning and caviling concerning that which you do not understand, give heed to the light that already shines upon you, and you will receive greater light. By the grace of Christ, perform every duty that has been made plain to your understanding, and you will be enabled to understand and perform those of which you are now in doubt. {SC 111.2}

There is an evidence that is open to all,--the most highly educated, and the most illiterate,--the evidence of experience. God invites us to prove for ourselves the reality of His word, the truth of His promises. He bids us "taste and see that the Lord is good." Psalm 34:8. Instead of depending upon the word of another, we are to taste for ourselves. He declares, "Ask, and ye shall receive." John 16:24. His promises will be fulfilled. They have never failed; they never can fail. And as we draw near to Jesus, and rejoice in the fullness of His love, our doubt and darkness will disappear in the light of His presence. {SC 111.3}

The apostle Paul says that God "hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." Colossians 1:13. And everyone who has passed from death unto life is able to "set to his seal that God is true." John 3:33. He can testify, "I needed help, and I found it in Jesus. Every want was supplied, the hunger of my soul was satisfied; and now the Bible is to me the revelation of Jesus Christ. Do you ask why I believe in Jesus? Because He is to me a divine Saviour. Why do I believe the Bible? Because I have found it to be the voice of God to my soul." We may have the witness in ourselves that the Bible is true, that Christ is the Son of God. We know that we are not following cunningly devised fables. {SC 112.1}

Peter exhorts his brethren to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 3:18. When the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. "The path of the righteous is as the light of dawn, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Proverbs 4:18, R.V., margin. {SC 112.2}

In fact Peter was refering to the OT when he made this statement, since there was no NT.

2 Peter
3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The Bible does not teach partial inspiration or degrees of inspiration. These theories are speculations that rob the Bible of its divine authority.

In relation to what is being discussed here in this thread, what do you all think of the following statement?

As far as that statement I quoted goes, will need to do further research regarding that.

I agree with this understanding as the secondary interpretation of the passage, the primary meaning being that the prophet/writer did not come up with the ideas themselves.
Therefore, the correct interpretation of a passage is that interpretation to which the Spirit leads the honest seeker. (Correct?)

Question: Can the seeker arrive at the correct conclusion on his own, meaning without the aid of others eg:the church, (Catholic or otherwise) the pastor, EGW, or is the correct understanding only arrived at by committees? (This is really a secondary question bordering on a side-track. You may ignore it if you want.)

Agreed. Good points. In fact Peter was refering to the OT when he made this statement, since there was no NT. How we got THAT is another discussion which I don't have the time resources to pursue at the moment.

I recognize that this does leave the door open for EGW to "be" Scripture...

I agree with your last sentence, but have questions about the first part. To me, what you are thinking should be the primary meaning (2 Peter 1:20-21)is given explicitly in the following verse (v. 21) from the one which speaks of "private interpretation." In fact, Peter is using the logic that no scripture is to be understood by "private interpretation" on the basis of the fact that scripture was given by the Holy Spirit and not by men. In other words, we can't apply a private interpretation to that which is given us by God. (If we did, how would we know our interpretation was what God intended?)

I'm glad that we have the inspiration of the Bible as common ground. I personally accept the entire Bible as inspired. I do not see that there are parts that are less inspired than others. You have mentioned the "begats" as being less useful to you. Perhaps they are not your interest. They have been very helpful to me. I have, by them, understood the times in which we are living. The genealogies are inspired just as much as other portions of scripture, but they may not be given us for the same purposes as texts like John 3:16. As Paul would have put it, the Bible gives us both "milk" and "meat." The Bible has something for child and scholar alike. But the milk and meat are not necessarily given in the same verse.

You still have not presented your reasons for not accepting Mrs. White. Are we ready for those, or are there still points we should cover relative to inspiration in general or to interpretation?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So, here is a summary as I understand it of the above discussion: I think that 2 Peter 1:20-21 applies mainly to the manner in which Scripture was given, and you think it applies mainly to the manner in which we interpret Scripture. I feel that the Greek supports my view, and also the SDA Commentary. I'm sure you feel the same about your view.

