Women's Ordination Sidetrack Topic on Trinity, EGW, etc...

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I hate to say this, but I must. I am 77 and my memory is not as good as it used to be. I know that there is a statement in Ellen White writings where she framed the appearance of sin and rebellion on a contingency basis. I have tried to locate this, but failed in my attempt. The problem with searches is that, unless you can recall the exact phrase, there is no way to find what you are looking for. Perhaps, you, or someone else can help me with this.

Sure, Nic, I'll do what I can to try and find it. I'll also try and find the verse that you said contains the word ruach meaning "presence."

I'm glad you told me you're 77, Nic. That will help me know who you are when we meet-- as I hope we can on some Sabbath in the near future. I'll send you a PM about that, OK? :-)

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Ellen White borrowed a significant portion of what she wrote from Trinitarian sources; consequently it should not surprise us that she leaned towards the doctrine of the Trinity.

What do you have in mind? What statements and from what source?

You probably realize that Ellen White's views of the Godhead from about 1888 to the end of her life underwent a change compared to what her views were from 1844 to the time of her husband's death in 1881. If you trace her views on the Godhead, it becomes evident that her thinking about these matters was not static. She was growing. So was James White. He changed his mind on some things. The remarkable thing about Ellen White is that she never had to go back and change her writings in order to bring them up to what God had shown her. She didn't write what God hadn't shown her. But God didn't show her everything at once. It took time. God was gradually leading her and the church into fuller biblical truth on the subject of the Godhead.

I don't think it's any mere coincidence that Ellen White wrote all of her clearest statements on the Godhead after the death of her husband. Why is this important? Because for one thing it wouldn't have done the church any good to see its GC president disagreeing in public with his wife, God's prophet, over the issue of the Trinity. I'm not suggesting they would have had a "fight" or even a 'debate," but it's possible they would have been saying some contradictory things, because James White did not yet see the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" and Ellen White did. James White almost certainly would have continued to change, but he was about 10 years behind Ellen at the time of his death.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: We need access to everything Ellen White has written in order to reach a correct conclusion on this. Besides, we need to remember that a heavy emphasis on Ellen White is dangerous if we fail to establish every doctrine on the solid basis of Scripture.

Yes, I agree with both points, Nic.

It's important to study everything she says on a subject and not just take into consideration one or two statements.

And I definitely agree that our emphasis must be on Scripture.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: Problem is that Christ did not die. Jesus the man did but not Christ:

"Humanity died: divinity did not die." Ellen White in 5 BC 1113

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Interesting twist! Ellen White would probably answer that if a human had sinned, a human needed to pay the price. Can you share with us the passage you have in mind?

Nic, do you believe Christ did not die?

It's true that divinity did not die, but is that the same as saying Christ did not die?

[doug yowell]

Doug,

Even Jesus was disappointed and wept on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. We have both, a picture of a God who can predict many events, and at the same time a God who is surprised, who repents, and who changes his mind. This suggests to me that there are things God can predict, especially the things which are under his control, and that there other things which are not under his control, especially the free moral choices people can make.

2.

Quote:

"Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they were all written, The days were fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them."

God is the one who designed the genetic code; therefore he can see in the genes what we can’t. This is something God can easily predict.

Just a reminder of what you previously posted,Nic. If God can easily predict a human's destiny due to His designing their genetic makeup, why is He prohibited from knowing their destiny because of free moral choice? You can't have it both ways! Since all humans have a God designed genetic code it would only stand to reason the God can easily predict their final destiny and man's moral freedom plays no part in obscuring God's complete knowledge of that future.Who created those non-human beings that sinned? Who designed their life code? If God could not know the future how could He invision sin which had never before existed, and make provision for it's eradication before it came into being?

[Woody]

So .... let me get this straight. Are you saying that Christ was not divine?

[John317]

Quote:

Nic: Can you explain this statemet you made?

Ellen White did state that only someone equal with God could pay the price; now, if Jesus' divinity did not die, then was the price paid?

There's one thing that Deity cannot possibly do.

God cannot possibly will Himself into non-existence.

Deity by definiton cannot cease to exist, that is, it cannot die. It is not subject to death.

That is one of the reasons Christ became a man and took on a human form-- for the very purpose of dying.

Christ was certainly equal with the Father (as well as with the Holy Spirit), so when He died on the cross, an equal of God died there.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: So .... let me get this straight. Are you saying that Christ was not divine?

What do you think Ellen White meant when she said "Christ died"?

