Prophetic Inspiration

[Green Cochoa]

7 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

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 about him and being His messenger. But it is not her words that are the spirit of prophecy, but the testimony of Jesus.

I agree.  The Bible is the "Spirit of Prophecy."  That extends beyond the book of Revelation, as you have aptly pointed out.  

Any of the prophets who bear testimony of Jesus (including all of the Bible authors), reflect the light from Him and, collectively, form the lesser light, called the spirit of prophecy and the testimony of Jesus.

Mrs. White called her own writings the "lesser light" in keeping with this principle, for she gave us the testimony of Jesus.  Frequently she referred to her writings as "the testimonies," and she seems to have used this term beyond the nine volume set we may think of first.

[Kevin H]

I see this thread is going a couple of different directions; Fundamentalism, the Fundamental beliefs, and the role of local prophets compared to the more universal prophets who contributed to the Canon.

While the word "Fundamental" appears in both "Fundamentalism" and "Fundamental beliefs" these are two different things.

Our church has from time to time, even in the days of the Whites, published a list of fundamental beliefs. These have just been basic lists of what we sort of believe. When we update these lists (at least until the 2015 General Conference) we have been very careful to have it generalized enough and vague enough for the multiple applications within the church.

When the 27 Fundamental beliefs were formed a book was written along with it. The 27 were written to include the views of Maxwell, the Adventist Theological Society, views expressed by Green Cochoa, views expressed by the so called "Historic Adventists" views of more mainline Adventists, and some more liberal Adventists. Some of our leaders wrote a book along with the 27. While the "Official Statement" was written vaguely enough to include a wide variety of though, the book gave how some of our church leaders were hoping that we would read those words and made them more specific. The 27 was a carefully crafted work to be inclusive. One of my concerns about the 2015 General Conference was that it wanted to "Clarify" the 27. That is dangerous. As long as we keep the spirit of the 27 we are not in danger of making it a creed. If we put more stock in the book and if we want to clarify it too much then we are in danger of making it into a dangerous creed.

But it find it interesting that it is Green Cochoa who is complaining about the dangers of the misuse of the 27/28, because where he and I disagree is where he wants to make his interpretation our creed and force his views (such as on women's ordination, headship theology and what we consider to be Biblical arguments) on the rest of us.  I can live with him believing what he believes. The church should have room for both of us. We should both have the right to want to speak as clearly as we can for what we believe and for others to listen to the different arguments and make up their own minds as to which corresponds to their conscience and what they see as Biblical. Our church has that freedom that many other churches do not have.

This ties to women's ordination. I have shared my arguments as to why I believe that the Bible and Mrs. White support women's ordination and what I see as danger in "Headship" Theology. Green has told us that he supports "Headship" Theology and that he only accepts as Biblical direct Biblical quotes, while I want to understand what those quotes actually mean by learning more of the language and culture and history.  People can read and study and make up their own minds. We should not force women's ordination on people who disagree with it, but we should not prevent it from the women who have been faithfully serving the church in ministry and from members who do believe that it is Biblical.

There is a big difference between someone who says "The Bible is against women's ordination but that was fine for their times but we have to do something for our times" from the spirit of two people one who believes that the Bible teaches headship theology, the other believes that the Bible does not teach headship theology and believes that the story of Mary and Martha fits the cultural understanding of the debate on women's ordination in Jesus' day and thus should also be applied to our day if we are to follow Jesus' example, and that there are literary and cultural structures in both the Old and New Testaments that support women's ordination, and having a church large enough for room for both of these people.

[Green Cochoa]

8 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

I can live with him believing what he believes. The church should have room for both of us.

The church has room for you believing that the 2300-day prophecy is the longest in the Bible, and me believing that the 7-millennium prophecy is the Bible's longest.  Neither belief is particularly salvific.  The church, however, has no room for apostasy.  Korah, Dathan, and Abiram aspired to positions God had not given them.  Many in our church today unknowingly do likewise.

Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this. God had given overwhelming evidence that he was leading Israel. But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of his power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency. The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Ye have killed the people of the Lord." Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute his judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. They had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin by which man's heart is effectually hardened against the influence of divine grace. "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man," said Christ, "it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." These words were spoken by our Saviour when the gracious works which he had performed through the power of God were attributed by the Jews to Beelzebub. It is through the agency of the Holy Spirit that God communicated with man; and those who deliberately reject this agency as satanic, have cut off the channel of communication between the soul and Heaven.  {RH, November 12, 1903 par. 40} 

Similarly, Uzzah would likely not have touched the ark had he known it would result in his death.  Many here, by taking it upon themselves to declare what is inspired and what is not in the writings of Ellen White or the Bible do as Uzzah did, according to Mrs. White.

[Kevin H]

Fundamentalism is a belief that had probably become a part of people's subconscious but came to the forefront when Evolution became popular and Atheism started to grow, and people were questioning the existence of God and if God does not exist then what of the Bible. and trying to make the Bible purely human and fictional. People who wanted to believe in the Bible were now faced with the question " What does inspiration mean?" and the answers they formed which is summarized as:

       1.  The inerrancy of the Bible

        2. The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis

        3. The virgin birth of Christ

        4. The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ

         5. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

During this time churches tended to either go to modernism where they questioned the Bible and Fundamentalism which embraced these ideas. There were pastors who rejected both. I read that while Moody worked with Fundamentalists and left his organization to them, that he himself never embraced fundamentalism. There was that other pastor who's name I've seen but don't remember but who opposed both views and offered a more moderate approach that had faith in the Bible and God but rejected Fundamentalism, and who was open to the Bible having an inerrant message but is not inerrant itself. He became hated and a woman accused him of having an affair with her. She was proved to be lying but she was a fundamentalist and wanted the church to be fundamentalist and wanted to prevent this minister from offering the world a choice on how to have faith in the Bible without accepting Fundamentalism.

Seventh-day Adventists were shielded from this due to our mistaken view of the shut door. While we were in error, God still gave us a blessing through it. When we realized that we were wrong on the shut door, we had to face this new religious world. Due to our belief in the virgin birth and bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ we were attracted to the fundamentalists. The questioning of the trinity among many of our leaders made us leery of the Substitutionary Atonement of the cross, which weakened the ideas of Fundamentalism in our church. The ideas of the Great Controversy giving the idea that the universe (maybe not the earth) was way older than 6,000 years and the openness among our leaders and articles in the Review indicating that there may have been things going on her to deal with the great controversy prior to the creation week gave us a qualified agreement but not fully accepting point #2. As the church became Trinitarian the questioning of point 5 became less intense but still held out a more liberal view and willingness to study instead of just accepting the popular view of the atonement. This helps to explain a lot of the different directions Adventism has gone instead of marching lock step with other Christians.

Mrs. White latched on to the more moderate view of that pastor who was hated and who the woman lied abut having an affair with to prevent his heresy from infecting Christianity (although she changed his idea that inspiration was more of a subjective experience to a definite objective experience.). When W. W. Prescott learned about and began teaching Fundamentalism (those 5 points) and other young emerging leaders such as Daniels and Canright were also embracing these beliefs, she asked them to work with her and her writings and they were shocked to learn how she did her writings and shocked that she would ask then to correct as many mistakes as possible, study the historical situations that she wrote about and to try to make it as correct as possible with the possibility that we could learn more about the situation in the future. Canright could not accept this and left the church and opposed the church. Prescott and Daniels more or less gave up Fundamentalism. These lead to the events of 1919 and the 1922 or 23 General Conference.

Many Seventh-day Adventists did accept Fundamentalism. Mrs. Whtie's last battle was fighting it. This was a battle that she lost. In 1922 or 23 (I've read both dates when talking about the conference) the church officially embraced Fundamentalism. Non-Fundamentalists were thrown out or demoted. Now Elder Spicer was in between, he believed in 2 types of inspiration, the infallibility of the Bible but non-infallibility of Mrs. White, but who unlike Daniels who believed that fundamentalism would destroy the Seventh-day Adventist church if accepted, Spicer felt that if our members wanted to be fundamentalists, then let them.

