EGW and inspiration

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Compare Gal 3:10-12 against EGW's statement in Advent Review and Sabbath Herald' date=' 05-07-01, "The Great Standard of Righteousness", paragraph 9!

Rob [/quote']

Let me guess - you're not interested in replying?

Rob

I need to see the entire article or at least the entire context. I don't have access to it, and your references are not given so I can look them up. I don't have:

-BC- 1888

-TI- The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials

-CN- 201

-CT- The Law in Galatians

-PR- 01

-PG- 1725

I have the 1888 Materials but in books. Do you have volume and page number?

Are you able to post the paragraph you want me to read, including the two paragraphs before it and two paragraphs after it?

By the way, there are times when I and other people have to leave the computer, so give people a while to reply. They also may not see all your posts.

[guibox]

Rather than trying to explain people to themselves, why not tell what you believe are the very worst and most serious ways in which Ellen White contradicted the Bible?

Otherwise, it's all theory.

I have actually and it went unnoticed.

Here are my disagreements with White

1) I believe she was wrong in her interpretation of prophetic time periods and in understanding Daniel. Prophecy is so volatile, metaphorical and allegorical. How can we expect her to have a hold on it completely when she wasn't even a theologian?

2) I believe that EGW was wrong on certain aspects of medicine and health

3) I believe that Sister White was wrong in promoting sinless perfection (though by the end of her life she began to move away from it)

Now, having said that...there is no need to brand her a false prophet, sick or crazy. Here is why:

1) EGW grew theologically. She was human.

2) She got much of her theology from other sources such as Uriah Smith who has been proven to be wrong.

3) EGW did not have a crystal ball or a guaranteed look into the future of medicine or theological discovery. She was a product of her times with what was given. Sure she had some special insight but she worked with what she had too. Further advances in medicine and health have proven 19th century understanding primitive and in many cases wrong.

4) EGW was not to be an exegete of scripture, cementing dogma for all ages. She was not an authority on history or medicine. Her role was homiletic, not canonical.

The SDA church was founded and encouraged on change and growth. It makes no sense to think that this growth and change stopped at her death. God could have given them ALL the truth right from the beginning. He didn't. Some things (like the shut door theory) that was considered 'light' and 'present truth' was thrown out and contradicted later.

Such is the nature of growth, change and progress. Why should we think we've stopped growing in our understanding and interpretation of scripture??

[John317]

Originally Posted By: aldona

Then listen and see which source they take as the "default" truth, and start looking for quotes in the other source to back it up.

Thank you for speaking out. I have experienced this many, many times. The fact is most Traditional, SDA view EGW as the final word. That's making her infallible and therefore the Pope of Adventism. This is the making of a cult.....

Rob

For Seventh-day Adventists-- including the "traditional ones"-- Ellen White is not the final word. The Protestant Bible is the final word.

Nor is she infallible.

I can understand why you think otherwise, though. Anyone who favors throwing all Ellen White's books on a fire to roast hot-dogs is liable to believe that those who read her are making her into a Pope.

When was the last time you read Patriarch and Prophets or Desire of Ages or Steps To Christ? I can't imagine any Christian reading those books and not enjoying them.

It seems to me that you've let your bitterness and anger make you so that you are unable to enjoy a great Christian writer. I would never allow anyone to have that much power or influence over me.

Do you spend Sabbaths with Seventh-day Adventist friends? Do you have any SDA friends?

[Robert]

Here's some of the reasons some pastors don't teach it:

1) The pastor has personal doubts about the doctrine.

2) The pastor is afraid that if challenged he may not know how to answer.

3) It's a controversial subject and may make problems in the local church.

4) It's unpopular because it calls for people to make unwelcome changes.

5) They don't know how to make it interesting and practical.

6) The head pastor has told them not to talk about it.

Jack:

Now we will turn our attention to the investigative judgment. This is another major gospel issued in Adventism. In 1980, I was asked to defend the doctrines of our church before the student and faculty body of the largest theological seminary in East Africa, Scot Theological Seminary. The first question they bombarded me with was: “Please defend the SDA investigative judgment doctrine in the light of justification by faith.” This same question is been raised today by many of our own scholars and pastors.