The critical aspect here is that we differ. Mark this post, because we will need to reference it later.

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

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

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

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

7. OK. Here it is. She was hit in the head with a rock. This put her into a coma for three weeks. After which she started having visions.

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

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

OK.

Regarding Ellen White.

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

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

2. I do NOT think that EVERYTHING she said, wrote, or was published is or was "inspired gospel" (for lack of a better term) and authoritative. (Recall my "continuum theory" of inspiration. )

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

I have been shown faults and wrongs of individuals who professed perfect confidence in the visions, but found fault with the instrument. The natural feelings of their heart rise up in rebellion against the visions which had exposed their errors and evil. Instead of humbly acknowledging they had erred, they found fault with the manner in which it was delivered. They took the position that a part of it was correct, and a part of it was a mistake. I had been told circumstances, and thought that the Lord had shown them me in vision. Has God placed his work in such a careless manner that man could fashion it to suit his own inclinations, receive that which was agreeable to him, and reject a portion? Would God give visions to correct his people of their errors, and then trust to the erring one's judgment to receive or reject what portion of them he pleased? What would be the use of visions in the church if held in this light, or if erring individuals in their darkness were left to make what application of them they pleased? This is not the way God works. If God reproves his people through an individual he does not leave the one corrected to guess at matters, and the message become corrupt in reaching the person it is designed to correct. God gives the message and then takes especial care that it is not corrupted. {PH016 22.1}

The visions are either of God or the Devil. There is no half way position to be taken in the matter. God does not work in partnership with Satan. Those who occupy this position cannot
23
stand there long. They go a step further and account the instrument God has used a deceiver, and the woman Jezebel. If after they had taken the first step it should be told them what position they would soon occupy in regard to the visions, they would resent it as a thing impossible. But Satan leads them on blindfolded in regard to the true state of their feelings, until he takes them in his snare. Grievous sins have been rebuked in individuals whom the church was holding in close fellowship, believing them to be devoted, sincere Christians. The persons reproved have risen up against the visions, contradicted their truthfulness, and have received the sympathy of some of the church. But time has proved the visions correct; facts have been brought to confirm and establish them. At times I have had but little courage to write to individuals what I had been shown in regard to them, for so many take the visions which have been written to them with feelings of the deepest anguish and in tears, they lay it aside, some with a feeling of indifference, others say I believe the visions, but sister White has made a mistake in writing it. She has heard reports of these things and has got it mixed up with her visions, and thinks she saw it all. O what a fixing up is this! What foolish positions Satan will lead some to take in their blindness, who are unwilling to humble themselves, and see and confess their faults. The heart is deceitful above all things; and desperately wicked. Satan exults that he can lead individuals to deceive themselves into a belief that they are right, when God frowns upon their wrongs. God seeth not as man seeth, and when he shows what is in
24
erring man's heart, and the message is trampled under foot, and he turns from it, saying, There must be a mistake in the matter, I am about right, they are like the pharisee who repeated his good works, I fast twice a week and give tithes of all I possess. I thank God that I am not as other men. They comfort themselves with their good deeds, and Satan then directs their minds in a channel to please himself. Many times have I felt to say, O my soul, canst thou persevere in such a warfare as this? Then again I could say, The battle is the Lord's, and if I am co-worker with him the victory will be ours. When the Lord sees fit to give a vision, I am taken into the presence of Jesus and angels, and am lost to earthly things. I can see no farther than the angel directs me. My attention is often directed to scenes transpiring upon earth. {PH016 22.2}

At times I am carried far ahead into the future and shown what is to take place. Then again I am shown things as they have occurred in the past. After I come out of vision I do not at once remember all that I have seen, and the matter is not so clear before me until I write, then the scene rises before me as was presented in vision, and I can write with freedom. Sometimes the things which I have seen are hid from me after I come out of vision, and I cannot call to mind the first circumstance; but when brought before a company where that vision applies, the things which I have seen come to my mind with force. I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision. It is impossible to call up things which
25
have been shown me unless the Lord brings the same before me at the time and on the occasion that he is pleased to have me relate it.
E. G. White.

