Did Ellen White's ministry INCLUDE the work of a PROPHET?

[John317]

You're right, pk. If we have any question at all about the EGW quote, we need to read it in the full context. Ellen White herself would have wanted this. Today, with the availability of the Comprehensive EGW Library CD-ROM (costing only about $20.00), it's easy to find any quote of hers in its context.

[BobRyan]

As far as examples of things in SoP I question, I've delineated those in the past. Among them are:

- Application of the day-for-year principle to prophecies in Daniel and Revelation

- Insistence that the papacy/catholic church is the only possible fulfillment of antichrist/beast/false prophet/harlot/Babylon.

-Close of probation before Christ returns

-Millenium in heaven (rather than on earth

-End of sin upon Christ's second coming.

I repeat - I QUESTION these things (some of them strongly);

[BobRyan]

You're right, pk. If we have any question at all about the EGW quote, we need to read it in the full context. Ellen White herself would have wanted this. Today, with the availability of the Comprehensive EGW Library CD-ROM (costing only about $20.00), it's easy to find any quote of hers in its context.

And even cheaper than that - if one is willing to simply click on this link --

https://egwwritings.org/

[BobRyan]

Well the compilations are still from her original writings? Are they not? The problem I see with them, is they are being taken out of context

That certainly can happen with a quote out of context - but in the list that was given recently - none of those subjects is specific to Ellen White. They all come right out of the Bible and are good examples of our "sola scriptura" model for testing doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

[Enabled]

Quote:

Well the compilations are still from her original writings? Are they not? The problem I see with them, is they are being taken out of context and than being used to either clobber you over the head or some other way.

I am often accused of being to trusting, but on this matter I find the smell of fish a little to often. When I search in her writings and only find the quote from the compilation coming up it makes me deeply concerned. If you ask the White Estate why they will tell you it is from an unreleased letter, manuscript etc. but never produce the context and that makes it potentially a pretext.(Are we not to avoid every appearance of evil) I Agree with you not a very good way to instill faith. She warned us that there would be those that labor to discredit (whether intentional or not) her works and I believe this is an example. Granted with some compilations the intent appears to be simply to gather thoughts on a topic in one easily read place. Unfortunately it is also used to support certain doctrines, for this I believe the original works in their original context should only be considered and only after a thorough study of scripture is made to focus the thought and avoid entering into a topic with another bias regardless of its source.

Just my thoughts

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Could I ask you how much of Ellen White you've read?

I have read a great deal of her writings (I used to be an EGW freak). I'm reading Prophets and Kings as we speak; and loving it! My favorites are Great Controversy, Acts of the Apostles , and Early Writings.

Quote:

Which books or writings do you consider good and helpful to you?

The most helpful are the Controversy series. They provide as good and inspirational of a bible commentary as one could ever ask for.

Quote:

These are questions or topics that are answered in the Bible. Their answer doesn't depend on Ellen White's statements.

I respectfully disagree, John. But those would be topics for other threads.

Thank you for your respect and non-judgementalism in your responses to my posts. It is always a pleasure for me to correspond with you, John.

Have a great Sabbath.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

And even cheaper than that - if one is willing to simply click on this link -- https://egwwritings.org/

Thanks for that link, Bob!

[Enabled]

Quote:

That certainly can happen with a quote out of context - but in the list that was given recently - none of those subjects is specific to Ellen White. They all come right out of the Bible and are good examples of our "sola scriptura" model for testing doctrine.

I would have to agree with you as I understood them all from scripture before I ever read E.G. White.

Does make me just a little curious as to who caused the questions of Doubt 12 years ago as these are pretty standard doctrine easily understood on their own, in fact I'm not sure I ever did a study from SOP specifically on any of them. I know some of the points she makes but it is certainly not the source of my understanding thou I agree with her views as I recall the points I've read.

[JoeMo]

Enabled,

Are you believing these from the Bible because it is what you understand from your own reading or because of what you were told when someone else taught you? For example, in Revelation, as SDA's we are taught that the time, times, and half a time are 120 years, not 1260 days. Why all of a sudden is the millenium a literal thousand years? Why the sudden change?

SoP tells us that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in 1844. The book of Hebrews says Jesus entered the Holy of Holies upon His resurrection. Which should I believe? The Bible says that Jesus will rule the nations with a rod of iron; and all the nations will come to worship Him on Sabbaths, and Holy Days, and new moons. How could the nations do that if the millenium is in heaven? Revelation 19-20 says that Satan gathers the nations for the great war of God Almighty PRIOR TO the judgement resurrection. How can that happen if sin was eradicated from the earth 1,000 prior?

Each of these questions would require its own entire thread to discuss (and each question has been discussed ad nauseam before).

Are you believing what you were told, or are you believing because, like a noble Berean, you have studied these things out for yourself?

BTW, none of these issues is a salvational issue.

[phkrause]

That's a great website Bob

[phkrause]

Good points Bob

[Ron Amnsn]

And by that rule - a prophet who makes a claim to have a message from God - is to have that message tested against scripture to see if it contradicts -- if it does (as Isaiah 8:19-20 informs us) then that prophet is rejected.

