Prophetic Inspiration

[Geoarrge]

How much of Ellen White's writings were published after her death, though, which she might have chosen not to publish if she understood that it would be implied to be taken as authoritative prophetic revelation?

[Tom Wetmore]

The reason is quite simple.  Holding EGW to a standard of essentially perfection that any error in any detail is evidence that she was a false prophet puts that person in a very serious moral dilemma if an error in her writings is discovered that they cannot explain away.  Either they must reject EGW as an inspired prophet or change the standard to which they judge whether someone is a false prophet.   The fundamentalist mindset finds it extremely difficult to admit error in their beliefs and standards.  it is like the law of the Meads and the Persians, it cannot be changed. They will claim it as an unrefutable "Thus saith the Lord" and quote the essential statement that God does not change, so they cannot do so.

Rather than lower their standards, or change their beliefs, they have no other alternative but to reject EGW, either with great disappointment, or anger that they were mislead.  And as too often the case they become as fervent against her as they once were for her.  

[Rossw]

It really looks as if many here reject the SDA fundamental belief #1. Is that true?

[bluejx]

Interesting last few post by Robert and Green.  Allow me to inject just a couple of verses into that discussion.

 

Romans 8:3 (NKJV)  For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 

Romans 8:4 (NKJV)  that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

[Robert]

3 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

No, not perfection.  The glory of God.  We will NEVER reach it.  We will continue toward that throughout eternity.  This is why the KJV uses "come short."  To say "fall" implies having been at a higher level, and to have descended from it.  But to say "come short" of God's glory implies simply that we do not measure up to it.

The glory of God is His goodness...righteousness (see Ex 33:18,19).  Here EGW agrees:   "It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God; and that in the meek and lowly One is manifested the character of Him who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto." DA 20

What we "come short" of is God's agape love.  Agape, as defined by Paul, "is not self-seeking". (1 Cor 13:5)  Here's where we "come short".  Hence by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in God's sight. 

[Robert]

3 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

What Mrs. White published was inspired by the Infallible Spirit of God.  At times, angels even gave her direct quotes.  At other times, her thoughts were inspired and she had the task of choosing the best words to express them.  At times, she was given a vision in which the truths she needed to write were communicated to her clearly.  She had thousands of visions over the course of her lifetime--which appears to be more than perhaps all of the Bible authors combined.  Of course, she wrote many times the number of pages of material as one can find in the Bible as well.  Aren't we blessed?  

Personally I think it is better to understand Romans and Galatians. If you have that down you have a good understanding of the gospel.

[Green Cochoa]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

The glory of God is His goodness...righteousness (see Ex 33:18,19).  Here EGW agrees:   "It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God; and that in the meek and lowly One is manifested the character of Him who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto." DA 20

What we "come short" of is God's agape love.  Agape, as defined by Paul, is not self-seeking.  Here's where we "come short".  Hence by the work of the law no flesh will be justified in God's sight. 

Is that doublespeak?  First you quote Ellen White to say that the glory of God is goodness and righteousness, then you say "What we 'come short' of is God's agape love."  The text says we come short of the glory of God.  We will progress toward that throughout all eternity.  We will not fall throughout eternity.  The not-inspired version is simply heretical on this point, as it is on many others.  There is no requirement in the Bible that we continue to sin: quite the opposite.  Furthermore, one cannot love (agape) whilst continuing in sin.

[Robert]

8 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Is that doublespeak?  First you quote Ellen White to say that the glory of God is goodness and righteousness, then you say "What we 'come short' of is God's agape love."  The text says we come short of the glory of God. 

I gave you Ex 33:18,19.  Clearly Moses defines "the glory of God" as His goodness.  "God is love", i.e., God is agape.  God is good; He is agape; He is holy and righteous.

Quote

 There is no requirement in the Bible that we continue to sin: quite the opposite

Then I take it you know some holy Joes?

