Prophetic Inspiration

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:  I am not certain as to what you mean by the term "28 FBs."

Strictly speaking the so-called 28 only consist of the Bolded paragraph at the   beginning of each of the 28 chapters.  Those paragraphs are the official teaching, right or wrong of the SDA denomination.

Each of those paragraphs is followed by a chapter that explains how that belief is understood in the SDA denomination.   Such is simply the primary work of one person who was assisted by others.  As such, what is in those chapters may not be the official teaching of the SDA denomination. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, you suggest that you know little of Darby.  While I have to take your statement at face value, I am simply dumbfounded by it.

As I understood a statement of yours, you tell me that those documents that I cited do not say anything about a word for word dictation.

On the contrary, I will suggest that they do say something on word for word dictation.

A primary example of this is # 20, written by John M. Gray and titled:  The Inspiration of the Bible--Definition, Extent and Proof. 

 That document is to long for me to cite every example, so I will only cite the following, which it contains:

The Bible plainly teaches that inspiration extends to its words. We spoke of Balaam as uttering that which God put in his mouth, but the same expression is used by God Himself with reference to His prophets. When Moses would excuse himself from service because he was not eloquent, He who made man’s mouth said,

“Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Exodus 4:10-12). And Dr. James H. Brookes’ comment is very pertinent.

“God did not say I will be with thy mind, and teach thee what thou shalt think; but I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

5 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green:  I am not certain as to what you mean by the term "28 FBs."

Strictly speaking the so-called 28 only consist of the Bolded paragraph at the   beginning of each of the 28 chapters.  Those paragraphs are the official teaching, right or wrong of the SDA denomination.

Each of those paragraphs is followed by a chapter that explains how that belief is understood in the SDA denomination.   Such is simply the primary work of one person who was assisted by others.  As such, what is in those chapters may not be the official teaching of the SDA denomination. 

J. N. Loughborough said:

I am still of the opinion I advanced sometime since through the Review: The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such. I plead that we are not patterning after the churches in any unwarrantable sense, in the step proposed. {October 8, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 149.7} 

James White said:

On the subject of creeds, I agree with Bro. Loughborough. I never weighed the points which he has presented, as I have since I began to examine the subject for myself. In Eph.iv,11-13, we read, "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets," etc. Here we have the gifts of the church, presented. Now I take the ground that creeds stand in direct opposition to the gifts. Let us suppose a case: We get up a creed, stating just what we shall believe on this point and the other, and just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that, and say that we will believe the gifts too. But suppose the Lord, through the gifts, should give us some new light that did not harmonize with our creed; then, if we remain true to the gifts, it knocks our creed all over at once. Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement. God put the gifts into the church for a good and great object; but men who have got up their churches, have shut up the way or have marked out a course for the Almighty. They say virtually that the Lord must not do anything further than what has been marked out in the creed. A creed and the gifts thus stand in direct opposition to each other. Now what is our position as a people? The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed. We take the Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing the faith that thus the Lord will teach us from time to time. And in this we take a position against the formation of a creed. We are not taking one step, in what we are doing, toward becoming Babylon. {October 8, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 149.9} 

Ellen White said:

When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, "It is written." Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.-- The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1885. {1SM 416.2}  

Green Cochoa says:

In light of the above, our "fundamental beliefs" can be viewed, rightfully, as a step toward apostasy.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

7 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I understood a statement of yours, ...

I guess there was a misunderstanding.  I understood you to be referring to the "fundamentalism" whose list of "fundamentals" (about five of them) I had posted.  You even referred to them by number, and did not exceed five.  Now you speak of #20?  I was not speaking of your list.

[CoAspen]

Quote

When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony.

In light of the above quote...why are we having this long discussion about the use of EGW and inspiration? Tis rather puzzling, is it the Bible alone, as she said many times, or is it the Bible and EGW which she never said, that we should be following and studying?

[Green Cochoa]

4 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

In light of the above quote...why are we having this long discussion about the use of EGW and inspiration? Tis rather puzzling, is it the Bible alone, as she said many times, or is it the Bible and EGW which she never said, that we should be following and studying?

