Story of Hank

[John317]

.... The other day we had a study, and someone read from Deutoronomy from Clear Word:

Deut. 5:3 It wasn't only with our ancestors that He made a covenant , but with us and with all who are alive today.

And I read it at the same time from KJV and YLT (my favorite translation).

Deut. 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. KJV

Deut. 5:3 3not with our fathers hath Jehovah made this covenant, but with us; we -- these -- here to-day -- all of us alive. YLT

Of course, the Clear Word is a paraphrase, and it explains the difference in the Introduction. Paraphrases do have their place. They attempt to include the commentary right in the text itself.

The example you cited is only putting into the text what many believe is the true understanding of the text. That is what all paraphrases do. I like reading the paraphrases, such as the New Living Translation and the Message because they can often make the context appear clearly, but of course you always should compare them with the more literal translations.

The same sort of thing happens in the more literal translations, where the translators supply words that do not appear in the original language. For instance, see the NASB at Romans 5: 18. The words, "there resulted," are added, based on the translators theology. Compare the same verse in the English Standard Version, the Bible in Basic English, the Revised English Bible, Weymouth, etc. There are many examples like this.

In my own study I always use at least 3 or four translations. But altogether I have over 65 different ones in my personal library.

If the multitude of various translations are used right, it shouldn't be a problem. All of the translations and paraphrases tell the same basic story.

One reason that the translators feel there is a need for all the translations is that the printed Greek texts change somewhat over time. There are no changes that affect the overall Biblical text or alter the foundational truths of Scripture, but they have changed some of the meaning of the individual verses.

[John317]

.... I think that God preserved the major truths for us to read and follow as being crystal clear.

Yes, I've come to the same conclusion. God has built into the whole Bible a redundancy so that if one verse is changed, there is usually another verse somewhere else that teaches the same thing.

Quote:

It's funny, but we've studied Bible in our literature class in Soviet Union.

What grade were you in? Was that during the middle or later 90s? What kinds of things were your teachers saying about the Bible?

I also took a Bible-as-literature class in public college. The teacher ridiculed the Bible all the way through the class, pointing out contradictions and parts that he said showed it was not inspired.

Quote:

I remember doing a paper on the flood , and another group was doing paper on death and resurrection. But we thought of it and studied it as a myth.

Did you study the gospels at that time? Did you study Paul's writings in school in the USSR?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

But you ask the question, do they not all have the Spirit? The answer is no, not all do have the Spirit, at least not the Spirit of God. Do some ignore the impressions of the Spirit? Yes, many do.

John, what I was asking if all of them lack the Spirit. And you've answered that no. I believe that many do not. The prerequisites for receiving the Spirit are fundomental - Christ, and prerequisites to Baptism are not what we as SDA church make them today. I don't see any evidence that people have to agree on all of the 27 points in faith before they are Baptized. It's quite the opposite. You have to begin with Christ... the foundation and Baptism... your public profession of faith and sign commitment (just like circumcision was before), and then build on that. People can not understand Sabbath without having that knocked down. I think that at times we over-emphasize things that come as secondary before we establish the primary. The church will deny Baptism to people who did understand Christ, yet do not think that Ellen White is a prophet and etc.

Nation of Israel was a great example of it. They were saved from bondage... in a sense that they followed Moses (a type of Christ) out of Egypt but most of the original ones did not make it to the promise land. They did not believe that it was something good. They were scared of the difficulties that came along the journey. And they almost made it. some even attempted to take it by force (their own works). But it was those who had faith inherited the land eventually. I know there's more to it that that, but I have to run .

I agree with you about everything on this post, except the part about Ellen White. The SDA church does baptize people who do not accept Ellen White as a prophet. Accepting her writings is not a test of fellowship and never has been.

[fccool]

John, in many Churches it is so, yet it is not absolutely true in the ones that I've been too. Here's why I say it is.

Before you are baptized (at least in our church) you have to profess that you believe the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism. One of those reads:

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

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.)

What do you think?

[John317]

But if someone were to say, "I am still considering this teaching, and I am not yet certain of what my belief is in regard to Ellen White," their baptism would go ahead as scheduled. You might ask your pastor about this to confirm that what I am saying is true. There have been tens of thousands of SDAs baptized without believing in Ellen White. And that is one reason that our church has many members who do not believe in her. It causes some conflict but it is necessary if we're not going to make belief in her a test of fellowship. She was never in favor of making her writings a test and neither was James White, who wrote on this subject.

I think that the best and wisest way to deal with the Ellen White issue is to study with the candidate for baptism about the Bible's view of the NT gifts of the Spirit; study the role of Ellen White's ministry, and then give the student one or two books to read. It is important and only fair that people understand what the the church believes about Ellen White before they join the church. It shouldn't be something they learn only AFTER baptism.

Although not a test in our church, her writings, as well as vegetarianism, are tests of fellowship in the SDA Reform Movement. That organization's doctrines are virtually identical with the main church except that they give greater stress to Ellen White, to health reform, and to members not taking part in the military.

My own belief and understanding is that if Ellen White was not a true prophet of God, then she was a false one, because she claimed that God gave her over a thousand visions and dreams over the course of her lifetime. (See, for instance, Early Writings and the first 5 chapters of 1 Selected Messages.) Either God did or did not give her those visions. If he did not, then the SDA church was led and influenced by a false prophet. And if that is true, I am in the wrong church, and I ought to change, because the church would then not be what it claims to be. That is called a lie, and I don't want any part of a lie.

Mormons are in a very similar situation. I can't imagine anyone who is informed and of sound mind joining the LDS without believing that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. If he was not a true prophet, he was certainly a false one, and if he is a false one, why would anyone choose to be in a church led by a false prophet?

I've long since concluded that Joseph Smith was contacted by evil spirits, such as happened to Samuel. I believe the same thing regarding Muhammad.

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: fccool

That's a different issue though. What they had in the garden was a test of faith. They had the faith and they lost it. What you have when you preach is quite opposite... people not having faith and hopefully gain it.

To some extent I can see it as needing more maturity on my part in order to gain the most good, particularly when depending only upon my own capability. As to being a separate issue because of a lack of faith on the part of the recipient, God's call to preach is axiomatic that all that is necessary will be provided for those who hear as well as for those who give.

"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Romans 12:3 KJV

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11

KJV

Originally Posted By: fccool

What do you think about that approach of Paul? [/quote']

Counsel that would be well to follow for anyone wishing to fit into God's plan of salvation, for the minister of the Word and most especially for those who have not yet received personal faith in the God of Love.