[Kevin H]

54 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

The church has room for you believing that the 2300-day prophecy is the longest in the Bible, and me believing that the 7-millennium prophecy is the Bible's longest.  Neither belief is particularly salvific.  The church, however, has no room for apostasy.  Korah, Dathan, and Abiram aspired to positions God had not given them.  Many in our church today unknowingly do likewise.

Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this. God had given overwhelming evidence that he was leading Israel. But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of his power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency. The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Ye have killed the people of the Lord." Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute his judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. They had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin by which man's heart is effectually hardened against the influence of divine grace. "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man," said Christ, "it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." These words were spoken by our Saviour when the gracious works which he had performed through the power of God were attributed by the Jews to Beelzebub. It is through the agency of the Holy Spirit that God communicated with man; and those who deliberately reject this agency as satanic, have cut off the channel of communication between the soul and Heaven.  {RH, November 12, 1903 par. 40} 

Similarly, Uzzah would likely not have touched the ark had he known it would result in his death.  Many here, by taking it upon themselves to declare what is inspired and what is not in the writings of Ellen White or the Bible do as Uzzah did, according to Mrs. White.

True, but I can turn the tables and say that I see you as apostatizing in ignoring evidence in the Bible that comes from more than proof texts. That you are rejecting Jesus in his practice on the role of women in the church. That you are deciding what parts of Mrs. White is inspired and which are not when you take your favorite quotes as written in stone and reject what she wrote to Haskell and about the reform dress and testimony # 11 and the assignments she gave to Prescott, Daniel's and Canright. as touching the ark.

Green, I do not say "This part of Mrs. White is inspired and this part is not." that is a lie you are saying about me to try to force your views. Mrs. White herself was inspired, not any writings. Anything she did was done by an inspired person. Anything she wrote was written by an inspired person, INCLUDING WHERE SHE TELLS US HOW SHE WANTS HER WRITINGS TO BE USED AND HOW SHE DOES NOT WANT HER WRITINGS TO BE USED!!!! Are you not doing what you are accusing people here of doing, picking and choosing what parts of the Bible and Mrs. White you want to accept and what writings and actions you want to reject?

[Green Cochoa]

17 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Mrs. Whtie's last battle was fighting it.

This is an assertion which you have made that I have yet to see sufficient support for.  You have made claims, but the connections between them and "fundamentalism" are weak at best.  She could clearly have addressed the matter, had she wished to and been instructed to.  She did not.  She may well have had other reasons for asking those men to help her than those you allege.

[Green Cochoa]

Kevin,

I accept all of the Bible and all of Mrs. White's published writings to have been inspired by God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness--that we might be thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  You won't find me picking and choosing.  You will, however, agree that it is necessary to have proper discernment.  Without the aid of the Holy Spirit, many come to erroneous views when reading God's Word.  It is my privilege and duty to point out these interpretive errors as I see them, and they can then be discussed and better understood by all.

 

[Green Cochoa]

