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

[John317]

... 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.

Those are all good questions. We should do what you propose and devote entire threads to each of them. They are certainly worthy of such close attention and study. I'm postive they have already been discussed at length on ClubAdventist, but we should do it again.

Those topics in themselves are not salvatonal issues, but they could be, if a person ends up rejecting the Three Angels' Messages.

[John317]

...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)?
  
  
  The latter answer, not the former. This is clear from reading everything else she wrote, as well as the context of the statement.
  
  She was a teacher, a health-reformer, an evangelist, a Bible worker, a counselor, etc.

[John317]

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.

The critical question here is whether Ellen White ever wrote that God showed her that their view of the "close-door" was correct.

You seem to be assuming that prophets are always right in their personal opinions and convictions. If that were true, the greatest of the prophets-- John the Baptist-- would be disqualified as a genuine prophet of God. We could say the same of Elijah, couldn't we?

Quote:

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?

What and when did Ellen White write it?

You might want to check and see if Ellen White ever wrote that God showed her in vision that pork could be eaten.

Please give references to the later writings that you believe contradict her earlier writings or are contrary to the Scriptures.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn[*

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.

The critical question here is whether Ellen White ever wrote that God showed her that their view of the "close-door" was correct.

You seem to be assuming that prophets are always right in their personal opinions and convictions. If that were true, the greatest of the prophets-- John the Baptist-- would be disqualified as a genuine prophet of God. We could say the same of Elijah, couldn't we?

Actually, John317, I agree with your approach here. In this and another thread BobRyan has been insisting that accepting part of EGW's writings while not accepting other parts is NOT a valid way to treat EGW's writings. My point is that during her ministry EGW grew in her understanding so her later writings do not always agree with her earlier writings. Even for someone who wants to accept ALL of EGW's writings there has to be some valid method of choosing which statements to accept and which to ignore.

I agree that sometimes EGW's writings express her opinions and background, rather than a direct revelation from God. There must be a valid way to test EGW's writings by Scripture so that those statements that don't agree with Scripture can be ignored. Otherwise her writings become more authoritative than Scripture.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

My point is that during her ministry EGW grew in her understanding so her later writings do not always agree with her earlier writings. Even for someone who wants to accept ALL of EGW's writings there has to be some valid method of choosing which statements to accept and which to ignore.

I agree that sometimes EGW's writings express her opinions and background, rather than a direct revelation from God. There must be a valid way to test EGW's writings by Scripture so that those statements that don't agree with Scripture can be ignored. Otherwise her writings become more authoritative than Scripture.

Ron, I really appreciate what you said here. I think another issue is that at times EGW wrote about how things "should be" vs. how things "are".

For example, in one place (think it was Adventist Home - not sure), she wrote about how a woman's place what at home with her children; that women should not work outside the home, and that children should be schooled at home rather than a public schoolhouse. This is how things "should be".

Sometime later a person in Battle Creek complained to her about women who were gathering other children together to teach them while their real mothers were working - what a travesty it was; and how it was against Sister White's teaching. EGW responded (I think it was in the Testimonies) something to the effect of "thank God there are compassionate souls who will gather the children and guide them in an organized fashion rather than let them run unsupervised in the streets learning crime and evil". That's how things "are".

[Enabled]

Quote:

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.

(Red)Never had the privilege, though I would love to given enough time to make it worthwhile. My reference is not to the availability of copy but to the publication of all she wrote in its original context for all to read freely, not just to be reviewed and compiled by a select few as they choose to apply her works. I agree with you as I have some copy of her handwriting supplied to me electronically, atrocious and often difficult to read but none the less very helpful in clarifying that indeed they didn't always faithfully print her words exactly as she wrote.

Quote:

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

I too have found Estate staff polite and helpful! The staff are not what's at issue but the trustees of her unreleased works. The instructions she left as to the publication of her works should have long since seen the majority of her writing released in its raw state, not in compilations or with (helpful) titles or headings in leading (read biased by) titles or subheadings of the compilers. The publishers have been taken to task a number of times over the years for their helpful Capitalization of words of addition of some to supplement our reading, all I'm sure done with the best of intent but none the less as is obvious, with out her over-sight.