"You provided bread from heaven for them for their hunger, You brought forth water from a rock for them for their thirst, And You told them to enter in order to possess the land which You swore to give them." Nehemiah 9:15 NASB

Regards!

[fccool]

John,

I don't see it in such a way though. I am not following a prophet, but Jesus and his teachings, which were recorded in the Bible by his disciples. If she does not contradict these, then I don't see a problem with her. I have really been blessed by her books, and I take some of the extra-Biblical (something that was not clearly found in the Bible) things as principles, and not iron rules. If our faith rests in a prophet, then what different are we from Mormons or Muslims ... or even Catholics in that respect? I don't want to get in another debate over her being a prophet or not, because I don't think it is such a big deal for me personally.

Like it or not, but Miller was a false prophet in a way... whether intentionally or by honest mistake... he still prophesied something that did not happen. It had nothing to do with conditional prophesy in this case. Would you say that this mistake was to undermine the whole subsequent movement as false? I don't think so. It's not all or nothing issue. Otherwise you will back yourself into an uncomfortable corner defending something that is not very essential when it comes to following God.

Truth is truth, and it does not matter who says it. Even the worst liars can speak truth... does their prior lying make it false? Of course not! So I don't approach this issue with "all or nothing" mentality. Old russian saying - truth is found in differences of opinions. I believe that E.G. White did have prophetic gift, but I do not elevate her to status of one of the O.T. prophets. God layed out all the information we need right before our eyes in the Bible. If E.G. White is pointing us to the Bible, then why not go directly to the source? If she is the only infallible interpreter... wouldn't that make her a type of pope in a way?

I guess my question would be... do you believe that she made any mistakes in her writings? Do her writings contain mistakes? If they do... then how reliable are they? If they don't, then why not just tag them into one big side Bible for us to carry around? Why should this issue make or break our faith in God? If that's a faith breaking issue... wouln't you think that some people will defend what is false just to justify their faith... like in case with Mormons and Islam?

[fccool]

To some extent I can see it as needing more maturity on my part in order to gain the most good, particularly when depending only upon my own capability. As to being a separate issue because of a lack of faith on the part of the recipient, God's call to preach is axiomatic that all that is necessary will be provided for those who hear as well as for those who give.

I think that's pretty much a given in any case. All of us have tools on the receiving end to understand the basics. And we are given tools to preach. But I certainly don't see it as some kind of "magical transformation" of mind that happens only when we out to share the message. Miracles do happen as people who don't know what to say will..., but for the most part you have to memorize and understand. Otherwise there's no need for reading the word in the first place if we view the Holy Spirit as a memory card that just gets inserted and we know automatically. We have responsibility to know and understand.

Just like in case of Paul. He already knew and memorized the things, he just needed a final piece to the puzzle to gain understanding of it. It did not just get uploaded to his brain. Even the gift of tongues was not the speaking gift... it was a hearing gift on the part of the recipient of the message.

[LifeHiscost]

Otherwise we would have the same views and ideas about everything the Bible teaches. Even disciples of Jesus had major disagreements and "spiritual fights".

These, I believe, are far more a result of the fear and pride of the servants of God than of any lack of provision on God's part. I don't see it any different in our day. Until we (God) takes the political pride out of His body on this earth, it will continue to be the same.

The good news is that I see that changing in a major way, as more and more servants of the Lord see this world, not as a place to find out how best we can live here, but as a place to spread the Light of life as quickly as possible, so we can go home.

As to specific orders from Heaven:

"....looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!" 2 Peter 3:12 NASB

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature...And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Mark 16:15: Matt 24:14 KJV

Regards!

""

[John317]

... I am not following a prophet, but Jesus and his teachings, which were recorded in the Bible by his disciples. If she does not contradict these, then I don't see a problem with her. I have really been blessed by her books, and I take some of the extra-Biblical (something that was not clearly found in the Bible) things as principles, and not iron rules. If our faith rests in a prophet, then what different are we from Mormons or Muslims ... or even Catholics in that respect?

I hope that none of us are "following a prophet." We are not following Paul or Peter or James or John, either, yet I'm sure you agree that it makes a big difference whether they were true prophets or not. Our faith and our doctrines rest on God and His inspired word, the Bible, that is, on the 66. All of them are the standard.

However, I would like you to consider the consequences if you or I decide that Ellen White was either making up those things she dreamed or decide that she was under some kind of illusion. If either of those is the case, we should jettison all of her writings and everything she did and said. Why? Because that would mean she was either a liar or someone who is out of touch with reality.

One need not be "following Ellen White" in order for this to be the consequences of rejecting Ellen White. All one needs to do is consider carefully the full history of the Seventh-day Adventist church. How did it begin? How did we come to the central doctrines? Go back and study or restudy the Sabbath conferences and Ellen White's role in those conferences. How did our major paper get started? How did we come to our understanding of the importance of the Sabbath? The heavenly sanctuary? The Third Angel's Messages? The health message? The theme of the great controversy? Who we are as a movement and a people? Our role in the last day events before Christ comes? What are the identifying marks of God's last day church, the remnant? Those teachings and beliefs do rest on the Bible, but none of those things would be what they are today apart from the life and ministry of Ellen White, and without her leadership, there is no question that most of the things mentioned above never would have been seen-- certainly not by 15 million.

God gave Ellen White to the early Adventist people in order to help them see that God was leading them. Without that light, they would not have developed as they did. They would have gotten onto dead-end roads like the rest of the Millerite groups which did not accept and follow the lead of Ellen White following the great disappointment. For instance, the Seventh-day Baptist church is still quite small. (They saw the Sabbath, but they did not see it as a central issue in the end-times.) Many other groups of that time, such as the Christian connection, basically have disappeared off the pages of history.

Quote:

I don't want to get in another debate over her being a prophet or not, because I don't think it is such a big deal for me personally.

If you decided that Ellen White is a false prophet, would you continue to be a Seventh-day Adventist?

Quote:

Like it or not, but Miller was a false prophet in a way... whether intentionally or by honest mistake... he still prophesied something that did not happen.

There is some truth to what you say, but there are several very important differences: (1) Miller never claimed to be a prophet. (2) Miller never claimed that God showed him anything in a vision. (3) Miller got all his views from the Bible and history. (4) Therefore the most that can be said against Miller is that he had a wrong interpretation of the Bible. But having a wrong interpretation of the Bible or of Bible prophecy doesn't necessarily make anyone a false prophet. If so, probably everyone is a false prophet.

