Ellen Whites doctrinal positions - did it ever change?

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is a listing of the so-called Sabbath Conferences:

NOTE: All were held in 1848.

1) April 20-24, Rocky Hill CT

The first general meeting, with about 50 peple present. The focus included the 10 Commandements and the Sabbath.

2) August 18, Volney NY

About 35 present. Focus included the 144,000 and the 1,000 years.

3) August 27 & 28, Port Gbson

Limited knowledge. Some focus on unity.

4) September 8 & 9, Rocky Hill, CT.

?

5) October 20 - 22, Topsham MA

Some focus on of the publishing work and the Sabbath.

[Gregory Matthews]

In regard to R.W. Olsen, John 317 said:

Quote:

Hey, that's remarkable. I had him in SOP at PUC also, in 1974. I heard him give his farewell talk in chapel before leaving for the White Estate. He now (at least as of about a year ago) lives only a few miles from me in Cherry Valley.

Isn't he dead? I am asking, please correct me if I am wrong.

[John317]

If he died, it must have been within the last year, and I'm sure I would have seen something about it. Paul Gordon died, but I am fairly certain that Robert Olsen didn't. I will call the White Estate today and find out for sure. He quit his Estate post in 1990 and he was born in 1920, so he's pretty old.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have not listed an end date for the August 18 confernce in Volney NY as I mn not certin of the correct end date. However, it was essentially a week-end conference.

[Woody]

It should be noted that our doctrines are subject to change and this is done at the GC session:

Quote:

The Official Preamble To The 28 Fundamental Beliefs

"Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word."

[Gregory Matthews]

Exactly.

To put EGW in the postion of never changing her personal beleifs places her in a positon outside of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

No human knows all about any ares of spliritual life.

[John317]

I don't think there's ever been much disagreement over Ellen White personal opinions. She had personal, private opinions like any other human. The question has been over whether Ellen White changed her doctrinal views on the basis of God's revelations to her through dreams and visions. In other words, the question is, did Ellen White ever change what she said God showed her in vision?

I don't believe so. But it's probable that she didn't always understand everything in the visions, and frequently the visions were repeated because she forgot them.

It is true that on rare occasions Ellen White was wrong on some technical aspects, such as names and dates, but this kind of information was often not supplied in the visions themselves.

She sometimes was not sure for a time whether a vision regarded future events or was of something in the past or present.

[Gerr]

Exactly.

To put EGW in the postion of never changing her personal beleifs places her in a positon outside of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

No human knows all about any ares of spliritual life.

The question I raised was not whether she ever changed her views on anything, rather, did she ever propose a doctrine/teaching which she explicitly claimed to have been revealed by the Holy Spirit which she later abandonned for a different position?

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry:

Yes, I understand. As this thread has developed in has gone in directions other than the origin.

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317 said:

Quote:

It is true that on rare occasions Ellen White was wrong on some technical aspects, such as names and dates, but this kind of information was often not supplied in the visions themselves.

An important fact that you have mentioned. The work of EGW represents both the human and the devine. She did work into her writings material from other suthors that she felt would give clairty to what she wanted to say. THE GREAT CONTROVERSY has engendered a lot of review and evaulation due to the material that she used from other authors in that book.

[epaminondas]

I take the view that, as far as Mrs. White’s doctrinal positions are concerned, yes, her writings are inerrant – unerring.

Stewart.

One should never make statements that take in so much (all Ellen White's writings) that can be invalidated by only one example. The "food for worms" prophecy did not eventuate. If unstated conditions are allowed all prophecies can make use of them and it will be impossible to prove any prophecy false. Won't the "prophets" like that!

The eating of pork does not cause leprosy.

Saturn does not have four moons nor do giants live there. I know she did not explicitly say Saturn, but when everyone else said she was talking about Saturn, she did not correct them.

Mrs White repeatedly advised people to use cream. Her advice should have been the opposite. Cream is extremely high in fat, extremely high in saturated fat, very high in cholesterol and very low in anything good, like vitamins, fiber etc.

I'm with Pubilius Sirius on this one: trust, like the soul, never returns once it goes.

Ellen White is not to be unconditionally trusted. She made mistakes. And some of them supposedly came from on high. Apparently she was also instructed from on high to plagiarize other people's work. She plagiarized at least one of her mistakes, the one about the reading of novels sending people to insane asylums.

Of course, one can ignore all these facts and still go on calling Ellen White inerrant, like the pope. However, like the pope...

[Woody]

Ellen White also saw in vision that the eating of pork should not be a test question in regards to membership in the Seventh day Adventist Church.

I think that this particular issue has been thought of to be in error.

