Ted Wilson and his concerns

[Gail]

Unity... Is that how others in the church are treating me or how I am treating them?

[Sojourner]

Do members of the SDA on a routine basis consider what it is that God is saying to the church via His prophetic ministry within the church? Could it not be that this is the reason for this message?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Do members of the SDA on a routine basis consider what it is that God is saying to the church via His prophetic ministry within the church? Could it not be that this is the reason for this message?

what current "prophetic ministry" is within the church?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

what current "prophetic ministry" is within the church?

The Word of God and His Testimonies.

are you saying God's "Testimonies" are the Testimonies of Ellen White?

[Kevin H]

Not necessarily, although that is a possibility. On the other hand, we need to understand that God has always had a leading group. We are wrong in thinking that this group is the only one that's right and the rest are wrong. Abraham was the leader of the leading group. Yet, God also had (I'm not going to attempt to spell his name since I can't currently look it up, but the king/priest of Salam)and others. God choose Jacob and his family to be the leaders, but there is evidence that Esau, while not having those leadership requirements, still had a saving relationship with God. (Job may have been a descendent of Esau, and the Edomites in the Bible represent a people who were once following the truth but who ended up turning away from the truth.)

So today it is with in Seventh-day Adventism that we find options besides needing to become either Fundamentalists/Dispensationalists or not seeing the Bible as inspired and not having meaning to today beyond moral lessons and it's impact on history. It is with in Adventism that we have a more scholarly approach than the Bible colleges of other faiths. It is with in Adventism that we have the understanding of the Great Controversy and that hell fire may be a who instead of a divine spanking for a fickle God. It is within Adventism that we have the health message as opposed to a fickle God who you call upon hoping that he will heal you in a faith healing service. It is within Adventism where you have God as creator and creation being important, but not being slaves to the 6000 year theory. etc.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Okay, Burt.. thanks for clarifying what you consider to be the "testimonies" referred to in scripture as being the "Testimonies" series compiled by Ellen White. I know a number of folks who share your view.

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam: I think that he meant to say that he considers the Testimonies to be the assorted writings of EGW, not just the 9 books.

[JoeMo]

When we speak of unity, are we distinguishing it from Uniformity? We don't all have to be lieve exactly the same way about absolutely everything. What would we have to talk about if we didn't have individual beliefs and individual paths?

The original Christians (Jews) had a similar issue when Gentiles turned to Christianity in droves. "What about our traditions? What about our feasts? What about our dietary laws? It caused confusion and strife in the church then; and it does now. Our mission is to spread the gospel (good news) to the world; represent God's character to the world, and wait expectantly on the 2nd coming. As long as we are unified in that mission, does it matter where we are on the spectrum as far as historic SDA culture goes and the infallibility of EGW?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Some of us, old school SDAs, call all the writings of our sister Ellen G. White the Testimonies, other times we call them the Spirit of Prophecy, and includes all the books, articles and letters written by "that little old lady that wrote all the books" as my teacher and friend Morris Venden used to say.

I'm sorry I was not more specific. I forgot not all posting here are SDAs. I hope my belief in the divine inspiration of those writings doesn't make me less in your eyes and appreciation.

..not a problem... Though I *am* SDA, it never dawned on me that when Adventists spoke of the "Testimonies" they were referring to ALL of Ellen White's writings... that actually bothers me even more than if they were just talking about the nine volumes - I don't put Ellen's writings on par with scripture, though I think a lot of what she wrote *was* inspired... but that topic has been discussed here on C/A more than once, and I think we've come to the mutual "agree to disagree".. :)

[thx4mercy]

I think a lot of what she wrote *was* inspired...

How can we discern what part of her writings are inspired and which parts are not?

[Sojourner]

I am not trying to go all AOG on everyone here, but I mean those people called to the Spiritual Gift of Prophecy, along with those of words of knowledge.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I think a lot of what she wrote *was* inspired...

How can we discern what part of her writings are inspired and which parts are not?

The words are not inspired, the person is. They are filling the office of Prophet. It is like asking "How do we discern what Abraham Lincoln said between the years 1861 and 1865 were the President talking."

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

"How do we discern what Abraham Lincoln said between the years 1861 and 1865 were the President talking.

When President Lincoln was speaking on a subject related to the government of the United States, he might be assumed to be speaking as the Head of Government.

When President was speaking on a subject related to the United States, he might be assumed to be speaking as Head of State.

When President Lincoln said to his wife: We should attend church today, he was speaking as the husband of his wife and possibly (?) as the Head of Family.

EGW said many things that were her personal opinion and not inspired by God.

When, as recorded in the records of her writings, she wrote to a specific woman and told her that she looked good in red and should have a red dress to wear, she was probably not inspired by God to say that. It was probably her personal opinon.