I agree with you ("There aren't too many such statements") but none the less of great concern as I feel that anything I write is never what I wrote if it is altered (edited) in the slightest by any with good intent or otherwise. This to I believe applies to her or any other author or writer of words. I believe and state as my reason these points as it undermines the trustworthiness of her works as surely as any other form of misrepresentation.

Simple point would be as I recall "some of the quotes" included in Evangelism 615-617. These quotes didn't help me in my search for truth as I looked them up but caused me to doubt even further the claims of those who would have me believe she was always Trinitarian or became so in her faith near her end.

Thanks as always John317 for your response.

[Enabled]

Quote:

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".

Granted JoeMoe as I have available time: PM would be fine.

[Ron Amnsn]

You might want to check and see if Ellen White ever wrote that God showed her in vision that pork could be eaten.

What she wrote was not given to her in a vision. If I remember correctly, it was just her own understanding of the issue, written in a private letter, before she was given her first vision on health reform.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn[*

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.

The critical question here is whether Ellen White ever wrote that God showed her that their view of the "close-door" was correct.

You seem to be assuming that prophets are always right in their personal opinions and convictions. If that were true, the greatest of the prophets-- John the Baptist-- would be disqualified as a genuine prophet of God. We could say the same of Elijah, couldn't we?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

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.

[BobRyan]

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?

[BobRyan]

In the Bible the lesson "of the talents" is a lesson about the knowledge of God. Those who improve one what little we have - gain even more. Those who squander the gift of knowledge handed to them by parents teachers etc in early life - not digging in, not sharing, not growing - lose even what they used to know.

Thus Jesus said - "to him who has shall more be given" but "to him who has not - even what he has shall be taken away".

This is not a parable about money or the ability to paint, or sing. It is about the knowledge of God and sharing what little we know with others thus multiplying sending it out.... and also studying and "learning" more as we go along.

in Christ,

Bob

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

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?

Here again holding your Bible out at such a great distance from the details - no quote at all - is not serving your Bible study interest.

Ok, you want Bible quotes? I thought a studuent like you would be capable of looking up the verses yourself; but here you go:

Quote:

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Judgment of the Dead

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:7-14)

Look at the order of events:

1. Satan is released from prison to deceive the nations.

2. The nations - led by satan, surround the Holy City; and are consumed by fire from God.

3. Satan, beast, and false prophet are thown into lake of fire.

4. THEN the judgement resurrection takes place.

Who are these "nations" that rebel against God if the second resurrection has not yet taken place?

You accuse me of being a poor Bible student:

Quote:

That is so easy - that it is hard to get lost on that one.

Again - this is the easy part I think.

The idea of pitting one text against another is not any sort of exegesis in this case.

Here again holding your Bible out at such a great distance from the details - no quote at all - is not serving your Bible study interest.

Who died and made you judge and jury? Are you so smart and holy that you find in necessary to denigrate all who don't agree with you?

I consider that cocky and condescending; not smart and holy.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

In the Bible the lesson "of the talents" is a lesson about the knowledge of God. Those who improve one what little we have - gain even more. This is not a parable about money

This is a parable about good stewardship which includes handling of money and property - especially if that stewardship was entrusted by another. A "talent" was, after all, a unit of money. Spiritualizing it into something as esoteric as "knowledge of God" and ignoring the practical implications of the parable dilute its meaning.

[LoneRanger]

...don't expect to win any debates with certain people. Also, don't expect to see friendly, objective discussion - expect to see subtle condescending, cajoling, and sometimes personal attack.

JoeMo, discussions along these lines have all the ear-marks of a dead-end stalemate. I for one refuse to waste my time on it.

Your advise quoted above is quite valid.

[John317]

My point is that during her ministry EGW grew in her understanding so her later writings do not always agree with her earlier writings. Even for someone who wants to accept ALL of EGW's writings there has to be some valid method of choosing which statements to accept and which to ignore.

I have heard other people say that her earlier writings don't agree with what she said later, but I've never found this to be true. She never had to go back to her earlier writings in order to make them agree with what God had shown her later. The reason that's true is that Ellen White was careful to only write what God had shown her.