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

That being said...

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

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

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

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

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

And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel. (Numbers 10:29)

(2 Samuel)
7:1 And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the LORD had given him rest round about from all his enemies;
7:2 That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.
7:3 And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that [is] in thine heart; for the LORD [is] with thee.
7:4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying,
7:5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?
7:6 Whereas I have not dwelt in [any] house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
7:7 In all [the places] wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?
7:8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
7:9 And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great [men] that [are] in the earth.
7:10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,
7:11 And as since the time that I commanded judges [to be] over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
7:17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I haven't addressed any of these points with the detail you feel it deserves, feel free to let me know.

I'm not sure how to understand the intent of this statement. Do you mean by it that with a few strokes of the pen you have dispelled all my objections? This is all there is to say about these points?

Don't base your experience upon what people say about her, nor upon what people say she said or did, nor upon the manner in which people use or misuse her writings. I would recommend taking the time to read for yourself some of her writings (not for trying to prove a point to anyone else) and see if they don't elevate you toward Christ.

So we have the following logic:

A) Given: If it is "good" it comes from God. (James 1:17, Deut. 26:11)

Either Mrs. White was fully inspired by God, or she was not inspired at all--per her own words.

While I would agree that all Scripture comes by inspiration of God, I'm not as convinced that everything that comes from God is inspired scripture. I believe God can and does do things which he does not intend to include in His Word.

Ellen White's comments about herself are not really to be taken as proof of what she actually is. Everybody has an opinion of who they are; they can say whatever they like--that doesn't make it so. Con-men play on this fact constantly, to their gain and your loss.

When a young impressionable girl, desperately trying to do God's will, gets hit in the head with a rock and then starts seeing visions about the very things she is fixating about, it's pretty easy for her to believe these visions come from God, when in fact it may be just cross-wireing in the synapses. When these feelings are then re-inforced by the church leadership for their own advantage, it's easy to see where this whole thing can get blown out of reality proportion.

I would accept this argument as having some merit if I did not see the same issue with other prophets in the Bible.

Consider Moses:
Consider Nathan:
Consider Balaam:
Consider Jonah:
Consider Paul:

JAK, writings which are the result of cross-wiring in the synapses are not inspired by God, are they?

So it's all or nothing.

Instead of opening the soul to receive rays of light from heaven, some have been working in an opposite direction. Both through the press and from the pulpit have been presented views in regard to the inspiration of the Bible which have not the sanction of the Spirit or the word of God. Certain it is that no man or set of men should undertake to advance theories upon a subject of so great importance, without a plain "Thus saith the Lord" to sustain them. And when men, compassed with human infirmities, affected in a greater or less degree by surrounding influences, and having hereditary and cultivated tendencies which are far from making them wise or heavenly-minded, undertake to arraign the word of God, and to pass judgment upon what is divine and what is human, they are working without the counsel of God. The Lord will not prosper such a work. The effect will be disastrous, both upon the one engaged in it and upon those who accept it as a work from God. Skepticism has been aroused in many minds by the theories presented as to the nature of inspiration. Finite beings, with their narrow, short-sighted views, feel themselves competent to criticize the Scriptures, saying: "This passage is needful, and that passage is not needful, and is not inspired." {5T 709.1}

Christ gave no such instruction in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, the only part of the Bible which the people of His time possessed. His teachings were designed to direct their minds to the Old Testament and to bring into clearer light the great themes there presented. For ages the people of Israel had been separating themselves from God, and they had lost sight of precious truths which He had committed to them. These truths were covered up with superstitious forms and ceremonies that concealed their true significance. Christ came to remove the rubbish which had obscured their luster. He placed them, as precious gems, in a new setting. He showed that so far from disdaining the repetition of old, familiar truths, He came to make them appear in their true force and beauty, the glory of which had never been discerned by the men of His time. Himself the Author of these revealed truths, He could open to the people their true meaning, freeing them from the misinterpretations and false theories adopted by the leaders to suit their own unconsecrated condition, their destitution of spirituality and the love of God. He cast aside that which had robbed these truths of life and vital power, and gave them back to the world in all their original freshness and force. {5T 709.2}

