Biblical Interpretation

[GHansen]

10 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

You seem to present EGW as being the authority that determines what the Bible teaches.   That position elevates her over the Bible.

Sorry Chaplain Matthews. Apparently I either misspoke or wasn't clear in commenting on the post. I did cite FB 18 which says in part "They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” 

That indicates that the writings of EGW, rightly understood, are subject to Scripture, rightly interpreted. That is what I intended to convey. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

 

[GHansen]

There is, in some places, a disconnect between what the official position of the church teaches and what is practiced in local congregations. In the mid 1970s, I approached W.D. Frazee with a question about a Bible text. W.D. Frazee was, more or less, the father of SDA self supporting work. When I asked him my question, he responded Don't worry, Brother, about what the Bible says, just read Sr. White." Those were the days when sermons might consist of EGW quotes and "Sr. White says" ended every discussion. Sabbath school lessons from ordained ministers could consist of a reading from Desire of Ages, followed by a discussion. Certainly the church has changed in the past 50 years or so.

Nowadays, some pastors believe in EGW to the extent necessary to get their paychecks. She is a shibboleth of sorts. A person suspected of heterodoxy might be questioned about his/her beliefs about EGW. When the inquisitor discovers the suspect has forgotten more about EGW than he ever knew, the individual is then ridiculed for reading so much of what she wrote.

EGW was quite clear about being vegetarian, i.e., avoiding flesh foods such as beef, pork, chicken, etc. Caffeinated beverages, tobacco, and other harmful items were also discouraged; nevertheless, only about half of SDA follow these practices. Few SDA have access to healthy foods from animal sources, the  kind she recommended such as healthy cows for milk and healthy chickens for eggs; nevertheless, those foods are commonly consumed.

The denomination has  not followed EGW's counsels on education or hospital work, either. It's certainly possible, even likely, that some of her remarks are less applicable than when she wrote. Modern medicine has made a lot of progress since her time. In the end, we have to use common sense to make certain decisions, rather than expect EGW to micromanage our lives.

[DickOdenthal]

GHansen, 

One of the major issues I also observe is that depending on what period of EGW’s life someone is quoting on some major topics she tends to have changed her mind. So instead of clarity you have confusion. 

[phkrause]

10 hours ago, DickOdenthal said:

One of the major issues I also observe is that depending on what period of EGW’s life someone is quoting on some major topics she tends to have changed her mind. So instead of clarity you have confusion. 

Could you supply some examples? Please! Thank you!!

[Humble Disciple]

On 2/23/2022 at 3:12 PM, phkrause said:

That's his prerogative!! I have notice that more and more, even from some that have used her a lot in the past! I think they're trying to appease those that have a problem or just want to hear the answers straight from the Bible!!

Have you read the article in the OP? The title of this thread has little to do with what the article actually says. 

The article isn't about Biblical interpretation, as I've already demonstrated. Instead, it's about how theology should be based on the lived experience of contemporary Adventist communities, rather than Biblical exegesis.

The article even endorses liberation theology, which is based in Marxism. If I have to choose between Ellen White and Karl Marx, I choose Ellen White. 

[GHansen]

On 2/23/2022 at 3:27 AM, Humble Disciple said:

What is the point of having baptismal vows if one isn't required to believe and keep them?

 

On 2/23/2022 at 1:26 AM, Humble Disciple said:

If that is the case, why are there baptismal vows? 

HD,

HD, Perusing EGW's writings, I came across several remarks she made about baptismal vows. There was obviously more than a confession of faith involved. Reading examples in the NT of people getting baptized, there was a confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. To EGW, apparently, there is/was much more. Notice:

"The Lord's servants are to feel a noble, generous sympathy for every line of work carried on in the great harvest field. We, are to be interested in everything that concerns the human brotherhood. By our baptismal vows we are bound in covenant relation with God to make persevering, self-denying, self-sacrificing efforts to promote, in the hardest parts of the field, the work of soul saving. God has placed upon every believer the responsibility of helping to rescue the most needy, the most helpless, the most oppressed. Christians are to enlighten the ignorance of their less favored brothers. They are to break every yoke, and let the oppressed go free from the power of vicious habits and sinful practices. By imparting the knowledge sent from heaven, they are to enlarge the capabilities and increase the usefulness of those most in need of a helping hand" (PH 126 11.1)

As you can see, getting baptized includes vowing to work in "the hardest parts of the world field," "helping to rescue the most needy, the most helpless" and so on.