[Kevin H]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 5:22 PM, Green Cochoa said:

Kevin,

I have it through personal connections that Walter Rea, author of "The White Lie," was not motivated to write his book merely from a particular understanding or misunderstanding of the facts, but rather as a result, as is often the case, of some relationship issues with others in the church.  He became embittered, and turned his back on what he had formerly believed and taught. The specifics of his case are a personal matter with him.  But one should not incorrectly assume his book came only from a logical point of view, with no other motivation than that of "facts."

I am aware of this as well, but the one point was that someone reading how he approached Mrs. White predicted that once he learned how her writings came would have a tendency towards attacking her. His arguments were focused towards those who held the same approach that he use to hold. To those who tended not to be fundamentalists his arguments did not make any waves.

[Kevin H]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 5:40 PM, Rossw said:

Kevin, do you support Walter Rea's conclusions?

Depends on what part. The fact that Mrs. White used sources, yes. His shock over them and saying that she plagiarized, NO! His claim that she denied coping, a thousand times NO WAY! 

First of all when she started writing the laws were different. There were two styles of writing, scholarly which indeed had all the footnotes, and popular which had massive copying without footnotes.  The Review belonged to a coalition of 1,000 religious journals who gave each other a free copy so that their writers could copy from each other. (Mrs. White had first dibs then the others could go through them.) Mrs. White could have well been copied from as well. By the time the copywrite laws had changed  Mrs. White had been entrenched in the old methods and did her best to give sources but she had read so much that it would have been impossible to get everything done at a state that would have fit her critics.

Second, Mrs. White had an original framework that she was working with focusing on different themes. First was the message that the Millerite movement was lead by God and that they were not to give it up as being not from God. Then came the formation of the church, followed by the health message and setting up the educational and health intuitions. Then came her crowning work, the Great Controversy message. This framework was original to her. God gave her visions. She described them as like looking at pictures and needing to describe the pictures into words.

In class at AUC an exercise that the teacher would do to teach about visions and prophecy was to have a picture and would call up students to describe the picture. Try doing this with some of your friends, it would be eye opening. (I like to do the same thing but add a twist, I would get 2 similar pictures and have the people come up and see only the one photo and to see if they would be able to pick the picture that was being shown and not the other similar picture. Different people use different words and describes things a little different and notice different things in the picture. Meanwhile every one listening to the descriptions are forming a mental image of what they think the photo looks like. When it was done and the whole class got to see the picture two discussions was the fact that the picture did not look exactly like anyone's mental picture from the discussion, and looking at the differences in how the handful of students who were allowed to see the picture described it. And in mine, everyone was able to tell which photo was the one being described. Satan will come claiming to be Christ. Our 5 senses will say that he is Christ. His demons will impersonate our loved ones as well as the Bible writers and probably Mrs. White. The counterfeit will be perfect. The Bible will be found to have the same problems with things like copying that Rea accused Mrs. White of. If you were not having your presuppositions questioned in a framework of faith in the Bible and Mrs. White, you would have had this information given in a framework of doubt and millions will give up the Bible because of those arguments. Those of us who continue to hold to the Bible and Mrs. White will be seen as crazy, even to ourselves. We will honestly believe that we are going to be lost, that we are giving up heaven for faithfulness to the Bible and Mrs. White. The result is that God will have a people who does right because it is right, and not with any hope of heaven. But we will be fair to the Bible and Mrs. White accepting them on their terms, not ours.

I disagree with Walter Rea in that he believed that if Mrs. White's writings came about through natural reasons that they could not be supernatural, that they needed to be one or the other. I have no problem with them being both.  I disagree that Mrs. White denied copying. Oh, he has quotes that with a superficial reading sounds like she is denying. But he neglects to note that the people who she made those comment to were people who knew she was copying, many of them doing the copying for her and she knew that they knew about her copying. The issue in those quotes are not whether or not she was copying but did her messages come from the visions or from what she was reading and copying. With that her messages were coming from God not the reading she and others were doing and the copying. But if you only look at her words and not the historical context it sounds like he is right. But the historical context proves him to be wrong.