Did she mean Christ was not divine? No.

Christ was not only "divine," but Christ IS Deity. Christ is verily God. He is of the same essence or nature as God the Father. (John 1:1; 8: 58; Col. 2: 9; Hebrews 1: 3, 6,8, 10; Romans 9: 5; John 20: 28; Is.9: 6.)

Christ = Messiah. The Messiah died. Therefore Christ died.

Romans 5: 8 says plainly that "Christ died."

In Rev. 1: 17, Jesus says, "I was dead."

This agrees perfectly with Ellen White, who said, "Jesus Christ died..."

[Kevin H]

Quote:

in spite of her many denials of having done so.

Please quote her statement that she did not use the writings of other people.

If she denied it, I would throw every book of her's that I own into the trash. It would mean she is a liar.

There are some quotes that appear like she's denying the copying, Walter Rae and his followers was making much of them. However my professors at AUC pointed out that Rae and the others were taking these quotes out of their historical context. Of course their arguments to defend Mrs. White on this point is the same kind and from the same people that you John have not liked on other topics, so I am worried that you might end up throwing her books in the trash. However they pointed out that the so called "Denial of copying" quotes have always been addressed to people who already knew that she was copying, some of them were doing the copying for her, she knew that these people knew about her coppying and that we can not do a superficial reading of the quotes like Rea was doing, but realize who she was speaking to. She was not denying the copying, because once again these quotes were directed towards those who already knew she copied and she knew that they knew, she was denying that her overall message came from those she was copying. The basic message came from her visions the copying was for her to look for a way of presenting it.

[John317]

Quote:

Kevin H: She was not denying the copying, because once again these quotes were directed towards those who already knew she copied and she knew that they knew, she was denying that her overall message came from those she was copying. The basic message came from her visions the copying was for her to look for a way of presenting it.

Excellent point, Kevin. Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you.

There's also the important fact that she would sometimes urge people to buy and read the very books that she was using in her writings. A person doesn't do this if they are trying to hide their use of someone's writings.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You said:

1.

Quote:

It's DA 22, but she does not say anything about "if" or about a "contingency basis."

I do know that in this particular passage of DA Ellen does not have an “If”. I thought I had made that clear. I did state that I did read somewhere else a statement by Ellen White referring to the plan of salvation on contingency basis. I did state this with the hope that you or someone else might help me locate said passage.

2.

Quote:

You make it sound as if when Christ volunteered to come here as a human being, he didn't know that He would have to die.

The Son of God volunteered to take the human form if needed knowing full well that he might be either received as the promised Messiah and King or else be killed if rejected. Let’s not forget that Is. 53:10 has been translated by several experts on a contingency basis and that even Jesus himself said “If I be lifted up.” If does not include an absolute certainty. Let us also remember that Jesus’ disclosure to his disciples that he must die was made late in his ministry, when it was absolutely certain in Jesus’ mind that the Jewish leaders were determined to kill him.

3.

Quote:

But both the Bible and the SOP are clear that Christ knew he would need to die in order to save mankind.

Both the Bible and the SOP have it both ways. I have already explained this several times. This is similar to the way the Lord tried to teach us with the Blessing and Curses in the O.T. Do not ignore what Ellen White said about God’s promises and threatenings. They are all contingent on human response. A classic example is the story of Jonah. Prophetic predictions are conditional on human response regardless of whether they are explicitly phrased on a contingency basis or not.

They are like what parents promise to do. When a parent says: “Johnny, you’ll get a spanking.” This prediction is contingent on the boy’s response. When the kid stops his misbehavior, the parent is more than happy that his prediction does not come true.

4.

Quote:

From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate.

I hope you notice that you have built your theology on the basis of the writing of Ellen White, the “Lesser Light,” instead of the “Bigger Light,” the Bible. Do you know what source Ellen borrowed this from? God gave her some visions, but she had at one time up to half a dozen secretaries searching in religious literature material for her books. She greatly expanded the information she received from heaven. This is fine, but let’s not treat this as infallible information. We need to build our doctrines on solid ground: Scripture.