But then Ellen White never claimed to be a prophet. She claimed to be a "messenger" just like all other ministers were called during her time period.

After Ellen White attended the Seminary .... I suspect she heard her calling in this regard. But at no time did she consider herself a prophet.

[John317]

Saturn does not have four moons nor do giants live there. I know she did not explicitly say Saturn, but when everyone else said she was talking about Saturn, she did not correct them.

She didn't know whether it was Saturn or not. She never studied the stars, and the name of the planet was not given in the vision. What she described sounded to Joseph Bates like Saturn. It obviously was not Saturn but then she never claimed that it was. She simply did not know. It's unfair to make an argument from silence.

[Woody]

Quote:

I'm with Pubilius Sirius on this one: trust, like the soul, never returns once it goes.

Her purpose was not for us to 'trust' her ... Her purpose was to point us to Jesus and scripture. If it is not agreeable with scripture ... she told us NOT to accept it.

[John317]

But then Ellen White never claimed to be a prophet. She claimed to be a "messenger" just like all other ministers were called during her time period.

... But at no time did she consider herself a prophet.

Ellen G. White said that her work included the work of a prophet. That statement shows she believed that she was a prophet.

She claimed that God gave her many hundreds of visions and dreams and that Christ commissioned her to give His messages to the church and the world. See 1 SM 25 to 45. She also explained why she didn't use the term "prophet," and it wasn't because she was denying her prophetic ministry. It was because there were so many false prophets. She said that she had no objection to people referring to her as a prophet. For the same reason, Jesus didn't go around telling everyone that He was the Messiah. The title is not important. Anyone can make a claim to the titles of prophet or Messiah, and many have.

There's good, justifiable reason for her writings to be referred to by the SDA church as "the Spirit of Prophecy."

The evidence:

Quote:

This same great truth regarding the bestowal of the spiritual gifts is recorded in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 12, verses 4 to 31, they are set forth at considerable length, and with great clearness. One of the gifts named in this list is that of prophecy (verse 10); that is, the prophetic gift. After enumerating the gifts, and clearly explaining their purpose, the apostle admonishes the church to “covet earnestly the best gifts,” to “desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.” Verse 31; 14:1.

Paul had already written in his earlier epistle to the Thessalonians, “Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings.” 1 Thess. 5:19, 20. These two expressions are in a list of exhortations that cannot be otherwise than continual in their application to the church. As truly as we are to “rejoice evermore” and “pray without ceasing” so are we evermore to “quench not the Spirit” and without ceasing to “despise not prophesyings.”

The teaching is very clear, that to the church has been given assurance that the spiritual gifts, which are so greatly needed, are to remain as long as the church is in the world. Moreover, the gift of prophecy is specifically mentioned as the gift to be desired and cherished above all others.

The book of Revelation contains several distinct lines of prophecy. Some give a brief outline of the political history of the world from the first advent of Christ to the close of time, while other prophecies trace the history of the church during the same period. The prophecy of the twelfth chapter of the book of Revelation begins with the apostolic church, and ends with the “remnant” church. Of the latter it is declared:

“The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev. 12:17.

The “dragon” represents Satan. The “woman” represents the church. The “remnant” indicates the last period of the church. The “commandments of God” are, of course, the ten great moral precepts of the Decalogue. “The testimony of Jesus,” as infallibly interpreted by the angel to John, is “the spirit of prophecy,” when he says, “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Rev. 19:10.

The Prophetic Gift a Channel

According to this scripture, then, the church of Christ in the last generation will be known and recognized by these two distinguishing characteristics: loyalty to the law of God and possession of the prophetic gift. To these the apostle adds in subsequent prophecy, “the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. From this it appears that the remnant church will place special emphasis upon three fundamental doctrines of the gospel,—the law of God, the faith of Jesus, and the spirit of prophecy. The law of God is the changeless standard of the righteousness which God requires of all responsible beings. The faith of Jesus is the means provided whereby man may receive power to keep that law. The spirit of prophecy is the channel through which the Lord will give instruction, warning, and guidance to the remnant church for the work assigned, and for the preparation required at the second coming of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Source: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/agp/AGPc16.html

[Woody]

A few words from the founder of our church:

"Let the gifts have their proper place in the church. God has never set them in the very front and commanded us to look to them to lead us in the path of truth, and the way to heaven." James White in the RH Feb. 25 1886

"The Bible is the perfect and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice." " True visions are given to lead us to God and to His written word; but those that are given for a new rule of faith and practice, separate from the Bible, cannot be from God and should be rejected." James White in the RH Oct. 16 1855

"There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors made the view of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. It may be duty to notice these persons on account of the part they are acting. which is calculated to deceive some.