When EGW stated that a certain sanitarium had 40 rooms, that was probably not an inspired statement, and the fact that it only had 39 rooms should not be taken as an error in inspiration. NOTE: For the exact numbers I am going by memory which may be wrong.

When EGW tells us that she has included comments for historians in her book THE GREAT CONTROVERSY, those citations should probably not be considered to be inspired and accurate in every word.

When EGW wrote to the women living in Loma Linda and told the that they needed to raise their skirts, as they were too long, that council should probably not be thought to be appropriate to be given them every month as that would long ago have resulted in the women of Loma Linda not wearing any skirts at all.

Folks, context has to be considered. We can misuse her writings when we do not use context.

[Naomi]

Amen & Amen!!!!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Right on!!!

[debbym]

i was surprised as I listened to this, I did not hear the Gospel.

the focus of the Church.

1. the love of and character of our heavenly Father. who God is. the Sacrifice of Christ for the world.

2. how we live that will bring glory to our God. Ways we can relate to God in every aspect of our being. Our response to His love.

3. ways we can serve the needs of the human family. What is our priority toward those around us, in view of God's love for each person. Called to serve.

every mind is different.

my question is, how much is the church involved in being the body of Christ on earth? The enemy is throwing everything at us to derail us, will we notice and agonize and cry out? or will we continue to go numb by the poison of sin and be paralyzed and lose the power to know and do God's will instead of our own.

1. I want my identity to be in Christ, not in being an SDA. SDA can mean lots of things, particularly being lukewarm and not alive in Christ while having huge amounts of head knowledge.

2. we are not to be taken out of the world, but be in the world, but remain in Christ.

3. unity with Christ brings about unity with all who walk in Christ.

4. Losing our first love for Christ, requires us to fall in love again with the lover of our soul. The life of Jesus where ever it is found will be doing God's will.

The cries of the three angels and the angel of rev 18, is being sounded, and will sound louder and louder, in and through the body of Christ on earth, in spite of human failure.

[Gail]

Good questions, Deb. I was thinking along those lines, too, as I listened, but then I thought that he was speaking as the head of the church as it was his job to do as he spoke.

[Stan]

In order to have a good discussion the word inspired needs to be defined.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

. . . there are some among us that are just agents of our enemy, doing his work inside our beloved church. These will take the wise commentaries written by our brother Gregory Mathews, above this one, and stretch them without limit to cover those texts or quotes they would like to eliminate or change. Once you put some texts in doubt, where do you draw the line? They would love to do the same even with the Bible, and actually some have done it with some versions. It's nothing new; the devil tried it also when he tempted our Savior.

Well, a lot of generalizations which make it impossible to be certain as to what you meant.

Regardless, the basic issue that I raised must be dwelt with by every person who reads the writings of EGW.

E.G. Was EGWs statement that a specific woman should have and wear a red dress a command from God? It should be noted that EGW gave that woman some red cloth with which she was directed to make a red dress. Did God command that woman to use the specific cloth provided by EGW to make a red dress?

E.G. Was the comment regarding the "wise commentaries by our brother Gregory Mathews" a sarcastic comment, related to Gregory acting like a fool, or was it a comment to the effect that Brother Gregory actually does make wise comments that others do not heed. I do not know because the comment was not very specific and was quite general. That is O.K. But, such allows comments to be misunderstood.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It hasn't been that long ago when a red dress a in Oregon would be looked at somewhat askance (think "Rajneeshees")...

This is an example of why I think Ellen White's writings need to be understood in context of the times in which she lived. And ignoring the *culture* of those times makes for controversy on what was meant (and I may be wrong, but I would think that goes for scripture, as well).

My definition of "inspired" in reference to Ellen White's writings, would be those ideas/visions/experiences about which it appears God prompted her to write, using whatever available means she had in order to express what she was trying to convey....that includes the use of previously written articles and books by others, in addition to her own words. (I personally feel her writings on Christians relationships to Christ are inspired, i.e., "Steps to Christ." I think "Desire of Ages" and "Great Controversy" were inspired, though not necessarily historically accurate.)

I think the acceptance of "inspired" writings is very subjective. If the particular writing isn't useful or needed to some, but is to others, perhaps "inspiration" is reader-dependent. (Not saying that's the way it is, but just posing it as a possibility..)

[Gail]

I think the acceptance of "inspired" writings is very subjective. If the particular writing isn't useful or needed to some, but is to others, perhaps "inspiration" is reader-dependent. (Not saying that's the way it is, but just posing it as a possibility..)

The Bible is that way, too. You can read the whole thing over again and verses that didn't touch the heart last time will this time.