On Quoting Sister White.--How can the Lord bless those who manifest a spirit of "I don't care," a spirit which leads them to walk contrary to the light which the Lord has given them? But I do not ask you to take my words. Lay Sister White to one side. Do not quote my words again as long as you live until you can obey the Bible. [ELLEN WHITE WAS MEETING THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH AS A GROUP FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TEN YEARS. SITUATIONS IN BOTH THE GENERAL CONFERENCE AND IN OUR BATTLE CREEK-BASED INSTITUTIONS HAD IN MANY CASES REACHED A LOW EBB. TESTIMONIES CALLING FOR A RETURN TO BIBLE PRINCIPLES HAD BEEN RECEIVED, THEORETICALLY, BUT NO REAL IMPROVEMENT HAD TAKEN PLACE. 
     MOST DELEGATES COMING TO THE GENERAL CONFERENCE SESSION, WHICH WOULD OPEN THE NEXT MORNING, SENSED THAT THERE MUST BE CHANGES. ELLEN WHITE WOULD IN THE OPENING MEETING REBUKE INSTITUTIONAL LEADERS AND CALL FOR A REORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. IT WAS HER BURDEN THAT THE CHANGES THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE WOULD BE BASED ON BIBLE PRINCIPLES AND NOT JUST ON THE WORD OF ELLEN WHITE. IN THIS ADDRESS SHE DECLARED: 
     "GOD HAS TOLD ME THAT MY TESTIMONY MUST BE BORNE TO THIS CONFERENCE, AND THAT I MUST NOT TRY TO MAKE MEN BELIEVE IT. MY WORK IS TO LEAVE THE TRUTH WITH THE PEOPLE, AND THOSE WHO APPRECIATE THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN WILL ACCEPT THE TRUTH."-- MANUSCRIPT 43, 1901. 
     COUNSEL WOULD COME THROUGH HER AS THE MESSENGER OF THE LORD AND THIS COUNSEL SHOULD BE HEEDED, BUT WORK IN DEPTH MUST BE DONE, WORK BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN GOD'S WORD.--COMPILERS.] When you make the Bible your food, your meat, and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious Word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, "Sister White said this," and "Sister White said that." Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands.--Manuscript 43, 1901. (From an address to church leaders the night before the opening of the General Conference session of 1901.)  {3SM 33.1} 

In the above passage, Ellen White clearly addresses a particular class of individuals--those who took an attitude of "I don't care."  She does not put these words out as for everyone, but was addressing them to a particular group of leaders.  As our English saying says, "if the shoe fits, wear it."  Anyone today who takes a careless attitude toward the words of the Bible should NOT be quoting Mrs. White until they have followed her advice in the above.  Notice, too, that her advice in the above passage having been followed, she herself then permits the hearers to again quote her.  In other words, her writings are not to displace the Bible, but to add to it.  "Until you can obey the Bible."  Important concept there.

NOTE: It appears that the above was not written by Mrs. White, but spoken, and recorded by someone, perhaps a stenographer.  While I do not question its accuracy, she may not have had opportunity to check it or edit it prior to its later publishing after her demise.  I would put more credence into something that could be attributed directly to her own pen.  To me it is the "scriptures" that I hold in highest regard, not anecdotal accounts by others who were not prophetically inspired.

[Tom Wetmore]

10 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

I agree.  The Bible is the "Spirit of Prophecy."  That extends beyond the book of Revelation, as you have aptly pointed out.  

Any of the prophets who bear testimony of Jesus (including all of the Bible authors), reflect the light from Him and, collectively, form the lesser light, called the spirit of prophecy and the testimony of Jesus.

Mrs. White called her own writings the "lesser light" in keeping with this principle, for she gave us the testimony of Jesus.  Frequently she referred to her writings as "the testimonies," and she seems to have used this term beyond the nine volume set we may think of first.

I think our agreement appears to be up to a point. If the Angel speaking to John meant all of the Scriptures and all prophets, past and future, it would have said so. (And it is worth noting that at the time he wrote it the NT was not necessarily regarding as their Scripture as we now regard it.) The statement was quite specific. It was the testimony of Jesus.  Although we so easily use "Jesus" and "Christ" interchangable as his name, the former was his given name as a man here on earth, while the latter was his title, the Greek equivalent of The Messiah.   The book of Revelation is a precisely and carefully written book.  In this verse it is clearly referencing not words of or about the Messiah, Christ, which could include OT prophets, but more precisely the one known to John and others as the person named Jesus.  

And I don't think it correct to assume that when EGW refers generally to her writings as "the testimonies" that she was referring to the same thing. That is the testimony of EGW.  When she speaks of Jesus specifically and quotes his words, that could be as one having the testimony of Jesus, reflecting her genuine personal relationship with Him and as one knowing Jesus.  But that would also be true of anyone throughout history that gives their testimony of their relationship with Jesus.  

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw asked, below:

I answered your questions when I said:  "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

But because EGW is outside of canon should we just dismiss her council?

