EGW and inspiration

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

But you [John317] are setting up a hierarchy based on this: a prophet is higher than a pastor or teacher...

Precisely my point! And thus the inconsistency regarding the role and function of women in the church...

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: John317

That's not my belief, Tom. You're putting words in my mouth, which is against the rules of the board.

I don't view being called to pastor as a "lower calling" than the calling to be a prophet...

I am invoking the rule of common sense here and would suggest that your response falls short in that department. I hardly see how I am putting words in your mouth by what I said.

If you are refering to "lower calling" it is rather obvious to others (see above) and I would suggest a tad disingenous to try to dispute the obvious implications of what you have said. I have only summarized the obvious implications of your own statements.

But if you are disputing my short summary of the thousands of words you have posted disputing the Biblical qualification of women to be pastors and presenting no argument nor agreeing with any Biblical evidence in support of women in pastoral ministry, then you, sir, are sadly mistaken.

A sampling:

Originally Posted By: John317

It's clear to me that the NT church did not have women pastors or elders. On the basis of the overwhelming, consistent pattern of male leadership throughout both the OT and NT periods, it's difficult for me to see how our church can defend the view that women should be leaders of local congregations.

Originally Posted By: John317

When we use the idea of social progress as the support of women being elders and pastors, it must be understood that we are going outside the Bible for our support. Support for it must be found within the Bible, as it must be for all of the practices and teachings of our church. It must be shown, at the very least, that it does not contradict the teachings of the NT.[/quote']

Tom

Well said Tom. The truth of the matter needs to be pressed.

[Woody]

Quote:

The problem comes when some Adventists attempt at making her writings an absolute. And I think this is where many honest Christians will express their big "no-no".

As far as the women-pastors go, I think it's important to interpret the Bible in accordance with cultural beliefs and standards of the people it was originally written to. Otherwise, why shouldn't we tell our women to keep quiet in the church and be saved through child rearing?

You make some very good points here .... Thanks.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

...I believe what Robert is saying is that our church relies upon the writings of EGW too much and not enough on the bible...

Do you mean the church or some individuals in the church?

I believe the church as a whole does not practice enough what God showed Ellen White in vision about His will. (This includes God's will that His people should spend time in personal Bible study and prayer every day.)

4 areas where we as a people are falling short---

1) The way our health institutions are run is largely contrary to Ellen White's counsels.

2) Ellen White wrote that all of our people need to have a good understanding for themselves of the Investigative Judgment and the work of our heavenly High Priest, but most SDAs do not understand it, and most of the congregations seldom teach it.

3) The Health Message is little practiced and seldom emphasized or taught in the church as a whole.

4) Too many not seeing the necessity of preparing for Christ to return by purifying the soul temple through obedience to the whole truth, and separating sin from us.

Making large sweeping statments .... usually gets one in trouble. I would have to disagree with this one.

[Woody]

Who are the so called "traditional SDAs" you are talking about? I for one am a 5th generation SDA and what I beleive comes from the Bible including the belief that there will be modern day prophets.

A few on this forum feel that they know exactly what all or most SDAs beleive but go on to explain that they are either not an SDA or are an " ex SDA." Interesting!!!!

I certainly feel that all should be welcome here to explain their own beliefs, but it is after all the unOFFICIAL ADVENTIST Forum. Is it not more than rude to constantly try to make those who do beleive look like they are somehow either unintelligent or being duped.??

Why do some few feel it necessary to come here and constantly try to prove that EGW is either not a prophet at all or not relevant today? It seems that some are stuck on the same subject that have been discussed over and over again. Has anyone changed their opinion because of these discussions? Or---is it getting more disgusting than discussion?????

This is the good thing about a forum ...

If you don't like what is being discussed ... you don't have to read or participate. But, please don't knock down what they are discussing. Some may want to discuss it. You may not. Please don't criticize what others are doing.

[Gerr]

Quote:

We need both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.

This is simply not true.

Well, I suppose that means God gave something unnecessary. Interesting!