Now contrast with Ellen White: she said hundreds of times that God gave her visions and dreams. She said that her work included that of a prophet but that it was actually "more than a prophet."

I'll continue writing this later. Have to go for now.

By the way, I'd like to see some of your photographs some time.

[LifeHiscost]

Just like in case of Paul. He already knew and memorized the things, he just needed a final piece to the puzzle to gain understanding of it. It did not just get uploaded to his brain. Even the gift of tongues was not the speaking gift... it was a hearing gift on the part of the recipient of the message.

Your sense of what it takes to complete the work our Father has to be finished down here is not lost on me. It's the same formula many have been depending on for the most part of 2,000 years. It has been successful up to a point, just far enough to test the faith of those who honestly covet that their brother be first in line when God passes out the rewards for a work well done.

We are seeing results at last, in this generation, as a direct result of many having accepting the fact that our Lord will finish the work designated as necessary, despite the disfunction of His body, as opposed to our having reached a state of superior spiritual intelligence and strength.

The robe of Jesus' righteousness is just as much needed in the practical everyday affairs in the marketplace, as it is in the pious moments of holy contemplation suitable for the sanctuary of God.

"Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.

"But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes,

and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless." "Matthew 22:10-12 NASB

Regards!

[fccool]

Don't get me wrong, I don't diminish the work of God in our lives. Yet I don't want anyone to be mislead that we are just to sit back and pray and let the truth come to us. This is by far not the case and Bible does not teach it as such. To know you have to inquire, listen, learn and analyze and divide the truth. That's the way God wired our brains. Salvation requires our willingness to be taught, which in terms translates into our willingness to learn. I don't want anyone to mistake faith with just believing whatever just because someone said so. It's hard to explain Jesus to evolutionist. That was my case. Evolution had to be deconstructed in my mind before I could look at the world differently. It's a gradual process for many.

[fccool]

John, I do not understand all or nothing approach. I don't approach it that way, and I think your dilemma here is from not understanding the meaning of the church as a universal body and not a denomination. Yes, there is a end time remnant that keep the commandments of Christ, but that remnant does not mean the body of the SDA church. SDA church does not keep those flawlessly. The remnant will be tested when the mark of the beast appears. Until then it's hard to judge who that remnant really is. There are many SDAs who are Godly people, yet there are other denominations who keep Sabbath. It's not exclusively "our" our trend. There are:

* Church of the Great God

* General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh-Day)

* Global Church of God

* Philadelphia Church of God

* Seventh Day Baptists

* True Jesus Church

* United Church of God

* United Seventh-Day Brethren

They are smaller in numbers, but let us not deceive ourselves that we are exclusive in this area of understanding. I'm sure you know that SDA's got the concept of Sabbath keeping from Seventh Day baptists and for nine years they kept it wrong in spite of the visions about the Sabbath during those years.

"Mrs. White has in two visions been shown something in reference to the time of the commencement of the Sabbath. The first was as early as 1847, at Topsham, Maine. In that vision she was shown that to commence the Sabbath at sunrise was wrong." ...

"After the conference, November 20, the vision was given, establishing those undecided on the sunset time" ... "I inquired why it had been thus, that at this late day we must change the time of commencing the Sabbath. Said the angel, 'Ye shall understand, but not yet, not yet'" ("Test.," Vol. I., p. 116).

It was not until later on after Andrews corrected people as far as Sabbath keeping that this was reconciled. So you see, it was not by her vision that we have the correct understanding of the Sabbath. It was through SDBs and later with Andrew's correction. Many of her visions were confirmatory, and not revealing. Anotherwards... a new truth was discovered, a question/dispute arose ... then she would have a vision that would confirm it.

Many of her writings were borrowed from other authors... many times word for word. At times following "I was shown". Of course I don't deny that God can show us the truth on the pages of other authors, and that's the way I perceive her work to be. 40% of the GC is found to be borrowed elsewhere (other than Bible). Many of the adventist scholars admit it. Papal system Antichrist was a preceding notion, so was the law as the mark of God. So was the healthy lifestyle. So was her ideas on smoking and other such things...

(King James I famously published his treatise,

'A Counterblast to Tobacco' in 1604. In it he described the plant as 'an invention of Satan' and banned tobacco from London's alehouses.)

She read much and she compiled information based on her understanding and the confirmatory visions which some people dispute.

Now, with above said... this is enough for me to scratch my head and to say " I don't know". There is evidence that she is a prophet when it comes to understanding of some things, and there is evidence that she is not based on some other blunders and cultural norms and misconceptions that she would write in as the way to go. I've read many of her books, and read both supporting and critiquing literature. I came to a conclusion that I simply don't know... and that's where I am right now. I choose to base my faith on certain, rather than uncertain.

Many people view Mrs. White as the founder of the church, I don't think even she would appreciate that title. The church is found by Christ, and it is maintained by him. Prophets will come and go, and eventually cease to be all together. Prophets are not always dreamers of dreams and visions, or even forecasters of the future. Prophets were needed because of the lack of the written word of God. With arrival of the printing press we have prophets living on our shelves at our disposal. There is no need for a new one. Everything that will come was foretold and compiled... even warning was given to not add of take away anything written.

Now, about your question. First of all I'd like to know what does it take for anyone to prove that E.G. White was a false prophet. If your faith depended on her writings, would that not give you incentive to believe otherwise no matter what? To find other explanations as to why she wrote certain things, and try to figure out a way that would prove otherwise? With assumption that she did not make any mistakes... wouldn't that lead you to that mindset?

I guess, I'd have to ask again if you believe that she made mistakes in her writings/spiritual walk? If she did... did she ever admit it? Many of the major prophets admitted their mistakes and blunders. It does raise a certain suspicion, but it may be just me. I'd like to hear your thought on this as I'm sure you may heard these arguments stated before. Many Adventist that I've tried to discuss it with are unwilling to even raise these questions for the reasons that you've stated. ... "Without her our church would not exist"...

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this one too, and not just Johns. I know that you probably sick of discussing this one, but I'm equally sick of flip flopping on this issue as I do more personal research.

[John317]

..... I do not understand all or nothing approach.

Do you believe in the all or nothing approach to Jesus Christ or to Paul and Peter and John? Wasn't Jesus either who he said he was or else nothing?

Would you remain a Christian if you determined in your own mind that the Bible does not tell us the truth about who Jesus was?