According to our traditional teaching, we have given the impression that the purpose of the investigative judgment is to find out who among the saints are good enough to go to heaven.

[Robert]

Is Ellen White contradicting clear Bible truth ...?

Clear? John, that question is loaded. What is clear now might not have been clear then. Hence her statement:

We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

That is why we must go to the Bible and not the limited truth of yesterday!

[Robert]

Does what she says actually contradict Paul or the rest of the Bible? Or does it contradict Jack Sequeira or John Calvin or Martin Luther or some other Christian leader? And aren't they themselves fallible? Could they be wrong?

Could she be wrong??? Yes, well? Or is she infallible in matters of faith? Yes?

John, it is blatantly evident you believe her to be God's mouthpiece and therefore to you she has to be the infallible source of truth and the interpreter of Scripture.

Rob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Rather than trying to explain people to themselves, why not tell what you believe are the very worst and most serious ways in which Ellen White contradicted the Bible?

Otherwise, it's all theory.

I have actually and it went unnoticed.

Even I can't see all the posts! I try.

Here are my disagreements with White

1) I believe she was wrong in her interpretation of prophetic time periods and in understanding Daniel. Prophecy is so volatile, metaphorical and allegorical. How can we expect her to have a hold on it completely when she wasn't even a theologian?

Now you are getting into an area that is murky because it is your opinion against interpretation.

Could you give two specific examples? I assume you may be talking about Daniel 8: 14.

Quote:

2) I believe that EGW was wrong on certain aspects of medicine and health

She could be wrong on some of the explanations of why something was bad for us.

Again, could you give two of the most significant errors you believe she made in medicine or health?

You have references to book and page number?

Quote:

3) I believe that Sister White was wrong in promoting sinless perfection (though by the end of her life she began to move away from it)

Do you believe the chapters in GC-- What Is the Sanctuary?, In the Holy of Holies, and Facing Your Life's Record?

What is your evidence that she was moving away from her previous beliefs on that? What statements do you use to show that?

There are many misunderstandings of what Ellen White taught on this subject. She never taught absolute sinlessness, as some believe. What she taught was that the primary view of the Bible is that sin is a choice, not nature. No one is forced to commit sin.

Now, having said that...there is no need to brand her a false prophet, sick or crazy. Here is why:

1) EGW grew theologically. She was human.

2) She got much of her theology from other sources such as Uriah Smith who has been proven to be wrong.

Can you give me an example of where she taught wrong because of Uriah Smith's influence?

Ellen White taught contrary to Smith on a number of important subjects.

Quote:

3) EGW did not have a crystal ball or a guaranteed look into the future of medicine or theological discovery. She was a product of her times with what was given. Sure she had some special insight but she worked with what she had too. Further advances in medicine and health have proven 19th century understanding primitive and in many cases wrong.

I agree with this, but I believe the evidence is that God guiding her in the selection of material she used. (I've read Ron Number's book and others on the subject.)

Quote:

4) EGW was not to be an exegete of scripture, cementing dogma for all ages. She was not an authority on history or medicine. Her role was homiletic, not canonical.

True, she was not an exegete, and that wasn't her purpose. Neither were any of the New Testament writers. Modern exegetes would be disgusted with Saint's Paul's way of doing exegesis and theology. He quoted the OT out of context, as did all of the Gospel writers.

She acknowledged that she was not an historian. God gave her visions, and she read books and used those that expressed some of the things she saw in vision.

Quote:

The SDA church was founded and encouraged on change and growth. It makes no sense to think that this growth and change stopped at her death. God could have given them ALL the truth right from the beginning. He didn't.

There's going to be growth and change. That is necessary. But there won't be wholesale change on the basics-- such as the non-immortality of the soul, the Sabbath, the heavenly sanctuary, the Three Angels' Messages, etc. We should have greater insight into the meaning and significance of these beliefs but they won't be flung aside.

Quote:

Some things (like the shut door theory) that was considered 'light' and 'present truth' was thrown out and contradicted later.

