Leaderboard

Your last two posts have a lot of useful information, and it can be used as safeguards to our study of both the Bible and Mrs. White. And frankly it can be applied to the Bible just as well as to Mrs. White. There are 3 ways we can read the Bible. Two of these ways we frequently see in both the Bible and Mrs. White and one is rarely seen but is expected. The first view, which we don't find that often in how later Bible writers and Mrs. White is Exegesis: What the text meant to the original community that the Bible writer or editor was writing to. The other two which we find frequently in the Bible and Mrs.White, are analogy or application to a similar situation and homiletical or as you put it illustrative applications. You are spot on with that and we need to be aware of these. Mrs.White refused to answer questions when people wanted an exegetical answer from her to solve controversies. She would either say things like "My writings are not to answer questions such as what is the meaning of the daily in the Bible" or tell them to study it out, that exegesis is our job not hers (and she seemed baffled that we were not taking advantage of this. She was very interested in exegesis but knew that was not her job so could not spend much time on it. She appears to enjoy the little time she could spend on it and seems, at least to me, to be jealous of us for our freedom to do exegesis, and again baffled that we were not excited about doing it and wanted to be lazy and look for a prophet who would give us the exegetical answer.) I need to get going, but the way she is used for last generation perfection and a sinful nature Jesus is horrible. Yes, she saw a last generation righteousness but it was NOT what the last generation people theorize. They are looking for the last generation to be a small group of people who have gained such victory over sin that is of a new quality then ever before. Mrs. White sees people in each generation who have developed a deep unshakable love for Jesus that can withstand all opposition. Then there are those who have accepted Jesus but who's faith is still developing and they may have fallen asleep before developing that deep unshakable love for Jesus. Then there are people who have not accepted Jesus but who could potentially accept him, and those who have committed the unpardonable sin, those who have so hardened their hearts towards Jesus that there was nothing more Jesus could do for them. Her view of last generation is that the two middle groups end up going either into the first group of unshakable love for Jesus or the last group of total rejection. But our last generation people refuse to look at this. Similarly with those who see Jesus has having the fallen nature. They use this for their last generation righteousness. But to Mrs. White Jesus had his own nature unlike Adam before the fall and unlike us after the fall. She saw him as fully human to all or weaknesses but not having the bend to sin that we have. When discussing these two topics and we disprove them from the Bible so they turn to Mrs. White, I then turn to Mrs. White and show them that these views are disproven from Mrs. White as well.

In an earlier post, Kevin made the statement I have quoted below: That statement is of great value and should be understood by all. One of its points that Ellen White often used Scripture in a manner that was NOT an exegetical statement of the meaning of the passage she used.

GHansen and Kevin H: Great, honest, open-minded posts. I appreciate them.

Jesus said "I and the Father are One". I agree - you can't have one without the other. While the Spirit is an integral part of God; it is the power , love, and grace of the Father and the Son; not a third entity. This continues to amaze me. God created the angelic host. One-third of them rebelled.He knew it would happen. Then He created humanity; and they rebelled. He knew it would happen. He sent His only begotten Son to die for us. More people than not refuse to accept His sacrifice. He knew that too. Yet, He guarantees a Kingdom of free-will beings who will never ever choose to sin again. This is one of the mysteries of the ages to me.

Oh, she NEVER saw herself as an inspired interpreter of scripture. She saw herself as an inspired applicator and inspired to help to point out parts of the Bible we should focus on (such as the 3 angels messages) but would NOT interpret these she left that job to us. It was not until the mid 1920s when in reaction to the 1922 General Conference and the rejection of the 1919 Washington D. C Bible conference before people started to call her an inspired commentary on the Bible or an inspired interpreter of scripture, and despite our understanding of the state of the dead, she probably still rolled over in her grave when that happened.

In my mind, the Holy Spirit is the spirit of both the Father and the Son. You can't have one without the other. 1 John 2:23 "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (NKJ) “Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son” (1John 1:3, 1John 2:24). John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (NKJ) Notice: no mention of a third divine being in this - just the Father and His Son. On earth Jesus said, "the Father who dwells in me, does the works". (John 14:10) I multiply that by an infinite factor, after Jesus has his immortal indestructible "spiritual body". The Father - pouring Himself (His spirit) through His Son, enables His Son to share the Father's divine powers. The Son's powers are not independent of His Father's. The Son is the channel, the medium - through whom the Father pours His Spirit upon those who love them both. Believers experience that Spirit as the presence of Christ with us. Only when we study a little deeper, do we realize that we have "the Father also".

While Mrs. White gave warnings about sports, you must look at all she said and did and not isolated statements here and there. Besides the statements, she donated land to PUC for a sports field and she loved to attend games there. But she enjoyed the games and seeing students do their best. She did not take favorite sides or cutthroat competitiveness. In a similar way what you said in the above quotes looking at "SDA Fundamentalism brought about by bad hermeneutics" come from the same problems as your comments on Mrs. White and sports. Frankly I am having a very hard time in seeing the difference between the bad hermeneutics of what you label as "SDA Fundamentalism" and your own hermeneutics as expressed in your posts here, except they want to cling to their conclusions as everlasting truth to push on all, and you want to cling to your conclusions to put down Mrs. White. And I see both uses of bad hermeneutics as both based on Protestant Fundamentalism as articulated in The Fundamentals as both of you take your quotes and hang all your beliefs on the quotes instead of asking questions like "Who was she addressing?" "What else did she say or do about this topic?" "Did her views grow over time?" I keep pointing out here that I have read a number of letters that she wrote to those who were using their bad hermeneutics and forming what you call "SDA Fundamentalism" and telling them that they were wrong.

What was the source of early SDA doctrinal teachings? Every early SDA founding father already had beliefs about things. They brought those with them, into their study of the Bible. They did not just set those aside when they began their studies. Mrs White had a Methodist upbringing. Considering this, it is amazing how much they did break with the teachings of the churches from which they came. They were searching - not just sticking with their former education. Their desire was to find as much of the truth as they could. They should be applauded for that.

The Scripture forbids oysters. Does that mean Leviticus Chapter 11 is "radical fundamentalism". The Israelites - just coming out of Egypt, probably thought so.

To Israel it did but not prior to Moses. So yes, a "Christian" abstaining from Oysters (because they God doesn't want them consumed) is a form of fundamentalism. Scripture describes such individuals as possessing weak faith.