For instance, Ellen White was apparently not sure during the early years of many things related to the nature of the Holy Spirit and of the nature of Christ. Yet she never had to change her early writings on those topics, because she didn't write her private thoughts. God did not reveal everything to her all at once. Her clearest statements about the Holy Spirit and the nature of Christ were written between 1888 and 1914. (Perhaps significantly, her clearest statements on these topics were not written until after the death of her husband.)

So the writings that Ellen White wrote for the church and the world do not contain her personal opinions. A prophet delivers God's messages, not his or her own. She said that she did not write merely her own opinions and give these to the church as God's messages. That is what a false prophet does.

I have never found that Ellen White did that.

If you find any that you believe are merely her opinion, let me know.

But remember that a messenger of God also has to do and say many common things in their personal life. Not every sentence they speak or write in during their lifetime is inspired.

Ellen White addresses this issue in some of her books.

If interested, see especially 1 Selected Messages pp. 24-58. There are others, but 1 SM is a good place to start.

[John317]

I agree that sometimes EGW's writings express her opinions and background, rather than a direct revelation from God. There must be a valid way to test EGW's writings by Scripture so that those statements that don't agree with Scripture can be ignored. Otherwise her writings become more authoritative than Scripture.

Ron, I think you misunderstood what I've said about this. I didn't say she wrote her own opinions for the church.

What I said is that not every word she wrote or spoke during her lifetime was inspired. Even a prophet must do and say common, ordinary things, and of course they do sometimes also give their opinions about things. But those are not included among the writings that were intended for the Church.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

You might want to check and see if Ellen White ever wrote that God showed her in vision that pork could be eaten.

What she wrote was not given to her in a vision. If I remember correctly, it was just her own understanding of the issue, written in a private letter, before she was given her first vision on health reform.

Sure, and prophets can be wrong in their private opinions. Notice that she didn't write her own opinions as a message from God to the church.

You'll find that some of the prophets-- such as Nathan, for instance-- also gave their own private opinion to people, but then were later told by God that they had been mistaken. But it's important to notice that neither Nathan nor Ellen White gave their opinion as if it was something that God had shown them. There was no deception involved.

Ellen White found out that she had been mistaken in what she had said earlier about pork. I think you'll agree that's quite different from saying God showed her in vision that pork is OK and then having to go back and say that the previous vision had given her wrong information.

However, it is true that prophets sometimes don't understand a vision they're given. That happened with Daniel and Peter. Ellen White also did not always immediately understand a vision. Sometimes she was shown a vision several times.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

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?

Here again holding your Bible out at such a great distance from the details - no quote at all - is not serving your Bible study interest.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

The fact that every event in the book of Revelation is not sequential with every event before it - is pretty much a "given". You have to determine sequence by looking at the content of the chapter.

John summarizes then expands on the details for that summary. He does that several times in the book.

In vs 1-5 the thing that starts the 1000 years is the "first resurrection" and the event that marks the end is the 2nd resurrection "The rest of the dead did not come to life until after the 1000 years were completed".

I agree with the "repeat and expand" strategy in both daniel and Revelation; however, I see the repition sequence in Rev. 6:1 through 8:4; then 8:5 through 11:19; and lastly 12:1 through the end of the book. There are a few "rabbit trails" within those cycles; but I view the events within these cycles as basically chronological. (1st seal, 2nd seal; 1st trumpet, 2nd trumpet, 1st plaque, 2nd plague, 1st bowl 2nd bowl; pre millenium, end of milleneum, post millenium) I see no indication that the events of Revelation 19 and 20 are NOT chronological.

More importantly, I do not view the concept of where the millenium takes place or what happens when during the millenium to be a salvational issue; so I'm not gonna argue with you about it. I accept the fact that your revelation is not mine; and vice-versa. At least grant me the same grace every once and a while rather than disagree with me and question the depth of my studies at every occasion.

[Kevin H]

John3, Mrs. White has told us about this. A couple of issues are to read about say the reform dress, the Testimony # 11 where she talked about the health work that Kellogg used to raise money for the san and started on a building that James White knew was way premature and would have caused the church financial disaster. Here Mrs. White had a vision to build the building, good church members became quite financially involved in supporting the building because of the vision and James tore it down.