Let us suppose that we conclude right now that Ellen White was just a good woman who felt that she was led of God but that in reality she was not led of God any more than anyone else. What are the consequences for us if we conclude this?

If she was not a true prophet, what are consequences of throwing out all of her books and all that she said and taught and did during all the many years she labored in our church?

Quote:

I don't approach it that way, and I think your dilemma

The dilemma is to believe it's unimportant if Ellen White was a true prophet or not.

Quote:

here is from not understanding the meaning of the church as a universal body and not a denomination. Yes, there is a end time remnant that keep the commandments of Christ, but that remnant does not mean the body of the SDA church. SDA church does not keep those flawlessly. The remnant will be tested when the mark of the beast appears. Until then it's hard to judge who that remnant really is. There are many SDAs who are Godly people, yet there are other denominations who keep Sabbath. It's not exclusively "our" our trend. There are:

* Church of the Great God

* General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh-Day)

* Global Church of God

* Philadelphia Church of God

* Seventh Day Baptists

* True Jesus Church

* United Church of God

* United Seventh-Day Brethren

They are smaller in numbers, but let us not deceive ourselves that we are exclusive in this area of understanding.

What is your understanding of Ellen White's teaching as to the purpose of the Seventh-day Adventist church? Do you believe that God raised up the SDA church?

Why are we SDA and not 7th day Baptist or a member of any other denomination?

There are other groups who keep the Sabbath, but the SDAs see the Sabbath as being important in the great controversy and a central issue in the last-day events. Seventh-day Baptists didn't see this aspect, and as far as I know, still don't see it.

Check out the Journal of Adventist Theological Society. It contains quite a bit of good material on some of the topics we're discussing: http://www.atsjats.org/publication.php?journal=1

Quote:

I'm sure you know that SDA's got the concept of Sabbath keeping from Seventh Day baptists and for nine years they kept it wrong in spite of the visions about the Sabbath during those years.

Yes, this is explained in the introduction to Early Writings. Preble became convinced of the Sabbath through Rachel Oaks, and then he wrote a pamphlet about the Sabbath truth. Joseph Bates read Preble's pamphlet and wrote one of his own, which the White's studied. That is how the White's became Sabbath keepers, through seeing the Bible evidence for the Sabbath as presented by Joseph Bates.

The visions of Ellen White had nothing to do with the time when the Sabbath was to be celebrated. Sabbath keeping Adventists learned by study of the Bible when the Sabbath started and when it ended. So the visions did not relate to time for commencing and ending the Sabbath. Her visions in regard to the Sabbath had rather to do with the importance of the Sabbath, especially as it related to the end times. This is the part that groups failed to grasp on account of their refusal to accept the benefit of Ellen White's visions.

Quote:

"Mrs. White has in two visions been shown something in reference to the time of the commencement of the Sabbath. The first was as early as 1847, at Topsham, Maine. In that vision she was shown that to commence the Sabbath at sunrise was wrong." ...

Where is this quoted from? Ellen White wrote the Topsham 1847 vision out, and it is in Early Writings, pp. 32-35. There is nothing in this account about God's showing her when the Sabbath should commence. The important point about this vision was that God showed Mrs. White that the Sabbath was to be a test for the whole world before Christ returned.

Quote:

"After the conference, November 20, the vision was given, establishing those undecided on the sunset time" ... "I inquired why it had been thus, that at this late day we must change the time of commencing the Sabbath. Said the angel, 'Ye shall understand, but not yet, not yet'" ("Test.," Vol. I., p. 116).

Yes, the angel was telling her that she would eventually learn the reason for God not revealing through the visions when the Sabbath was to begin. God wanted them to get that information out of the Bible.

Quote:

It was not until later on after Andrews corrected people as far as Sabbath keeping that this was reconciled. So you see, it was not by her vision that we have the correct understanding of the Sabbath. It was through SDBs and later with Andrew's correction. Many of her visions were confirmatory, and not revealing. Anotherwards... a new truth was discovered, a question/dispute arose ... then she would have a vision that would confirm it.

Yes, the visions confirmed what was found in the Bible, yet without the confirmation at that time, they often would have gone off in confusion and been unsure whether they had discovered the truth. Ellen White gift at that time was a stabilizing influence and kept the early Adventists from breaking up into smaller groups. In other words, the visions kept them together and gave them focus. It is obvious that God would not have given those vision if they had not been sorely needed and important.

Quote:

Many of her writings were borrowed from other authors... many times word for word. At times following "I was shown".

Yes, she did borrow from other writers, just as she borrowed here and there from people who had written on matters of health. Give my understanding of Ellen White and how inspiration works, that poses no problem to me. I attended a meeting where Walter Rea, author of The White Lie, first presented his ideas, in Loma Linda, about 1980.

Could you give me one or two examples of where she borrowed words that follow her statement that she was shown something. Give the reference in her works and tell what the source of the original words are.

Quote:

Of course I don't deny that God can show us the truth on the pages of other authors, and that's the way I perceive her work to be. 40% of the GC is found to be borrowed elsewhere (other than Bible).

But the point is that she did not simply copy those writings but she made them into something new, something that they were not before. That is what is important, not simply the fact that she used words that others had written. She gave those writings new meaning.

Quote:

Many of the adventist scholars admit it.

I don't know of any adventist scholars who don't "admit" it. When these things came out in the late 1970s and early 80s, my father said he had known it long before. There really wasn't anything new revealed. SDAs who had studied Ellen White back in the 1890s knew that Ellen White had borrowed extensively. The problem was caused by people who had unrealistic and false ideas about Ellen White. The problem did not arise from anything Ellen White herself had done or said.

Quote:

Papal system Antichrist was a preceding notion,

Of course. It was an idea going back to early days of Christianity, and then almost all the protestant reformers believed (for good reason) that that papal system was the antichrist.

Quote:

so was the law as the mark of God.

You must mean the seal of God. Who do you have reference to?

Also, do you know of any one before Adventists who taught that the Sabbath is the seal and that Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast?

Quote:

So was the healthy lifestyle. So was her ideas on smoking and other such things...

(King James I famously published his treatise,

'A Counterblast to Tobacco' in 1604. In it he described the plant as 'an invention of Satan' and banned tobacco from London's alehouses.)

And yet it is a well known fact that during the 1800s, when Ellen White was writing against smoking, one finds doctors who were prescribing tobacco as a healthy thing. So, while King James I was correct in his treatise, the fact remains that King James I was not expressing a common idea or view of tobacco. There was no proof at that time or even until the mid-twentieth century that cigarette's caused cancer or death.

