Ellen White & Eastern Orthodoxy

[Gustave]

Hanseng, looking forward to seeing how you will spin the following. 

"Does unbelief suggest that what she writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, what time has she had to learn all these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman if she gives her ear to gossip , then writes it out as a vison from God? And where is the person of superior natural and acquired abilities who could listen to the description of one, two , or three thousand cases, all differing , and then write them out without getting them confused, laying the work liable to a thousand contradictions. IF MRS W. HAS GATHERED THE FACTS FROM A HUMAN MIND IN A SINGLE CASE, SHE HAS IN THOUSANDS OF CASES, AND GOD HAS NOT SHOWN HER THESE THINGS WHICH SHE HAS WRITTEN.... MIN19910201-V64-02.pdf (adventistarchives.org) Denial #7

 

And if they are not to be found in print and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. W. find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the facts they do not contain such thoughts. And certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one. It evidently requires a hundred times the credulity to believe that Mrs. W. has learned these things of others and has palmed them off as visions from God than it does to believe that the Spirit of God has revealed them to her". LOCRP-01_Intro-A.pdf (adventistarchives.org) (page 31 of 106)

Quite a bit MORE has been learned since the early 80's....

[Gregory Matthews]

There are a few published writings in which material was printed that came from more than one person, including Ellen White.  Personally  I can not hold EGW as approving  what may have been written by others.  Also, in some cases, I do not believe that we know who actually wrote a specific element of the published material.  So, I do not agree with all that Gustave has said on this pont.

In addition, I do not believe that it can be said that EGWs approval of a published position suggests that such came from God.  EGW had personal beliefs.   She had personal beliefs that can not be said to have been inspired by God. For one to believe that every word of speech out of her mouth was a direct word from God would elevate her status above that of any human person.   It should be noted that  over the years of her life, she changed her theological thinking at times.  That clearly shows her humanity.

However, it is only in recent years that we have begun to become aware of the amount of material that was published under the authorship of Ellen White and was actually substantially based upon material written by others.  In recent times we have begun to become aware of the influence that Uriah Smith had on EGW's published material.  But there are others to whom she was indebted, to include non-SDA authors.

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Quite a bit MORE has been learned since the early 80's....

The second quote you offered is the opinion of James White in 1880. My "spin" is that you continue to use quotes in an irresponsible manner. I can't judge your motives with certainty but it appears that you are intentionally trying to mislead people OR you are a really poor scholar. 

The first quote is also the opinion of James White. Whatever James White might have thought about his wife's work is just that. It's his opinion. No need to "spin" anything. The opinions of James White are just that.

I've read more than 50 of EGW's books in their entirety plus numerous articles. Her health counsels especially, I appreciate, regardless of their origin. Modern science continues to validate counsel she gave. While many modern health gurus recommend grazing and/ or multiple meals every day. EGW said 2 meals are adequate with no snacking. Gastroenterology has proven her right.

Theologically and regarding history she wrote some very good things. I value the good things any author writes. Zangwill's "Children of the Ghetto" does not compare to his "King of Schnorrers." He is still a great writer. Not everything Herman Hesse, Pearl Buck, or Issac Singer wrote is worthy of a Nobel Prize. "Everything" is not required.

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: The second quote you offered is the opinion of James White in 1880. My "spin" is that you continue to use quotes in an irresponsible manner. I can't judge your motives with certainty but it appears that you are intentionally trying to mislead people OR you are a really poor scholar. 

It's just Ellen's husband speaking in defense of the charge of her doing exactly what you ignore. 

If I remember correctly, you also spoke in a similar fashion about James White speaking for Adventists - saying that the Testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Ellen White were incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

Quote

Said of Ellen: SDA Fundamental Belief #18
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and WAS manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Quote

Early Writings: "Thus the doctrinal foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was laid in the faithful study of the Word of God, and when the pioneers could not make headway, Ellen White was given light that helped to explain their difficulty and opened the way for the study to continue. The visions also placed the stamp of God’s approval upon correct conclusions. Thus the prophetic gift acted as a corrector of error and a confirmer of truth.”

Why don't you demonstrate your scholarship by pointing out to me where Ellen White corrected the error of James or any other of the Pioneers pertaining to the Trinity. Despite your boasting of all the Ellen White books you claim to have read I appear to have a better grasp on what Ellen did / didn't do than do you. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hanseng]

9 minutes ago, Gustave said:

If I remember correctly, you also spoke in a similar fashion about James White speaking for Adventists - saying that the Testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Ellen White were incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.

No idea what you are talking about here.

 

10 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I appear to have a better grasp on what Ellen did / didn't do than do you. 

That's a big part of your problem, your own opinion of yourself. You have yet to produce a single anti-trinitarian statement from EGW, although you have misrepresented the facts by attributing Canright's remarks to her. Apparently, you think that a couple of mea culpa sentences are going to undo the countless paragraphs you have scribbled perpetuating falsehood.

The quote above from Early Writings is from the preface/historical forward to the book. It's not from James or Ellen White. It's an explanation of how some people understood her writings. The fundamental belief statement is also nonsense, a good example of people talking out of both sides of their mouth. FB# 18 says EGW provided an "authoritative source of truth." Then it says the Bible is the standard by which all teaching must be tested. So EGW is authoritative but the Bible is the standard? Sounds like double talk and nonsense.

An acquaintance of mine, who could appropriately be described as an outlandish woman, took LSD and went to church one Sabbath morning. She later described how the face of the pastor giving the sermon was half angel and half demon, speaking truth out of the angel side and lies out of the demon side. If LSD gave her that kind of insight, perhaps more Adventists ought to drop a tab. In spite of being a harlot and a substance abuser, she got that right.