What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been "The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty" Then why should these men charge the Review with being a supporter of Mrs. White's views?" James White in the RH Oct. 16 1855

[Woody]

Many pastors or messengers could claim that their work "included" the work of a prophet. There is much work that a prophet does ... it not just prophesy.

[John317]

Her purpose was not for us to 'trust' her ... Her purpose was to point us to Jesus and scripture.

You could say the same thing of any messenger from God, including Moses and Isaiah, etc.

[Woody]

Yes. My messenger (pastor) has been saying the same thing.

[wayfinder]

Revelation 2:20

`But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

[John317]

Many pastors or messengers could claim that their work "included" the work of a prophet.

Name those in the SDA church who have.

One mark of a prophet is to receive dreams and visions from God. Ellen White received about 2, 000. She wrote out those dreams and visions. She claimed that Christ spoke to her personally and commissioned her as His messenger and told her to write His messages. She did not write her messages but God's and Christ's.

She was ordained by God and not by humans. Pastors need to be ordained by man. A true prophet of God does not. They are called directly by God and whether they are ordained by men doesn't matter. The same can't be said about pastors and elders. If a church dismisses them, they are not a pastor or elder. On the other hand, if every human rejects a true prophet, they are nonetheless a prophet, because their ministry and authority depends on God's choosing alone.

[Woody]

Quote:

Pastors need to be ordained by man.

This is simply untrue. Pastors are called by God to pastor and do not need to be ordained by men.

True Pastors are pastors "because their ministry and authority depends on God's call alone."

[John317]

Quote:

Pastors need to be ordained by man.

This is simply untrue. Pastors are called by God to pastor and do not need to be ordained by men.

True Pastors are pastors "because their ministry and authority depends on God's call alone."

Take your pastor, for instance. She was ordained, or at least assigned to a church by the church or by people. If she hadn't been, she would not be the pastor. It's the same with an elder or other church officers. They are elected by humans. This doesn't mean that God is not involved in their "calling," but it means that it needs to be verified by the church. The authority of the minister or the elder resides in the church. If the church rejects them, they don't have a job. They may teach the truth, but they aren't a pastor or elder.

It's different with true prophets of God. They are not elected or assigned by a church or by any human. They are called directly by God through a vision or dream, etc., and their ministry and work does not depend at all on the response of humans, because their authority is from God.

[Woody]

Quote:

This doesn't mean that God is not involved in their "calling," but it means that it needs to be verified by the church

The church has a Biblical responsibility to confirm a true from a false prophet. Unless they are proven by scripture to be a true prophet ... they are not a true prophet.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Originally Posted By: Stewart (SDA)

I take the view that, as far as Mrs. White’s doctrinal positions are concerned, yes, her writings are inerrant – unerring.

Stewart.

One should never make statements that take in so much (all Ellen White's writings) that can be invalidated by only one example. The "food for worms" prophecy did not eventuate. If unstated conditions are allowed all prophecies can make use of them and it will be impossible to prove any prophecy false.

True, Epaminondas, the "food for worms" prophecy did not eventuate.

But to me, if the conditional nature of prophecy is to be acknowledged in Scripture, then that same conditional element must be acknowledged in the spirit of prophecy.

"Unstated conditions" are always present in prophecy, aren't they? They were present in Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh, despite Jonah's refusal to offer the people any hope.

__________

But I am concerned about a point you make in the opening part of your thought Epaminondas. You quote me,

"I take the view that, as far as Mrs. White’s doctrinal positions are concerned, yes, her writings are inerrant – unerring."

But you appear to have taken my qualified statement, and turned it into a general one.

You make me to say that I regard "all Ellen White's writings" as inerrant. Please consider my sentence again.

Elsewhere in this thread I have quoted an admission from Mrs. White that she took a wrong position with regards to the management of the work in the South.

And again, I acknowledge that Mrs. White personally included, in the postscript of 2SG, the following request:

"A special request is made that if any find incorrect statements in this book they will immediately inform me. The edition will be completed about the first of October; therefore send before that time."

But of course 2SG was, for the main part an autobiographical account of the experiences of James and Ellen White.

She asked for correction of details, if anyone could provide such correction, because, as she says in the preface of that book:

"In preparing the following pages, I have labored under great disadvantages, as I have to depend in many instances, on memory, having kept no journal till within a few years. In several instances I have sent the manuscripts to friends who were present when the circumstances related occurred, for their examination before they were put in print."

______________

And yet, Epaminondas, I am not taking anything away from my original comments. There is an important distinction to be made, in my view at least, between the holy and the common.

Welcome to he boards here, but I think that you may have been hasty in your response on this occasion.

Regards,

Stewart.