[Naomi]

[JoeMo]

Quote:

In order to have a good discussion the word inspired needs to be defined.

From Christian Courier.com:

Quote:

“What do Bible scholars mean when they speak of the ‘inspiration’ of the Scriptures?”

The Bible makes a claim that most books do not. It claims to be from God. Unlike the few that make the claim, the Bible’s claim is true. This is the concept called “inspiration.” There are several things involved in considering the “inspiration of the Bible.”

First, “inspiration” of the Bible means that it had a divine origin. The term “inspiration” is found in the New Testament one time (2 Tim. 3:16).

“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

The Greek word theopneustos is actually a compound term. Its two parts (theos and pneustos) literally mean “God-breathed.” For this reason, English translations render the word by the phrase “inspired of God,” rather than just “inspired.”

Paul said that “scripture” is inspired of God. The word “scripture” comes from the Greek term graphe, which means “writings.” Paul was considering a specific body of writings. The word “scripture” is used in the Bible in a technical sense to distinguish writings whose origin is God, from those that originate with men. Practically speaking, the terms, “inspired of God” and “scriptures,” are interchangeable.

The apostle said that “every” or “all” scripture is from God. When Paul said that “every scripture” is inspired of God, he affirmed that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms — the Lord’s three-fold designation of the Old Testament (Lk. 24:44) — were all from God. Both Old and New Testaments are called “scripture” (see 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Pet. 3:15-16; cf. 1 Cor. 2:10-13).

Second, “inspiration of the Bible” means that God used prophetic agency. The writer of Hebrews referred to the human element in scripture when he said, “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets” (Heb. 1:1; emphasis added). The prophets were speaking; they were writing with pen and parchments. But, the words actually were God’s.

The apostle Peter noted that “the word of prophecy” was of God’s design. In communicating his will, however, “men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21).

The “inspiration” of the human writers did not mean that they were mere transcribers. God employed their human personalities and experiences in the process. Inspired men were not omniscient or personally infallible. But what they wrote was from the mind of God — and it was recorded without error.

They also used firsthand knowledge, the aid of eyewitnesses, and written sources in the composition of Scripture (cf. Lk. 1:1-4). All of these methods, however, were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the guarantee of accuracy (cf. Jn. 16:13).

I take from this that those "inspired by God" are God's "penmen"; not His pen. Just like the rest of the prophets, EGW tended to drag her own baggage as well as the culture of her times into her writings.

One thing she did was tend towards interpreting her own visions. Just because she had the gift of prophecy (visions and counsel) doesn't mean she had the gift of interpretation. But neither did a lot of Bible characters and writers. For example, many (like Paul and Peter)thought the Second Coming would be soon after Jesus' ascension. They were wrong. EGW thought the 2300 days ended in 1844. She was wrong; she was not infallible; and any of her writings that cannot be explicitly and specifically backed up by scripture should not be held as indisputable truth. Nor should her private counsel to individuals be held as general counsel for all the saints. Nor should the editing or compliations of her writings by the GC or White Estate be considered infallible.

That being said, she wrote some amazing things

[Johann]

Quite a discussion - but what is the subject?

When I hear or read Ted Wilson I cannot help but think of what I heard or read of his father, Neal Wilson, who was also the president of the General Conference some years back.

It is difficult to define and express, but I wish someone would try to analyze the differences in their opinions. It appears to me that although the son is quite similar to his father, their opinions on what is right and wrong with the church and its teachings are quite different. It appears to me that the son now promotes some of the things his father considered heresy.

Is that due to the change of culture - or something else?

I recall a number of those things we as workers in the church were warned against by the administration of Neal Wilson, are now being promoted by Ted Wilson. Why? Both claimed to follow Scripture and Ellen White.

Is this a sign of unity or disunity?

[Kevin H]

In order to have a good discussion the word inspired needs to be defined.

Amen!!! To many the definition is the views of fundamentalism. To others it is a person who is inspired and that these include having seen things in vision and making comments and decisions based on what they saw. It is an office that someone holds.

Mrs. White does say that there is a difference between her writings. The big issue is when she discusses the great controversy and the issues involved. From this she makes applications. Also, there were other themes: Holding on to the Millerite experience, that the Millerite movement was lead by God. The Formation of the church and the schools and health care institutions. The health message.

While she has been given a FRAMEWORK for these. She was still a person who would write on other topics. Have running narratives from other authors to move from one part she saw was important to another. And she choose the words she used often by reading something that caught her eye and thought that is a good way to express this.

Thus I do not see anything the she wrote as "Inspired" but I see her as a person who was inspired. Thus I do not ask "Is she inspired here but not there?" But I look at the framework of her message.