While there may be more ways, I have noticed basically two ways Mrs. White copied: First she was a literary genius. Had God not called her to be a prophet she would have gone down in history as a novelist and philosopher. But having such a critical mind she did not see how her words could fit her high standard, so she wanted to look for beautiful ways to express her thoughts. (Usually she paraphrased and improved upon the person she quoted. I would have loved to have seen what she could have done if she trusted her skills more, I bet that her works would be even clearer and more beautiful. ) Second she (or usually her assistants) looked for things to bring about a narrative to tie from one point that she focused upon to another point that she wanted to spend time on. Sadly much of what people complain about was where she was quoting others for only a running narrative.

[Kevin H]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 9:05 PM, Rossw said:

It really looks as if many here reject the SDA fundamental belief #1. Is that true?

No, that is NOT true Rossw.  Let's look at what it actually says:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration. The inspired authors spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to humanity the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.

Notice what it actually says compared to how it sounds like you have been misreading it by your question: It says that they were given by divine inspiration and that the inspired authors spoke and wrote as they were moved by his Holy Spirit.

We have 2 views of inspiration: The fundamentalist view of God basically using them as his pen, and Mrs. White's view where she describes it has having seeing pictures and trying to describe them. Natural and supernatural working together. Just because I accept Mrs. White's view of inspiration and reject the Fundamentalist's view of inspiration does not mean that I am rejecting inspiration.

The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authorative and infallible revelation of his will. Notice it does not say that it is infallible words or anything about scriptures, prophets and Bible writers being infallible, but what is revealed in the scriptures is an infallible revelation of God's will. Again, we are rejecting the Fundamentalist's understanding, not what our fundamental beliefs say. They are indeed the standard of character, the test of experience and the definitive revealer of doctrines and the trustworthy (not infailible with each and every fact absolutely clear) record of God's acts in history.

If you had actually read what Fundamental Belief #1 actually said and not reading fundamentalist ideas into those words you would not have made that assumption.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In science, facts are important.  They are objective.  They can be observed.    But, this is only one step in the process.

Once a person has identified a set of facts, something has to be done with them.   Isolated and alone, facts are not worth much.  It is what one does with them that either gives the facts value and can even make them dangerous and negative in value.  The conclusions that one may derive from a collection of facts may be misleading, dangerous and false.

The positive value in Walter Rae, in part, derives from the facts that he discovered.  Yes, some were already known, even if very limited in their knowledge.  Walter Rae added to the body of knowledge of the facts about Ellen White, both in making the facts more widely known and in adding to the body of factual knowledge.

However, Walter  Rae was extremely wrong in what he did with those facts and the conclusions that he drew from them.  I do not consider him to be wrong in minor ways as to his conclusions.  I  consider his errors to be major.  I believe that his errors are endemic to his book The White Lie.  Maybe I should say "panendemic."   

NOTE:  I am making a general statement hers.  I do not intend to get into a specific discussion of his errors.  If you are interested in what I have said, consider it and determine for yourself how you would apply it.  Also, I do not say that everything that he claimed as a fact was a fact.

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 6:50 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

Rather than lower their standards, or change their beliefs, they have no other alternative but to reject EGW, either with great disappointment, or anger that they were mislead.  And as too often the case they become as fervent against her as they once were for her.  

In the past, I have very much resembled this remark.  Over the years (thanks to some I have met here), I have come to respect EGW as an inspired writer who was ahead of her time; having the NT gift of prophecy; but NOT having the gift of interpretation.  It is the church - not EGW - that have made her into our own version of the pope.  I support her as an inspired write - much like Tozer, John G. Lake, or Oswald Chambers; but not as an infallible prophet.

[Kevin H]

At Andrews they had a set of Mrs. White's books that was hand colored to correspond with Walter Rea's study and that was very useful as we study Mrs. White and I wish that it could be printed for regular use. What is really interesting is the parts of the book that was not colored.