If we have the Spirit of Christ and are laborers together with Him, it is ours to carry forward the work which He came to do. The truths of the Bible have again become obscured by custom, tradition, and false doctrine. The erroneous teachings of popular theology have made thousands upon thousands of skeptics and infidels. There are errors and inconsistencies which many denounce as the teaching of the Bible that are really false interpretations of Scripture, adopted during the ages of papal darkness. Multitudes have been led to cherish an erroneous conception of God, as the Jews, misled by the errors and traditions of their time, had a false conception of Christ. "Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." It is ours to reveal to the world the true character of God. Instead of criticizing the Bible, let us seek, by precept and example, to present to the world its sacred, life-giving truths, that we may "show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." {5T 710.1}

There are degrees of value, not of inspiration.

Indeed. There can be inspired writings which are not part of the Scriptures (the Bible itself mentions several of them). That's the very basis on which EGW can be accepted as inspired.

How is this different from my Continuum?

Inspired (but of no value)......................to...............Inspired and authoritative.

Yes. And Martin Luther, and Chuck Swindol, and Oswald Chambers, and Brennan Manning, and E.P. Saunders, and Krister Stendahl, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and, and, and. None of which is on the level of Scripture.

We have evidently not sufficiently clarified the meaning of "inspired" or the nature, degree, and application of "inspiration."

Regarding degrees of inspiration, or passages of the Bible which are or are not inspired, Mrs. White wrote the following:...

If you don't wish to accept Mrs. White's counsel,...

...upon what Biblical basis can one support the concept of "degrees of inspiration"?

JAK, why would God inspire something if it is of no value? I'm speaking of less value/more value.

This is a common mistake. Martin Luther wasn't inspired, nor Chuck Swindoll, nor Oswald Chambers, nor any of the others you mentioned. People who are inspired are called prophets, and the people you mentioned aren't prophets.

Fine. Put your cut-off line wherever you want. But it seems you do agree with my Continuum.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Any thinking person will recognize that these are good men, who produced good work.

Therefore, as per the following logic train previously mentioned:

A) If it is Good, it is from God.
B) If it is from God, it is Inspired.
C) All Inspiration is Equal.
Therefore: Anything "Good" is Inspired by God on an Equal Level.,

these men are also on the level of Scripture.

CG : So we have the following logic:

A) Given: If it is "good" it comes from God. (James 1:17, Deut. 26:11)

Jak : OK, I'll accept that, although I'm not sure "good" really means anything, but I'll let that go.

[B.](If it isn't inspired, it isn't from God, right?)

Whose logic is this? The error is in B: "If it is from God, it is inspired."

Any Christian will agree that in the Bible there are things more important than others. However, this is not to say that there are things more inspired than others.

These premisis are from GC; I just put together the train of thought which may not have been apparent.

If the error is in "B", then to correct that error we should say that it CAN be from God but NOT BE inspired.

This is my point. Why are we arguing?

Daryl moved this post into another discussion when at the time he thought this was between Jak and GC. Now that everyone was always invited in, I would like to bring back my post here to address two main point that GC brought which I will prove with scriptures that these are untrue:

A) If it is Good, it is from God.
B) If it is from God, it is Inspired.


May I add a thought here? It is good that Jak seeks the meaning of “good”. I want to quote this text from Young’s translation as it brings the full wordings of the original manuscript.
“YLT Ja 1:17 every good giving, and every perfect gift is from above;”

The text talks about a “good giving”. When children receive treats or toys, they see these as “good giving”or a “perfect gift”. But when they receive discipline, their perspective of these is often seen as “bad” or “evil”. So good and evil is all relevant to the receiver and to their maturity. Discipline coming from the Lord is one of His “good giving” and is a “perfect gift”. However, for an immature child/Christian, it is often seen as “evil” and most attributes these as coming from Satan. The Christian that comes into maturity, will come to see that these “evil” were truly the Lord’s disciplines and sees that without them they wouldn’t of have grown, so these were in really “good” and perfect gifts despite at the time it was hard.