Working in the hardest parts of the world field includes the risk of being tortured, murdered, persecuted, dying of various "natural" causes such as tropical disease and/or having your wife and children die. Accounts of missionaries in parts of Asia around the time EGW was writing indicates that they did endure such things. Missionaries in those days, doing what EGW said a missionary should do, had their wives and children hacked to death with cutting instruments before their eyes, prior to being butchered themselves. Some who weren't killed  were tortured for months.

Careful about making "vows."

[Gustave]

The following two quotes seem to be problematic for anyone who would claim to uphold Sola Scriptura.

Ellen White
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. THEY gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God” (1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).

That would appear to me to make Ellen White the Official Magisterium of the SDA Church. The affirmation is that even if someone "WITH A MASS OF SCRIPURE" goes against a "distinctive Doctrine" of the Adventist Church the Adventist is to reject the mass of Scripture if the Scriptures so much as even moves or budges one of the doctrines Ellen White defined as "truth".  This is antithetical to the position of the Protestant Reformers. 

"The demonstration of the Holy Spirit" was understood to be the prophetic ministry of Ellen White is it not? Any distinctive doctrine Ellen White "defined as truth" between 1844 - 1894 is "bound in heaven" according to devout SDA's is it not? 

Mrs. White was quite specific that Bible Only wasn't what defined what was true or false - Ellen claimed God did that THROUGH HER prophetic ministry. 

 

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

Whole nights would be devoted to studying the Bible and "prayer" asking God for guidance in finding confirmation in the Scriptures if a Doctrine was true or not & sometimes these devoted people would spend all night - without an answer - until the power of God came into Ellen White "UNDER THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" and Ellen White was enabled by God to "DEFINE DOCTRINE".  This sounds like a Magisterium of sorts to me with Ellen as a super Pope in perpetuity. This is so far outside of the Protestant Reformation I'm not sure it could even be quantified. 

Obviously, I reject Sola Scriptura and it would seem that SDA's do as well for how one could argue they adhere to Sola Scriptura in light of these statements is difficult to understand. Realize, I'm not throwing water on a rejection of Sola Scriptura as I reject it myself. My question is how SDA's assert Sola Scriptura as their primary Doctrine in the face of this? 

 

[GHansen]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

"distinctive Doctrine"

Gustave, You might want to take care about reading too much into EGW references, regardless of how authoritative they appear. In the case of defining the SDA pillars to which she referred, there are very few references that do that. The pillars are  mentioned numerous times; however, just what constitutes the pillars is another matter. It is assumed that her readers know what the pillars are. If you visit the "EGWwritings.org" website, you can do comprehensive searches, using filters, that can reduce hundreds of quotes to dozens. There are few references which define the pillars. One is in Counsels to Writers and Editors, (page 77, paragraph 1) i.e., "the Sabbath and the keeping of the commandments of God. Another says the pillars concern the sanctuary and the personality of God or of Christ   (20LtMs, Ms 62, 1905, par. 14).    

There are probably other passages that define the pillars. You can see that these two references are also open to interpretation. The words that Jesus spoke are spirit and life. Hope you have been well.

 

 

 

[DickOdenthal]

Paul,

 

I will try and get to it tonight. At work. Her comments on the Trinity are one where she was all over the board and changed her position. If you read the first few chapters of Patriarchs and Prophets she says Lucifer was other than the son the closest to the Father. The Holy Spirit is absent. On numerous occasions she called Jesus the Holy Spirit/Comforter. So her positions evolved over time. 
 