Much of this can be resolved by your providing any EGW statement contra the trinity, which you have yet to do.

"The final chapters of this thesis are devoted to a relatively brief discussion of the position of Ellen G. White in regard to the nature of God. The present writer has found no evidence that Ellen G. White ever wrote or declared herself orally in favor of the Arian position. On the contrary all the evidence which will be presented here is of a distinctly Trinitarian nature." (Gane, chapter 13)

Thus, in commenting on Christ's resurrection, Ellen White again asserted his full deity and equality with the Father, declaring "The Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself." (Moon, AUSS 41, Spring, 2003, p 121)

"Her change of view appears clearly to have been a matter of growth and progression, rather than reversal, because unlike her husband and others of her associates, she never directly attacked the view of the Trinity that she would later explicitly support." (Moon, AUSS 41, Autumn, 2003 p. 278, see also p.280)

"But there was a paralleling fact and an area of silence that must be noted. Mrs. White did not, during those same early decades, reprove certain erroneous minority positions held by some on the Eternal Verities of the principles, provisions, and Divine Personalities involved in the plan of salvation. Not once, however, did her own writings share or echo those faulty views." (Froom, MOD, 119)

Here you have Gane, Moon, and Froom denying that EGW participated in anti-"trinitarian" dialogue. Show us where she did. Either that or come clean and admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Gustave]

I'll start a post over to the Trinity forum. 

[Hanseng]

3 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I'll start a post over to the Trinity forum. 

An EGW statement either attacking the "trinity" or advancing Arian/Semi-Arian views.

[Kevin H]

On 7/21/2023 at 9:48 AM, Gustave said:

Hanseng, looking forward to seeing how you will spin the following. 

"Does unbelief suggest that what she writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, what time has she had to learn all these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman if she gives her ear to gossip , then writes it out as a vison from God? And where is the person of superior natural and acquired abilities who could listen to the description of one, two , or three thousand cases, all differing , and then write them out without getting them confused, laying the work liable to a thousand contradictions. IF MRS W. HAS GATHERED THE FACTS FROM A HUMAN MIND IN A SINGLE CASE, SHE HAS IN THOUSANDS OF CASES, AND GOD HAS NOT SHOWN HER THESE THINGS WHICH SHE HAS WRITTEN.... MIN19910201-V64-02.pdf (adventistarchives.org) Denial #7

 

And if they are not to be found in print and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. W. find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the facts they do not contain such thoughts. And certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one. It evidently requires a hundred times the credulity to believe that Mrs. W. has learned these things of others and has palmed them off as visions from God than it does to believe that the Spirit of God has revealed them to her". LOCRP-01_Intro-A.pdf (adventistarchives.org) (page 31 of 106)

Quite a bit MORE has been learned since the early 80's....

The problem with the way these quotes have often been used fails to recognize the audience addressed. These and similar quotes were addressed, not to people who were clueless about Mrs. White's copying, or that the Whites were unaware of what these people already knew. These were written to people who knew she was copying, and the White's knew that they knew about the copying. The issue was being asked is if Mrs. White's message was coming from her reading and copying rather than from visions.

[Gustave]

 

Quote

Kevin H said: The problem with the way these quotes have often been used fails to recognize the audience addressed. These and similar quotes were addressed, not to people who were clueless about Mrs. White's copying, or that the Whites were unaware of what these people already knew. These were written to people who knew she was copying, and the White's knew that they knew about the copying. The issue was being asked is if Mrs. White's message was coming from her reading and copying rather than from visions.

This makes it much worse - a group of people who KNEW Ellen White was copying bring the matter up and Ellen's husband denies the charge. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are claiming. 

 

twst

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

 

This makes it much worse - a group of people who KNEW Ellen White was copying bring the matter up and Ellen's husband denies the charge. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are claiming. 

 

twst

I'm sorry, but you are continuing to misunderstand and thus misread... Maybe it would help if I start out with the historical context before returning to the context of the audience addressed.

At this time in history, two theories of inspiration were being developed. The first was modernism which taught that the Bible is purely a human product following evolution. That there may not even be a God and thus the Bible is definitely not from God. 

In reaction to this people who wanted to believe in God and the Bible ended up going to the opposite extreme: They developed a theory of inspiration called "Fundamentalism" which says that since the Bible is God's book, it has to be as perfect as God is. That it needs to be completely inerrant. That what the Bible says comes 100% directly from God and from the perspective of his all knowing situation. 

The Whites appeared to dissagree with both extremes (and at least as she got older, Mrs. White definitely rejected both extremes and tried to encourage a moderate understanding. Sadly, she lost this battle.)

People becoming aware of these two different views were wondering how Mrs. White's writings fit with all the copying she was doing. Many of these people were helping her to copy. And the Review would send people a copy of some of her favorite books to copy from if they would order a subscription to the Review. 

The question people were asking was NOT "Are you copying? Yes/No" but "Since you are copying, does this mean that you are getting your message from the people you copy from and not from God?"  People who were being attracted to Fundamentalism, and thus trying to look for everything to come 100% from God and not seeing this but seeing a lot of copying were wondering if the message could still come from God if she was doing so much copying. 

These responses are NOT A DENYAL of copying, but an affirmation that the basic principles and basic message does not come from the sources read and copied but from God. 

I hope this helps. 

[Gustave]

Thanks for that Kevin! Based on your comments I re-read Life Sketches where those quotes came from and then re-read LOCRP-01. I've got some other files in a folder I put together some years ago I also need to read. I'll definitely respond again but not until I review what you've said against the materials I've collected.