[doug yowell]

[

There are some quotes that appear like she's denying the copying, Walter Rae and his followers was making much of them. However my professors at AUC pointed out that Rae and the others were taking these quotes out of their historical context. Of course their arguments to defend Mrs. White on this point is the same kind and from the same people that you John have not liked on other topics, so I am worried that you might end up throwing her books in the trash. However they pointed out that the so called "Denial of copying" quotes have always been addressed to people who already knew that she was copying, some of them were doing the copying for her, she knew that these people knew about her coppying and that we can not do a superficial reading of the quotes like Rea was doing, but realize who she was speaking to. She was not denying the copying, because once again these quotes were directed towards those who already knew she copied and she knew that they knew, she was denying that her overall message came from those she was copying. The basic message came from her visions the copying was for her to look for a way of presenting it.

Very clearly stated, KH. Thanks

[wayfinder]

Quote:

Let us also remember that Jesus’ disclosure to his disciples that he must die was made late in his ministry, when it was absolutely certain in Jesus’ mind that the Jewish leaders were determined to kill him.

Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord ! This shall never happen to You."

This statement was made shortly after the beheading of John the Baptist and before the Mount of transfiguration event, this was early in His ministry.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You said:

1.

Quote:

Do you believe, then, that God could have defeated Satan and saved the world without Christ's death?

I will ask you another question: Do you think that as God was looking on what was taking place on earth that he was thinking: “I hope they kill him! I hope they do! If they don’t I have no way to save the world”? Ridiculous, isn’t it? Tell me, if the Jewish nation had decided to accept Jesus as their promised Messiah and rightful King, why would God demand that someone submit Jesus to torture and death? Hadn’t God already suffered enough as a result of sin and rebellion? If humans had understood that Jesus was on the cross since the beginning, as Ellen White says in Ed. P 63, then what need would be there for imposing additional pain and suffering on the Son of God?

2.

Quote:

Are you saying, Nic, that you believe the book of Hebrews is in error, or untrustworthy, when it says that the heavenly sanctuary needs to be purified?

First, as I stated before, Hebrews was written for the Jews, and the author used symbolic language which they could easily understand. Second, the cleansing agent is not the literal blood of Jesus, but rather his creative words. This is why Jesus said to his disciples before his death:

Quote:

Now you are clean through the word which I have spoken to you. [John 15:3]

They were clean not on a contingency basis, but rather through the creative power of the words of Jesus. The same words that brought the world into existence created a new attitude in their minds, an attitude of love and respect to God which did not exist before. Before they were arguing as to who would be the greatest in God’s kingdom. After this experience they were eager to serve as Jesus volunteered to serve.

It seems to me that you are stuck on symbols, forgetting that symbols have meaning. The crowd which followed Jesus for the bread and fishes had this problem. When Jesus told them that they needed to drink his blood, they took this literally and used this as an excuse to reject him and abandon him. Of course, Jesus ws referring to his words:

Quote:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. [John 6:63]

This can be illustrated also by the experience of Nicodemus. When Jesus told him that he needs to be born again, he knew that this could be understood in a literal manner or as a symbol of a new spiritual birth. He opted to take this literally and said: “Nonsense. How can someone be born again’? [my paraphrase]

The heavenly sanctuary has no need of a literal cleansing. It has never been polluted. All this is symbolic language. The cleansing resides in the power of God’s creative words.

3.

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, do you also reject what Ellen White wrote in the book, Great Controversy, regarding the Investigative Judgment?

My views about what happened in 1844 are explained in an article I published in one of my forums:

What Really Happened in 1844? by Nic Samojluk

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?s=What+happened+in+1844%3F&x=40&y=13

4.

Quote:

If I believed she was wrong on this doctrine, which is of such importance among her writings and theology, I would have to completely reject her as a prophet of God. Why? Because she taught that God showed her that doctrine to be true, and she wrote GC in her last years. She also said that book was the book she had the greatest interest in seeing that it received wide circulation. If she was wrong on it, I would not trust her at all in anything. It would mean she was a false prophet, having utterly failed the Bible tests of a genuine prophet, and we know the source of inspiration of false prophets. The Bible commanded false prophets to be stoned to death. That is how seriously God takes the lies of a false prophet. She herself said her work either came from God or from Satan. I take her words seriously.

Tell me: Who was the real author of that chapter? Didn’t she borrow it the way she borrowed a significant portion of all her writings? She did believe that said chapter represented the pure and unadulterated truth? Is her sin worse than David’s sin who murdered Uriah? Are you rejecting David as a prophet? Are you rejecting Moses as a prophet because he was guilty of murder as well? Is Ellen Whites guilt worse than theirs? Peter denied his Lord. Are you rejecting his writings as well?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

How did Jesus clean them? By his word. You seem to be focused on symbols, forgetting that those symbols have meaning. Read John 6: 53 & 63.

