A response to Dr. Ben.

[Gregory Matthews]

In a resent post in response to one made by Dr. Ben, I stated that I had never heard his position stated before, and I considered his position to be quite creative. I consider that Dr. Ben and I are great friends, who agree on many things, and disagree on some. I value the contribution that he makes in this forum, even when I do not agree with him.

He has asked me to consider certain statements that Ellen White made, and to respond to him privately. As I made my comment publicly, I am responding publicly to him.

First, I will say that I continue to believe that Dr. Ben was creative in his statement. He stated in position in a manner that I did not recognize it. It is from that sense that I continue to say that he was creative. However, he has raised some valid questions. It is because of their validity that I am going to respond publicly to him.

The quotations that he asked me to consider can be found in EARLY WRITINGS, and in VOL. 1 of SPIRITUAL GIFTS. Those of you who do not have these books in your library may access them on the Internet, at the EGW Estate website.

The SPIRITUAL GIFTS citation that Dr. Ben asked me to consider clearly comes from a well-known time in our history during which Ellen White and our leaders believed and taught what is now called the SHUT DOOR theory. Both Ellen White and our other leaders later rejected this theory, as we all know today.

Ellen White discusses this same SHUT DOOR theory in EARLY WRITINGS, beginning about pate 41 or 42.

It is clear to any student of SDA history that Ellen White later changed her beliefs on the SHUT DOOR from what she believed at the time that she wrote in these publications.

NOTE: I am reading an Internet copy of SPIRITUAL GIFTS, and of EARLY WRITINGS. It may be that the page numbering is slightly off from standard publications.

The foundational question that Dr. Ben has raised, and is asked by sincere students of EGW’s writings is: What do we do with this change in thinking?

Ellen White did not come immediately into a fully developed theology. As a matter of fact, she progressively developed her beliefs, practices, and understanding of God over the years of her life. I am one who believes that if she had lived to the present day, we would see continued development of her beliefs and practices. But, that is simply speculation. In any case, there are those who look at her early writings such as SPIRITUAL GIFTS and EARLY WRITINGS and make one or more of the following conclusions:

Ellen White was inspired by God, and therefore, there is no conflict between her early and later writings.

Ellen White was no more inspired that was Billy Graham, and many other Christian writers, therefore we need not to concern ourselves with apparent conflicts between her writings.

Ellen White wrote things that were simply wrong in her writings, and these are examples. These examples tell us that we should her writings to be nothing more than good pastoral counsel that we read.

God used Ellen White in a manner that differed from how He has used most of us. However, this usage did not keep Ellen White from error.

Ellen White developed spiritually over a period of time. We see that developmental process reflected in her writings. It should therefore not surprise us to see some conflicts between her early and late writings.

A fundamental issue in all of this is what we mean when we say that Ellen White was inspired. Do we mean that God worked upon her thinking, and that thinking is reflected in her writings? Do we mean that God dictated the words she was to write? What exactly do we mean?

Ellen White did not claim to be without error. There are honest people who believe that the see error in her writings. Some of these so-called errors are clearly not important. Others are claimed to be important.

In any case, Dr. Ben has confronted us with a real issue. In these publications, EGW takes some positions that we today would not accept, and that she later changed her mind about.

Yes, I do believe that Dr. Ben was creative in his comments. I probably would not have made his point in the same manner. But, Dr. Ben’s basic questions are valid, and important to every person here.

I should note that Dr. Ben likes to call EGW’s writings pastoral, and he states that the Church would resolve a lot of problems if it would do so. The term “pastoral” means various things to differing people. Because of that, I am not convinced that using that would resolve the current problems that we face.

Well, my friend, Ben, I have responded to you.

To be clear: Yes, I believe that Ellen White said some things on which she was wrong. One example of this is what she said about the "Shut Door."

[Gerr]

Thanks for your response. I think one misconception about inspiration is that if I were to become a prophet right now that everything I write would therefore be without error, that somehow I would be instantaneously infused with all truth, forgetting that I carry all kinds of baggages which may take time to shed one by one. However, if I were to write something and state categorically that it is directly from the Lord, then that's a different story.

Gerry

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Ellen White did not come immediately into a fully developed theology. As a matter of fact, she progressively developed her beliefs, practices, and understanding of God over the years of her life. I am one who believes that if she had lived to the present day, we would see continued development of her beliefs and practices.