[Rossw]

22 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw asked, below:

I answered your questions when I said:  "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. "

That was really meant more as rhetorical. 

[Rossw]

Kevin H, do we have any evidence Mary or Martha were the leaders of a church?

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, jackson said:

But if one does regard both as inspired by God then they both should be freely used as references regardless of how often they are misused. Of course, there would be no sense in referencing either if you are having a discussion with one who believes neither.

Are you saying that one must accept both the Bible and EGW as infallible sources of inspiration?  If so, I completely disagree.  There are many places where the Bible and EGW's writings are at odds.  When that happens, I will take what the Bible says and ignore EGW every time.  EGW calls herself a lesser light; and says if anything she says conflicts with scripture, to disregard her writings.

[JoeMo]

9 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

 In other words, her writings are not to displace the Bible,"but to add to it.  Until you can obey the Bible."  Important concept there.

" I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. " (Rev.22:18)

Hopefully your word choice here is a matter of semantics.  I don't think I would go so far as to say she "adds" to the Bible, even if I did consider her a bona fide prophet.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Since when does "the SDA church" not consider EGW and the Bible as being equal?

It never "officially" considered them equal; although the culture of some in the church consider them to be equal.  In my opinion, those who do make their brand of Adventism a cult.  Any religion that puts it's own writings on par with or above scripture (like LDS, JW's, some SDA's) are in danger of becoming a cult.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green has said below.  I have inserted numbers into what he said so that I may respond to him:

1)  The teaching of the SDA denomination has never been that the writings of EGW are canonical.  Neither  has that been the position of EGW.

2)  The phrase "the SDA Church"  has a number of meanings.  Yes, it can mean the members and often does.  It can   mean the pronouncements of the General Conference I session, which is believed my many to speak authoratively to the members.  As a legal organization it can mean the pronouncements of   those officials elected at a General Conference Session.  It can also refer to an organized body of SDA members in a specific area, such as a Conference.  It that respect it can mean those elected officials of that Conference.

3)  Green, I have always considered you to be a SDA member.  Due to recent posts of yours in which I understand you to be stating that the SDA Denomination has aposticed several times in the past, I am just now beginning to question whether or not you actually are a SDA.

4)  Correctness in doctrine is not determined by the number of people who believe it.

  1)  Since when does "the SDA church" not consider EGW and the Bible as being equal?  

2)  Who or what is "the church"?  Is it not composed of its members?  

3)  Am I not one among them?  As to what the Scripture teaches, you are entitled to your opinion.

4)  I am hardly alone in this belief, for it is the teaching of the Scriptures.

 

[Green Cochoa]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Are you saying that one must accept both the Bible and EGW as infallible sources of inspiration?  If so, I completely disagree.  There are many places where the Bible and EGW's writings are at odds.  When that happens, I will take what the Bible says and ignore EGW every time.  EGW calls herself a lesser light; and says if anything she says conflicts with scripture, to disregard her writings.

The Bible conflicts with itself at times too.  Will you give it up?

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

" I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. " (Rev.22:18)

Hopefully your word choice here is a matter of semantics.  I don't think I would go so far as to say she "adds" to the Bible, even if I did consider her a bona fide prophet.

Ellen White added nothing to the words of the Bible itself, did she?  Translators have done this.  I know of no Ellen White version of the Bible.  She didn't add or subtract from it at all, though she did point out where others had added to it, such as saying the word "sacrifice" did not belong in the text in Daniel 8:12 because it had been added.  Obviously, you are wresting what I had said in an attempt to provoke, for I'm quite sure you understood the context of what I had said.  If you truly believed what you imply in the above, you would be forced to accept as your doctrine that after John, no new prophets would exist for the remainder of earth's history.

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

It never "officially" considered them equal; although the culture of some in the church consider them to be equal.  In my opinion, those who do make their brand of Adventism a cult.  Any religion that puts it's own writings on par with or above scripture (like LDS, JW's, some SDA's) are in danger of becoming a cult.

Cult.  Why is it that so much discussion these days boils down to definitions and the apparent ignorance of them among many?  What is a cult?  Be careful, lest you end up declaring the early Christian church a cult.