[Kevin H]

6 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

In the past, I have very much resembled this remark.  Over the years (thanks to some I have met here), I have come to respect EGW as an inspired writer who was ahead of her time; having the NT gift of prophecy; but NOT having the gift of interpretation.  It is the church - not EGW - that have made her into our own version of the pope.  I support her as an inspired write - much like Tozer, John G. Lake, or Oswald Chambers; but not as an infallible prophet.

While I agree that it is the church and not Mrs. White that have made her into our own version of the pope, I would disagree with JoeMo's above post. There is a difference between indirect inspiration that people like Mrs. White, Nathaniel, Moses, Isaiah, Philips daughters etc. and indirectly inspired people like Oswald Chambers. People like Chambers has the Holy Spirit leading in their study, but people like Mrs. White, Elijah, Jeremiah have received direct information from God.

JoeMoe; there is no such thing as an infallible prophet. For example David wanted to build a temple for the Lord. So he called "The Lord's Messenger" the representative of earth to be a part of the heavenly council and to bring to earth the findings of the heavenly council, Nathan, in his official role as prophet in the court of the king of Israel and asked him if he could build the temple. (it was not a casual question by the water fountain).

Based on his insight as someone who was an inspired prophet he answered correctly, there was nothing sacred about needing to worship God in the tent that it would not be a sin to build the temple. So directly inspired Nathan told David this.

However, God had to send Nathan back because while building the temple would not be a sin, in being a man of war, David conquered a number of people. These now became a part of Israel and Judah and converted from worshiping Baal to Yahweh.

In the Baal religion, El "God" was worshiped in a tent. After Baal won the victory over leviathan he wanted a temple and was worshiped in a temple. For these new converts the temple would have been confusing, who were they to worship, God or Baal?

Therefore Nathan came back with a "No" answer. The rest of Nathan's answer has all been edited together in the Bible, but there is evidence that it may have been 3 different conversations with the last one being years later. That last answer was that since these new converts were now members for a number of years and their children have grown up in the faith, that David's son can build the temple.

Prophets are directly inspired, but they are not infallible, they are a mixture of a direct message from God that gives what is necessary for salvation, but given within the prophets understandings and settings. The infallible prophet does not exist. I find with people who are upset because Mrs. White was not infallible they give her up and latch on to Paul with the belief that they finally found an infallible prophet. They go from people who use to bash Mrs. White over the heads of people to bashing Paul over the heads of people.

[Rossw]

Kevin, I don't think we are as far apart in our understandings of the Scripture as we might think. Even if we don't agree very much. 

Of course EGW is a fallen human like everyone else. However, she was obviously a highly skilled person in her ability to communicate God's message. Is her message clear enough for clear understanding? I still think so. 

Would I say probably most Biblical writers were similarly capable? I also think so.

Are there mistake in Scripture? I'd acknowledge yes. A famous comma comes to mind but even with that in mind there is still plenty of Biblical context to overlook the mistakes.

[JoeMo]

Kevin,

I disagree that EGW had the same level of inspiration as OT prophets such as Elijah and Jeremiah.  In the OT, the gift of prophecy was concentrated in the person who held the office of prophet.  In the NT it is distributed among members of the body of Christ.  That's why in the NT, Paul has advised us that "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2Cor. 13:1).

Furthermore, if the eschatological writings of Biblical Prophets like Daniel and John are "fallible"; we could be in some deep doo-doo.  For my own comfort, I would rather believe that these are "sure" words of prophecy.

[Rossw]

I don't see the volume of inspired work coming out of anyone like it did for EGW. This essentially singles her out from the rest in our modern era. EGW would have to then be able to endure the same scrutiny as any other Biblical author. In my opinion, of course.

[Rossw]

Does that put her writing on par with the Bible? No, I think she served a different function than the Biblical writers.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw, if you want a list of 17 of the most prolific writers in history see the following:

http://thewhynot100.blogspot.com/2014/06/17-most-prolific-writers-in-history.html

NOTE:  Ellen White did not make the above list.  There is only one religious writer on that list and that is a person who has written over 550 books.