That teaching was reject even before the founding of the SDA church, and Ellen White never claimed that it was verified by the visions that God showed her. On the contrary, she gave up that false teaching as a result of her visions. They showed her that there was still a world to be saved and souls to be won.

Quote:

Such is the nature of growth, change and progress. Why should we think we've stopped growing in our understanding and interpretation of scripture??

We shouldn't. But neither should we reject the fundaments that God established in the church.

Tell me what doctrines you believe should see little or no change (not referring to additional light!)-- and what doctrines we have today that you believe are wrong and that we need to jettison, and with what should they be replaced, if you know?

[John317]

[Quoting Jack]According to our traditional teaching, we have given the impression that the purpose of the investigative judgment is to find out who among the saints are good enough to go to heaven.

Yes, I have read that before in my copies of Jack's writings.

The purpose of the IJ is far deeper and broader than what he says here. It does reveal who is worthy of being in the first resurrection but that is not all that it's for.

Its foremost purpose is to secure the entire universe against rebellion and sin because of what is learned about God's character vs. what is demonstrated about Satan's.

See GC 486-489.

[Robert]

I need to see the entire article or at least the entire context.

-PC- RH

-PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

-DT- 05-07-01

-AT- The Great Standard of righteousness

-PR- 01

Christ gave His life to redeem humanity, and He calls upon men and women to make every sacrifice in their power to glorify God by placing light in contrast with darkness. Christ gave His life as a sacrifice, not to destroy God’s law, not to create a lower standard, but to maintain justice, and to give man a second probation. No one can keep God’s commandments except in Christ’s power. He bore in His body the sins of all mankind, and He imputes His righteousness to every believing child.

Christ is our example in all things. He has magnified the law and made it honorable. By His unwavering obedience He testified to the truth that God’s law is the standard of righteousness for all men. God requires of man nothing that is impossible for him to do. He “so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Possessing our nature, though unstained by sin, and tempted in all points like as we are, Christ kept the law, proving beyond controversy that man also can keep it.

The fiat has gone forth, "The wages of sin is death." The sinner must feel his guiltiness, else he will never repent. He has broken the law, and in so doing has placed himself under its condemnation. The law has no power to pardon the transgressor, but it points him to Christ Jesus, who says to him, I will take your sin and bear it myself, if you will accept me as your substitute and surety. Return to your allegiance, and I will impute to you my righteousness. You will be made complete in me.

Sin is the transgression of the law. God declares, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Notwithstanding all the profession of lip and voice, if the character is not in harmony with the law of God, those making profession of godliness bear evil fruit.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven,"--the will made known in the Ten Commandments, given in Eden when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy, and spoken with an audible voice from Sinai. "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Many mighty works are done under the inspiration of Satan, and these works will be more and more apparent in the last days.

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." The mischief done by the professed believers in God who are not doers of the Word, can not be estimated. Their lawless, unholy principles corrupt many, leading them away from the path of obedience.

A life of conformity to the Christ-life can not be a life of disobedience to God's commands. The lawyer who questioned Christ concerning the law, in answering his own question, said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." "Thou hast answered right," Christ said; "this do, and thou shalt live." Sin can not reign in the life of the one who loves God supremely. Obedience to God is the fruit borne by love. Christ is not at war with Christ, and love to our neighbor prevents us from working ill to him. "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." The law of God lays its claim upon the whole man. There is no period of time when the law does not make this demand upon every son and daughter of Adam.

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. "God is not a man, that He should lie." God's law is the rule of His government. He says, "This do, and thou shalt live." But to the disobedient He says, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty.

There are only two classes in the world to-day, and only two classes will be recognized in the Judgment,--those who violate God's law, and those who keep His law. Two great opposing powers are revealed in the last great battle. On one side stands the Creator of heaven and earth. All on His side bear His signet. They are obedient to His commands. On the other side stands the Prince of darkness, with those who have chosen apostasy and rebellion.

When the judgment shall sit, and every one shall be judged by the things written in the books, the authority of God's law will be looked upon in a light altogether different from that in which it is now regarded by the Christian world. Satan has blinded their eyes and confused their understanding, as he blinded and confused Adam and Eve, and led them into transgression. The law of Jehovah is great, even as its Author is great. In the Judgment it will be recognized as holy, just, and good in all its requirements. Those who transgress this law will find that they have a serious account to settle with God; for His claims are decisive.

