Prophetic Inspiration

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw:  Sometimes one will make a comment that stimulates my thought beyond what was said.  You made a tangential reference to the the amount of EGWs writings.   So, that stimulated my thinking and beyond what you has said.  My response was srelated to the thought that you stimulated.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel, I believe that your comment as to what EGW said about Daniel 8:11 is not correct.

Please supply me with a reference to where you believe EGW said such.

 

 

[Rossw]

47 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw:  Sometimes one will make a comment that stimulates my thought beyond what was said.  You made a tangential reference to the the amount of EGWs writings.   So, that stimulated my thinking and beyond what you has said.  My response was srelated to the thought that you stimulated.

 

Greg, my comment was not meant to be tangential. I was not comparing her volume of books to all other popular writers. I was comparing her to other possibly inspired writers. As far as I know Steven King was not directly inspired by God. Do you think he was?

Comparing EGW to other secular writers is a waste of time in a discussion of the comparison of inspired contemporary writers to the Biblical writers.

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rachel, I believe that your comment as to what EGW said about Daniel 8:11 is not correct.

Please supply me with a reference to where you believe EGW said such.

Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.  {EW 74.2}  

The word "sacrifice" is supplied in Daniel 8:11, 12, and 13; in Daniel 11:31; and in Daniel 12:11. When one reads the King James Version this is obvious, for the word will appear in italics.  Other Bible translations did not treat the reader with this much respect, and would represent supplied words the same as any other, giving the allusion that they did not supply any (i.e. that their translation was more perfect), when in fact they frequently supplied more.

For Mrs. White to have made this comment about the rendering of a Bible passage, it must be significant to a proper understanding of the message. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:   Thank you for participating in my learning process.   I asked because I wanted to know if I was wrong.  You have been helpful.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw:  Thank you for clarifying your main points.  I will quote below what I thought were your major points and I will label them with a # 1 and a # 2;

Of course I do not think that Stephan King was inspired by God.

As to comparing EGW only to Christian writers as to the amount of written material, as you did not specify, I did not know.  I posted what I did    because I thought it interesting.  I am O. K. with others not thinking it interesting.

  1)  This essentially singles her out from the rest in our modern era.   2)  EGW would have to then be able to endure the same scrutiny as any other Biblical author. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Rossw]

I must clarify an inaccurate statement made by myself in a previous post. I mentioned in passing the possible inaccuracy of the famous comma of Luke 23. The comma in question would not be the error if the inspired Biblical writer but of the translator.

[Green Cochoa]

9 minutes ago, Rossw said:

I must clarify an inaccurate statement made by myself in a previous post. I mentioned in passing the possible inaccuracy of the famous comma of Luke 23. The comma in question would not be the error if the inspired Biblical writer but of the translator.

Mrs. White, an inspired writer, leaves us in no doubt on this error either, correcting it plainly.

. . . The thief on the cross offered his prayer to Christ. "Remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," he said. (Luke 23:42.) And at once the response came, Verily I say unto thee today (as I hang on the cross in humiliation and suffering), thou shalt be with Me in Paradise. . . .  {COL 263.4}  

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

Mrs. White, an inspired writer, leaves us in no doubt on this error either, correcting it plainly.

. . . The thief on the cross offered his prayer to Christ. "Remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," he said. (Luke 23:42.) And at once the response came, Verily I say unto thee today (as I hang on the cross in humiliation and suffering), thou shalt be with Me in Paradise. . . .  {COL 263.4}  

Does EGW herself have the authority to make that correction?

[Kevin H]

14 hours ago, Rossw said:

Kevin, I don't think we are as far apart in our understandings of the Scripture as we might think. Even if we don't agree very much. 

Of course EGW is a fallen human like everyone else. However, she was obviously a highly skilled person in her ability to communicate God's message. Is her message clear enough for clear understanding? I still think so. 

Would I say probably most Biblical writers were similarly capable? I also think so.

Are there mistake in Scripture? I'd acknowledge yes. A famous comma comes to mind but even with that in mind there is still plenty of Biblical context to overlook the mistakes.

Of course not. It is just that we do have a mixture of evidence and tradition that does not always fit together in a good way. Back in the 1800s when the churches were falling into the Modernists who doubted the historicity of the Bible, and the Fundamentalists who had a very narrow view of inspiration, there was one Pastor who realized that both sides were wrong.  He began preaching sermons that took a more balanced view.