Heb 12: 4” In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says, “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” 7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness.11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”

Someone can be sent by the Almighty to do His bidings and may not be inspired. In another word despite a source may not be speaking truth or "inspired", they may still be sent by the Lord. We see this principle at several places in the Bible but I’ll refer to two.

1. In Deut 13:1-5 defines a “false” prophets and says that even if “a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass” these doesn’t prove that this is a true prophet. Then the Lord states the reason for sending him which is to test our hearts :v.3 “Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer or dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God which all your heart and with all your soul”. Dt 13:3 So the purpose the Lord sends false prophets is to test our hearts so we can come to see if we really follow the Lord or not.

4. I don’t think anyone would say that the King of Babylon was inspired at the time the Lord sent him to bring judgment on Israel. Nebuchadnezzar was referred as the Lord’s servants trice (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). Despite that, the King of Babylon had his own reasons to do what he did, he still did God’s bidding and he fulfilled the law in Lev 26 & Deut 28 upon Judah without having any knowledge of this.

Judah saw Babylon as “evil” and with reasons too; despite Nebuchednezzar was still sent by the Lord to correct them.

13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Therefore, as per the following logic train previously mentioned:

A) If it is Good, it is from God.
B) If it is from God, it is Inspired.
C) All Inspiration is Equal.
Therefore: Anything "Good" is Inspired by God on an Equal Level.,

these men are also on the level of Scripture.

These premisis are from GC;

You have altered the train of logic which I had used to the point of me not being willing to say I support this logic. So please don't attribute this logic to me.

The wording you have provided here seems too imprecise to remain valid as a logical argument.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A) If it is Good, it is from God. Post #151803 A) Given: If it is "good" it comes from God. (James 1:17, Deut. 26:11)

B) If it is from God, it is Inspired. post #151779 (If it isn't inspired, it isn't from God, right?)

C) All Inspiration is Equal.Post #151988 Regarding degrees of inspiration, or passages of the Bible which are or are not inspired, Mrs. White wrote the following:

B) If it is from God, it is Inspired. post #151779 (If it isn't inspired, it isn't from God, right?)
My statement is simply the reverse of your statement: If it isn't from God, it isn't inspired, or, if it IS from God it IS inspired. This is the only statement I have "altered" but only to state it in the reverse.

If the error is in "B", then to correct that error we should say that it CAN be from God but NOT BE inspired.
This is my point. Why are we arguing?

We are arguing because Ellen White claimed to be inspired. She claimed that the messages she wrote were God's messages, not her messages. We are evaluating her own claims. She claimed to have visions. Did God really show things to her or were her visions simply “the result of cross-wiring in the synapses,” as you put it? If the latter is the case, just throw them away; who can trust the words of someone who has a mental disorder? and how can the product of a mental disorder be from God? As I said, it's all or nothing.

Ok. In order to have an answer to your question,

This is my question...to you. Why would you possibly trust your eternal Salvation and understanding of Scripture to someone with a mental disorder?

There is indeed a mistake here. "If it isn't inspired, it isn't from God." Of course he can answer for himself, but in the context of post #151779, I think what GC meant to say was “If it isn’t inspired, it isn’t God’s Word.”

Not sure what erroneous facts you are talking about.

There are quite a few minor discrepancies in the Bible. Most notable is Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial. Did Matthew, Luke, and John record it incorrectly against God's will? Or, did the Holy Spirit permit it. I believe He permitted it, which, in my mind, means He was in control. He could have prevented it, but He didn't. He allowed it. Thus, it is inspired (whatever the Holy Spirit does is inspired). The erroneous facts are not inspired. The fact the Holy Spirit permitted it to be a part of the Bible is what is inspired.