‘If you follow her comments on the Shut Door they evolved and changed over time.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

58 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, You might want to take care about reading too much into EGW references, regardless of how authoritative they appear. In the case of defining the SDA pillars to which she referred, there are very few references that do that. The pillars are  mentioned numerous times; however, just what constitutes the pillars is another matter. It is assumed that her readers know what the pillars are. If you visit the "EGWwritings.org" website, you can do comprehensive searches, using filters, that can reduce hundreds of quotes to dozens. There are few references which define the pillars. One is in Counsels to Writers and Editors, (page 77, paragraph 1) i.e., "the Sabbath and the keeping of the commandments of God. Another says the pillars concern the sanctuary and the personality of God or of Christ   (20LtMs, Ms 62, 1905, par. 14).    

There are probably other passages that define the pillars. You can see that these two references are also open to interpretation. The words that Jesus spoke are spirit and life. Hope you have been well.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi GH! Thanks for asking!! I've been well but have been buried with work, I keep getting these projects that waylay my personal time. But I can say things are good. I've been praying a lot for the Ukraine and Russian people - seeing clips on the news of what they are dealing with makes me ashamed of those times I've complained about things when compared to being on the receiving end of a military campaign! I'm guilty of being petty and spoiled!  

 

I've primarily focused on the Personality of God Doctrine as I believe it contradicts the historical Doctrine of the Trinity. I'm not intending to grind on that here in this thread but am simply using it as an example. 

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning THE SANCTUARY OR CONCERNING THE PERSONALITY OF GOD or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor". MR Release 760, page 9 1905. 

 

From what I've read as far as quotes are concerned the Pillars or critical Doctrines of SDA faith were identified as: 

Personality of God, Sanctuary & Peccability of Christ. 

There may be more than those but the Peccability of Christ and the Personality of God are what I've spent most my time looking into. While the Peccability of Christ has ancient origins with Arius and prior the Sanctuary and "Personality of God" appear to me to be "new Doctrines" that were unheard of previously. I could be wrong in my belief but thus far that's how I've been understanding it. 

Hope things are going well for you. 

This is a great forum and IMHO in many ways better than the Catholic Answers forum I spent quite a bit of time on. 

 

 

[phkrause]

7 hours ago, DickOdenthal said:

If you follow her comments on the Shut Door they evolved and changed over time.

"Evolved" is the operitive word!!

The reason I asked for examples is because you made this comment: she tends to have changed her mind

That I can except!! We all grow in our understanding of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and EGW!!

[DickOdenthal]

PHKrause,

 

‘’if I have time tonight I will send you some examples. When some of her positions are at odds with prior positions that is not evolved that means your position has changed. If your position is different. Than one of the positions cannot be inspired. 

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

old landmarks

Here's another quote regarding the "old landmarks, an expression synonymous with pillars: "The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God’s people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels’ messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, “The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” [Revelation 14:12.] One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God’s law. The non-immortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary." 6LtMs, Ms 13, 1889, par. 9

Note that she doesn't mention the personality of God, an issue which likely came to the front when Kellogg wrote "Living Temple." Not sure how much of this stuff you know. You can see that the SDA old timers themselves were confused about just what the pillars/landmarks were.

Note that here she suggests that the "pillars" are not inviolable": "To ridicule his ideas would not weaken his position in the least if it were false, or strengthen your position if it were true. If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it. There must be no spirit of Phariseeism cherished among us." GW92 127.1

On another issue, do you happen to know of anyone who was baptized Roman Catholic by immersion, either as an adult convert or baby?

 

[DickOdenthal]

PHKrause:
 

Here are some quotes. Read all of them and notice that she is not consistent. Contradicts herself. 
 

“As by faith we look to Jesus, our faith pierces the shadow, and we adore God for His wondrous love in giving Jesus the Comforter.” (Ellen G. White, MR Volume 19, No. 1405, 'Excerpts from diary July 6th – 31st, 1892')

 

“The Saviour is our comforter. This I have proved Him to be.” (Ellen G. White, July 16th 1892, Manuscript Releases Volume Eight No. 548, ‘How Ellen White Bore Suffering’)

 

“The Lord is soon to come. We want that complete and perfect understanding which the Lord alone can give. It is not safe to catch the spirit from another. We want the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ.” (Ellen G. White, Letter 66, 1894 to E. W. Prescott, April 10t1894)