Quote:

She read much and she compiled information based on her understanding and the confirmatory visions which some people dispute.

What visions are in "dispute"? Who are the people disputing them, and on what basis?

Quote:

Now, with above said... this is enough for me to scratch my head and to say " I don't know". There is evidence that she is a prophet when it comes to understanding of some things, and there is evidence that she is not based on some other blunders and cultural norms and misconceptions that she would write in as the way to go. I've read many of her books, and read both supporting and critiquing literature. I came to a conclusion that I simply don't know... and that's where I am right now.

Are you saying that after reading her books and studying the Bible, you simply don't know if she was a true prophet or not?

Quote:

I choose to base my faith on certain, rather than uncertain.

Many people view Mrs. White as the founder of the church, I don't think even she would appreciate that title. The church is found by Christ, and it is maintained by him. Prophets will come and go, and eventually cease to be all together.

Well, there is no question that she was extremely important to the church, and there can be no doubt that without her, the church would not have existed as it is today. I believe there is no doubt whatever that God used her to raise up this church.

Quote:

Prophets are not always dreamers of dreams and visions, or even forecasters of the future.

My point is that they very often did receive dreams and visions. Moses certainly did, as did Daniel, Paul, John, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Peter, etc.

A prophet is God's mouthpiece. They speak forth for God. So of course they need not forecast the future. Many did; some did not. Ellen White certainly does.

I'll finish this in the morning. Have to go to bed so I can get up early to run some important errands.

[John317]

.... Now, about your question. First of all I'd like to know what does it take for anyone to prove that E.G. White was a false prophet.

You've no doubt heard or studied the Bible tests of a true prophet. There are a number of these.

Do you believe that Joseph Smith or Mohammed was a true prophet of God? If not, why not? If you apply the same rules to Ellen White, you can determine if she was a true prophet, and therefore it is not hard to prove she was a false prophet if indeed she was a false one. God hasn't left people in the dark so that they cannot know the difference between a true prophet and a false, if they apply the Bible tests.

See A Prophet Among You, by T. Housel Jamison, at ellengwhite.org

[John317]

... If your faith depended on her writings, would that not give you incentive to believe otherwise no matter what? To find other explanations as to why she wrote certain things, and try to figure out a way that would prove otherwise? With assumption that she did not make any mistakes... wouldn't that lead you to that mindset?

But my belief in Christ and in the Bible does not depend on her writings.

However, whether she was a true prophet or not is another matter. Yes, that depends very much on her writings. And whether the SDA church is God's true church also depends very much on whether Ellen White was a true prophet or a false one. You cannot help knowing that if you study the history of the Adventist church and of its "pillars of faith." Her writings themselves are an essential part of SDA beliefs. All one has to do to verify this is to study any publication by the church about its doctrinal beliefs.

I'll finish answering the rest of your latest post this evening.

[LifeHiscost]

Don't get me wrong, I don't diminish the work of God in our lives. Yet I don't want anyone to be mislead that we are just to sit back and pray and let the truth come to us. This is by far not the case and Bible does not teach it as such. To know you have to inquire, listen, learn and analyze and divide the truth. That's the way God wired our brains. Salvation requires our willingness to be taught, which in terms translates into our willingness to learn. I don't want anyone to mistake faith with just believing whatever just because someone said so. It's hard to explain Jesus to evolutionist. That was my case. Evolution had to be deconstructed in my mind before I could look at the world differently. It's a gradual process for many.

Not wishing to denigrate any effort on your part that might reveal cooperation permiting you to enter the kingdom of rest, I would suggest the logic you promote is the same logic much of Christian and non-Christian society have been promoting for 6000 years, the idea being expressed thusly: "God (and for the Christian, Jesus) will do thus but then we/I must do this, and then I/we can be saved.

This always leaves open, room for the philosophy that our Father isn't really fully responsible for our salvation, but if we hadn't done the things we must do, His efforts would be not only be fruitless in our case, but it would prove He is not really sovereign over His creation.

May I suggest an alternative viewpoint that places our Father as sovereign at every point of our progress in the journey of faith. It applies to every

rule of conduct and comes direct from the Word.

"As for Me, this is My covenant or league with them, says the Lord: My Spirit, Who is upon you [and Who writes the law of God inwardly on the heart], and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouths of your [true, spiritual] children, or out of the mouths of your children's children, says the Lord, from henceforth and forever." Isaiah 59:21 AMP

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them" Hebrews 10:16 KJV

I might put it this way. God has given me a new heart, for that reason He asks me to and I will as a result of this promise:

"Therefore if any person is [ingrafted] in Christ (the Messiah) he is a new creation (a new creature altogether); the old [previous moral and spiritual condition] has passed away. Behold, the fresh and new has come!" 2 Corinthians 5:17 AMP

Regards!

[fccool]

LifeHost,

I did hold this view before, and it does have SOME Biblical support. What part do we play in our salvation experience? Does it in any way diminishing God's sovereignty if he delegates certain things to his followers? I certainly think not. Otherwise He would have not sent prophets... no need for disciples, and certainly no need for evangelism. GOD ACTS THROUGH PEOPLE BY ASKING THEM TO DO SOMETHING FOR HIM OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. Some people believe that God entices us to do something and His will thus is irresistible in such manner that it diminishes our choice. So, in effect... the choice is not ours, but 100% His. He chooses whom to save, and he chooses whom to demonstrate His wrath on. While this did happen to a certain extend in some Biblical cases, this is not a universal case. Those cases are to be archetypal examples for us.

Thus salvation experience starts IN THE MIND. Many people speak of the "heart" as some kind of spiritual "soul" organ. When Bible speaks of the "heart" it most refers to the spiritual "heart" of person... which is his "mind". So, if salvation is a mental process with some choices involved, then it means that we do have a part to play in it, and not just kick back and relax. It is in no way diminishes sovereignty of God. He CAN do whatever He wants with HIS creating, but He chooses to give us a choice. We have a part to play, and salvation is a partnership. Otherwise you could not willingly withdraw your part from it.

Believing and doing what you believe can not be separated. You can not believe one thing and do other outside of an honest mistake. If you believe that stealing is wrong... you will not steal. If you don't... then most likely you will given an opportunity. Our lives revolves around actions and choices. Salvation experience channels our actions and choices properly to be used by God for our benefit.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

... If your faith depended on her writings, would that not give you incentive to believe otherwise no matter what? To find other explanations as to why she wrote certain things, and try to figure out a way that would prove otherwise? With assumption that she did not make any mistakes... wouldn't that lead you to that mindset?

