EGW and inspiration

[melvin mccarty]

Hmmmm responding to myself just like it says in that there green strip!!! Is that wicked? Everything jus moves too fast here huh?...(smile).....mel............212746

[Robert]

Robert, I hope you understand that this is not talking about God's Law the Ten Commandment the Decalogue. It is referring to the old covenant laws thus it says the "book of the law" also know at the book of the covenant.

-BC- 1MR

-TI- Manuscript Releases Volume One

-CN- 33

-CT- The Covenants

-PR- 02

-PG- 130

"The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24). In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law ."

Ellen White is correct here! She states that the law Paul had in mind in chapter 3 of Galatians is "especially the moral law".

Here's the context starting with verse 13:

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

What law was "added" 430 years after God promised Abraham salvation by faith?

Ex 12:41 And at the end of four hundred and thirty years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt....chapter 19:1 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone forth out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai .

Now what happened 430 years after God promised Abraham salvation by faith? Right, the giving of the law - the giving of the Ten commandments.

So Paul had especially the Ten Commandments in mind! Therefore, EGW contradicts herself.

Rob

[Robert]

It is referring to the old covenant laws thus it says the "book of the law" also know at the book of the covenant. And the first five books of Moses was also called the Law the Torah.

The Ten Commandments are included in the first, five books of the law. What makes any law (be it civil, ceremonial, moral) "old covenant" are "the terms" of that covenant. So no law in the Bible is Old Covenant until you put teeth behind it. So the "old covenant" is "obey and live, disobey and die." Disobey what? Any law!

So when Paul says, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them" he means all the rules, including the Ten Commandments!

[Robert]

So when Paul says, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them" he means all the rules, including the Ten Commandments!

Ellen agrees with me here:

-BC- 1888

-TI- The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials

-CN- 201

-CT- The Law in Galatians

-PR- 01

-PG- 1725

I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the school-master to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments.

In other words "all the rules"!

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: John317

Where does Ellen White clearly contradict the Scriptures?

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

Rob

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

Rob

[messenger]

Originally Posted By: Robert

So when Paul says, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them" he means all the rules, including the Ten Commandments!

Ellen agrees with me here:

-BC- 1888

-TI- The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials

-CN- 201

-CT- The Law in Galatians

-PR- 01

-PG- 1725

I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the school-master to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments.

In other words "all the rules"!

Robert, Let me make clear first of all that I do not believe that the moral law the T.C. can save anyone, there is no power in these commandments to save or convert the soul. So lets keep that straight and not get what I am saying twisted.

You changed this last post from your first. In the first you said that Gal.3;24 was referring to the moral law the T.C. But now you have quoted EGW correctly saying that it is Both the ceremonial and moral laws. With this I agree with you. I do not have a problem saying that both laws served as a school master to bring us to Christ.

Where I disagree with you is not In Gal.3:24 But in Gal.3:10. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." This curse was in ref. to the book of the law, it says that clearly, this is the ceremonial and sacrificial laws. Christ died for us to fulfill this type, Paul is saying for anyone to continue in these laws and the book of the law would be denying the Sacrifice of Christ in type that met anti-type. This is what I disagree with you about. Gal.3 is about both laws and although the TC's were included in the book of the law and in Ex. within the first five books of the Torah. The TC.'s were not a the law that brings the curse if we continue in it.