Elle, You'll have to be more careful in your use of the scriptures if you wish to convince me.

Regarding the "false prophets," for example, you did not fully quote the passage that would give clarity to it, and you have claimed that God sent the false prophets. Where did the Bible say this?

If God sent a false prophet, it would be good. But I don't believe God calls this good, nor did He send such, according to the passage you quoted.

Why would God tell a prophet to give a false prophecy, and then tell the people who heard it to kill that prophet? Would that be fair? But that is what you seem to have implied must be the case, and certainly would be the case, if God had truly sent the false prophet.

Regarding discipline from the Lord, I fully believe it to be good. Just because something may strike us as unpleasant or painful does not make it "bad." It was a very painful experience for the entire Universe to witness the excruciating death of our Savior Jesus Christ. Does that mean it was "bad?" Did Christ "sin" by bringing something "bad" to earth in giving us this example of God's Love? Of a certain not.

God loves those whom He disciplines. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend." Jesus is our Friend.

Having being brought up a roman catholic; the spirit of prophecy was very instrumental in my leaving Catholicism and becoming an SDA. To this end, I will always be forever grateful for the vital role it has played in my life and eternal destiny.

Simply put; Ellen White passes the test of a prophet!

Alchemy : Simply put; Ellen White passes the test of a prophet!

Elle : May I ask which test?

kland : May I ask which tests you think she doesn't pass?

May I ask which test you are referring?

1) Her doctrinal teachings are supported by the Bible. Namely, the Ten Commandments are still valid, the mortality of the soul, the sanctuary message, just to name a few.

2) The fruits of her life. (Kingdom of the Cults by Dr. Walter Martin)

3) Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:22.

And any other tests you may think of.

I appreciate the answer. In respond to your 3 points in respective order :

1)I agree that some of Ellen comments is point on scriptures however some other are not. As we have seen in some discussion here that even some writings conflicts with earlier writings. We have also seen here too many times in discussions that both sides of an argument are using EGW to support their position.

There's many reason for these.

One major one that I now understand is that we do not understand what is a prophet. Prophets are people just like us that needs to grow into their calling. Meaning that at time prophets misunderstand the word given to them. For the norm, interpretation is absent from the prophetic word given; so the interpretation of the word is a mystery until the Lord provides the interpretation which often is later to the generation that the prophesy applies to.

Also like any of us, they have their own misconception of who is the Lord. They do not see the Lord face to face yet or as He is yet. Prophetic words needs to be refined or defined by the Lord who will use other members of His body and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Like Abraham(see link), young prophets in training often mis-understood the word given to them.

Interpretation of prophecies are often given and reserve for later generation that it applies to. So for most prophets in training, the first lesson to understand is they may not get the interpretation of the prophetic word and to shut their mouth and not treat their speculative interpretation as truth.

Another major problem I see is to know which writings came from EGW's actual pen from those that are not. As I have expressed in "Should we quote EGW? --The Lord Canonized OT & NT -- shouldn't EGW's writings also? " discussion.... until this canonizing is done, I think no one is in position to quote any of EGW writings as we do not know if it came from her pen at all, or from her large team, or from an extraction from another writer's book.

2)I do agree that Ellen life was a life of dedication. However I don't believe character or "the fruit of her life" is a Biblical test of a prophet. Mat 7 doesn't say that. I was trying to find the post where we had studied this in the past and I haven't still found it. When I'll find it, I'll get back to this point.


3)We have already discussed Deut 13 in "Should we quote EGW?. I think you need to re-read Deut 13. As I have said in that discussion, Deut 13 is about the Lord sending a prophet to test us(see link) if we will just take whatever the prophet says without testing it. Even those that comes to us with “[i]sign and wonder come to pass”(Deut 13:2), all their words still needs to be tested also. Fulfilled sign and wonder are not a test of a true prophet either according to Deut 13:2. Basically my understanding is no one should assume that at anytime that everything a certain person says is the word of God. Even Paul, whose testimony, conversion, work, miracles … were all quite amazing --- despite all his words needed to be tested by whom the Bereans were praised for doing so. In our Church, we should be praising anyone who test any of EGW’s writings or Church interpretations. But that is not the case, persecution is more the norm.