Of course symbols have meaning, but the heavenly sanctuary and Christ as our High Priest are literal, not merely symbolic.

Christ literally died. He shed His literal blood. He is in a literal sanctuary in heaven. Jesus will literally come for His literal church. We are to literally separate sin from us through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those things have great meaning, but they lose their meaning if they are not also literal.

John,

Is your belief that there is a literal building in heaven with a real altar, real pots and pans, a real roof to protect worshippers from inclement weather and so on?

[wayfinder]

A true prophet of God, speaks the words of God, they do not borrow, interpret, or personalize. If God spoke to David, Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, John, or any of the other true prophets, what they had done or would do, had no bearing on the words received from God. God's word, are the words that God speaks, if someone claiming to be speaking God's words and they are not, but speaking someone else’s, or their own words, that is blasphemy. If they are speaking their own or someone else’s words and know that their hearers/readers believe these words to be from God they must clarify this, if they don't they are guilty before God as a false prophet.

Revelation 2:20 NAS

'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols

I am not naming any names!

[Kevin H]

A true prophet of God, speaks the words of God, they do not borrow, interpret, or personalize. If God spoke to David, Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, John, or any of the other true prophets, what they had done or would do, had no bearing on the words received from God. God's word, are the words that God speaks, if someone claiming to be speaking God's words and they are not, but speaking someone else’s, or their own words, that is blasphemy. If they are speaking their own or someone else’s words and know that their hearers/readers believe these words to be from God they must clarify this, if they don't they are guilty before God as a false prophet.

Revelation 2:20 NAS

'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols

I am not naming any names!

Wayfinder, I hope you don't dig too deep into the Bible. For example Revelation is a mishmash of popular theatric plays of the day with Rabinical writings that became the Mishna with a bunch of Old Testament theams thrown in. So did we get Revelation from God or did John just see the right plays and read the right rabbis? We know where John got his words; the point of inspiration is the basic message he was conveying in how he edited the sceens of the different plays and the writings of the Rabbis, borrowing, interpeting and personalizing to fit the message that God gave him. When Jesus was asked by who's authority he was speaking he was being accused of quoting others without footnoteing and we have some of these who Jesus was quoting.

In digging up a city that was already an ancient ruins by Abraham's day they found the story of Baal; How Baal was killed by his heal beng wounded, on the 3rd day his sister/consort "Anat" put his pieces together and said "Son of god come forth, your father calls thee" and Baal rose from the dead, conqured the Leviathan and went up to heaven where the gods of life were sitting at the gates crying because Baal was killed and Anat Sang "Lift up your head all ye gods and be lifted up your ancient ones that the king of glory may come in!" The gods thinking that Baal was still dead asked "Who is this king of glory?" Anat responded "Baal strong and mighty..." etc. you get the point, just turn to Psalm 24 and replace the words dealing with "Gate" with "gods" and you have a poem that was old by Abraham's day.

If you are looking for prophets who did not borrow, your list will be very small, and your Bible would be basically the covers. I am in very much agreement with Elder Canright and Walter Rea; where I differ from them is that Canright lived before we learned about all the copying in the Bible so we can't expect more out of him. And Rea is content to be a "TA" "Typical Adventist" and has not studied the Bible deeper and responds to the evidence of copying as "Don't tear down my Bible to defend Mrs. White." He is willing to accept the fact in one aspect and willing to give up Ellen White at the expence of his traditions, but he is not willing to accept the facts when he is faced with having to either give up the Bible or his traditions about what the Bible should be. I'm willing to accept the evidence and accept both the Bible and Mrs. White and hope as far as I can see it, give up the tradition.

[wayfinder]

I am in the process of writing a book about just what your post concerns, I don't have a title as yet. I have read many of the ancient "myths" and have developed an understanding that, as far as I am aware, is unique. It is an assumption to believe that just because the "myths" are simmilar or identical to biblical accounts that the biblical account was copied. You can find similar accounts in all of the ancient cultures, from Egyptian to Mayan to Polynesian, does this mean they copied from each other, or does it mean they were told these things by their gods. Their gods were known liars, but with complete knowledge of the truth, they used this knowledge to corrupt the truth by making it appear as just one of many "myths".

You mentioned Canright and Rae, another person, which I have studied the case of, is Albion F. Ballanger. Ballanger was... well you can read the account online. I have learned that honesty with oneself is very difficult, if not impossible, for most people who are otherwise honest with others.