That's a valid question.  The next question, equally valid, follows.

What does the Bible say about "the spirit of prophecy"?

To follow Ellen White is to follow the Bible.  If the Bible is my only creed, it means I accept its teachings.  Its teachings require me to "believe His prophets."  

[Rossw]

48 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

In light of the above quote...why are we having this long discussion about the use of EGW and inspiration? Tis rather puzzling, is it the Bible alone, as she said many times, or is it the Bible and EGW which she never said, that we should be following and studying?

This is only an issue if EGW is in opposition to the Bible. If she isn't then there is no dilemma.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:  You and I both differ and agree on issues regarding a creed.

As to the so-called 27 & 28, they were never intended to become a creed.

However, there are some (many) Adventists who have essentially made them into a creed.  I strongly object to that.  This means that I have a strong objection to how some are using the book.

 

 

 

[Rossw]

Greg, do you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw, I take issue with what you said in the quote below:

You made that statement in the context of a question that Coaspen asked:  Is it the Bible alone. . . or is  it the Bible and EGW.

In my thinking it is still a major issue even if we never find anything in EGW to be in opposition to what the Bible teaches. 

That major issue is the issue of "canonicity."   We cannot add to the canon of Scripture simply because nothing in the addition is in opposition to the Bible.   The Bible, as understood in the Protestant tradition was given to all humans everywhere as a spiritual guide and a raevelaiton of God's interaction in human life.  It is by the Bible that my Roman Catholic neighbor and the fellow SDA who attends the local SDA Church will be judged.   Ellen White was a gift of God to the SDA church to guide in its development.  My Roman Catholic neighbor will not be judged by Ellen White.  As a gift of God, I will be spiritually enriched, if  I appropriately heed EGWs advice.  But, the Bible remains that standard for my spiritual life.

Quote

This is only an issue if EGW is in opposition to the Bible. If she isn't then there is no dilemma.

[CoAspen]

In response to the above.....very convenient, but no cigar!

You are still ignoring EGW herself, as you have in the past. You even ignore her counsel in the quote, more astounding!

Guess I'm not the person who is confused!

Do not pass go, go to jail!!

[Rossw]

4 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

In response to the above.....very convenient, but no cigar!

You are still ignoring EGW herself, as you have in the past. You even ignore her counsel in the quote, more astounding!

Guess I'm not the person who is confused!

Do not pass go, go to jail!!

Your lack of understanding does not give you permission to be rude.

[Rossw]

9 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw, I take issue with what you said in the quote below:

You made that statement in the context of a question that Coaspen asked:  Is it the Bible alone. . . or is  it the Bible and EGW.

In my thinking it is still a major issue even if we never find anything in EGW to be in opposition to what the Bible teaches. 

That major issue is the issue of "canonicity."   We cannot add to the canon of Scripture simply because nothing in the addition is in opposition to the Bible.   The Bible, as understood in the Protestant tradition was given to all humans everywhere as a spiritual guide and a raevelaiton of God's interaction in human life.  It is by the Bible that my Roman Catholic neighbor and the fellow SDA who attends the local SDA Church will be judged.   Ellen White was a gift of God to the SDA church to guide in its development.  My Roman Catholic neighbor will not be judged by Ellen White.  As a agift of God, I will be spiritually enriched, if  I appropriately heed EGWs advice.  But, the Bible remains that standard for my spiritual life.

 

 

Greg, a problem that comes up with your post is whether God speaks through man outside of the Canon. Of course we know that's true but is there a distinction between God's word through EGW or through the Canon? Of course Coaspen will immediately jump to conclusions with what I've just said but the clarification is in the role of EGW. We've discussed EGW's role before which, ultimately was ironically enough to bring the church back to the Bible.

Will man be saved outside of EGW's own council? Of course. But because EGW is outside of canon should we just dismiss her council?

[Green Cochoa]

52 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As to the so-called 27 & 28, they were never intended to become a creed.

That may be the "story line," but I do not believe it to be actually true.  The very fact of the title assigned to the "creed" clearly indicated its credal purpose from the outset: "fundamental beliefs."  The word "creed" comes from Latin meaning simply "believe."  In Spanish, the word is "creer."  The word "fundamental," added to this, clearly indicates their intended purpose--to be "foundational" for members of the church.