---

She actually states this....

[melvin mccarty]

When she repeatedly states "I was shown...." what axactly did she mean by that?

mel

[Gregory Matthews]

That is a central part of this question.

Keep in mind:

EGW does say that she was subject to error. For this see SELECTED NESSAGES, I believe Vol. 1.

EGW in her later years did change her thinking on the Shur Door theory, as published in SPIRITUAL GIFTS and EARLY WRITINGS.

In a section of EW, related to the Shut Door, Ellen White says: "I saw taht Jesus had shutthe door of the holy place, and no man can open it; and tha He had opened th edoor into the most holy, and no man can shut it. . ."

NOTE: She say that this vision was on March 24, 1849, Sabbath.

With some differeing wording, EGW several times staes in EW that God had shown her.

Folks, this issue is fundamental. It deserves that you give it some attention, thought, and attempt to resolve it yourselves.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

In a section of EW, related to the Shut Door, Ellen White says: "I saw that Jesus had shut the door of the holy place, and no man can open it; and that He had opened th edoor into the most holy, and no man can shut it. . ."

---

I, too, have studied this issue. I didn't find a conflict, nor did I find error on the part of EGW. The application of the quoted words seems quite clear, in regard to the heavenly sanctuary. As for the application to believers, I recall reading that some in the Advent movement accepted the truth about the sanctuary, while others rejected it. The application was to that specific group. Some 'Adventists' at the time, applied that principle BEYOND the group, and, I understand, suggested there was no need to evangelize. But, that faulty understanding was corrected subsequently. The problem was not with EGW, or with the vision, but with a misapplication of the vision which was corrected by God.

[Gregory Matthews]

That is one possible explaination.

In any case the issue is important enough, in general terms, that people should come to a decision on the fundamental issues involved.

[David Koot]

I believe that explanation is included by the publisher in the chapter notes, in the book. It does harmonize with the reality of what occurred in the Advent movement, and with the Biblical teaching about the heavenly sanctuary.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

I, too, have studied this issue. I didn't find a conflict, nor did I find error on the part of EGW.

---

Here's an example of her changing her mind:

-BC- AY

-TI- An Appeal to the Youth

-CN- 1

-CT- His Mother's Letters

-PR- 03

-PG- 61

“The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. [:"red"]But wicked children God does not love.[/] He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there. One fretful, disobedient child, would spoil all the harmony of heaven. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you. Although he is in heaven, and you cannot see him, yet he loves you when you do right, and writes it down his book; and when you do wrong, he puts a black mark against you. Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no black mark will be set down against you; and when Jesus comes he will call for that good boy Willie White, and will put upon your head a wreath of gold, and put in your hand a little harp that you can play upon, and it will send forth beautiful music, and you will never be sick, never be tempted then to do wrong; but will be happy always, and will eat of rich fruit, and will pluck beautiful flowers. Try, try, dear boy, to be good.”

In 1892 she reversed this:

PC- Becho

PT- Bible Echo and Signs of the Times

DT- 02-01-92

AT- Ye are Complete in Him

PR- 09

“[:"red"]Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong[/]; teach them that he loves them so that it grieves his Spirit to see them in transgression, because he knows they are doing injury to their souls. Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness, and thus let the glory of the Lord be revealed before them."

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

I didn't find a conflict, nor did I find error on the part of EGW.

---

"We [EGW is writing and is including herself] have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed." [CW 37]

-BC- 1SM

-TI- Selected Messages Book 1

-CN- 2

-CT- Ellen G. White and Her Writings

-PR- 04

-PG- 37

"In regard to infallibility, I [EGW] never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning.--Letter 10, 1895.

Do not think that, because we have a glimmer of the light of God, that we have it all.--Ms. 3, 1889, pp. 1-3. (Morning Talk at Ottawa, Kansas, May 14, 1889.)

[Robert]

-BC- 3SM

-TI- Selected Messages Book 3

-CN- 21

-CT- Ellen G. White Reports on the Minneapolis Conference

-PR- 03

-PG- 158

AS E. J. WAGGONER LED INTO AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAW IN GALATIANS AND SALVATION BY FAITH, A DEBATING SPIRIT DOMINATED SOME IN THE DISCUSSIONS. THIS GREATLY TROUBLED ELLEN WHITE. ALTHOUGH SHE WAS NOT READY TO AGREE WITH ELDER WAGGONER ON ALL THE FINE POINTS OF HIS PRESENTATIONS ON THE LAW IN GALATIANS, HER HEART WAS WARMED BY HIS CLEAR ENUNCIATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS OBTAINED THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST.