Let's take a look at what Ellen White is saying here:

"As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. The covenant of grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the Fall there was given a divine promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. To all men this covenant offered pardon and the assisting grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It also promised them eternal life on condition of fidelity to God's law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation. {PP 370.2}

This same covenant was renewed to Abraham in the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Genesis 22:18. This promise pointed to Christ. So Abraham understood it (see Galatians 3:8, 16), and he trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was accounted unto him for righteousness. The covenant with Abraham also maintained the authority of God's law. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, "I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect." Genesis 17:1. The testimony of God concerning His faithful servant was, "Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:5. And the Lord declared to him, "I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Genesis 17:7. {PP 370.3}

Though this covenant was made with Adam and renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of Christ. It

371

had existed by the promise of God since the first intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted by faith; yet when ratified by Christ, it is called a new covenant. The law of God was the basis of this covenant, which was simply an arrangement for bringing men again into harmony with the divine will, placing them where they could obey God's law. {PP 370.4}

Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the "second," or "new," covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant. That the new covenant was valid in the days of Abraham is evident from the fact that it was then confirmed both by the promise and by the oath of God--the "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18. {PP 371.1}

But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant. In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal to them His power and His mercy, that they might be led to love and trust Him. He brought them down to the Red Sea--where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible--that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of divine aid; and then He wrought deliverance for them. Thus they were filled with love and gratitude to God and with confidence in His power to help them. He had bound them to Himself as their deliverer from temporal bondage. {PP 371.2}

But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught. {PP 371.3}

God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize

372

the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29.

373

{PP 372.2}

The apostle Paul clearly presents the relation between faith and the law under the new covenant. He says: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh"--it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law--"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 5:1, 3:31, 8:3, 4. {PP 373.1}

[Robert]

Let's take a look at what Ellen White is saying here:

{PP 370.2} {PP 370.3} {PP 370.4} {PP 371.1} {PP 371.2}{PP 371.3}

{PP 372.2}

Hmmm? Quoting other EGW statements doesn't answer the one I quoted. Please stay with the immediate context:

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. [EGW]

Ellen White is speaking primarily of the Ten Commandments here. She applies that phrase, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them”, to the keeping of the moral law.

So, is she fallible, like John states she is? Answer: YES! Now deal with it!

Rob

[guibox]

I believe that Raymond Cottrell in his paper "The IJ: Asset or Liability" that he shows EGW's change of heart and seeming double sidedness in the Galatians passage on the law.

He merely shows that the way she looked at it was different, not that she was wrong. He shows that she was human and grew in her understanding.

I recommend that people read that paper. Traditional SDAs will dislike it because it goes against the IJ but it is written as a friend of the SDA church, not a critic.

As far as I know, Cottrell believed in EGW until his dying day. But like Ford, was so involved in the Daniel committees and research that he could't deny that there were exegetical problems with our interpretation of Daniel.

I have much more faith and confidence in the words of men like Ford or Cottrell as opposed to the bitter diatribe we see from so many former-SDA pastors and lay people in criticizing the IJ and other prophetic beliefs. They were there. They were instrumental in formulating the materials and understanding of what we know today. They were experts in their field. They were commissioned by the church due to their expertise. They are (or were) friends of the church and not enemies.

It behooves us to listen to them and hear what they have to say both positive and negative.

Anyway. Back on topic, guibox!!

[messenger]

I believe that Raymond Cottrell in his paper "The IJ: Asset or Liability" that he shows EGW's change of heart and seeming double sidedness in the Galatians passage on the law.

He merely shows that the way she looked at it was different, not that she was wrong. He shows that she was human and grew in her understanding.

I recommend that people read that paper. Traditional SDAs will dislike it because it goes against the IJ but it is written as a friend of the SDA church, not a critic.

As far as I know, Cottrell believed in EGW until his dying day. But like Ford, was so involved in the Daniel committees and research that he could't deny that there were exegetical problems with our interpretation of Daniel.

I have much more faith and confidence in the words of men like Ford or Cottrell as opposed to the bitter diatribe we see from so many former-SDA pastors and lay people in criticizing the IJ and other prophetic beliefs. They were there. They were instrumental in formulating the materials and understanding of what we know today. They were experts in their field. They were commissioned by the church due to their expertise. They are (or were) friends of the church and not enemies.

It behooves us to listen to them and hear what they have to say both positive and negative.

Anyway. Back on topic, guibox!!