So basically the Lord tells US in Deut 13 to test all things. The “US” is the individuals’ responsibility or as Ellen and James rightly puts it “our Christian’s duty”. Here's an example of it -- where yourself, kland and Prodigalone have failed the Deut 13 test in believing in a "shaking out" theory that was not shown in the past by the Lord.

Am I saying that Ellen failed the Deut 13 test? No not at all. The Lord is not testing the prophet He has sent, but He is testing US if we are going to buy whatever they say without testing them. Verse 3 says “For the Lord your God proveth YOU” (not the prophet He has sent for the purpose to prove YOU).

So basically the Lord tells US in Deut 13 to test all things. The “US” is the individuals’ responsibility or as Ellen and James rightly puts it “our Christian’s duty”. Here's an example of it -- where yourself, kland and Prodigalone have failed the Deut 13 test in believing in a "shaking out" theory that was not shown in the past by the Lord.

Am I saying that Ellen failed the Deut 13 test? No not at all. The Lord is not testing the prophet He has sent, but He is testing US if we are going to buy whatever they say without testing them. Verse 3 says “For the Lord your God proveth YOU” (not the prophet He has sent for the purpose to prove YOU).

1) Her doctrinal teachings are supported by the Bible. Namely, the Ten Commandments are still valid, the mortality of the soul, the sanctuary message, just to name a few.

2) The fruits of her life. (Kingdom of the Cults by Dr. Walter Martin)

3) Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:22.

And any other tests you may think of.

Concerning the matter of which I have written to you before, I will say that there is no reason why you or anyone else should be thrown into perplexity. Sister White is the prophet of the Lord for the remnant church, and though the Lord has seen fit to choose one for this work who is not proficient in grammar and rhetoric, and this lack is supplied by others, yet she is responsible for every thought, for every expression, in her writings. Every manuscript that is edited goes back to her for examination, and this work committed to those who have been called to labor in this branch is not done without prayer and consecration.
“The word of the Lord” comes to her; but if in [the word's] passing through the human channel, the human imperfection in education leaves its impress, why should it be a perplexity if God should lay upon another the trifling duty of putting the subject of a sentence in harmony with its verb, or the number or gender of a thing mentioned in harmony with the fact that determines the number and gender? There are many ways of expressing the same thought. We may say, “Sit down,” “Take a chair”: “The sun shines,” “It is a bright day,” “The atmosphere is illuminated,” and not mar the thought in using different words.
Now as far as changing Sister White's expressions are concerned, I can say that just as far as it is consistent with grammar and rhetoric, her expressions are left intact.—DF 445b, Fannie Bolton to Miss Malcolm, November 11, 1894.

Seven years later, in 1901, she wrote:
The editors in no wise change Sister White's expression if it is grammatically correct, and is an evident expression of the evident thought. Sister White, as human instrumentality, has a pronounced style of her own, which is preserved all through her books and articles, that stamps the matter with her individuality.
Many times her manuscript does not need any editing, often but slight editing, and again, a great deal of literary work; but article or chapter, whatever has been done upon it, is passed back into her hands by the editor, and the Spirit of Prophecy then appropriates the matter, and it becomes, when approved, the chosen expression of the Spirit of God.—DF 445a, “A Confession Concerning the Testimony of Jesus Christ,” written in early 1901 to “Dear Brethren in the Truth.”

This conversation was begun between JAK and myself in another thread, a portion of which I place in the text box below. The question came up as to why or why not should one accept Mrs. White as a prophet. I'm especially interested in JAK's or in anyone else's perspective as to why they might not choose to accept her writings as inspired.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why or why not accept and believe in God as the Creator of all things and maker of man in His image.

Man has to come up with a alternative that the universe just appeared by itself somehow and we come from lower forms of life somehow, think about it...

Belief is not proof.