I'm not in a cult.  Accepting Mrs. White's messages as being from God does not make me an Ellen White worshiper, any more than accepting the Bible to have been inspired by God makes me a cult worshiper of Matthew, John, David, Moses, Jeremiah, etc.  I worship God, therefore I respect the messages He has sent.  

[Green Cochoa]

26 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

1)  The teaching of the SDA denomination has never been that the writings of EGW are canonical.  Neither  has that been the position of EGW.

 

Why should the Adventist church even attempt to teach that Ellen White's writings were "canonical."  It seems many have forgotten exactly what it means to be "canonical."  Are you aware of how the Bible became "canonical?"  Do you believe that this process was inspired and directed by God?  

38 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

3)  Green, I have always considered you to be a SDA member.  Due to recent posts of yours in which I understand you to be stating that the SDA Denomination has aposticed several times in the past, I am just now beginning to question whether or not you actually are a SDA.

Apostasy has been part of our church history since its inception.  Ellen White dealt with numerous apostasies and fanaticisms in her day.  That certainly did not make her any less "Adventist."  Because one sees and acknowledges apostasy within the church does not make one no longer Adventist.  Shame on you.  There may be a huge gulf between one like me and Shepherd's Rod or Reformed Adventist--I do not ask people to leave the church, for I fully support it.  Ellen White teaches that the church will appear as if about to fall, but it will not.

Were the faithful few who recognized the apostasy of Korah any less Israelite?  How do we get to such a reasoning in the first place?

45 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

4)  Correctness in doctrine is not determined by the number of people who believe it.

This is largely true, but with a caveat.  If one is the only one believing a thing, he or she had better watch out.  

. . . In the conversion of Paul are given us important principles which we should ever bear in mind. The Redeemer of the world does not sanction experience and exercise in religious matters independent of His organized and acknowledged church, where He has a church.  {3T 432.2}  
     Many have the idea that they are responsible to Christ alone for their light and experience, independent of His acknowledged followers in the world. But this is condemned by Jesus in His teachings and in the examples, the facts, which He has given for our instruction. Here was Paul, one whom Christ was to fit for a most important work, one who was to be a chosen vessel unto Him, brought directly into the presence of Christ; yet He does not teach him the lessons of truth. He arrests his course and convicts him; and when he asks, "What wilt Thou have me to do?" the Saviour does not tell him directly, but places him in connection with His church. They will tell thee what thou must do. Jesus is the sinner's friend, His heart is ever open, ever touched with human woe; He has all power, both in heaven and upon earth; but He respects the means which He has ordained for the enlightenment and salvation of men. He directs Saul to the church, thus acknowledging the power that He has invested in it as a channel of light to the world. It is Christ's organized body upon the earth, and respect is required to be paid to His ordinances. In the case of Saul, Ananias represents Christ, and he also represents Christ's ministers upon the earth who are appointed to act in Christ's stead.  {3T 433.1}  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, I did not say that everyone who claimed the SDA denomination had committed apostasy was not an Adventist.  I did not generalize my statement.  I was very specific.  I applied my statement only to you.  Furthermore,  I did not say that you were not a SDA.  What I said was that due to your statements regarding apostasy and the SDA Church, I was beginning to question whether or not you were SDA.  That is a true statement.  I have not yet reached a decision on that point.  I am only considering it.  Take it as applicable to you, and do not generalize it to others.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

I would also note from the EGW statements quoted above it is also clear that her role in relationship to Scripture was not to add to it, as some here have suggested, but rather to correct erroneous interpretations and opinions about Scripture.  And the final statement adopted by the GC Session last summer in San Antonio is very important affirmation of our position as a denomination regarding her writings.  As I have so often repeated here, it is the "inaccurate interpretations [translations] of [Scripture] derived from tradition" that have caused a some key misunderstandings of Scripture. Those traditions most often traditions from predating the Adventist Church, we also need to understand that the Adventist Church has been in existence long enough that we have Adventists traditions.  Those Adventist traditions can also potentially result in our own "inaccurate interpretations".  And a number of important issues confronting the Church are very much complicated by the divergence of "modern culture" within the Church. And some of those supposed "modern" cultures are really the result of cultural traditions that are very old and deeply entrenched.   