Sadly I have not seen these published, but when I was at Andrews I would read a lot of corrispondence that Mrs. White wrote; the ones that I found most interesting was between Mrs. White and Steven Haskell, where Haskell kept trying to convince Mrs. White of the views of the Fundamentalists and trying to convince her that this was how her inspiration worked, and how she kept trying to encourage him to give up fundamentalism and saying that it NOT how her inspiration worked. (Haskell's argument won out in the church and is the views of the typical Adventist).

A second group is to a number of people but where the letters these individuals wrote looked very similar to each other and the White's responses to these people looked very very similar to each other and I have to confess for a long time I did not realize that they were written by and to more than one person. These included letters to an elder Washburn (who was the nephew of Elder Bultler who sided with Elder Butler against Jones and Wagner, but who had some friction with his uncle after his uncle returned to being active in the church after wresteling with the Jones and Wagner issue, and also in the 1880s Elder Butler had written articles opposing Fundamentalism, and in 1919 Elder Butler and his nephew were on opposit sides of the 1919 Bible Conference) I believe that there was also an elder Watson, and then between Willie White and and Elder Wilkenson. I remember how there were the "W" last names and when it dawned on my they were not the same person I became familiar with their individual names. But they had very heated discussions on her inspiraion and the purposes of her writings. A lot of my "Liberal" views here that upset many here come from reading this corrispondence all those years ago and when I was later in the Army at Ft. Lewis WA. finding some very conservative groups who would quote Washburn and Wilkenson and others from this group of corrispondence. It is hard for me to take as authorative someone who I remember reading in the letters Mrs. White saying things like how dispite their massive quoteing of her words, that they do not understand her message.

Anyway, Mrs. White describes the to her the visions were like seeing a series of snapshots and then trying to describe what was shown to her. She would then do research to try to understand better what she saw (when I was in Europe for the Air Force on my days off I did some combat sightseeing, sometimes I'd see people taking a picture of something, I decided to snap a picture as well then look in the tour book on the train back to base to find out what I saw) then describe them. Now Mrs. White was a litterary genious. Had she not been busy as a prophet I honestly believe that she would have been a famous author. However she did not have much confidence in her ability, so she keep looking for others who would say what she wanted to say but in what she thought was a prettier way, however when she found them she kept improving on their words and I wish that she did try more to craft them herself.

I believe that she was a prophet. However people either want to make her into Steven Haskell's view of what a prophet should be, or else want to make her into Washburn and Wilkerson's view of what a prophet should be. This is where we run into problems.

[Kevin H]

You'll find that some of the prophets-- such as Nathan, for instance-- also gave their own private opinion to people, but then were later told by God that they had been mistaken. But it's important to notice that neither Nathan nor Ellen White gave their opinion as if it was something that God had shown them. There was no deception involved.

I'm sorry John, but when King David was asking Nathan it was not a casual discussion around the watercooler. Nathan was speaking in full authority as a member of the heavenly counsel.

However we see here the difference in principle and application. Prophets know the principles. David was asking about changing the worship from the tabernacle/tent to a temple. We can worship God anywhere and it is honorable to give God our best. thus Nathan as a member of the heavenly counsel was able to give David the possitive message.

However Nathan had to learn about another situation: A large amount of David's work was to convert the people he conqured. These were people who worshiped Baal and were now worshiping El/Yahweh.

In ancient Canaanite religion, going way, way back long be for Abraham, the Canaanites worshiped El, the most high God. (seen as a bit different than our idea of El. Ours is a personal being outside of time and space who has broken into time and space to be in relationship with us. The Canaanite gods were the forces of nature and El was where the forces of nature all united). Anyway El was worshiped in a tent similar to what the Hebrews had in the tabernacle.

As the Canaanites eventually changed from focusing on El for worship and instead focused on El's son Baal they changed from worshiping El in the tent to worshiping Baal in the temple.

Now these people who had been worshiping Baal in a temple has been conqured and converted by David and part of this conversion included starting to worship the most high God in a tent. If that generation was to then change back to temple worship it would have been very confusing for these new converts, and if anyone was to cause these little children to stumble it is better for them to have a donkey sized millstone tied around their neck and throw them into the sea. Thus although Nathan was speaking the first part out of principle of being a full member of being in the heavenly counsel, he needed to postpone his prophecy to a better time the next generation that was raised in the church.