Was Paul wrong when he said: "When He ascended on high....He gave gifts to men....And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." Eph 4:8-14 ESV

Quote:

Ellen White stated that if we studied our Bibles as we should ... that we would not need her writings. Her purpose is to point us to scripture. So, if we just kept to the Bible as we should ... we would not need her and could throw away all her books as Robert suggested.

And I wonder how many are doing just that and believing/obeying just what Scripture says?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: fccool

When Paul sated that "All scripture is inspired and is useful..." what did he mean by the "all scripture"? The Bible was not put together then, and I doubt he was referring to his own letter.

...Of course we know that even in those early times, Paul's writings were considered "scripture," or among the holy writings, because Peter referred to them as "Scriptures" (2 Peter 3: 15, 16).

Paul would have meant all the books in the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Septuagint translation. But as 2 Peter shows, already the early church was beginning to refer to at least some of Paul's letters as Holy Writings.

I believe you are reading too much into what Peter wrote. You have added a modifying word not present in Peter's letter. (You, sir, are putting words in his mouth... ) The word "holy" is not there, nor any equivalent.

The Greek word, graphe, used here and and in the "All scripture is given..." passage is a common word that simply means "a thing written" or "writings". If it is preceded by "holy", modified as "scriptures of the prophets" or the context makes it clear that it is the Torah, books of Moses, or other clear writings of the prophets those might be construed as the Hebrew "Bible" or sacred writings.

But there were other writings in circulation not of that type, like letters from other apostles and teachers, and writings of a common variety all of which would have still been identified by the the same Greek word that we translate as "scripture". For example, Plato's Socratic Dialogs would have been included in and referred to as the writings(graphe) of Plato or Homer's Odyssey would have been referred to as among the writings (graphe) of Homer. But I think we would hesitate to say that they are Scripture, much less Holy Scripture.

Tom

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

...I believe what Robert is saying is that our church relies upon the writings of EGW too much and not enough on the bible...

Do you mean the church or some individuals in the church?

I believe the church as a whole does not practice enough what God showed Ellen White in vision about His will. (This includes God's will that His people should spend time in personal Bible study and prayer every day.)

4 areas where we as a people are falling short---

1) The way our health institutions are run is largely contrary to Ellen White's counsels.

2) Ellen White wrote that all of our people need to have a good understanding for themselves of the Investigative Judgment and the work of our heavenly High Priest, but most SDAs do not understand it, and most of the congregations seldom teach it.

3) The Health Message is little practiced and seldom emphasized or taught in the church as a whole.

4) Too many not seeing the necessity of preparing for Christ to return by purifying the soul temple through obedience to the whole truth, and separating sin from us.

Well then, if I could, I would insist that Jesus come right now....

Too many of our people are brow beaten with "shoulda"s and "oughta"s and bemoan the fact that it's not MY problem, but rather it's OTHERS who are impeading the rest of us from obtaining heaven....It's NOT MY FAULT as I've been an obeidient servant of the Lord since my conversion.....

I have just one thing to say about all the above, including your stuff, John...All the theology of Adventism will not benefit you one iota, if you do not live it. And the problem is that those who do think they live it, has such spiritual pride, that it turns the rest of us sinners off....

To think that people are not able to obtain heaven because of thier knowledge is not on the same level as thier behavior smacks of oppression of a totally different sort that most conservative Adventists will, when no one is looking, skirt around anyways...

It's not about WHAT you know, it's about WHO you know.......and that is all you need to know...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

...Of course we know that even in those early times, Paul's writings were considered "scripture," or among the holy writings, because Peter referred to them as "Scriptures" (2 Peter 3: 15, 16).

Paul would have meant all the books in the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Septuagint translation. But as 2 Peter shows, already the early church was beginning to refer to at least some of Paul's letters as Holy Writings. [/quote']

I believe you are reading too much into what Peter wrote. You have added a modifying word not present in Peter's letter. (You, sir, are putting words in his mouth... ) The word "holy" is not there, nor any equivalent.