Quote

We reaffirm our conviction that her [Ellen White’s] writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture. (General Conference session, San Antonio , Texas , voted July 9, 2015 )

    

[Rossw]

9 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

  As I have so often repeated here, it is the "inaccurate interpretations [translations] of [Scripture] derived from tradition" that have caused a some key misunderstandings of Scripture. Those traditions most often traditions from predating the Adventist Church, we also need to understand that the Adventist Church has been in existence long enough that we have Adventists traditions.  Those Adventist traditions can also potentially result in our own "inaccurate interpretations".  

What are the preSDA traditions still followed today?

What are the Adventist traditions in effect today?

Are your observations of other's traditions based solely from your own beliefs and biasness?

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, jackson said:

Mrs White's "job" as messenger of the Lord was not primarily to give local application of the Bible, but rather to correct error expose false doctrines

Let Mrs White explain what was  her primary work for the Lord:

God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth Early Writings, p. 78.

The Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors, and to specify what is truth Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32

Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.

My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the Bible, were only according to their opinion of the Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory vol. 2, pp. 98-99. Spiritual Gifts

Serious errors in doctrine and practice were cherished.… God revealed these errors to me in vision and sent me to His erring children to declare them  vol. 5, pp. 655-656. Testimonies

,At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error  p. 302Gospel Workers

We reaffirm our conviction that her [Ellen White’s] writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture. (General Conference session, San Antonio, Texas, voted July 9, 2015)

 

We are saying the same thing in different ways. Your post is much more specific and clearer than mine. Thank you for sharing!

[JoeMo]

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 2:46 PM, jackson said:

My post to you, however, was to question your statement  that frequent misquoting of the SOP was one of the reasons  not to use it

To be clear, I do not use Mrs. White as an infallible reference because I don't believe everything she says.  Also, quoting Mrs. White to non SDA's is useless - they don't even know her, much less consider her a prophet.

Someone earlier asked for examples of things that Mrs. White says that I do not find in scripture. Here are just a few.

Day for a year principle applying to all prophecy; not just the judgment passages in Numbers and Ezekiel.  If it did, why doesn't Mrs. White say the millennium lasts 360,000 years rather than 1,000?

Jesus did not enter the Most Holy Place in 1844; He did it when He ascended to His Father.  Read the Book of Hebrews.

The papacy is not the antichrist; and the end-time church is not Rome.  See Revelation 17:10 Rome was "the Kingdom that is" in John's time; and cannot be the ned-time king.

The end-time issue will not be the Sabbath; it will be much broader than that.  It will be "who do you worship - the beast or the Messiah?

I could go on and on; but I worry about offending others.

[8thdaypriest]

27 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

To be clear, I do not use Mrs. White as an infallible reference because I don't believe everything she says.  Also, quoting Mrs. White to non SDA's is useless - they don't even know her, much less consider her a prophet.

Someone earlier asked for examples of things that Mrs. White says that I do not find in scripture. Here are just a few.

Day for a year principle applying to all prophecy; not just the judgment passages in Numbers and Ezekiel.  If it did, why doesn't Mrs. White say the millennium lasts 360,000 years rather than 1,000?

Jesus did not enter the Most Holy Place in 1844; He did it when He ascended to His Father.  Read the Book of Hebrews.

The papacy is not the antichrist; and the end-time church is not Rome.  See Revelation 17:10 Rome was "the Kingdom that is" in John's time; and cannot be the ned-time king.

The end-time issue will not be the Sabbath; it will be much broader than that.  It will be "who do you worship - the beast or the Messiah?

I could go on and on; but I worry about offending others.