Christ has borne our sins in His own body, and those who accept Him as a personal Saviour are free from the penalty of the law. Jesus has been made the propitiation for our sin, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. "Hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected. Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked."

To the obedient child of God the commandments are a delight. David declares, "Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end. I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love. Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word. Depart from me, ye evil-doers: for I will keep the commandments of my God. . . . I am thy servant; give me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies."

Did the contempt shown to the law of God extinguish David's loyalty? Hear his words. He calls upon God to interfere and vindicate His honor, to show that there is a God, that there are limits to His forbearance. "It is time for thee, Lord, to work," he says, "for they have made void thy law."

David saw the divine precepts thrown aside, and obstinacy and rebellion increasing. But he was not swept away by the prevalence of apostasy. The scorn and contempt cast upon the law did not lead him to refrain from vindicating the law. On the contrary, his reverence for the law of Jehovah increased as he saw the disregard and contempt shown for it by others. "They have made void thy law," he exclaims. "Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way."

As man studies and contemplates the precious statutes of the Most High, as he meditates upon them, and realizes their value, he exclaims: "Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. . . . Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

[Quoting Jack]According to our traditional teaching, we have given the impression that the purpose of the investigative judgment is to find out who among the saints are good enough to go to heaven.

Yes, I have read that before in my copies of Jack's writings.

The purpose of the IJ is far deeper and broader than what he says here. It does reveal who is worthy of being in the first resurrection but that is not all that it's for.

See GC 486-489.

The IJ, as taught by Traditional SDA, rejects the fundamentals of the JBF. It is a subtle form of legalism.

Rob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Does what she says actually contradict Paul or the rest of the Bible? Or does it contradict Jack Sequeira or John Calvin or Martin Luther or some other Christian leader? And aren't they themselves fallible? Could they be wrong?

Could she be wrong??? Yes, well? Or is she infallible in matters of faith? Yes?

John, it is blatantly evident you believe her to be God's mouthpiece and therefore to you she has to be the infallible source of truth and the interpreter of Scripture.

What is a prophet?

A prophet is someone God uses to speak for Him. He gives them His messages and they deliver them to His people. Do prophets deliver their own messages, like a preacher, or do they deliver a message that God gave them?

Yes, I do believe she was a true prophet of God. Jack does too.

If you were to ask Jack if Ellen White was a prophet, I am sure he would answer in the affirmative.

Then if you asked him what is a prophet, he would doubtless answer that a prophet is a person God raises up to deliver His messages. A true prophet speaks for God. They don't deliver their own messages or speak out of their own heart, but they carry a message which God gave them.

Ellen White did that, didn't she?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Could she be wrong??? Yes' date=' well? Or is she infallible in matters of faith? Yes?

John, it is blatantly evident you believe her to be God's mouthpiece and therefore to you she has to be the infallible source of truth and the interpreter of Scripture.

[/quote']

A true prophet speaks for God. They don't deliver their own messages or speak out of their own heart, but they carry a message which God gave them.

Ellen White did that, didn't she?

In other words, "yes", she is infallible! I reject this damnable heresy!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, I have read that before in my copies of Jack's writings.

The purpose of the IJ is far deeper and broader than what he says here. It does reveal who is worthy of being in the first resurrection but that is not all that it's for.

See GC 486-489. [/quote']

The IJ, as taught by Traditional SDA, rejects the fundamentals of the JBF. It is a subtle form of legalism.

Since this is about Ellen White's teachings, what things in GC, for example, do you see as needing to be rejected because of being legalism?

[Robert]

Since this is about Ellen White's teachings, what things in GC, for example, do you see as needing to be rejected because of being legalism?

No, I won't get sidetracked! I showed you an error in EGW's writings. I gave you the whole context. Answer that....

Rob

[Robert]

God's law is the rule of His government. He says, "This do, and thou shalt live." But to the disobedient He says, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."

Again, those two phrases belong to the Old Covenant, which is, "obey and live, disobey and die".