The Greek word, graphe, used here and and in the "All scripture is given..." passage is a common word that simply means "a thing written" or "writings".

A Greek-English Dictionary, p. 811, "graphe 50x a writing; in N.T. the Holy Scriptures..." (The Reverse Interlinear For New Testament Word Studies, William D. Mounce, Zondervan, 2006).

It is acceptable and proper to translate graphe as "sacred writing," or "Scripture." Sacred=holy. See A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, Barclay M. Newman, United Bible Societies, p. 38 (under graphe).

See also Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 121, under graphe-- "h graphe, the Scripture kat' echoxhv, the holy scripture."

"graphe... in the NT exclusively w. a sacred mng., of Holy Scripture." A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, p. 165.

The above Lexicon says that the meaning of graphe in 2 Peter 3: 16 is "scripture as a whole." Obviously this is not a reference to common writings but to sacred writings. Therefore it is proper and right to call them "holy writings."

In the NT, this expression-- tas graphas, the Scriptures-- is only used of the sacred writings that make up the Old or New Testaments.

"other scriptures-- Paul's Epistles were, therefore, by this time, recognized in the Church, as 'Scripture': a term never applied in any of the fifty places where it occurs, save to the Old and New Testament sacred writings." (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary, under 2 Peter 3: 16.)

See use of graphe at 1 Cor. 15: 3; 2 Peter 1: 20, James 2: 8, etc., with obvious reference to sacred, or holy, Scripture. It is so referred to in the standard Greek-English lexicons, and in many translations. See below.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (Worldwide English (New Testament))

15Think of this. He is waiting a long time so that people will be saved. Our dear brother Paul also wrote these things to you, because God has made him wise.

16He also tells about them in all his letters. Some things in his letters are hard to understand. Some people do not know about these things and they are not strong in their faith. They change the meaning of the things Paul wrote. They do this to other things in the holy writings also. Because they do this, they will die.

"... They do this to the other parts of the Holy Writings also" (The New Life Version).

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Quote:

We need both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.

This is simply not true.

Well, I suppose that means God gave something unnecessary. Interesting!

Was Paul wrong when he said: "When He ascended on high....He gave gifts to men....And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." Eph 4:8-14 ESV

[fccool]

The is a generic term in a Koine Greek that could be used for any kind of writing. Although, to be fair... you are correct when you are saying that in most cases it is used in a context of scripture.

Do you consider E.G. White's writings to be "graphe"?

[John317]

The is a generic term in a Koine Greek that could be used for any kind of writing. Although, to be fair... you are correct when you are saying that in most cases it is used in a context of scripture.

In the NT, the word graphe is used 50 times. It ALWAYS refers to the sacred writings of either the Old or New Testaments. It never means common writings, or writings outside the Bible. Do you agree? Let me know if you can find an occurrence of this word in the NT where it means something besides sacred writings.

Quote:

"other scriptures-- Paul's Epistles were, therefore, by this time, recognized in the Church, as 'Scripture': a term never applied in any of the fifty places where it occurs, save to the Old and New Testament sacred writings." (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary, under 2 Peter 3: 16.)

Quote:

Do you consider E.G. White's writings to be "graphe"?

No, I don't. I believe all the Fundamental Doctrines of our church, just as they are expressed in our major publications. For instance, if you study the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe... 28, you'll have a very good idea of what my beliefs are. I assume we pretty much agree on those teachings.

So, do Seventh-day Adventists believe Ellen White's writings are among the "holy writings"?

We believe they are inspired. Inspired writings are not necessarily "holy writings." The holy writings are limited to the Bible, (and specifically, the Protestant Bible as distinguished from the Catholic Bible). The graphe are the canon. Ellen White's writings are not canon. They are non-canonical, inspired writings.

[Neil D]

So, do Seventh-day Adventists believe Ellen White's writings are among the "holy writings"?

We believe they are inspired. Inspired writings are not necessarily "holy writings." The holy writings are limited to the Bible, (and specifically, the Protestant Bible as distinguished from the Catholic Bible). The graphe are the canon. Ellen White's writings are not canon. They are non-canonical, inspired writings.