[Woody]

May I ask why this thread is being jerked from one forum to another. My head is spinning.

[Tom Wetmore]

It appears that it is an orphan thread separated from the mother that spawned it. Apprently these worthwhile ideas were just too far off the original topic from which it came...

[Gregory Matthews]

WAyfinder said:

Quote:

A true prophet of God, speaks the words of God, they do not borrow, interpret, or personalize. If God spoke to David, Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, John, or any of the other true prophets, what they had done or would do, had no bearing on the words received from God. God's word, are the words that God speaks, if someone claiming to be speaking God's words and they are not, but speaking someone else’s, or their own words, that is blasphemy. If they are speaking their own or someone else’s words and know that their hearers/readers believe these words to be from God they must clarify this, if they don't they are guilty before God as a false prophet.

EGW and the SDA church has never taught that EGW published the words of God--in general.

Read what EGW said:

Quote:

" . . . the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation." 1 SM Page 37

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

Thanks for responding to my posting. I did receive the notification dealing with your answer; nevertheless, when I attempted to access it, the access was denied. I managed to copy a portion of you response which came attached to the automatic notification. I have no idea what additional material you might have included in your posting. You said:

1.

Quote:

Studies that have been done on the amount she "borrowed" show that it is a small fraction of her total output.

Small fraction? Some studies I have read indicate 30 percent while others 70 percent. What percentage do you think is the correct one? Remember that Walter Rea did his investigation the hard way, without the help of the Internet. Had he done this research today, the percentage would have probably been much higher. Here is how he discovered Ellen White dependence on other authors in his own words:

Quote:

“I was enrolled in a PhD program at the University of Southern California. One day on the second floor of the library I happened to pick up Alfred Edersheim’s on “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.” Almost immediately I was struck by the parallels between Edersheim and the “Desire of Ages.” [Walter Rea, as related by T. Joe Willey who recently spent two days interviewing Walter Rea, the author of “the White Lie”.]

2.

Quote:

Please quote her statement that she did not use the writings of other people.

Here is some information which might begin to answer your question.

Quote:

“Mrs. White guarded against reading that which might have a bearing on her initial presentation of a basic topic. In this light it is easy to understand her declaration in 1887: ‘I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper, that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone’s ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man’s theories should have any connection with that which I write.” [Review and Herald. “Who told sister White. Part II.” May 21, 1959. p. 7.]

Quote:

“I have not been in the habit of reading any doctrinal articles in the paper [the Review and Herald], that my mind should not have any understanding of anyone's ideas and views, and that not a mold of any man's theories should have any connection with that which I write.--Letter 37, 1887. {3SM 63.4}

Quote:

Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.--The Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867. {1SM 37.1}

This is evidence in her own words that she knew the purpose of quotation marks. She also knew that when she was quoting her angel, she needed to acknowledge her source. Doesn’t it follow that she should have followed the same principle of acknowledging her sources when quoting other individuals? On one occasion James White complained that somebody had copied something which he has published in the Adventist paper without acknowledging the source had had used. He seemed to have been unaware that his wife was doing the same to others.

Quote:

I have written many books, and they have been given a wide circulation. Of myself I could not have brought out the truth in these books, but the Lord has given me the help of His Holy Spirit. These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the past sixty years, contain light from heaven, and will bear the test of investigation. {1SM 35.3}

She didn’t know that a century later someone called Walter Rea would prove her statement wrong.

Quote:

“If the messages born by Ellen G. White had their origin in surrounding minds or George I. Butler; if the counsels on health had their origin in the minds of Drs. Jackson, Trall, or Kellog; if the instruction on education was based upon the ideas of G. H. Bell or W. W. Prescott; if the high standards upheld in the Ellen G. White articles and books were inspired by the strong men of the cause—then the Spirit of Prophecy counsels can mean no more to us than some very good ideas and helpful advice! [Arthur L. White. “Who told Sister White?” [Review and Herald. May 14, 1959. p. 6.]

Here is how Walter Rea reacted to this incredible discovery dealing with her literary dependency:

Quote:

“The trouble was she led us to believe that her prophetic gift was not an on, then off inspiration, we took the whole of her writing as divinely inspired. How would you know when she said, I have been shown, or it has been clearly presented to me, or that the word that is given to me, or when she said, light has been given to me distinctly, that she was borrowing the very words that followed?” [Walter Rea, Ibid.]