WRONG CLOTHING FOR THE MOST HOLY PLACE

     “And the Lord said to Moses: “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at simply any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud above the mercy seat.  Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin offering, and of a ram as a burnt offering.  He shall put the Holy linen tunic and the linen trousers on his body; he shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be attired.  These are holy garments.  Therefore he shall wash he body in water, and put them on.  ........For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.  It is a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls.  It is a statute forever.”  Leviticus 16:2-4, 31-32.

The clothing prescribed consisted of 5 pieces of PLAIN WHITE LINEN.  No ephod.  No breastplate.  No mitre.  No bells or pomegranates. 

    “I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. [SHUT DOOR] Those who arose when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way. Then He raised His right arm, and we heard His lovely voice saying, "Wait here; I am going to My Father to receive the kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to Myself." Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. On the hem of His garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate.”  Early Writings  pg. 55

    “I was then shown what did take place in heaven as the prophetic periods ended in 1844. I saw that as the ministration of Jesus in the Holy place ended, and he closed the door of that apartment, a great darkness settled upon those who had heard, and had rejected the messages of Christ's coming, and they lost sight of him. [SHUT DOOR] Jesus then clothed himself with precious garments. Around the bottom of his robe was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. He had suspended from his shoulders a breastplate of curious work. And as he moved, it glittered like diamonds, magnifying letters which looked like names written, or engraven upon the breastplate. After he was fully attired, with something upon his head which looked like a crown, angels surrounded him, and in a flaming chariot he passed within the second veil. I was then bid to take notice of the two apartments of the heavenly Sanctuary. The curtain, or door, was opened, and I was permitted to enter.”  Spiritual Gifts. Volume 1 pg.158

    “[The Sealing] At the commencement of the Holy Sabbath, (Jan. 5th, 1849,) we engaged in prayer with Bro. Belden's family at Rocky Hill, Con., and the Holy Ghost fell upon us. I was taken off in vision to the Most Holy Place, where I saw Jesus still interceding for Israel. On the bottom of his garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. Then I saw that Jesus would not leave the Most Holy Place until every case was decided either for salvation or destruction, and that the wrath of God could not come until Jesus had finished his work in the Most Holy Place, laid off his priestly attire and clothed himself with the garments of vengeance. Then Jesus will step out from between the Father and man, and God will keep silence no longer; but pour out his wrath on those who have rejected his truth.”  A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White  pg

[8thdaypriest]

51 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

To be clear, I do not use Mrs. White as an infallible reference because I don't believe everything she says.  Also, quoting Mrs. White to non SDA's is useless - they don't even know her, much less consider her a prophet.

Someone earlier asked for examples of things that Mrs. White says that I do not find in scripture. Here are just a few.

Day for a year principle applying to all prophecy; not just the judgment passages in Numbers and Ezekiel.  If it did, why doesn't Mrs. White say the millennium lasts 360,000 years rather than 1,000?

Jesus did not enter the Most Holy Place in 1844; He did it when He ascended to His Father.  Read the Book of Hebrews.

The papacy is not the antichrist; and the end-time church is not Rome.  See Revelation 17:10 Rome was "the Kingdom that is" in John's time; and cannot be the ned-time king.

The end-time issue will not be the Sabbath; it will be much broader than that.  It will be "who do you worship - the beast or the Messiah?

I could go on and on; but I worry about offending others.

IGNORANT SLAVE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO HEAVEN

    “I saw that the slave-master would have to answer for the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance; and all the sins of the slave will be visited upon the master.  GOD cannot take the slave to heaven, who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of GOD, or the Bible, fearing nothing but his masters lash, and not holding so elevated a position as his master’s brute beasts.  But he does the best thing for him that a compassionate GOD can do.  He lets him be as though he had not been; while the master has to suffer the seven last plagues, and then come up in the second resurrection, and suffer the second, most awful death.  Then the wrath of GOD will be appeased.”
(Spiritual Gifts, Vol I-II, pg 193)

I disagree with this for several reasons.  1.  The slave-master has to suffer for the sins of the slave.  2.  God treats a man, like a beast.  (I thought that's what the slave-master did.)                      3.  The wicked will be executed TWICE - once in the 7 last plagues/end of the world, and AGAIN 1000 years later.