 

“Christ is to be known by the blessed name of Comforter. “The Comforter,” said Christ to His disciples, “which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name...” (Ellen G. White, Ms 7 1902, Typed January 28th 1902)

 

“It is not essential for you to know and be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, and the Comforter is the Holy Ghost, “the Spirit of truth, which the Father shall send in my name.” [John 14:26.] “I will pray the Father, and he shall send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” [John 14:16, 17.] This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter”.(Ellen G. White, letter 7 1891 to Brother Chapman June 11th 1891)

 

Wherever you go, carry on the good work of searching the Scriptures, and the Lord Jesus will always be at your right hand to help you. He is a merciful high priest pleading in your behalf. He will send his representative, the Holy Spirit; for He says, "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you. By the Spirit the Father and the Son will come and make their abode with you " (Ellen G. White, Bible Echo 15th January 1893, ‘The source of our strength’)

 

“The Lord encourages all who seek Him with the whole heart. He gives them His Holy Spirit, the manifestation of His presence and favor. But those who forsake God in order to save their lives will be forsaken by Him. In seeking to save their lives by yielding the truth, they will lose eternal life.” (E. G. White, Testimonies Volume 9, page 230, 1909)

[Kevin H]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

The following two quotes seem to be problematic for anyone who would claim to uphold Sola Scriptura.

Ellen White
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. THEY gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God” (1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).

That would appear to me to make Ellen White the Official Magisterium of the SDA Church. The affirmation is that even if someone "WITH A MASS OF SCRIPURE" goes against a "distinctive Doctrine" of the Adventist Church the Adventist is to reject the mass of Scripture if the Scriptures so much as even moves or budges one of the doctrines Ellen White defined as "truth".  This is antithetical to the position of the Protestant Reformers. 

"The demonstration of the Holy Spirit" was understood to be the prophetic ministry of Ellen White is it not? Any distinctive doctrine Ellen White "defined as truth" between 1844 - 1894 is "bound in heaven" according to devout SDA's is it not? 

Mrs. White was quite specific that Bible Only wasn't what defined what was true or false - Ellen claimed God did that THROUGH HER prophetic ministry. 

 

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

Whole nights would be devoted to studying the Bible and "prayer" asking God for guidance in finding confirmation in the Scriptures if a Doctrine was true or not & sometimes these devoted people would spend all night - without an answer - until the power of God came into Ellen White "UNDER THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" and Ellen White was enabled by God to "DEFINE DOCTRINE".  This sounds like a Magisterium of sorts to me with Ellen as a super Pope in perpetuity. This is so far outside of the Protestant Reformation I'm not sure it could even be quantified. 

Obviously, I reject Sola Scriptura and it would seem that SDA's do as well for how one could argue they adhere to Sola Scriptura in light of these statements is difficult to understand. Realize, I'm not throwing water on a rejection of Sola Scriptura as I reject it myself. My question is how SDA's assert Sola Scriptura as their primary Doctrine in the face of this? 

 

Mrs. White also criticized Seventh-day Adventist ministers who were amassing massive quotes of her writings to try to prove their message.  She wanted us to do careful reading and not stock pile massive quotes of scripture or her own words to try to give teeth and authority to the different ideas.  

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, DickOdenthal said:

Paul,

 

I will try and get to it tonight. At work. Her comments on the Trinity are one where she was all over the board and changed her position. If you read the first few chapters of Patriarchs and Prophets she says Lucifer was other than the son the closest to the Father. The Holy Spirit is absent. On numerous occasions she called Jesus the Holy Spirit/Comforter. So her positions evolved over time. 
 

‘If you follow her comments on the Shut Door they evolved and changed over time.

 

 

 

The one infinite God is outside of time and space. Finite life by definition are inside of time and space. If the infinite God just created life, life needs to connect to a life giving relationship with this God to continue to live. But the infinite God is too big for us to understand. Thus life and death would be sudden like popcorn popping.