His sermons upset the Fundamentalists. They saw them as an attack on the Bible. His ministry was ruined when a woman claimed to be having an affair with him. Later it was learned that she was lying about the affair, but she said that this man was preaching dangerous views about scripture and that she decided to lie about him to ruin his ministry and thus save the Bible from his horrible attacks.

With just one change you can find that Pastor's sermons in Selected Messages and the Forward to the Great Controversy. Instead of joining the bandwagon of being horrified by this pastor's sermons and condemning him, Mrs. White took his sermons and used them to describe her experience and that of the Bible writers. The one change she made is that pastor saw Inspiration as mostly a subjective experience and Mrs. White made it a very definite objective experience.

Oh, the issue about the coma is more of a translation issue. But then again this thread came about dealing with a translation issue on the word "Kataluma" which the translators until recently only had to guess about but now knows what the actual translation should have been, and how Green was concerned on how Mrs. White drew some lessons about how we need to relate to Christ by using the mistranslation of "Inn" to have an Innkeeper doing what we need to avoid doing.  

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, Rossw said:

 

 

11 hours ago, Rossw said:

Does that put her writing on par with the Bible? No, I think she served a different function than the Biblical writers.

In the Bible there were prophetic guilds. There would be a prophet seen as "The Messenger of the Lord" who was the one from earth who would be allowed to enter into the heavenly council and to bring back information of the council. There were prophets with a universal ministry, who tended to be connected to the kings and rulers as a part of the division of the role of Judge in the Samuel Compromise (Deuteronomy 10-18 I believe we find it.)  They did many things and wrote many things, but only a few of their writings and a part of their ministry was writing the Bible. But there were also local prophets who's job was to take the universal message of the Bible writers and apply them to the local community. They were equally inspired but had very different jobs. Mrs. White fits the role of a local prophet, but also the messenger of the Lord. She lived under the 6th head, the deadly wound so there was no need of a world prophet, and a local prophet was able to fulfill that role as well.

[Kevin H]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Kevin,

I disagree that EGW had the same level of inspiration as OT prophets such as Elijah and Jeremiah.  In the OT, the gift of prophecy was concentrated in the person who held the office of prophet.  In the NT it is distributed among members of the body of Christ.  That's why in the NT, Paul has advised us that "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2Cor. 13:1).

Furthermore, if the eschatological writings of Biblical Prophets like Daniel and John are "fallible"; we could be in some deep doo-doo.  For my own comfort, I would rather believe that these are "sure" words of prophecy.

I am aware of this theory, it was made in fairly recent years by evangelicals trying to make sense of the New Testament comments about the ongoing gift of prophecy and their belief that it is not ongoing but like the Bible closed with the book of Revelation.

I disagree with this. While I understand the cannon to have closed with Revelation, I do not see the office of Prophet closing with Revelation and a more sticky sweet Kumbya type of inspiration afterwards.

In the Old Testament we had the seers who developed after the Samuel Compromise into the role of Prophets. Then in the New Testament we have the direct revelation of God through Jesus Christ. Then came the Apostles, those who had seen and heard Jesus so had first hand knowledge of his teachings, and in addition had been eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. There were NOT 12 Apostles, but at minimum 81 (the 12 plus the 70 minus Judas) and up to over 500. By the time John was getting old he was one of the youngest of the apostles. As the apostles were dying out John talked about how the office of prophet would be important after the apostles die off.

Now we may not have recognized some of these prophets because they did not have the universal aspects of the prophets who wrote the Bible, but there may have been some from time to time. In the 1200s many recognized Joachim of Flore as a true prophet of God, especially the Franciscans. Of course since they were not fundamentalists they did not cling to every word like we do to Mrs. White, but they built on the principles of what he was teaching. His teachings eventually split into two directions. In one direction they went through the Franciscans on to the Adventist movement in England in the 1700s (Sir Isaac Newton was a part of this) into some Bible conferences in the late 1700s and early 1800s to Miller and became Seventh-day Adventism.

The other direction was in the counter reformation a Jesuit priest took one part of what Joachim taught (and not one  of his strongest points) made speculation on that point and developed it into dispensationalism  which got mixed with Augustinianism and then in the 1800s Fundamentalism and you got the modern evangelical movement.