[Woody]

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

And by that rule - a prophet who makes a claim to have a message from God - is to have that message tested against scripture to see if it contradicts -- if it does (as Isaiah 8:19-20 informs us) then that prophet is rejected.

Bob, you have given us your interpretation of Isaiah 8:19-20. Let's take a look at what the verses say:

Quote:

19 When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?

12 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. (NASB)

In the context, it looks like the "they" who "do not speak according to this word" are mediums and spiritists who whisper and mutter, rather than individuals who are behaving like a prophet of God.

Which part of this passage is the part that says "that prophet is rejected"?

[BobRyan]

As far as examples of things in SoP I question, I've delineated those in the past. Among them are:

- Application of the day-for-year principle to prophecies in Daniel and Revelation

- Insistence that the papacy/catholic church is the only possible fulfillment of antichrist/beast/false prophet/harlot/Babylon.

-Close of probation before Christ returns

-Millenium in heaven (rather than on earth

-End of sin upon Christ's second coming.

I repeat - I QUESTION these things (some of them strongly);

As we all know - that list of topics - and strong doubt as to the SDA view on those points - can be had any day of the week and all-day long in nice open discussions with our non-SDA friends.

We often do discuss these points with non-SDAs in great depth. In my own experience I find that SDAs going down that doubt-all road provide weaker arguments for expressing their objection to those Bible doctrines than do our non-SDA friends. (Tall72 is the only exception to that rule - and he claims to be an ex-SDA pastor so neither I nor he consider him to be SDA)

Not that all non-SDAs are brilliant at making their case - certainly there are those who do not know much about their Bibles - but there are a number that do know their Bibles well and that make a very good case for their objections to the Bible doctrines listed above. I seldom find one of our SECC friends that can hold a candle to these non-SDAs when it comes to making the best case for the opposition to those Bible doctrines.

But in this case JoeMo says that he went to some SDA church where he found a group of people primed and inclined to shoot down SDA doctrines. I do not suggest that this can only be had within the SECC or within some church heavily influenced by SECC disciples - I am simply stating that they tend to offer the weaker form of opposition and that we should be familiar with it by actively discussing the points with non-SDAs (because a few of those non-SDAs will likely be well informed and will offer the best arguments in their behalf).

Think about this - a trusting well-intentioned unsuspecting SDA student goes to LSU only to be indoctrinated into bible-bending idea of "believe in evolutionism" and reject the God of creation as revealed in the Bible and as stated in the SDA fundamental beliefs. That mantra of the religion and biology department has taken many SDA students by surprise according to their own testimony on the internet. And they leave as non-SDAs. Little did they know the pit of error they were to face at such a well marketed institution.

In the same way some local congregations are waiting to accept a new - well intentioned SDA visitor, new family in the area, only to pummel them with a long list of SECC derived complaints about SDA doctrine.

We must EACH one stand before the judgment seat of Christ 2Cor 5:10 to give an account for the DEEDS done in the body - whether they be good or evil. No papal priest will stand for us and argue that it was ok that we chose not to study our Bible's to know for certain what is truth.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

And even cheaper than that - if one is willing to simply click on this link -- https://egwwritings.org/

Thanks for that link, Bob!

You are welcome. I have yet to find something someone has quoted from manuscript or from letter that you cannot find there.

in Christ,

Bob

[Johann]

[Enabled]

JoeMoe

I will try to come back to this soon, its Sabbath and we must go. Not returning until late, will try to look at this in the next day or so.

Not much for being told, my conclusions are from personal study. Raised a Pentecostal pastors son, currently (20) years in a SDA Fellowship.

Have a great Sabbath.

[Ron Amnsn]

The all or nothing criteria in the Bible for a prophet has to do with messages that they claim to come from God.

I agree. It also applies when a prophet uses any means to lead people to worship other gods.

Thank you for listing the other passages you use to test teachers and prophets.

The issues I see coming to the forefront regarding EGW are these:

• What did EGW mean by "more than a prophet"?

  Did EGW mean that she was some kind of "super prophet"? Or did she mean that she was called to more than one role (ie. teacher and prophet)?

• Did EGW claim that all of her writings came directly from God?

  Did everything published by EGW fall into the category of message that should be judged by the "all-or-nothing" criteria? EGW sometimes used the phrase "I was shown". Did that apply to everything published in her name?

• When God calls a prophet are they a "blank slate" onto which God writes only truth (so nothing but God's words and opinions are spoken by the prophet)? Or does God call people who already have knowledge and opinions about the Bible (some of which may be erroneous), people who learn and grow over the years as they hear more from God?
• Does it make a difference if the "prophet" is not an Israelite?

  Deuteronomy 13 specifically says, "rises among you". Deuteronomy 18 says, "from among their countrymen [or brothers]". Of all the prophets in Scripture, there are very few who were not Torah-observant Israelites. Baalam is one of the exceptions, and he was later killed for his part in leading the Israelites to worship other gods. EGW was not Torah-observant and did not consider herself to be an Israelite. So are there different criteria that would apply to "prophets" that arise among the Gentiles?

• How do we deal with the EGW writings that were later shown to be not true?