EGW leaned much of the doctrine of justification by faith from Jones and Waggoner. Common sense tells one that previous to that knowledge her writings had to be colored from her lack of understanding in this area. Hence, much of her early work had subtle legalism in it....

Rob

[Parade Orange]

Subtle?

I know the great great great(another great? or more?) grandchildren of E.G. White. Out of the three sisters that I met I got close to one a number of years ago. They still struggle with what Willie learned a long long time ago.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Rob,

Act 15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Act 15:38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

Act 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Here's an example of someone else who changed their mind.

Does this put any of Paul's writings in question or lessen what he wrote? Obviously this is not the same issue, but worth noting. How could Paul have been so wrong? He must have some errors in his writings. After all he was learning and growing too.

I have no problem with what she said to her son and then said to others. There are things that I would say to Lee Michael (my step son - 11 yrs old) that I would never say to other kids. Why? Because I know him and I know how to commuincate effectively with him. Just like Denise, there are things I say to her that I would not say to other nor would I suggest others to do what I have done, because every person is different and I am close to her and know how to communicate effectiveley with her. (She may not agree with that at the time, but will after a while)

I would question myself and anyone else first before questioning God's messenger. It's dangerous and prideful to think we can take what we want and then excuse what we think is error. How can we sleepy Laodiceans do that and not see the danger or have no sense of fear?

Norman

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Norman said:

• How could Paul have been so wrong?

---

How do you know Paul was wrong? Perhaps it was more the fact that JohnMark had grown up, matured, (as evidenced by his work with Barnabas and others since the first time that Paul chose not to work with him).

So Paul may have been indeed correct on both occasions hence your argument may be spurious.

Graeme

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Graeme,

I was using Paul as an example of how EGW is being used and I am also writing the way Paul writes in Romans 7. I do not think Paul is wrong for what he did.

Norman

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Norman said:

I have no problem with what she said to her son and then said to others. There are things that I would say to Lee Michael (my step son - 11 yrs old) that I would never say to other kids. Why? Because I know him and I know how to communicate effectively with him.

---

Let's analyze her quotes:

a] “wicked children God does not love"

This contradicts the Bible:

Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the wicked... 8 God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

b] "he [God] only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there."

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." [Romans 3:20,28]

c] "When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you...when you do wrong, he puts a black mark against you....Try, try, dear boy, to be good.”

This is definitely trying to put "the fear of God" into the poor boy!

Now let's compare it to her OTHER statement:

d] “Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong"

Ellen White told Wille, her child, that God didn't love him when he acted fretful. You excuse it by your statement above, which just makes EGW's statement all the more hypocritical.

The fact is she grew...she changed her mind.

e] "teach them that he loves them so that it grieves his Spirit to see them in transgression because he knows they are doing injury to their souls."

Sure...sin damages us. "The wages of sin is death"....Sin kills...you are going to die because you are a sinner. Ah, but God loves us more than Himself and those whose faith remains in Christ will be resurrected to life.

f]"Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with his unspeakable love and goodness"

It's terrifying if you think God's writing down all your selfish deeds to use against you! In other words, "You better be good Willie or God's going to get you. His going to burn you in hell. Be good, Willie...or you'll be sorry." That's old covenant!

Quote:

---

I would question myself and anyone else first before questioning God's messenger. It's dangerous and prideful to think we can take what we want and then excuse what we think is error. How can we sleepy Laodiceans do that and not see the danger or have no sense of fear?

---

Ooh, I'm scared...God's going get me!

Rob

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Rob said,

Quote:

---

Ooh, I'm scared...God's going get me!

---

Sort of the thinking of Ananias and his wife Sapphira.

Norman

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

Thanks for your response. I think one misconception about inspiration is that if I were to become a prophet right now that everything I write would therefore be without error, that somehow I would be instantaneously infused with all truth, forgetting that I carry all kinds of baggages which may take time to shed one by one. However, if I were to write something and state categorically that it is directly from the Lord, then that's a different story.

