Recently read the two following articles which I found interesting.
"The Use of E. G. White's Writings in Interpreting Scripture"
A Plea For a Balanced Understanding of EGW'S Writings
Especially the reader responce in the secound article was interesting. What opinions are represented on this forum conserning this issue?

/Thomas

From what I've seen, Sam Bacchiocchi places his own understanding above that of a prophet of God. He seems to fail to understand that the messages that came through Ellen White are not man-made.

Even though the messages that came through Ellen White are not man-made, they still need to be tested by the Scriptures as the Berean's did to Paul's messages, that were also not man-made.

Paul commended the Bereans for doing this, and I believe EGW also wants us to do this.

We also need to do the same thing to the messages that come through Samuele Bacchiocchi, which it seems, thankfully, is being done.

It's been a while since I read those articles Thomas. What did you think about the points he makes? Doesn't he say something about her having a progressive understanding that changed over time on some issues? What do you think of that point? Many of her critics cite the shut door position after the disappointment. Did she really reverse herself as some claim? Are there better examples of where she changed - pork maybe?

I found it interesting that Ellen White herself asked that if there were any inaccuracies to ler her know prior to one of her books being published. I think thats great! I also liked the paragraphs about the 1919 Bible conference, and the plain admonishing where Sister White says that the Bible is our rule of faith, way too many times people place her writings above Scripture. Its a very common theme, and at the same time I am very careful not to reduce her writings to mere devotional reading, I believe what the woman wrote, and wont hesitate to look further and study it to see if it's true, and if it isn't it isn't no big deal.
What do you think?
God Bless,
Will

I wonder how our picture of God's character finds expression in our view of inspiration. If we view God as arbitrary, then His communications to us will also be viewed as arbitrary, in terms of authority, as commandments to be blindly followed as opposed to counsel to be followed by a wise Father who knows what's best for His children.

This is particularly seen amongst Calvinits, IMO.

I think it is inevitable that Ellen White's views of things changed throughout her life. How could that not be the case? She started her prophetic work at age 17 or so. She dies at something like 87. How could she have lived these 70 years without changing her perspective on things? Surely she learned as she grew older. Of course, we could say the same thing about Paul, or Moses, or the other Bible writers. I suppose Daniel is an especially good example of this principle, as it appears he was unable to write some of his prophecies until later. That is, God waited to give him more visions until he was ready to receive them.

It's a wonderful thing that God is able to communicate with being such as ourselves which are so inferior to Him and have been degraded and defiled by sin, isn't it?

Ellen White wrote quite a bit about inspiration, which has been put in one of the Selected Messages books. It looks like it's at the beginning of 1SM.

Quote:

---

The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes.

The stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike. Some understand the statements of the Scriptures to suit their own particular minds and cases. Prepossessions, prejudices, and passions have a strong influence to darken the understanding and confuse the mind even in reading the words of Holy Writ....

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. (1SM 20, 21)

---

Note she points out that everything human is imperfect. Yet God is able to communicate with us, even through imperfect humanity.

John H, the thread is more concerned with the particular articles written by mr Bacchiocchi than about his character.

Mark, I found several things interesting. The point that in NT times the criteria for bible authors was not prophethood but a documented link to the 12 apostles + Paul. The point that Paul advices to test and keep whats good when talking about the gift of prophecy in the churches he started. And also the testimony from the quoted letters showing the many casualities made by missuse of Ellens books.

Tom, what links are you making between our picture of God and how we view EWs work? Would you clarify that?

Regarding the NT criteria for inspiration, I've heard that the selection of NT books by the early church was, as you say, based on a direct link to the apostles. They must have also tested them based on harmony with OT scripture. But is Dr. B saying the prophetic gift was not also an essential ingredient?

The authority of scripture derives from the same source as the authority structure in the church; that is, spiritual gifts. The first gift, apostleship, is the foundation of authority for both then and now. It always has been that way from the time God first manifested Himself to the ancient church in the days of Moses. The New Jerusalem is build on the 12 foundations of the apostles with the chief cornerstone being Jesus Christ, because the gift of apostleship is the basis for and backbone of the rest of the structure of the Holy City.

The gift of prophecy is secondary to apostleship. The passages in scripture on the gifts underscore the point that the 'lesser' gifts are like the lesser members of the body - the more humble they are, the more we treat them with honour. But the fact remains that the head still is the head, Christ, and has its role in managing the functions of the body, and the eyes are still the eyes, the prophets, and they still have their role. But apostleship is the most fundamental of the gifts and includes the prophetic gift. It would be good to spend some time reviewing the basis for authority in the church and in scripture because many people don’t seem to realize that the divine structure and authority of both derive directly from the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts.

Which brings me back to the SOP. Ellen White was much more than a prophet: I have no doubt she was an apostle.

The Protestant reformers rejected the claim of the papacy to apostolic succession and all agreed that scripture was the true basis for authority in the church. But there is, in fact, an element of truth in Catholicism’s doctrine of apostolic succession; that is, that the primary ground of authority in scripture and church derive from the Holy Spirit in the form of the apostolic gift. So while the reformers were correct that a single word or verse of scripture is worth more that an ocean of ink from an uninspired source, the basis of the authority of scripture itself is rooted in its inspiration which in turn is based on the two foundational gifts of the Holy Spirit, apostleship and prophecy, with apostleship being pre-eminent.

1888 is a more recent example of what can happen when the church is confused on the issue of inspiration and authority and how both derive from the Holy Spirit in the form of spiritual gifts. I suggest that the main dynamic at work in 1888 was that the leading men of the church had unwittingly adopted a worldly view of the structure and ground of authority in the church. They thought that since they were God’s appointed leaders of the church, as church administrators, under Christ, they were the head that directed the body. While it is true many or all of them had the gifts of administration and ministry, those gifts are secondary to apostleship and prophecy. Rather than bracing themselves against the message as the defenders of the faith, they should have taken a more humble approach and said to themselves, ‘Look, we are not apostles or prophets, but there is one person here who we know has at least one of those gifts. She endorses what they say. Perhaps the prophetic spirit in her has been given in some measure to Jones and Waggoner. This is what she seems to say. Let’s come to this with open minds and be willing to be taught and let’s test their doctrine carefully and prayerfully against scripture.’ In other words, if they had studied and understood the authority of spiritual gifts in the church, they would have had a more humble view of their own endowments and it would have prevented those in leading positions from attributing undue authority to their positions in leadership.