So here EGW contradicts Paul in Gal 3:10-12. And she contradicts herself because 6 years later she states that those "terms" belong to the OC:

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but [color:#000099]“cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

A true prophet speaks for God. They don't deliver their own messages or speak out of their own heart, but they carry a message which God gave them.

Ellen White did that, didn't she?

In other words, "yes", she is infallible! I reject this damnable heresy!

I didn't say she was infallible. Those are your words.

Was Ellen White a prophet? And isn't it true that prophets carry a message which God gives them?

(The question about the fallibility of the message is a different subject and comes into the discussion after agreeing on the nature of a prophet's work, or on whether Ellen White was indeed a true prophet or not.)

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

In other words, "yes", she is infallible! I reject this damnable heresy![/quote']

I didn't say she was infallible. Those are your words.

No, according to you, Ellen White will not contradict the Bible! Therefore, EGW is infallible. It's simple math.

[Robert]

So here EGW contradicts Paul in Gal 3:10-12. And she contradicts herself because 6 years later she states that those "terms" belong to the OC

The Dates:

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 05-07-1901

AT- The Great Standard of Righteousness

PR- 09

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 10-17-1907

AT- The Two Covenants

PR- 08

[Robert]

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 05-07-1901

AT- The Great Standard of Righteousness

PR- 09

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty.

PC- RH

PT- Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

DT- 10-17-1907

AT- The Two Covenants

PR- 08

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26.

This is why EGW can't be the measuring stick. This is why I branched off into legalism! If, instead, I would I have used my Bible (especially Paul) I might of spared some folks a big headache, including myself.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I didn't say she was infallible. Those are your words.

No, according to you, Ellen White will not contradict the Bible! Therefore, EGW is infallible. It's simple math.

Where and when did I ever say "Ellen White will not contradict the Bible?"

Can copy and paste and tell me the post # you get it from?

I approach Ellen White's writing inductively, not deductively.

[Robert]

Where and when did I ever say "Ellen White will not contradict the Bible?"

Okay...where does she contradict the Bible? Yes John????

[John317]

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26.

This is why EGW can't be the measuring stick. This is why I branched off into legalism! If, instead, I would I have used my Bible (especially Paul) I might of spared some folks a big headache, including myself.

We're talking here about an interpretation that is open to some legitimate question as to whether you have a correct understanding of what she is saying in that article. We've discussed these statements before, and I simply think you are mistaken in your understanding of what Ellen White is saying.

Let me study what you've posted and I'll rethink the entire question and get back with you.

In the meantime do you have any other, more obvious contradiction or error in the writings of Ellen White?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26.

This is why EGW can't be the measuring stick. This is why I branched off into legalism! If, instead, I would I have used my Bible (especially Paul) I might of spared some folks a big headache, including myself.

We're talking here about an interpretation that is open to some legitimate question as to whether you have a correct understanding of what she is saying in that article. We've discussed these statements before, and I simply think you are mistaken in your understanding of what Ellen White is saying.

Let me study what you've posted and I'll rethink the entire question and get back with you.

In the meantime do you have any other, more obvious contradiction or error in the writings of Ellen White?

John, this is a big one. She "spiritualizes" quotes from the Bible and in so doing confuses the reader. She means well, I think, but nevertheless she comes across as one who uses Bible verses, lifted out of context, to get her message across.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Where and when did I ever say "Ellen White will not contradict the Bible?"

Okay...where does she contradict the Bible? Yes John????

Moderator's hat on.

You are putting words in people's mouths. If you continue to do it, it will be deleted.

Just because someone does not supply you with "contradictions" does not give you the right to say someone said "Ellen White will not contradict the Bible."

That is putting words in people's mouths.

[Robert]

We're talking here about an interpretation that is open to some legitimate question as to whether you have a correct understanding of what she is saying in that article.

It's apparent! Besides, I have no problem with understanding Paul in Gal 3:10-12. He clearly links those terms, "obey and live, disobey and die" with being under law or being under the OC.

Ellen White, in trying to get her message across, misuses those quotes and therefore contradicts Paul. Does this mean her writings, as a whole, must be discounted? No...it simply means the Bible must be the final authority.

Rob