What SDA theology consistently fails to do is to SHOW CLEARLY that God/Scripture has Ellen White in mind when it speaks of the spirit of prophecy. While I agree with all Scriptural statements regarding the spirit of prophecy, I DO NOT agree that this applies to EGW.

So posters to this thread would do well to concentrate efforts on clearly establishing the authenticity of EGW's calling to the prophetic office. (Something along the lines of "And in the last days I shall raise up a woman, and she shall be called Ellen the White, and she shall lead you into all truth, etc., etc. would be good) All else is speculation and fabrication, and misapplying Scripture.

Think back to Christ's day.

John the Baptist was raised up by God to herald Christ's first coming, we know that from the NT. But if you were standing before the Sanhedrin back then, could you clearly establish his authenticity from the scriptures they then had, Something along the lines of "And then when the Messiah is about to appear, I shall raise up a prophet, and he shall be called John the Baptist?

Or what about Christ Himself?
How is it that most of the Jewish nation could not see a clearly established authenticity from scripture of Christ the Messiah? Those spiritual leaders memorized the scripture, why didn't they see it? Yes, there are prophecies all through the OT, but it's not a clearly spelled out picture, just lots of bits and pieces mixing 1st and 2nd coming in with local prophecies. If you didn't have the new testament verification -- could you, back around 30 A.D. have given a clear presentation to the Sanhedrin?

What it comes down to -- is a person studies, prays for the Holy Spirit to lead, studies some more, and is convicted --

We can show points of our journey, but if the other person's mind is already tuned to "negative" on the subject ...

well it's actually very rare that debaters on these forums change each other's minds.

Think back to Christ's day.

John the Baptist was raised up by God to herald Christ's first coming, we know that from the NT. But if you were standing before the Sanhedrin back then, could you clearly establish his authenticity from the scriptures they then had, Something along the lines of "And then when the Messiah is about to appear, I shall raise up a prophet, and he shall be called John the Baptist?

Or what about Christ Himself?
How is it that most of the Jewish nation could not see a clearly established authenticity from scripture of Christ the Messiah? Those spiritual leaders memorized the scripture, why didn't they see it? Yes, there are prophecies all through the OT, but it's not a clearly spelled out picture, just lots of bits and pieces mixing 1st and 2nd coming in with local prophecies. If you didn't have the new testament verification -- could you, back around 30 A.D. have given a clear presentation to the Sanhedrin?

dedication:We can show points of our journey, but if the other person's mind is already tuned to "negative" on the subject ...
Mountain Man] I prefer it when people post what they believe without slamming others for what they believe.

well it's actually very rare that debaters on these forums change each other's minds.

There is ABSOLUTELY no need for Ellen White.

I am convinced Jesus raised up Ellen White to help us better understand the Bible in the same way He raised up Paul to help us better understand the Bible. I strong suspect I wouldn't be a Christian today if I hadn't read the Conflict of the Ages series (in my opinion the best Bible study ever written). I also realize Ellen White herself stated there would have been no reason for the SOP if God's people had studied the Bible thoroughly with prayer and fasting. I am thankful Jesus saw fit to mercifully overlook their shortcomings and gift Ellen White with the spirit of prophecy.

If Jesus were to raise up another prophet to share even more details and inspired insights regarding the life and times of Jesus I would devour it eagerly.

Well I will agree with that right off.

I agree. That is, emphasis on should absolutely be no need.

Were you aware that many of the prophets in what is now the Old Testament were also rejected by the people of their era?

Wasn't John the Apostle, who eventually wrote the book of Revelation considered a prophet?

It's rather interesting that ONLY SDA need Ellen White. Why? I wonder. Out of all the Christians in this world, about 3 billion people, ONLY SDA need Ellen White. Have you ever thought of that?

Everyone else can come to know God and enter through the gates into Paradise by simply reading the Testimony of his disciples, as John testifies, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:30-31

Consider the experience of the Ethiopian eunuch with the disciple Philip in Acts 8:26-39. See how it ended? He went on his way rejoicing.

As simple as that.

///