What separates them from being "canonical, inspired writings"? IOWs, what characteristics do canonical inspired writings have that EGW writings have?

I suspect that when one looks at her writings in this light, they inadvertantly become "canonical inspired writings" on a personal level....To this end, we then treat her writings as such....and that is just wrong.

[John317]

God did give something unnecessary. He gave us a Prophet who wrote a lot of stuff....all of it good information.....

Here's some of the "stuff" which the prophet whom God gave us wrote:

Quote:

I saw the state of some who stood on present truth, but disregarded the visions--the way God had chosen to teach in some cases, those who erred from Bible truth. I saw that in striking against the visions they did not strike against the worm--the feeble instrument that God spake through--but against the Holy Ghost. I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God. I saw if they were in error and God chose to show them their errors through visions, and they disregarded the teachings of God through visions, they would be left to take their own way, and run in the way of error, and think they were right, until they would find it out too late. Then in the time of trouble I heard them cry to God in agony, "Why didst Thou not show us our wrong, that we might have got right and been ready for this time?" Then an angel pointed to them and said, "My Father taught, but you would not be taught. He spoke through visions, but you disregarded His voice, and He gave you up to your own ways, to be filled with your own doings."--Broadside, To Those Who Are Receiving the Seal of the Living God, Jan. 31, 1849. Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 40, paragraph 1;Chapter Title: Attitudes Toward the Testimonies; An Early Statement

When you find men questioning the testimonies, finding fault with them, and seeking to draw away the people from their influence, be assured that God is not at work through them. It is another spirit. Doubt and unbelief are cherished by those who do not walk circumspectly. They have a painful consciousness that their life will not abide the test of the Spirit of God, whether speaking through His Word or through the testimonies of His Spirit that would bring them to His Word. Instead of beginning with their own hearts, and coming into harmony with the pure principles of the gospel, they find fault, and condemn the very means that God has chosen to fit up a people to stand in the day of the Lord.

Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 45, paragraph 1;Chapter Title: Attitudes Toward the Testimonies; Doubting the Testimonies [EXTRACT FROM A

SERMON AT THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1883, APPEARING

IN NOTEBOOK LEAFLETS, THE CHURCH, NO. 6.]

[Neil D]

It's things like this that bother me.....

Quote:

I saw the state of some who stood on present truth, but disregarded the visions--the way God had chosen to teach in some cases, those who erred from Bible truth. I saw that in striking against the visions they did not strike against the worm--the feeble instrument that God spake through--but against the Holy Ghost.

What one sees as "striking out against the visions", another in context will say "if my Lord doesn't want me in heaven, then I will abide by His will."....

This is the very thing that I point out that some church members see as being spiritual abuse....As I have a good idea what EGW is trying to get accross....But what YOU, John, are coming accoss as the questioning of truth should NOT EVER be questioned. And truth, should always WELCOME questioning....because it only solidifys truth....

But how YOU have handled this, is on par with the "You are not one of US. You are wrong. I am superior in my understanding than you are..." message that comes across as some sort of spiritual abuse...

"YOU ARE WRONG" is not something that people really want to hear....rather what they would like to hear is messages of inclusion, friendship, fellowship.....

Let God decide who is to be convicted of thier sin....that's not man's department...

[fccool]

Quote:

When you find men questioning the testimonies, finding fault with them, and seeking to draw away the people from their influence, be assured that God is not at work through them. It is another spirit. Doubt and unbelief are cherished by those who do not walk circumspectly. They have a painful consciousness that their life will not abide the test of the Spirit of God, whether speaking through His Word or through the testimonies of His Spirit that would bring them to His Word.

Don't you find that this is the type of spiritual blackmailing that cults do engage in. I.E. "How dare you to question that!!!!?? You are of the Devil!!!"

Criticism and questions should be welcomed by any communities of believers. How else are you going to win over anyone other than patiently enduring and standing up to the criticism?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: fccool

The is a generic term in a Koine Greek that could be used for any kind of writing. Although, to be fair... you are correct when you are saying that in most cases it is used in a context of scripture.