But my belief in Christ and in the Bible does not depend on her writings.

However, whether she was a true prophet or not is another matter. Yes, that depends very much on her writings. And whether the SDA church is God's true church also depends very much on whether Ellen White was a true prophet or a false one. You cannot help knowing that if you study the history of the Adventist church and of its "pillars of faith." Her writings themselves are an essential part of SDA beliefs. All one has to do to verify this is to study any publication by the church about its doctrinal beliefs.

I'll finish answering the rest of your latest post this evening.

John,

I don't hold it to be the case. Let's examine prophets of the Bible. They have received God's word, and they relayed the message to the people who did not have it, or had it and did not get it.

We have Bible to guide us, and we CAN predict the future... not because of OUR knowledge, but because of God's knowledge in us. E.G. White did not come up with anything new. There were contemporaries who held to the views that she did and the books /discussions existed on these issue. Do a little study on United Church of Christ and why they split from SDAs and what they believe. You will find that their belief is almost Identical. Of course some of them don't hold to a Biblical Trinity, but that's not my point... They write those exact things, and they don't have a prophet to point to. Does it make these teachings less valid??? Of course not! Truth is truth... no matter through what channels it flows.

You would have to agree that there is fundamental difference between E.G. White and the major prophets of old. Here are some:

1) Recorded in the Bible - writings are infallible

2) Sent to Israel and only to Israel.

3) Did not borrow/copy anything from contemporary writers/tradition... and only quoted the writings of other such prophets.

4) Were not elevated to high leadership position in most cases(there are very few exceptions... like Moses and Aaron). Only served as messengers.

5) Their prophesies came true without exception... even conditional ones... which outlined two conditions and consequences.

6) Never used their gift for personal enrichment/sustainment.

While E.G. White does fit some of those attributes, she does not fit most. Her writings are not a part of the Bible, they are a commentaries in most cases. Some of her predictions do not come true:

Let's examine closely one of the statements that she had made:

"At the General Conference at Battle Creek, May 27, 1856, I was shown in vision some things which concern the church generally; . . . I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus'."

I agree that there are conditional prophesies, but most of them have condition... thus making them conditional. There is no condition written above. I understand that in case of Jonah there was no such condition, yet Jonah understood it and specified it as such... it was a reason for him fleeing.

Jonah 4 , "'O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

Here's the problem with her "conditional" prophesy. For Jesus to return a certain events would have to transpire.... they are not caused by God/Jesus. These are caused by the Antichrist. Mark of the Beast will have to be enforced and the whole world would have to be put to the test. God knows EXACTLY when and if this will happen. He is not caught by a surprise and simply waiting and constantly rescheduling. He does not change his mind about timing. Yet at times he does certain things to make us act quickly and without delay... i.e. Today is the day. God does not reschedule because he does not live in linear time. He knows the beginning from the end and he needs not change of schedule. It was planned from the beginning and it remains the same. Whatever things that may seem as a "change in plans" are for our understanding of things because we live in a world of 6 sense/linear time.

So, I'm not trying to PERSUADE YOU that she was a false prophet. I have my doubts that she was a true one... and I don't want to base MY faith on doubts which I have expressed to you here. You still have not answered my question if you believe that she made some errors in her writings... such as ... "self abuse" causes blindness and canser.

I saw that the family of Brother G__ need a great work done for them. H__ and I__ have gone to great lengths in this crime of self-abuse; especially is this true of H__, who has gone so far in the practice of this sin that his intellect is affected, his eye-sight is weakened, and disease is fastening itself upon him.

He had practiced self-abuse until he was a mere wreck of humanity. This vice was shown me as an abomination in the sight of God. ... The results of self-abuse in them is seen in various diseases, such as catarrh, dropsy, headache, loss of memory and sight, great weakness in the back and loins, affections of the spine, the head often decays inwardly. Cancerous humor, which would lay dormant in the system their life-time, is inflamed, and commences its eating, destructive work. The mind is often utterly ruined, and insanity takes place.

I don't defend masturbation as acceptable practice, but I have reasons to believe that the above diseases are not caused by it. This was a popular view of the time and is still used to scare young people from doing it.

[Woody]

Cool ... Surely if you have read some of EGW's writings ... you would have to admit that some are true. Therefore she is a true prophet with those messages. The messages that are false ... obviously did not come from God and were not meant to be coming from a prophet. They just came from a fallible human ... which EGW was in addition to being a prophet. Just my look on it.

In my view ... she failed. But to that I say ... BIG DEAL. I will focus on the good. I just don't hold her to be infallible. To those that do try to hold her infallible ... I try to show them the truth by pointing out how fallible she really is .

[fccool]

Red,

I think we share that view, yet this is not a popular one. You said that some are true, and I disagree. MOST are true. There are plenty of her writings are great to read, although some are a bit rigid in light of the cultural environment that we are living in today. I agree with most of her teachings/observations even some of the most "out there" ones that even her most hardcore followers don't hold to. Were those visions from God like she claimed. I'd have to say that I can't get inside her head to find out. I believe that some were, yet I also believe that some were not as she was expressing her own personal views on the subject.

I'm not protesting any time someone reads/quotes her as there is plenty of truth to be found in her writings... yet I don't ignore the questionable issues either and I don't try to rationalize/explain away as to "what she really meant"... and especially drive people who don't believe it my way out of the church. Yet I do see hostility towards people who are asking such questions in our church and they leave without even get a chance to get it straight as far as what we really believe. But this is not only an Adventist problem.

What I'm trying to get at is that we should not make her into our Adventist Pope, and some church leaders do... that's where the most criticism that church faces comes from. It's not our belief in Sabbath, it's not our belief that papacy is the Antichrist... it's our holding that E.G. White's writings are equally inspired as Bible is... and that is... they are without error, like some claim. You are backing yourself into a tough corner when you do that.

[LifeHiscost]

Our lives revolves around actions and choices. Salvation experience channels our actions and choices properly to be used by God for our benefit.

Much of what you say, I agree. Only one place do I feel is there a characteristic that eliminates unbelievers from freely accepting the grace of Jesus.

Let me give an analogy. A baby is born. We'll say you, to help make it personal. The mother, or whoever else may have been there to make the born

viable, says; "Now breath!" Do you think the command to breath would have made any difference to the newborn? Would he/she have started on command? Would he/she have breathed more fully or longer as a result of the command?