As for Daniel and Revelation, they are as much the more sure word of prophecy as the rest of the Bible and Mrs. White. They have an infallible message, principles and framework. But say like Daniel, there are descriptions of the Babylonians which was incorrect, but yet saw something. It was not knowledge that they would have had at the time of Antiochus, but not what they would have had for the time of Daniel himself, but it does reflect the knowledge in the early days of the Persian empire. Thus giving evidence that the book of Daniel was complied by his students after his death sharing their memories of their teacher.

The 2300 evenings-mornings is a more flexible term that can be applied to literal days, half years, full years (and in some cases sabbatical years). Daniel 8 was written the year that included 2300 literal days to Belshazzar's feast. Daniel is based on the Deuteronomic history and the eschatology predicted in Deuteronomy 4. which saw the exile as the last days. Daniel 1-6 strongly expected the exile to end with a second great exodus lead by the messiah and leading to the end of the world. Daniel 7 and 8 still sees these as possible but that their time to fulfill the conditions were so short that they may not be fulfilled. Daniel 9-12 no longer expects the immediate fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4 and tells what the Hebrews were to do as they returned to the land. It expected the Davidic king to be restored and to cover over the 70 weeks of years from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah comes. It tells what would have happened had Jesus been accepted. Some things predicted for the 70th week were fulfilled in Jesus, other parts could not be fulfilled because Jesus was not accepted by the nation as the Messianic prince.

Mathew 24 and the similar chapters in Mark and Luke tie the second coming to the fall of Jerusalem. Hebrews distances it from the fall of Jerusalem. Yes, it could have been written by Paul with him realizing that the Gospel would not be spread in time for Jesus to come soon after the fall of Jerusalem. But more likely by a Christian - probably with in Pau's circle, explaining the great disappointment of Jesus not coming soon after the fall of Jerusalem. Hebrews focus on Jesus' heavenly ministry that he could not do for us if he returned around 70 AD. While it kept the church from seeing Jesus as a false prophet and giving up on him, this switch in focus from the second coming to the heavenly ministry caused the church to loose it's first love and loose it's missionary zeal. (The condition was the gospel spread into all the world. The apostles thought it was the "Jewish" world. thus in Roman's Paul could say that the Gospel had been spread to all the world, and if he found the time it would be nice to bring the gospel to Spain, which was not a part of the Jewish world and thus while Paul thought it would be nice to bring them the gospel, he did not see it as the world that the Gospel was to be preached to.). The book of Revelation balances out Hebrews. It says "Yes, there is a heavenly ministry but our job is not to sit back and celebrate the heavenly ministry but to bring the gospel to the world, the whole word that includes Spain. and every place else." The theme of Revelation is "Preach again" and if they were faithful the Domination persecution would have lead into the end of the world. (It is amazing how much the Flavian emperors sounded like the little horn in Daniel.) but that Domination should not pat himself on his back as seeing himself so important that he was predicted by Daniel. God is waiting for the gospel to be spread to the whole world and if that is not done then Domination would just go down as a blip in history. And since Domination did not become the great little horn, things did not go as they could have gone, thus not all the prophecies fulfilled exactly as predicted,  but the principles and framework of these prophecies  live on for us to meet upon another day. Thus we have a oneness of the opposites of being a more sure word of prophecy, just like the rest of the Bible and Mrs. White, yet not fit the fundamentalist standard.

 

[CoAspen]

Thanks for some historical background. It really brings some life to the Bible that we don't often hear.

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, Kevin H said:

As for Daniel and Revelation, they are as much the more sure word of prophecy as the rest of the Bible and Mrs. White

Thanks for the history lesson in your post.  It was quite educational.  However, I cannot (and probably won't ever) agree with the quoted statement.  EGW's writings will never have equal authority with scripture.  She stated this repeatedly herself.

[Green Cochoa]

50 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Thanks for the history lesson in your post.  It was quite educational.  However, I cannot (and probably won't ever) agree with the quoted statement.  EGW's writings will never have equal authority with scripture.  She stated this repeatedly herself.