In the NT, the word graphe is used 50 times. It ALWAYS refers to the sacred writings of either the Old or New Testaments. It never means common writings, or writings outside the Bible. Do you agree? Let me know if you can find an occurrence of this word in the NT where it means something besides sacred writings.

Quote:

"other scriptures-- Paul's Epistles were, therefore, by this time, recognized in the Church, as 'Scripture': a term never applied in any of the fifty places where it occurs, save to the Old and New Testament sacred writings." (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary, under 2 Peter 3: 16.)

Quote:

Do you consider E.G. White's writings to be "graphe"?

No, I don't. I believe all the Fundamental Doctrines of our church, just as they are expressed in our major publications. For instance, if you study the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe... 28, you'll have a very good idea of what my beliefs are. I assume we pretty much agree on those teachings.

So, do Seventh-day Adventists believe Ellen White's writings are among the "holy writings"?

We believe they are inspired. Inspired writings are not necessarily "holy writings." The holy writings are limited to the Bible, (and specifically, the Protestant Bible as distinguished from the Catholic Bible). The graphe are the canon. Ellen White's writings are not canon. They are non-canonical, inspired writings.

Do writings that are inspired .... have to be limited to a prophet? IOWs ... Can the writings of Jon Paulien or George Knight be considered "inspired". Or does the church have to proclaim it's blessing on those who are called 'inspired'?

[Woody]

Quote:

When you find men questioning the testimonies, finding fault with them, and seeking to draw away the people from their influence, be assured that God is not at work through them. It is another spirit. Doubt and unbelief are cherished by those who do not walk circumspectly. They have a painful consciousness that their life will not abide the test of the Spirit of God, whether speaking through His Word or through the testimonies of His Spirit that would bring them to His Word.

Don't you find that this is the type of spiritual blackmailing that cults do engage in. I.E. "How dare you to question that!!!!?? You are of the Devil!!!"

Criticism and questions should be welcomed by any communities of believers. How else are you going to win over anyone other than patiently enduring and standing up to the criticism?

This is so very true. Thank you for posting this. It does come close to being a cult. It is saying to us ... Don't Question. Just Follow. And then the conservatives get to say to all ... "Don't question the way we INTERPRET what Ellen White is saying. WE are the final authority and you must believe without question ... what WE think" Hmmmmm. Don't question? Believe as WE believe? Believe as WE interpret? Hmmmm.

"YOU are of the DEVIL" Exactly. This is the cry of the conservatives and I have been given this cry far too much. I can't say by whom or I will be banned. But, this is their focus. If you question ... "You are of the Devil". If you don't interpret the way WE interpret ... "You are of the Devil". Boy it gets old. So fccool ... you are so right. And thank you for bringing up this point.

May I also give kudos to Neil ... who pointed out that this stuff is 'spiritual abuse'. Exactly.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

So, do Seventh-day Adventists believe Ellen White's writings are among the "holy writings"?

We believe they are inspired. Inspired writings are not necessarily "holy writings." The holy writings are limited to the Bible, (and specifically, the Protestant Bible as distinguished from the Catholic Bible). The graphe are the canon. Ellen White's writings are not canon. They are non-canonical, inspired writings.

What separates them from being "canonical, inspired writings"? IOWs, what characteristics do canonical inspired writings have that EGW writings have?

I suspect that when one looks at her writings in this light, they inadvertantly become "canonical inspired writings" on a personal level....To this end, we then treat her writings as such....and that is just wrong.

Here are some of the ways in which Ellen White referred to her writings:

"the visions... the words of God;" "the teachings of God through visions;" "His [God's] voice;" "the testimonies... the testimonies of His [God's] Spirit;" "the very means that God has chosen to fit up a people to stand in the day of the Lord;" "the light that the Lord has given;" "the messages that God has given;" "the light that God has been giving for years;" "warnings and instructions [which the God of heaven has sent] to keep His people in the right way" (see Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 43, paragraph 1); "the testimonies of the Spirit of God" (Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 46, paragraph 3); "the true testimony;" "the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God;" "[writings which were] given me from time to time by the divine Counselor" (Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 51, paragraph 4); "many books, written by the help of the Spirit of God;" "[the work of] the Spirit of Prophecy" (Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 41, paragraph 1).