Just so, the "born again", or more properly, the "born from above" does not "have" to exercise effort to maintain it's viability. Its' breath, its' lungs, its' blood flow begin and continue to support life unless an aberration causes the life to cease as a result of unwillingness to submit to spiritual provision from the Prince of peace.

Just so the "born again" will continue unless an aberration (sin) causes the life to cease. Only a continuous succumbing to the kingdom of darkness eliminates a progressively greater inherent desire for cooperation with the Lifegiver as the suppliant continues to receive nourishment from the Father.

"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ, for it is God's power working unto salvation [for deliverance from eternal death] to everyone who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," Romans 1:16 AMP

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" Ephesians 2:10 KJV

"Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" Philippians 1:6 KJV

"So then, as it is written, Let him who boasts and proudly rejoices and glories, boast and proudly rejoice and glory in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 1:31 AMP Underlined mine LHC

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

I try to show them the truth by pointing out how fallible she really is .

We could talk about the murderer, whom God called a man after his own heart. Or about the murderer who was called by God, the meekest in all the world. Or the betrayer of Jesus, whom Jesus asked to tend His sheep.

When we feel it our responsibility to focus on the weaknesses of those God has chosen to be His spokespersons, it is not God's voice by which we are allowing ourselves to be led.

And if we continue in that vein, the same voice we pay heed to will lead to our own disallusionment in the power of God.

"So they rose early in the morning and went out into the Wilderness of Tekoa; and as they went out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, “Hear me, O Judah and you inhabitants of Jerusalem: Believe in the LORD your God, and you shall be established; believe His prophets, and you shall prosper." 2 Chronicles 20:20 NKJV

Regards!

[John317]

... E.G. White did not come up with anything new. There were contemporaries who held to the views that she did and the books /discussions existed on these issue. Do a little study on United Church of Christ and why they split from SDAs and what they believe. You will find that their belief is almost Identical. Of course some of them don't hold to a Biblical Trinity, but that's not my point... They write those exact things, and they don't have a prophet to point to. Does it make these teachings less valid??? Of course not! Truth is truth... no matter through what channels it flows.

Below is concerning the United Church of Christ, and I see nothing to indicate it "split from the SDAs" or that "their belief is almost identical." What documentary evidence do you have to show that the United Church of Christ "split off from the SDAs"? Could you explain exactly which doctrines are the ones SDAs hold in common with the United Church of Christ? Is it possible that you have the name wrong or is there another United Church of Christ? As you can see below, it does not appear to have any connection at all with SDAs.

Origins of the United Church of Christ

In 1957, the United Church of Christ formed through the union of the Evangelical and Reformed Church with the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches.

The Evangelical and Reformed Church itself was formed in 1934 by the merger of the Reformed Church in the United States and the Evangelical Synod of North America:

The Reformed Church in the United States carried out the tradition of the German version of the Reformed/Calvinist movement, which some commentators have characterized as less rationalistically doctrinal than its Dutch and British Isles counterparts. The German Reformed Church employed the Heidelberg Catechism as its primary, if not sole, confession. Its roots trace mostly to 18th-century immigrants hailing primarily from areas near the Rhine River in Germany, but also from certain parts of Switzerland. The denomination had strong concentrations in Pennsylvania, northern Maryland, and eastern Ohio, but was also present in more scattered patterns in states to the west and south.

The Evangelical Synod of North America traced its roots to later waves of 19th- and early 20th-century German immigration, which settled primarily in the Midwest (especially Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan). Members of this group largely came from the Evangelical Church of the Union, which formed in 1817 as a union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches in Prussia. The group often identified as primarily Lutheran (usually depending upon a local pastor's preference and/or background), but held a mixture of both Lutheran and Reformed beliefs and practices--so much so as to prevent this group from merging with other Lutheran bodies. Evangelicals looked to both the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism and Luther's Small Catechism as their confessions (and eventually developed an "Evangelical Catechism" for confirmation training of youth, which merged views of both).

The Congregational Christian Churches trace their roots to the following:

The Congregational churches, a tradition within the Reformed family whose organizational structure was congregationalism, thus separating them from the theologically similar Presbyterians. This denomination was centered in New England (being the state churches of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut from colonial times until into the early 19th century). The church spread wherever New Englanders migrated, including significant numbers in the Great Lakes region of the Midwest (including Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc.).

The Congregational churches traced their colonial-era origins to two English dissenting Protestant groups: the separatist Pilgrims, who established Plymouth Colony in 1620; and the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who landed in 1629 and 1630 and settled Boston. At the time of the 1957 formation of the UCC, several hundred Congregational churches declined to join. Most of those congregations joined either one of two alternative bodies: the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference. The latter body came into being as a result of the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century.

A portion of the American frontier Restoration Movement known as the Christian Churches, which derived from separate but related movements in North Carolina and Virginia, and New England, at the turn of the 19th century. Also known as the Christian Connection and identified with James O'Kelly, this loosely-defined group comprised a number of frontier movements that broke away from more established Anglo-Saxon denominations (namely

Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist) because they desired less rigid requirements of doctrine and church polity/organization. Adherents declared the Bible (especially the New Testament) as the sole doctrinal guide and claimed "no creed but Christ." The Christian Church movement, by far the smallest of the four main traditions that became the United Church of Christ, was part of the family of similar movements which severed along largely liberal-conservative lines as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) denomination, the conservative independent Christian Churches, and the separatist, Churches of Christ. As suggested above, confusion of the UCC with the Churches of Christ has caused substantial identity problems for both groups in some parts of the United States.[2] The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) maintains full communion with the UCC.[3]

Hidden Histories in the United Church of Christ (two volumes; 1987, ISBN 0-8298-0753-5) edited by Barbara Brown Zikmund chronicles the heritages and denominational traditions that are have come to be a part of the UCC in addition to the 'big four' (Evangelical, Reformed, Congregational, Christian) detailed above. Volume one is available online,[4] while the second volume is available from United Church Press.

[edit]Doctrine and beliefs

[edit]Statements of doctrine and beliefs

The UCC uses four words to describe itself: "Christian, Reformed, Congregational and Evangelical." The church's diversity and adherence to covenantal polity (rather than government by regional elders or bishops) give individual congregations a great deal of freedom in the areas of worship, congregational life, and doctrine.

The motto of the United Church of Christ comes from John 17:21: "That they may all be one." The denomination's official literature uses broad doctrinal parameters, honoring creeds and confessions as "testimonies of faith" rather than "tests of faith," and emphasizes freedom of individual conscience and local church autonomy. Indeed, the relationship between local congregations and the denomination's national headquarters is covenantal rather than hierarchical: local churches have complete control of their finances, hiring and firing of clergy and other staff, and theological and political stands.