Gerry

---

[:"red"] "The love doth never fail; and whether [there be] prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless;

for in part we know, and in part we prophecy;

and when that which is perfect may come, then that which [is] in part shall become useless." [/] 1 Cor 13:8-10 YLT

Keep the faith!

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

I would question myself and anyone else first before questioning God's messenger. It's dangerous and prideful to think we can take what we want and then excuse what we think is error. How can we sleepy Laodiceans do that and not see the danger or have no sense of fear?

Norman

---

>>>>Norman, I would suggest from reading many of your posts, that, no doubt, you are very very sincere and a real Christian, but, may I gently suggest that it looks to me like you, Ron, David, LHC, and other similar mindsets deliberately ignore sensible reading of 'the writings' and attribute to them, perhaps unwittingly, 'authority' over the New Testament and Paul & John in particular.....

This paints Adventism 'cultist' before the Bible-only believing Christian 'world' out there. This is wrong, according to the New Testament, because of statements like the following:

"Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed....He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowsip with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful." 1Cor 1:7-9

And.....

"So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illiyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation." Rom 15:19-20

And....

"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain." 1Cor 15:2

And...

"Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity." Col 4:4,5

And....

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe."

Heb 1:1,2

And..............there are at least a half dozen other similar statements in the NT.

Now here is a quote from EGW:

"In ancient tims God spoke to men by the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these last days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of His Spirit." 4T 147-148

I inform you....but YOU must decide. As for me, I happily credit EGW with God's spirit for her time beginning 160 yrs ago.. BUT, today is much later. When she wrote, she had little education and half of the population of the US could not read or write very well. My father, born in 1887, only had a 7 grade education. Things are different today. WE have modern translations...those older folks only had the KJV which even today is hard to understand sometimes.

So, I'm sorry, folks.....until EGW is considered 'pastoral' instead of nearCanonical 'prophetic,' Adventism will be considered at least and at best semi-cultic...like it or not. You folks referred to above, and others of similar cultic relationship to EGW, who you surely know has said some unwise things in light of today's knowledge, are not doing Adventism or Christianity a lot of good by considering her to have interpreted the Bible, esp. the New Testament, FOR you! If you deny all this, I'm sorry....you're just wrong, that's all. YOu all give strong evidence that EGW IS your interpreter of the Bible and esp. the New Testament.

That sort of a religious 'position' is flat out wrong according to the New Testament.... which IS in the Bible, and, 'the writings' are not in the Bible.

Let me point out that no serious 'doctrine' of Adventism has come through EGW!! Not our unique Dan 8:14 interpretations, Inv Judg...not Sabbath...not vegetarianism...not our stance on health....not a single important unique SDA belief originated with EGW! All these uniquenesses were first brought to her by somebody else...then she would have confirming visions of them.

I don't mean to claim EGW was not our leader, wise in many ways, and charismatic and has brought thousands to the feet of Jesus.....but so has Wesley, Calvin, Muller, Murray, Helen Whitall Smith, Luther, Zwingli, Spurgeon, Wycliffe, Tyndale....and a host of others!

Sorry if you don't like what I've said. But....for you type of SDA folks....my suggestion is that you put away 'the writings' for a couple of years while you exclusively and only limit your spiritual reading to the New Testament in some good modern version. Just so long a you continue to read and attribute to EGW nearCanonical prophetic authority, you will be as Paul has written in 2Cor 3, having that undesireable 'veil' over your comprehension of what Christ has done for sinners. Sorry...pretty strong.....but New Testament correct.

I'm not saying that any of you are 'of the devil' or 'not saved'...you are because you are all sincere of the heart and mouth *believers* in Christ as your Savior....but you are not proper teachers of His Grace, or, the Law as it relates to the 'believing' Christian.

Ben

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

you, Ron, David, LHC, and other similar mindsets deliberately ignore sensible reading of 'the writings' and attribute to them, perhaps unwittingly, 'authority' over the New Testament and Paul & John in particular.....

---

Since you seem to be including me in this group of worthies, then I need a specific from you. You have made a sweeping, abstract statement, without giving any basis to support it. Please provide at least one backquote from any of my posts, which you feel supports your assertion here. if you cannot do so, then you need to withdraw your assertion.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

you, Ron, David, LHC, and other similar mindsets deliberately ignore sensible reading of 'the writings'

Ben

---

Please explain what you mean by 'sensible readings' of 'the writings,' and give an example. On what basis would you define what is a 'sensible reading,' and on what authority?