For all the so called friends of the SDA Church that are critical of EGW writings and role as a prophet. And for all the many former-SDA pastors and lay people that reject and criticize EGW and the I.J teachings. There were and are just as many if not more SDA Pastors, Scholars and lay people that stood by and continue to uphold and support our historical biblical platform the Sanctuary I.J. truth,the inspiration and role of Ellen G. White and other Fundamental beliefs. And I and others SDA's that I know that are in unity of faith, also believe in new light, and we have and are willing to investigate any claims of it, but when it contradicts the light and truth that God has already graciously given us down through the years in Adventism, like the false theories of Cottrell, Ford, so called "progressives" etc. does we have to reject it. You can keep putting your faith in the theories of men if you want. But do not try to pass it on to others as perfect exegetical theology, it clearly is not!

[guibox]

I know that are in unity of faith, also believe in new light, and we have and are willing to investigate any claims of it, but when it contradicts the light and truth that God has already graciously given us down through the years in Adventism, like the false theories of Cottrell, Ford, so called "progressives" etc. does we have to reject it.

Paraphrase:

"The SDA church has not erred, nor cannot err."

'We have to reject it' speaks volumes to your open mindedness and how you view inspiration. EGW said, it, I believe it and that settles it for me'

No fresh interpretation, no evaluation and change. Simply the status quo. All or nothing. Accept it all or reject it all. No deviation.

Such is the cultic mindset that allows sectarianism trump sola scriptura.

Again I say...no wonder we have so many former-SDAs. We point fingers at them and say 'It's the great apostasy!' and 'we are told that many will fall but the faithful (read, 'we conservative traditional SDAs) will prevail!' Not realizing that they, and not apostasy are the reason most of the time that people fall away.

Pharisaism is alive and well in the SDA church.

[Woody]

Quote:

"There is a great work to be done by the earnest Bible student; for gems of truth are to be gathered up, and separated from the companionship of error. Though the Bible is a revelation from heaven, yet many do not comprehend its divine teaching. We are to discover new aspects of truth in both the Old and the New Testament, to behold the exceeding breadth and compass of truths which we imagine we understand, but of which we have only a superficial knowledge. He who earnestly searches the Scriptures will see that harmony exists between the various parts of the Bible; he will discover the bearing of one passage upon another, and the reward of his toil will be exceedingly precious." BEcho, October 15, 1892 par. 3

[guibox]

I know that are in unity of faith, also believe in new light, and we have and are willing to investigate any claims of it, but when it contradicts the light and truth that God has already graciously given us down through the years in Adventism, like the false theories of Cottrell, Ford, so called "progressives" etc. does we have to reject it. You can keep putting your faith in the theories of men if you want. But do not try to pass it on to others as perfect exegetical theology, it clearly is not!

[Woody]

Quote:

"Those who feared God were to think for themselves. They were no longer to leave other men to do their thinking. Their minds were no longer to be chained down to erroneous maxims, theories, and doctrines. Ignorance and vice, crime and violence, oppression in high places, must be unveiled. The Light of life had come to this world to shine amid the moral darkness. The gospel would now be proclaimed among the poor, the oppressed. Those in humble life would be given opportunity to understand the real qualifications necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God." Ellen White in TDG 31

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

As a church we believe she was a true prophet of God. The thing we should not do is use Ellen White to test the Bible.

Using EGW as an infallible interpreter of the scriptures is just as bad and many in the church are notorious for this. By denying that all that EGW said doesn't contain any error theologically means that she is an infallible interpreter. The biblical doctrines as defined by the SDA church and endorsed by EGW cannot be changed.

That's not according to my own understanding of the church's view of the relationship between Ellen White and the Bible.

Ellen White was not an exegete, and she wasn't writing from that perspective. She wrote about what she saw in vision and she wrote from the pastoral viewpoint, not that of a trained theologian discussing abstractions and theological systems.