All of the above are references which I found within a short time of reading only about 10 pages of a single book by Ellen White.

You will find them here: Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), pages 40-46

Quote:

A wealth of moral influence has been brought to us in the last half century. Through His Holy Spirit the voice of God has come to us continually in warning and instruction, to confirm the faith of the believers in the Spirit of prophecy. Repeatedly the word has come, Write the things that I have given you to confirm the faith of My people in the position they have taken. Time and trial have not made void the instruction given, but through years of suffering and self-sacrifice have established the truth of the testimony given. The instruction that was given in the early days of the message is to be held as safe instruction to follow in these its closing days. Those who are indifferent to this light and instruction must not expect to escape the snares which we have been plainly told will cause the rejecters of light to stumble, and fall, and be snared, and be taken. If we study carefully the second chapter of Hebrews, we shall learn how important it is that we hold steadfastly to every principle of truth that has been given.--The Review and Herald, July 18, 1907.; Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 41, paragraph 1; Chapter Title: Attitudes Toward the Testimonies; Safe Instruction for Closing Days

[Woody]

So ....

[John317]

Do writings that are inspired .... have to be limited to a prophet? IOWs ... Can the writings of Jon Paulien or George Knight be considered "inspired". Or does the church have to proclaim it's blessing on those who are called 'inspired'?

If you seriously believe that their writings are "inspired" in the NT sense of inspiration, then make your case through reasoning and evidence.

Is there anything in either the Bible or SDA literature, including SOP, that supports your view?

Do the men you refer to believe it? Remember that Ellen White was aware that her writings were "inspired" and from the Spirit of God.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Do writings that are inspired .... have to be limited to a prophet? IOWs ... Can the writings of Jon Paulien or George Knight be considered "inspired". Or does the church have to proclaim it's blessing on those who are called 'inspired'?

If you seriously believe that their writings are "inspired" in the NT sense of inspiration, then make your case through reasoning and evidence.

Is there anything in either the Bible or SDA literature, including SOP, that supports your view?

WHY ? Why should I have to make a case?

[Woody]

Perhaps you can fill me in on the guidelines or rules for determining if something is 'inspired' ? Does the church have to give their stamp of approval or is it up to the individual?

[John317]

Quote:

When you find men questioning the testimonies, finding fault with them, and seeking to draw away the people from their influence, be assured that God is not at work through them. It is another spirit. Doubt and unbelief are cherished by those who do not walk circumspectly. They have a painful consciousness that their life will not abide the test of the Spirit of God, whether speaking through His Word or through the testimonies of His Spirit that would bring them to His Word.

Don't you find that this is the type of spiritual blackmailing that cults do engage in. I.E. "How dare you to question that!!!!?? You are of the Devil!!!"

Criticism and questions should be welcomed by any communities of believers. How else are you going to win over anyone other than patiently enduring and standing up to the criticism?

Are Ellen White's words above directed at those who have never studied her books and who know nothing about her?

They are about people who claim to believe in her and who have had great opportunities to know the truth but who are encouraging people not to believe the testimonies.

John Harvey Kellogg was a good example. He knew her well and had read almost all of her books. He claimed to believe in her and in her ministry, but he was lying. He would say with one breath that he believed in her, and almost in the same breath, this man would say things with the intention of causing people to doubt her writings.

I am talking to people here who have been studying Ellen White for years.

[Woody]

The question that is important here is ....

Are we allowed to question ones interpretation of her writings?

Are we required to believe each and ever word as you might interpret ... and if we don't are we labeled as heretics and cast out of the list of believers?

Who is in charge of this inquest?

Quite honestly ... doubt is far better than being a robot. One needs to question and raise doubts. The alternative is quite negative.