Quote:

“But now of course, it is not what has been copied that harms the Church, but what the copying and her explicit and implicit denial reveal about the character of Mrs. White.” [Walter Rea, Ibid.]

3.

Quote:

If she denied it, I would throw every book of her that I own into the trash. It would mean she is a liar.

This is your reaction. For consistency sake, would you also throw away the writings of Saint Peter, he denied his Lord; Mrs. White didn’t something so terribly wrong. How about throwing away the writings of King David and Moses. Both of them were guilty of murder. Isn’t murder a more serious crime than lying? Here is the reaction of Dr. Provonsha:

Quote:

“Theoretically, the literary borrowing could amount to 100 % and not be damaging, contends White defender Jack W. Provonsha, professor of religion and Christian Ethics at the Adventists; Loma Linda university near Riverside.” [L.A. Times, December 24, 1980.]

Did Mrs. White ever claim to be either infallible or a saint? Notice what she stated:

Quote:

I do not claim infallibility, or even perfection of Christian character. I am not free from mistakes and errors in my life. Had I followed my Saviour more closely, I should not have to mourn so much my unlikeness to His dear image. {2BIO 444.6}

Why would you throw the books of someone who was humble enough to admit that she was human and prone to error? It seems that you are overreacting! Would you agree? Most of her writings is like gold to me. I would not throw gold away, even if it were borrowed or stolen. I would try to locate its owner and arrange for proper restitution.

Quote:

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.--The Review and Herald, July 26, 1892. {1SM 37.3}

[Gregory Matthews]

Other good statements by EGW:

Quote:

But there are times when common things must be stated, common thought must occupy the mind common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God. 1 SM Page 39

Quote:

The Bible is writen 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.

* * *

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, . . . 1 SM page 21

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I hope you notice that you have built your theology on the basis of the writing of Ellen White, the Lesser Light instead of the Bigger Light, the Bible.

The Bible itself contains verses which indicate that God knew of the apostasy oc Satan. There are many Christians who believe this, and these have never even read the books of Ellen White. The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. How else would He have known particular things about Cyrus, including his name and what he would do? How would He have inspired Daniel to write Daniel 2 and Daniel 9: 24-27? Many similar examples could be given.

Notice it doesn't say God guesses or that He is pretty sure. Nor does it say God simply knows what He plans to do if certain contigencies arise. One of the basic beliefs of Christianity about God is that He is omnicient. I believe an omnicient God knew what Lucifer would do. (God's knowledge of us doesn't interfere with our freedom.)

If an SDA quotes Ellen White and discusses what she says, does that mean he basis his theology on the writings of Ellen White?

If so, shouldn't we throw her books away and forget what she wrote and taught?

The reason I quoted her to you is that I believe it's important for us to be clear as to what Ellen White believed and wrote.

Are you saying it's completely irrelevant what she said on this topic?

Why would it be relevent? Why don't we quote just any SDA minister or pastor or writer? Why do we quote her in our lesson quarterlies and in our magazines?

What makes her more authoritative than you or me or anyone else in the church?

Is the "lesser light" trust-worthy?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do you know what source Ellen borrowed this from?

Can you give a quote or the name of the individual she borrowed it from?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: God gave her some visions, but she had at one time up to half a dozen secretaries searching in religious literature material for her books. She greatly expanded the information she received from heaven. This is fine, but let’s not treat this as infallible information. We need to build our doctrines on solid ground: Scripture.

Can you tell when she had 6 secretaries at one time searching in religous literature for her books? Do you know the year when this occurred? Please give a reference.

It's quite true that Ellen White did have secretaries who helped her with her material. it would hardly have been possible for her to do all the work the was required of her without help. But this is well known and has always been well-known to anyone who was interested in learning anything about her. It's never been a secret. I have very old SDA publications which talk about it.

If you go to the E.G. White Estate, you will see proof that Ellen White approved of everything before it went to the printer. She usually signed her name to those manuscripts after they were typed up and she had read them.

If I didn't believe that, and didn't trust her writings-- that they are as Ellen White wrote them-- I wouldn't pay any attention to them. Her secretaries did not have the right under any circumstances to change her meaning. They could only change grammar and puncuation, etc. I've seen the original documents at the Heritage Room in Loma Linda. You can access some of these documents online.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17:

Studies that have been done on the amount she "borrowed" show that it is a small fraction of her total output.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Small fraction? Some studies I have read indicate 30 percent while others 70 percent.

Reference please?

And what book or article is 70% the work of other people?