Therefore there is plenty of room for interpreting scripture. There are many subjects and verses about which she wrote nothing or very little.

I believe in Ellen White as a true prophet of God but I don't see her as an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures.

When SDA pastors are trained, they are not taught that they should read Ellen White's comments before they study a particular Bible text and make up a sermon. If anything, they are taught to study Ellen White's comments after they have studied the Bible texts themselves and drawn conclusion on the basis of solid exegesis.

Personally, when I study the Bible, I don't usually consider what Ellen White wrote until I have finished studying the text for myself.

[John317]

[messenger]

Originally Posted By: guibox

Using EGW as an infallible interpreter of the scriptures is just as bad and many in the church are notorious for this. By denying that all that EGW said doesn't contain any error theologically means that she is an infallible interpreter. The biblical doctrines as defined by the SDA church and endorsed by EGW cannot be changed.

That's not according to my own understanding of the church's view of the relationship between Ellen White and the Bible.

Ellen White was not an exegete' date=' and she wasn't writing from that perspective. She wrote about what she saw in vision and she wrote from the pastoral viewpoint, not that of a trained theologian discussing abstractions and theological systems.

Therefore there is plenty of room for interpreting scripture. There are many subjects and verses about which she wrote nothing or very little.

I believe in Ellen White as a true prophet of God but I don't see her as an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures.

When SDA pastors are trained, they are not taught that they should read Ellen White's comments before they study a particular Bible text and make up a sermon. If anything, they are taught to study Ellen White's comments after they have studied the Bible texts themselves and drawn conclusion on the basis of solid exegesis.

Personally, when I study the Bible, I don't usually consider what Ellen White wrote until I have finished studying the text for myself.

[/quote']Amen Brother John317, very good post,my thoughts exactly. They keep trying to put words in our mouths twisting what has been said. None of us have said that we think Ellen White is infallible and none of us said that her writings are above the bible in authority. That is why I cannot take a discussion with them on biblical issues seriously, they keep twisting what is said and making insults and personal attacks because they cannot biblical find fault with our teachings or Ellen White and they only produce false theories to try and tear apart Dan.8:14 but they have no clear explanation of the 2300 days-years and other relevant text.

Good Post John

[John317]

I once asked a well-known Adventist pastor what he thought happened in heaven in 1844 and he told me he had no idea.

About that time I called a dozen or so SDA churches in Southern California and asked the pastors how often they preached or taught on the Investigative Judgement. Only a handful of churches said that they taught the subject often or regularly. The others said they rarely or never did. One had a long conversation with me about why he didn't believe in it.

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.

[aldona]

Quote:

Using Ellen White to test or correct the Bible would be if we said that the Bible says thus-and -so, but Ellen White says different, and we will stick with Ellen White. I don't know of a single time when this happens, although I can think of some instances that are used as examples where we do exactly that. (You can find hundreds of such examples on the Net if you have a mind to.)

I think I have talked about this a while back on a different thread, but here goes.

Try this with your friends and fellow church members.

Mention an apparent discrepancy between the Bible and Ellen White, no matter how minor or insignificant.

"It seems like the Bible says "X" but EGW is saying "Y"."

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.

On EVERY SINGLE OCCASION I have tried this, with folks at all different places on the conservative-liberal spectrum, and with varying levels of theological training, they take the Ellen White version as the truth which has to be defended, and start hunting around for Bible quotes which back up the Ellen White version.

Surely it should be the other way around.

Don't believe me? I didn't, at first, either. Try it. This Sabbath at church would be a great place to start.

Suggested topics:

- can we eat meat, or not?

- did Adam & Eve have robes of light, or were they naked?

- is it permissible to drink alcohol in moderation?

- think of your own - the more minor and inconsequential the difference of opinion, the funnier it becomes to watch people tying themselves in knots trying to twist the Bible to uphold EGW. (At least, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.)

aldona

[Robert]

Whose interpretation do we take in place of Ellen White's?