Mrs. White pointed people to the Bible instead of to herself.  So did Jesus.  "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."  (John 5:39)  

Was Jesus wrong to tell people this?  No.  He is the "greater Light of the Bible" to which both the Bible and Ellen White would point us.  Mrs. White called her writings the lesser light, and the Bible is also lesser to Christ.  Consider the import of the following quotes:

The prophet John was the connecting link between the two dispensations. As God's representative he stood forth to show the relation of the law and the prophets to the Christian dispensation. He was the lesser light, which was to be followed by a greater. The mind of John was illuminated by the Holy Spirit, that he might shed light upon his people; but no other light ever has shone or ever will shine so clearly upon fallen man as that which emanated from the teaching and example of Jesus. Christ and His mission had been but dimly understood as typified in the shadowy sacrifices. Even John had not fully comprehended the future, immortal life through the Saviour.  {DA 220.2}  

Clearly, Jesus here is said to be the greater light.  Another statement that confirms this follows:

Many of the Jews had acknowledged John as a prophet sent of God, and had received baptism at his hands unto repentance; meanwhile he had plainly taught them that his work and mission was to prepare the way for Christ, who was the greater light, and would complete the work which he had begun. Nicodemus had meditated upon these things, and he now felt convinced that he was in the presence of that One foretold by John.  {2SP 128.1}  

Interestingly, Jesus, the greater light, spoke of John thusly:

 7:26    But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.  
 7:27    This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.  
 7:28    For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.    (Luke 7:26-28)

John the Baptist never wrote so much as a chapter of the Bible.  As a prophet, he could only speak as a reflection of the light shone upon him by God.  This is what all of the prophets have done under inspiration.  "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."  Mrs. White wrote under the influence of the same inspiration of God that inspired the other prophets.  She herself says we are not to look for degrees of inspiration, separating out the human from the divine.

    Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White's opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.  {1888 257.1}  
     If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White's human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human--Sister White's opinions. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition.  {1888 257.2} 
     Brother B. is on the wrong track. God has not given the work into his hands to set up his human wisdom to put his hand on the sacred ark of God. When sitting in judgment upon the living oracles of God, did he consider that God had placed upon him the work to pass judgment as to what is inspired in the Word of God and what is not inspired? Has God committed the work to him to state what sort of degrees of inspiration attend some utterances and what is wanting in others? Whatever may be his thoughts in these things, if they are kept to himself they will not harm other souls.  {1888 257.3}  
     Did God put the burden upon him? I answer, No, He never gave any such burden to any mortal man. And if he had not become exalted he would never have dared to put his hand on sacred things to cut and carve the sacred Scriptures as he has ventured to do.  {1888 257.4}  
     The words spoken to Joshua are applicable to Elder B. "Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy." Joshua 5:15. You are led astray by the enemy, and while you have been doing a work the Lord has never committed to mortal minds to do, you have been wonderfully zealous in regard to any difference of opinion being presented upon the law in Galatians. You speak of the position I have taken upon it and the letter I wrote you being the cause of your sickness. This may be your own interpretation of the matter, but I have reason to lay your sickness to causes that you do not see.  {1888 258.1}  
     God is not pleased with your work. His condemnation is upon it. And these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration have been taught in our college and have been printed in our church paper. The seeds have been springing up and you must reap the harvest. These sentiments should never have seen the light of day. They should never have been put into the paper. Have God's people put out their eyes, that they cannot distinguish between truth and error, the sacred and the profane? Elder B. you will never want to meet your harvest in the day of God.  {1888 258.2}  

For those here on this forum who have put their own hands to touch "the sacred ark of God," Mrs. White's words still stand forth clearly: "you will never want to meet your harvest in the day of God."

[Kevin H]

8 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Thanks for the history lesson in your post.  It was quite educational.  However, I cannot (and probably won't ever) agree with the quoted statement.  EGW's writings will never have equal authority with scripture.  She stated this repeatedly herself.

That is because her job and the Bible's were different. The Bible has is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. It has a more universal message. Mrs. White was like Iddo or other prophets who we know about but don't have their writings as part of the Canon.  who were still fully authorized prophets but who's job was not to give the major message of the Bible, but who's job was  local application of the Bible.

 

[Kevin H]

Indeed Green, she was talking about people who wanted to make inspiration a matter of words and the idea "When Mrs. White wrote this she was inspired when she wrote that she was not inspired but writing her own opinion." There are no degrees of inspiration You cannot say she was writing one way here and another way there. It is the PERSON who is inspired not his or her words. As a prophet she is filling an office.