[BobRyan]

Sure, and prophets can be wrong in their private opinions. Notice that she didn't write her own opinions as a message from God to the church.

You'll find that some of the prophets-- such as Nathan, for instance-- also gave their own private opinion to people, but then were later told by God that they had been mistaken.

Nathan's example is very instructive.

David asks for guidance from Nathan - since Nathan is serving Israel in the role of a prophet. This is interesting since David himself - writes scripture and Nathan does not.

So now Nathan gives an affirmation for building the house of God - and yet God does not want it build in this special case. If God sends a message via some other prophet - then the lesson learned is that Nathan cannot be trusted -- sometimes he gives goofy advise and you never know when that will happen - unless you happen to have a spare - backup prophet around to correct Nathan.

But if God corrects Nathan - then God is upholding and affirming the prophetic role of Nathan even in this situation. Which He does.

In a similar way - a man sought Ellen White's counsel on the subject of eating pork. Ellen White's own preference was that it was ok - but the most she could get by way of counsel - was that God would make the matter known to a number of church leaders if He wanted the church to change course in that regard.

Shortly thereafter the counsel God gave - was to Ellen White - informing her that pork is absolutely forbidden no matter her preferences to the contrary. And Ellen White made the matter known to the church - as it was a message directly from God on the subject.

A similar thing happened with Joseph Bates and the subject of Sabbath keeping. He stopped by to inform Ellen and James White about the strong Bible case for Sabbath keeping - and their preference was that it might not be all that important. God would lead.

Indeed - God lead Ellen White once again to see that her own preference in the matter would not hold up against the will of God. So once again she announced God's explicit statement on the subject even though it differed with her prior preference.

[Johann]

Sadly I have not seen these published, but when I was at Andrews I would read a lot of corrispondence that Mrs. White wrote; the ones that I found most interesting was between Mrs. White and Steven Haskell, where Haskell kept trying to convince Mrs. White of the views of the Fundamentalists and trying to convince her that this was how her inspiration worked, and how she kept trying to encourage him to give up fundamentalism and saying that it NOT how her inspiration worked. (Haskell's argument won out in the church and is the views of the typical Adventist).

The whole section you have written is remarkable, but what I left here is extremely important for the church to know and understand how to read the Bible - her writings as well.

Sadly there are still many in our church, even among leaders who have not grasped the importance of knowing how inspiration works.

It seems to me that this is causing considerable misunderstandings around us. I think we have some solid teachers at the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary at Andrews who are teaching the students to use the method of Ellen White when they read the Bible.

At the same time certain people are attacking Andrews for doing just that, because they think we should be more fundamentalistsic, just like some of the other protestant churches around us.

I fear this is in part destroying the confidence in the Spirit of Prophesy, even among some of our most "conservative" saints.

This matter needs our sincere prayers.

[BobRyan]

I fully agree with you that some of our Administrators, pastors and laity do not know what the Bible is - and how inspiration works according to the Bible and according to Ellen White's own statements on the subject.

For example - how many know that -

God's Word says "Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from GOD" 2Pet 1:20-21.

Paul says that the Word that church accepted his teaching to the churches "not as the Word of MEN - but for what it is the Word of God" 1Thess 2:13.

Ellen White says that the Bible is in verity - the "Word of God" spoken to each individual as if you could hear God speaking.

Quote:

The Scriptures are to be received as God's word to us, not written merely, but spoken. When the afflicted ones came to Christ, He beheld not only those who asked for help, but all who throughout the ages should come to Him in like need and with like faith. When He said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee"; when He said to the woman of Capernaum, "Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace," He spoke to other afflicted, sin-burdened ones who should seek His help. {FLB 9.4}

So with all the promises of God's Word. In them He is speaking to us individually, speaking as directly as if we could listen to His voice. It is in these promises that Christ communicates to us His grace and power. They are leaves from that tree which is "for the healing of the nations." Received, assimilated, they are to be the strength of the character, the inspiration and sustenance of the life.

{FLB 9.5}

in Christ,

Bob