Oh, so EGW is the measuring stick of truth and therefore we must take her sometimes legalistic interpretation of Scripture as infallible!

[guibox]

Amen Brother John317, very good post,my thoughts exactly. They keep trying to put words in our mouths twisting what has been said. None of us have said that we think Ellen White is infallible and none of us said that her writings are above the bible in authority.

[Robert]

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

[Robert]

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

John - I'm calling you out on this one. I've provided you, and others, with an example of error from the pen of EGW and you ignore it. Why?

Rob

[John317]

Try this with your friends and fellow church members.

Mention an apparent discrepancy between the Bible and Ellen White, no matter how minor or insignificant.

"It seems like the Bible says "X" but EGW is saying "Y"."

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.

On EVERY SINGLE OCCASION I have tried this, with folks at all different places on the conservative-liberal spectrum, and with varying levels of theological training, they take the Ellen White version as the truth which has to be defended, and start hunting around for Bible quotes which back up the Ellen White version.

Surely it should be the other way around.

Don't believe me? I didn't, at first, either. Try it. This Sabbath at church would be a great place to start.

Suggested topics:

- can we eat meat, or not?

- did Adam & Eve have robes of light, or were they naked?

- is it permissible to drink alcohol in moderation?

- think of your own - the more minor and inconsequential the difference of opinion, the funnier it becomes to watch people tying themselves in knots trying to twist the Bible to uphold EGW. (At least, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.)

aldona

Among SDAs who claim to believe in Ellen White, we should be able to discuss what Ellen White says. So it's only natural that SDAs are going to look to see what Ellen White says.

If I'm talking to non-SDAs or to SDAs who either do not believe in her or who don't quote her, I don't talk about what Ellen White says. In that case, it is irrelevant what she says.

People have various levels of understanding in the Bible and Ellen White. So just because one person can't find the Bible support of a belief or doctrine doesn't mean such support doesn't exist. That would be a bit like my asking children to defend a viewpoint and then laughing at them when they can't do it. Some of those people may be new SDAs.

It seems to me that this approach is like playing games with people's minds, though. If someone comes to me with that kind of thing, I would immediately realize it's a game to see how people will react. It would be the same if I went to people who believe the Bible and start bringing up how many times the Bible contradicts itself or is proven to be false.

It sounds like you are apparently doing it only in order to see how people will react, which means that the questions are insincere.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Whose interpretation do we take in place of Ellen White's?

Oh, so EGW is the measuring stick of truth and therefore we must take her sometimes legalistic interpretation of Scripture as infallible!

Did you understand the whole post? I'm not saying she is the measuring stick of truth. I am asking if maybe some people have other "fallible" measuring sticks that they have put in her place-- such as, for instance, Jack Sequeira. But it might be anyone else, such as John Calvin, or any "great theologian."

My point is we can get in the area not of actual contradiction of Scripture but contradiction of some man's interpretation of the Bible.

Is Ellen White contradicting clear Bible truth or she contradicting someone's interpretative opinion of what the Bible says. We all know people who have said Ellen White is a false prophet because she teaches the importance of the Sabbath or that the dead do not know anything. They say that contradicts Paul. But does it?

That is the question. 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?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: messenger

And this is the problem. All other interpretations are automatically 'false theories'. Why? Because they do not measure up to the interpretation of EGW and the pioneers. You've closed your mind and already proved that you are unwilling to consider other options. They are already deemed as 'false theories'

According to your reasoning' date=' EGW cannot be wrong and has never been wrong in her theological discourse.

And yet, you deem her as 'fallible'.

[/quote']

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.

We all agree that Ellen White-- like any prophet of God-- was not infallible. Being fallible just means that someone is capable of making an error and of being mistaken.

As I said before, I know of hundreds of things that various people believe Ellen White was wrong about. They are all over the websites. Which "errors" do you think are genuine errors?