In the United Church of Christ, creeds, confessions, and affirmations of faith function as "testimonies to faith" around which the church gathers rather than as "tests of faith" rigidly prescribing required doctrinal consent. As expressed on the United Church of Christ constitution:

The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.[5]

The denomination, therefore, looks to a number of historic confessions as expressing the common faith around which the church gathers, including:

the Apostles' Creed,

the Nicene Creed,

the Heidelberg Catechism (inherited from both the German Reformed and German Evangelical heritages),

Luther's Small Catechism (inherited from the German Evangelical heritage),

the Kansas City Statement of Faith (a 1913 statement in the Congregationalist tradition),

the Evangelical Catechism (a 1927 catechism in the German Evangelical tradition), and

the Statement of Faith of the United Church of Christ (written at the founding of the denomination).

While not functioning as creedal tests of faith, together these confessions and testimonies of faith situate the United Church of Christ solidly within broad mainstream of trinitarian Christian belief, and more specifically within the the family of Reformation-era Protestant churches.

[edit]Studies and surveys of beliefs

In 2001, Hartford Institute for Religion Research did a "Faith Communities Today (FACT)" study[6] that included a survey of United Church of Christ beliefs. Among the results of this were findings that in the UCC, 5.6 percent of the churches responding to the survey described their members as "very liberal or progressive," 3.4 percent as "very conservative," 22.4 percent as "somewhat liberal or progressive," and 23.6 percent as "somewhat conservative" Those results suggested a nearly equal balance between liberal and conservative congregations. The self-described "moderate" group, however, was the largest at 45 percent. Other statistics found by the Hartford Institute show that 53.2% of members say "the Bible" is the highest source of authority, 16.1% say the "Holy Spirit," 9.2% say "Reason," 6.3% say "Experience," and 6.1% say "Creeds."

David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research who has studied the United Church of Christ, said surveys show the national church's pronouncements are often more liberal than the views in the pews but that its governing structure is set up to allow such disagreements.[7]

Starting in 2003, a task force commisisoned by General Synod 24 studied the diverse Worship habits of UCC churches. The study can be found online[8] and reflects statistics on attitudes towards Worship, Baptism, and Communion, such as "Laity (70%) and clergy (90%) alike overwhelmingly describe worship “as an encounter with God that leads to doing God’s work in the world.” "95 percent of our congregations use the Revised Common Lectionary in some way in planning or actual worship and preaching" and "96 percent always or almost always have a sermon, 86 percent have a time with children, 95 percent have a time of sharing joys and concerns, and 98 percent include the Prayer of Our Savior/Lord’s Prayer." Clergy and laity were invited to select two meanings of baptism that they emphasize. They were also to suggest the meaning that they thought their entire church emphasized. Baptism as an “entry into the Church Universal” was the most frequent response. Clergy and laity were also invited to identify two meanings of Holy Communion that they emphasize. While clergy emphasized Holy Communion as “a meal in which we encounter God’s living presence,” laity emphasized “a remembrance of Jesus’ last supper, death, and resurrection.”

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

But my belief in Christ and in the Bible does not depend on her writings.

However, whether she was a true prophet or not is another matter. Yes, that depends very much on her writings. And whether the SDA church is God's true church also depends very much on whether Ellen White was a true prophet or a false one. You cannot help knowing that if you study the history of the Adventist church and of its "pillars of faith." Her writings themselves are an essential part of SDA beliefs. All one has to do to verify this is to study any publication by the church about its doctrinal beliefs.

I'll finish answering the rest of your latest post this evening.

.....You would have to agree that there is fundamental difference between E.G. White and the major prophets of old. Here are some:

1) Recorded in the Bible - writings are infallible

2) Sent to Israel and only to Israel. [/quote']

Jonah was sent to the people of Nineveh, in modern Iraq. Nahum, and parts of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were also written for the benefit of non-Jews. The prophets of the NT were sent to gentiles as well as to Jews. The entire book of Revelation was sent to non-Jews.

Quote:

3) Did not borrow/copy anything from contemporary writers/tradition... and only quoted the writings of other such prophets.

Paul quotes Greek and Cretian poets.

Quote:

4) Were not elevated to high leadership position in most cases(there are very few exceptions... like Moses and Aaron). Only served as messengers.

Ellen White was not elevated to high leadership position, either. She never held a church office. She was not a pastor or elected leader of any kind.

Quote:

5) Their prophesies came true without exception... even conditional ones... which outlined two conditions and consequences.

Did Deut. 28: 1-14 come to pass? How about Isaiah 49? How about Zechariah 12 & 13?

In 1 Thess. 4: 15, Paul writes as if he believed that he would be among those alive when Christ returns for the church, yet we all know that Paul was killed before Christ returned.

Quote:

6) Never used their gift for personal enrichment/sustainment.

While E.G. White does fit some of those attributes, she does not fit most.

Are the things you mentioned "the tests" of a true prophet that the Bible mentions?

Quote:

Her writings are not a part of the Bible, they are a commentaries in most cases.

Of course they are not part of the Bible, for the simple reason that she lived after the Bible canon was closed.

Quote:

Some of her predictions do not come true:

Let's examine closely one of the statements that she had made:

"At the General Conference at Battle Creek, May 27, 1856, I was shown in vision some things which concern the church generally; . . . I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus'."

Yes, this is quite a popular one. It is often brought up. If this is a true false prophecy, then by the Bible's own standards, Ellen White would have to be described as a false prophet.

Based on what Ellen White said about 1900, we know that the Lord would have come about 1894. If the Lord had come in 1894, some of the people living in 1856 who were at that General Conference, would have been alive to see the Lord come. God did not intend for the church to be here in 2008. God wanted the church to be in heaven by this time. The church may be on earth 100 more years but not because it is what God wants. The same with the children of Israel who died in the wilderness after wandering for 40 years: God did not intend for them to die there and not go into the Promised Land.

Every generation of Adventists has an opportunity to be the last generation. So far every generation has failed to accept the plan of God for them to be the last generation. God does not have a certain time he is waiting for. God is waiting for a certain spiritual condition in the church. When that happens, the Latter Rain will fall and the Loud Cry will be given in preparation for Christ's return. God is not waiting for certain political events to happen. God will allow those thing to happen when He sees us ready for them.