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

you, Ron, David, LHC, and other similar mindsets deliberately ignore sensible reading of 'the writings' and attribute to them, perhaps unwittingly, 'authority' over the New Testament and Paul & John in particular.....

---

Since you seem to be including me in this group of worthies, then I need a specific from you. You have made a sweeping, abstract statement, without giving any basis to support it. Please provide at least one backquote from any of my posts, which you feel supports your assertion here. if you cannot do so, then you need to withdraw your assertion.

---

>>>David, again, as gently as possible for me, I have been reading your posts for a long time now, scores of them, in fact, and I have no intention of going back over them again. I can't read Greek ...BUT I grad'd from Andrews, too, and I CAN read English...quite well actually.

"without giving any basis"......? Perhaps you should read my post once again.

"need to withdraw your assertion"......? Not likely, though I could be dissuaded, perhaps. That would be up to you.

Read the New Testament in a modern version leaving off all other reading on spiritual matters for a couple of years to wean yourself back to the Bible only! From my own experience and from observing others that seems the best way to get back to "Bible-alone" truths.

Ben

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Norman said:

Rob said,

Quote:

---

Ooh, I'm scared...God's going get me!

---

Sort of the thinking of Ananias and his wife Sapphira.

Norman

---

Ellen White says that a fear-based religion is worthless! Apparently your motive is fear....I feel sad for you.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Norman said:

Rob said,

Quote:

---

Ooh, I'm scared...God's going get me!

---

Sort of the thinking of Ananias and his wife Sapphira.

Norman

---

Ellen White says that a fear-based religion is worthless! Apparently your motive is fear....I feel sad for you.

---

"Love to God is the very foundation of religion. To engage in His service merely from hope of reward [i.e., reward based on works] or fear of punishment would avail nothing. Open apostasy would not be more offensive to God than hypocrisy and mere formal worship." [PP 523]

"It is not the fear of punishment, or the hope of everlasting reward, that leads the disciples of Christ to follow Him. They behold the Saviour's matchless love, revealed throughout His pilgrimage on earth, from the manger of Bethlehem to Calvary's cross...." [DA 480]

[benherndon]

David, do you mean to tell us you can properly translate Greek for us but do not know what 'sensible reading' of the subject I brought up means?

Surely you understood me. But to clarify it more, let me say that it means reading outside of and separate from a 'cultic-type guru mentality'. I think most people who know the New Testament really well will know what 'sensible reading' of 'the writings' would mean.

It means reading 'the writings' just like one might read many old wonderful Christian writers, like Andrew Murray, Oswald Chambers, Hannah Whitall Smith, Lloyd-Jones, Yancy, and a whole host of others similar.

Read them for the joy and confidence when they help one realize God's Son Christ suffered and died and was resurrected reconciling all sinners who believe in and accept Him into their lives, worshipping God and reacting with love and consideration for other occupants of this planet He has created and has come to save.

Ellen White said to get all one's doctrines and reforms from the Bible and it alone. Why don't people do that? I don't read other writers to find out what the Bible says or what they believe that requires me to compare myself to others such as the 'fallen Churches'...If they believe in Him and His Grace and accept Him and His NT teachings into their hearts and minds and seek to live in accordance with it...their salvation is assurred!

Sensible reading of 'the writings' is first of all getting to know and believe the New Testament living of the Christian life....that's different than living the life of the Jew and Judaism! When you know what the New Testament teaches about living the Christian life....and know it well and follow it, then, and then only, can one read 'the writings' and discern what is good and what is not! I don't read Chambers, Barkly or Yancy, etc, taking everything they say *unless* it exactly supports the New Testament authority. I've read them both enough now to pretty much know most of what is desireable about 'the writings'...and there is a lot. But 'the writings' never usurp the power of the New Testament and the Bible.

Like she said to do, I got to know the Bible real well (not perfectly of course!) and I know 'the writings' pretty well, too. So giving the Bible THE authority I can then benefit from the good that is in 'the writings'....they are not Bible nor even close, but in her mind she does the best she can to expose how she believes life should be lived. Sometimes, and unusually, it is in conflict with the Bible IN MY OPINION.

If one puts their authority in the New TEstament, they are unlikely to have much trouble after that figuring out God's will for them.

Ben