As the 28 fundies are not part of God's Word, and as we are exhorted to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as our creed, a clear line of demarkation exists between them and "scripture."

[CoAspen]

1 hour ago, Rossw said:

Your lack of understanding does not give you permission to be rude.

What is it that I don't understand......Is it the Bible alone or the Bible + EGW? She said not to use her, several times, she was quoted as saying that it is the Bible only and yet I can get no answer to the question...ya, I know, its been asked many times....but no straight answer or just more prevarication:

   prevaricateverb    speak or act in an evasive way

Circular reasoning is not a clear and distinct answer either.......just pointing out issues with the thought process, calling them rude is a red herring!!

[Rossw]

37 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

What is it that I don't understand......Is it the Bible alone or the Bible + EGW? She said not to use her, several times, she was quoted as saying that it is the Bible only and yet I can get no answer to the question...ya, I know, its been asked many times....but no straight answer or just more prevarication:

   prevaricateverb    speak or act in an evasive way

Circular reasoning is not a clear and distinct answer either.......just pointing out issues with the thought process, calling them rude is a red herring!!

Coaspen, is it your opinion EGW received visions and inspiration from God? It is my opinion she did. 

Can you cite where EGW said not to "use" her? This is an interesting dilemma for you. Do you cite EGW in the proper context or do you cite her for the very reason she said not to?

Even now you are responding in a rude manner. That is not a red herring but an observation of the tone of your writing.

And no I haven't used circular reasoning because I've made no claim of authority. Only of what I believe. If I have used circular reasoning please show me.

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

Can you cite where EGW said not to "use" her?

Quote

When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, "It is written." Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.-- The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1885. {1SM 416.2}  

The most recent quote right here on the topic!

Now, I am sure that you can find the others, just do a search, it hasn't been that long since the quotes were posted.

Quote

To follow Ellen White is to follow the Bible.  If the Bible is my only creed, it means I accept its teachings.  Its teachings require me to "believe His prophets."  

Circular.....First sentence already puts EGW and Bible on (=) footing.....The 2nd part makes a circle, Bible-teachings-believe His prophets-implied EGW is a prophet...so we are back to both being (=).

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, CoAspen said:

The most recent quote right here on the topic!

Now, I am sure that you can find the others, just do a search, it hasn't been that long since the quotes were posted.

Circular.....First sentence already puts EGW and Bible on (=) footing.....The 2nd part makes a circle, Bible-teachings-believe His prophets-implied EGW is a prophet...so we are back to both being (=).

That's just the point, I think.  Both are equal.  But if "circular reasoning" is not your thing, why do you accept the Bible?  Is it not the Bible that says such things as "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"?  Does not the Bible say "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"?  Does not the Bible say "For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?  (Regarding Ellen White, was she inspired by God? If so, what, according to the Bible, does that make her inspired writings?)

Do you believe the Bible because the Bible says to?  If so, how is this NOT circular?

You see, I have no problem with the scriptures forming a perfect circle.  That's what makes them the more beautiful and incomprehensibly amazing.  How God could have made such a perfect document to guide us may well be beyond our understanding.

[Rossw]

God is the only time circular logic is perfectly acceptable. It isnt my circular logic but God's.

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

 

 

Sorry, I wanted to like a quote but hit the quote button instead and it won't let me comment with out this...

[CoAspen]

Why do you both continue to ignore her very own words that she is not equal to the Bible? 

Many people are 'inspired', even pastors, I have yet to hear one say their words were equal to the Bible.

Since the SDA church obviously does not consider EGW and the Bible as being equal, why do you say that you are SDA's or maybe I missed that your aren't. It is becoming quite clear as to what your 'beef' is with the church, it does not believe or teach what you do. AS I have said before, my experience with those who place both as equal and are more prone to quote EGW, way back to the 4th grade and college down TX and New M way, is not new and does not change. The rhetoric is still the same. At least the Shepards Rod had their own Church organization. 