  For examlple, after the great disappointment/mistake in 1844 there were a few years during which EGW affirmed the "closed door" doctrine, which was later abandoned. Also, when EGW was first presented with the teaching that pork should not be eaten, she wrote something rejecting that teaching, but later adopted it. How do we not apply the all-or-nothing criteria to those documented situations where EGW wrote things that were contrary to her later writings and contrary to Scripture?

• Does the word "prophet" in the Bible refer to more than one role? Paul teaches that two or three prophets should speak in a meeting, but to my knowledge that has never occurred at an SDA gathering. In 1Samuel 11 and 19 King Saul and his messengers both prophesied along with the group of prophets, yet were not considered to be life-time prophets.
• Is a prophet ever given the authority to overturn previously existing Scripture?
• Does a prophet ever achieve a standing where it becomes unnecessary to test every message?

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Raised a Pentecostal pastors son, currently (20) years in a SDA Fellowship.

OK Enabled; now you got my curiosity going. I've been as SDA since the 1970's; and leaning towards the Pentecostal/Charismatic for the past 5 years. I've seen some stuff that I can't deny that leads me that way. I'd love to discuss it with you - maybe on PM rather than on a public forum; where there is the potential for "issues".

[JoeMo]

Ron Amnsn,

[BobRyan]

As far as examples of things in SoP I question, I've delineated those in the past. Among them are:

- Application of the day-for-year principle to prophecies in Daniel and Revelation

- Insistence that the papacy/catholic church is the only possible fulfillment of antichrist/beast/false prophet/harlot/Babylon.

-Close of probation before Christ returns

-Millenium in heaven (rather than on earth

-End of sin upon Christ's second coming.

I repeat - I QUESTION these things (some of them strongly);

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The all or nothing criteria in the Bible for a prophet has to do with messages that they claim to come from God.

I agree. It also applies when a prophet uses any means to lead people to worship other gods.

Thank you for listing the other passages you use to test teachers and prophets.

The issues I see coming to the forefront regarding EGW are these:

• What did EGW mean by "more than a prophet"?
  Did EGW mean that she was some kind of "super prophet"? Or did she mean that she was called to more than one role (ie. teacher and prophet)?
  
• Did EGW claim that all of her writings came directly from God?
  Did everything published by EGW fall into the category of message that should be judged by the "all-or-nothing" criteria? EGW sometimes used the phrase "I was shown". Did that apply to everything published in her name?
  
• When God calls a prophet are they a "blank slate" onto which God writes only truth (so nothing but God's words and opinions are spoken by the prophet)? Or does God call people who already have knowledge and opinions about the Bible (some of which may be erroneous), people who learn and grow over the years as they hear more from God?
  
• Does it make a difference if the "prophet" is not an Israelite?
  
  The prophets of 1Cor 14 are never said to be "Israelites".
  
  God is the one that says that if a prophet's message claimed to be from God fails - then that prophet is false (was to be stoned in Deut 18). And in 1John 4 they are simply called "A false prophet" when their teaching claimed to be from God is found to contradict the Bible.
  
  So the real question is how in the world can God require this of flawed humans?
  
  2Peter 3:20-21 gives us a clue. "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"
  
  in Christ,
  
  Bob

[Ron Amnsn]

The prophets of 1Cor 14 are never said to be "Israelites".

It is true that they are not explicitly identified as Jews or Israelites. Neither are they identified as Gentiles.

There is quite a bit of evidence showing that that all the followers of Jesus (both Jews and Gentiles) identified themselves with the Israelites. For example:

• Paul taught that believing Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree of Israel. (Jer 11:16, Rom 11:16-24). Notice that the natural branches that were broken off can be grafted back onto "their own olive tree", which means the olive tree could not represent "the church" or Jesus
• Speaking to all the believing brethren in Corinth Paul wrote, "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;" (1 Cor 1:10)
• Speaking to the assembly of believers at Corinth Paul wrote, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles" (1 Cor 5:1), which indicates that Paul did not identify the believers with the Gentiles.
• In the Roman Empire of that time, only the Jews were exempted from worshiping the Roman emperor, so Gentile believers that were not identified with the Jews would have been required by the Romans to participate in pagan worship.
• Paul taught the believers in Corinth to imitate his own Torah-observant example as he imitated the Torah-observant example of Jesus. (1 Cor 11:1)

[John317]

Quote:

Well the compilations are still from her original writings? Are they not? The problem I see with them, is they are being taken out of context and than being used to either clobber you over the head or some other way.

I am often accused of being to trusting, but on this matter I find the smell of fish a little to often. When I search in her writings and only find the quote from the compilation coming up it makes me deeply concerned. If you ask the White Estate why they will tell you it is from an unreleased letter, manuscript etc. but never produce the context and that makes it potentially a pretext

There aren't too many such statements, and what you say here makes me wonder if you have ever been to the Ellen G. White Estate. I have often gone to the Loma Linda branch of the estate, and I've never failed to be able to get photo copies of whatever I ask for. Sometimes you can find such statements as the ones you refer to, in her own handwriting.

I've been going to the Estate since the mid-1970s and have found the people working there to be very helpful.

May I ask you what quote(s) you've had questions about?