Here is a listing of about 40, which includes several religious writers, but not EGW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_writers

Matthew Lawrence Chesterton, who wrote under a penname, wrote some 90 million to 100 million words.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

From the 4/28/2015 REVIEW:

“It’s not an exaggeration to say that apart from Ellen White, professor George Knight is probably the most prolific author the Adventist church has seen,” Valentine said at the ceremony on April 21. He “has become one of the most influential voices in the contemporary Adventist church.”

Knight authored 37 books from 1982 to 2013, when his most recent volume, Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus, was published. Among his best-known books are A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists (1999), and series about Adventist pioneers and New Testament books.

Ellen White, who died 100 years ago this year, wrote 40 books during her 87-year lifetime, but more than 100 titles are available today because of compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, according to the website of the Ellen G. White Estate.

 

 

[JoeMo]

37 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Ellen White, who died 100 years ago this year, wrote 40 books during her 87-year lifetime, but more than 100 titles are available today because of compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, according to the website of the Ellen G. White Estate.

This statement is true.  However, while some believe every word she ever wrote was "prophetic", I believe that much of her work(i.e., "Testimonies") was meant as counsel to individuals; not words of wisdom to the whole church.  My experience with many of the compilations is that her statements were taken out of context or otherwise twisted to "prove" one or another "truth" espoused by the denomination.

[Green Cochoa]

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

That's why in the NT, Paul has advised us that "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2Cor. 13:1).

Paul didn't give us that advice.  God did.  In the Old Testament.  See Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6-7 and Deuteronomy 19:15.  And in the New Testament.  See Matthew 18:16.  Jesus Himself speaks.   

[Rossw]

Greg, it looks as though you've missed the intent of my comments on EGW. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/25/2016 at 7:50 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

The reason is quite simple.  Holding EGW to a standard of essentially perfection that any error in any detail is evidence that she was a false prophet puts that person in a very serious moral dilemma if an error in her writings is discovered that they cannot explain away.  Either they must reject EGW as an inspired prophet or change the standard to which they judge whether someone is a false prophet.   The fundamentalist mindset finds it extremely difficult to admit error in their beliefs and standards.  it is like the law of the Meads and the Persians, it cannot be changed. They will claim it as an unrefutable "Thus saith the Lord" and quote the essential statement that God does not change, so they cannot do so.

Rather than lower their standards, or change their beliefs, they have no other alternative but to reject EGW, either with great disappointment, or anger that they were mislead.  And as too often the case they become as fervent against her as they once were for her.  

I don't think that I have become "fervent against her" - though I was once fervent FOR her.   I have just found that her writings do NOT help me to convince non-SDAs of truths such as the first type of death as an unconscious sleep, OR the fallacy of a "secret rapture", etc. etc.  Only Scripture convinces non-SDAs.  That is why SDA evangelism begins with Bible and only much later introduces the "gift" of EGW. 

When a non-SDA reads the Conflict Series, she does not know that SDAs believe those books were "inspired".  She just reads them as she would any other Bible commentary.  The passages in the books which use BIBLE to support the conclusion reached, convince because of the Scripture sited - not because it was EGW who wrote the commentary.  

I will give one example where I think that SDAs took Mrs White's words too literally, and went off in a wrong direction. 

I remember she wrote (concerning Daniel 8:11) that she "saw that the word sacrifice had been added to the text". 

Well of course the word "sacrifice" was "added".  That was for the benefit of non-Hebrews, who would not automatically know that the "continual" (or daily) WAS the continual burnt offering, on the alter in the courtyard of the Temple.    Because Mrs White "saw" that the word "sacrifice" had been added, some concluded she MEANT "tamiyd" did NOT refer to any type of sacrifice.  They went off looking for some other meaning for the word "tamiyd".  They concluded the Temple of Yahweh would never be rebuilt on the Mount, and sacrifices would never be offered once again. 

I personally believe they missed the meaning of the text.  I believe a Temple of Yahweh WILL be restored on that Mount prior to the return of Jesus in glory.  I believe the Abomination of Desolation will sit in THAT Temple, "showing himself, that he is God".