[Rossw]

The Promise of the Spirit

28 “[p]It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all [q]mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
29 “Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

----------

Do we deny the Holy Spirit's message delivered through the "sons and daughters" because they aren't Canon?

[Green Cochoa]

10 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Why do you both continue to ignore her very own words that she is not equal to the Bible? 

Many people are 'inspired', even pastors, I have yet to hear one say their words were equal to the Bible.

Since the SDA church obviously does not consider EGW and the Bible as being equal, why do you say that you are SDA's or maybe I missed that your aren't. It is becoming quite clear as to what your 'beef' is with the church, it does not believe or teach what you do. AS I have said before, my experience with those who place both as equal and are more prone to quote EGW, way back to the 4th grade and college down TX and New M way, is not new and does not change. The rhetoric is still the same. At least the Shepards Rod had their own Church organization. 

1) For context/verification, where does Mrs. White say her words are not equal to the Bible?

2) Are you equating Ellen White to a pastor in place of a prophetess?

3) Since when does "the SDA church" not consider EGW and the Bible as being equal?  Who or what is "the church"?  Is it not composed of its members?  Am I not one among them?  I am hardly alone in this belief, for it is the teaching of the Scriptures.

4) Your implied desire to disenfranchise/disfellowship those with whom you disagree does not come from the sweet Spirit of Christ.

[Rossw]

2 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

 

12 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Why do you both continue to ignore her very own words that she is not equal to the Bible? 

I never said she herself is equal to the Bible. It is God's own word and inspiration that is equal to His own words. 

16 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Many people are 'inspired', even pastors, I have yet to hear one say their words were equal to the Bible.

Do you believe EGW is just a typical pastor? The question you've continued to evade is if you believe EGW was chosen by God to receive special visions and inpirations?

20 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Since the SDA church obviously does not consider EGW and the Bible as being equal, why do you say that you are SDA's or maybe I missed that your aren't. 

False premise. It is God's inspiration and Word is equal to God's inspiration and Word.

23 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

 It is becoming quite clear as to what your 'beef' is with the church, it does not believe or teach what you do.  

No, I don't really have a beef with God's Church. Though the SDA church has made mistakes and is fallible.

27 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

AS I have said before, my experience with those who place both as equal and are more prone to quote EGW, way back to the 4th grade and college down TX and New M way, is not new and does not change. The rhetoric is still the same. At least the Shepards Rod had their own Church organization. 

Now you've run off on a false premise.

[Tom Wetmore]

4 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

What does the Bible say about "the spirit of prophecy"? 

It says quite simply that it is the testimony of Jesus.  Testimony is the spoken words of a person. The testimony of Jesus is the words spoken by Jesus. In the context this could mean the words spoken by Jesus to John that he wrote down in the book of Revelation, which is really the whole book as described in the opening words, "This is the revelation of Jesus." Testimony and revelation are really quite similar in meaning. To testify is to reveal something.  Those brethren that have the testimony of Jesus are the ones that heard it.  They are the first hand witnesses of Jesus life and teaching that spread that as the good news of the Christ.  So it seems to me that the testimony of Jesus is also the testimony about Jesus by those that were there that heard what he said and witnessed what he did.  So in the context of what John wrote, it includes the gospel writers. 

The phrase "spirit of prophecy" is referring to the above testimony, first and foremost the words spoken by Jesus and the gospel witnesses of what Jesus said and did.   The spirit of something is the vital principle, its essential meaning. If I refer to "the spirit of the law", I am speaking of its general meaning or intent, its inspiration. It is the key to really understanding it.  So, in context the spirit of the prophecy that John was writing, the key to understanding it was the testimony (words) of and about Jesus.   A good place to start to understand the prophecy of Revelation is the Gospels.  And in a broader sense, Jesus is the key to understanding any Biblical prophecy. 

I prefer not to refer to the writings of EGW as The Spirit of Prophecy, because it tends to imply that that one verse in Revelation is just talking about her words and her testimonies. She does indeed bear witness to Jesus by her many wonderful and insightful words about him as His messenger. But it is really not her words that are the spirit of prophecy, but the testimony of Jesus.