Now we have to remember that the same woman who wrote those quotes critical those who wanted to make inspiration different degrees; this same woman wrote equally as critical letters who want to use her writings to do more than she wanted them to do. She told us what her visions did and did not do for her. You seem to think that that guidance from her is merely her opinion and that you, like Stephen Haskell on a friendly level and on a less friendly level Washburn and Wilkinson and others from the moderate and extreme fundamentalists movements tried to tell her how inspiration works thus what her works were doing and putting them on a higher level than she put them. In her quoting that pastor who's views of inspiration upset people, in her discussing the reform dress and Testimony #11 and her correspondence with Haskell and Washburn and others and her son's correspondence to Wilkinson explains what they did and did not do for her. Don't forget Mrs. White herself was accused of  apostasy and of denying that she had the gift of prophecy because of her liberal views of inspiration. Green, if you were living about 108 years ago would you be one of the ones trying to convince Mrs. White that she needs to accept the Fundamentalist's approach to scripture and maybe be one of those calling her an apostasy because she said things about inspiration that does not fit your views as a fundamentalist?

 

[Rossw]

Is the way a person is inspired by God lesson their message?

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin said below:

Exactly.  To be part of the Canon of Scripture is to mean that is a global message that applies to all people, in all places, and at all  times.  Yes, the application of that message, to us today, may require that the specific circumstances under which it was given be understood.  Regardless, it is a message that is to be applied, when correctly understood, to all people everywhere on Earth.  This is a fundamental meaning when we use the term Canon of Scripture. 

In contrast to this are other inspired messages which are not intended to be applied to all people everywhere and at all times.  These messages may be inspired in the same manner as were the Biblical prophets.  But, they differ in that they are not intended to be applied to all people everywhere and at all times.

This difference   is fundamental to our understanding of Ellen White.  The primary reason that she was given was to guide in the development of the SDA denomination--not canonical.  The Bible, as commonly understood in the Protestant tradition was to have authority over her writings--not canonical.  It serves to explain why she in writing to one person might differ from what she said to another person--Each was true for their specific circumstances.  This difference tells us that in working with people outside of the SDA denomination we must ground our faith in the Bible, as commonly understood in the Protestant tradition.  It tells us that in setting the standards that establish the boundaries of what it means to be a SDA, those standards must be grounded, not her  writings, but in that Biblical writings a commonly understood in the Protestant tradition.

Ellen White was a gift of God to this denomination.  she  has been misused by people a both ends of the spectrum.

 

 

That is because her job and the Bible's were different. The Bible has is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. It has a more universal message. Mrs. White was like Iddo or other prophets who we know about but don't have their writings as part of the Canon.  who were still fully authorized prophets but who's job was not to give the major message of the Bible, but who's job was  local application of the Bible.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw asked below:

No.  The manner in which God inspires a person neither lessons nor magnifies their message.

 

Is the way a person is inspired by God lesson their message?

 

 

[Rossw]

On 7/27/2016 at 11:35 PM, Kevin H said:

 The one change she made is that pastor saw Inspiration as mostly a subjective experience and Mrs. White made it a very definite objective experience.

I think Green and I would say this is a very important observation. We all agree with fundamental doctrine #1 so we are at least on the same playing field. This leads the charge of fundamentalism of Green and myself as just merely an accusation to undermine credibility and really a red herring. We all agree in the objective truth of the Bible so really we should be discussing the issues. 

At least for myself, the accusation if fundamentalist does not bother me because the truth of EGW does not change my belief on the issues. I've always asked myself, even if EGW is proven to be false does that change my faith or what I believe? No, she doesn't. Fortunately her writing is inspirational and supportive of Scripture.

[Rossw]

Just to add though, this discussion is interesting even if just a red herring.

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

God is not pleased with your work. His condemnation is upon it. And these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration have been taught in our college and have been printed in our church paper. The seeds have been springing up and you must reap the harvest. These sentiments should never have seen the light of day. They should never have been put into the paper. Have God's people put out their eyes, that they cannot distinguish between truth and error, the sacred and the profane? Elder B. you will never want to meet your harvest in the day of God.  {1888 258.2}  

To me, this is an example of some of her writings which were meant for 1 person (Elder B.), not for the consumption of the entire church

[CoAspen]

Context rears its ugly head again!

[Rossw]

27 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Context rears its ugly head again!

You continue to make this accusation yet provide no reason or proof. If Green's post has contextual issues show us why and how.