The infinite God needed to also enter time and space to communicate himself and a relationship with creatures. The first thing we need to know is that he is God, the great power and creator. But if this was all that God did, he would give life, they see this great awesome being on the throne and are quite literally scared to death. Again life and death would be sudden like popping popcorn. 

The infinite God also needed to let us know that he is approachable, our caring friend, one of us. So the infinite God also reveals himself to us as God the Son. Now if this was the only revelation of God, life starts out good. But once a mind gets an idea to do something dangerous and this kind friend warns about it; the creature can say "I appreciate your friendship, but what makes your opinion any greater than mine?" and thus break their relationship and die. 

For life to exist we need both the Father or Power and the Son or Relationship, and hold in tension that they are both the same. 

But the revelations of God through the Father and Son are both objective revelations. God and creatures are both objective and subjective. God needs to also reveal himself in the working of our subjective, existential situation. This is why the Holy Spirit was not discussed in Mrs. White's discussion in Patriarchs and Prophets. (Now, if God only revealed himself as the Holy Spirit, we have 3 voices inside: God's, Satan's and our own thoughts and feelings. Eastern religion is based on the Holy Spirit alone.) 

We need to hold in tension all three revelations of God, and these three are both necessary and sufficient. But they are not complete. Much of the problems we have with the Holy Spirit is that we are trying to find a subjective manifestation. 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, GHansen said:

Here's another quote regarding the "old landmarks, an expression synonymous with pillars: "The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God’s people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels’ messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, “The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” [Revelation 14:12.] One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God’s law. The non-immortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary." 6LtMs, Ms 13, 1889, par. 9

Note that she doesn't mention the personality of God, an issue which likely came to the front when Kellogg wrote "Living Temple." Not sure how much of this stuff you know. You can see that the SDA old timers themselves were confused about just what the pillars/landmarks were.

Note that here she suggests that the "pillars" are not inviolable": "To ridicule his ideas would not weaken his position in the least if it were false, or strengthen your position if it were true. If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it. There must be no spirit of Phariseeism cherished among us." GW92 127.1

On another issue, do you happen to know of anyone who was baptized Roman Catholic by immersion, either as an adult convert or baby?

 

 

As to the question now that I think about it I don't - but I do know of many Eastern Orthodox Christians who were if that counts - and I think many Eastern Rite Catholics have full immersion. 

My understanding of the SDA Pillars or Landmarks was that to qualify as such they would have been, "points of SDA Faith". The way I understand it the reason SDA's started a denomination was because they felt all the other denominations got it wrong. This understanding would necessitate "bringing in new Doctrines".

These "new doctrines" were claimed to have been established point by point by "The demonstration of the Holy Spirit" - which Ellen identifies as herself. The part where she said:

"As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me."

I'm gathering from this that Ellen White having and relaying a vision or premonition WAS considered a "demonstration of the Holy Spirit" therefore any new doctrine that required a vision or affirmation from Ellen White was one of those new doctrines companies of devoted people couldn't extract (for sure) from the Bible Alone. Perhaps I'm looking at this all wrong but it seems very reasonable given how Mrs. White said the points of SDA Faith where established. 

Quote

Kevin H said; Mrs. White also criticized Seventh-day Adventist ministers who were amassing massive quotes of her writings to try to prove their message.  She wanted us to do careful reading and not stock pile massive quotes of scripture or her own words to try to give teeth and authority to the different ideas.  

I'll take your word for it that she did do this - however, that doesn't detract from her explicitly saying if a person brought forth a mass of Scriptures against an SDA Doctrine that had been demonstrated by Holy Spirit (Ellen's Vision or statement) the Scripture pays homage to the established Doctrine demonstrated by the Holy Spirit via Ellen White & not the other way around.

In any event the new SDA doctrines would have had to be well defined otherwise how would one know if the application of a massive pile of Scriptures MOVED an SDA Doctrinal Pillar (such as the P.O.G., the Sabbath, Peccability of Christ, etc.)? 

I mention this as more of an aside as I don't believe SDA's are any more "Sola Scriptura" than I am. I don't want anyone to take it as a bad thing or take offense to it. It seems logical to look at it that way. 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

I'm gathering from this that Ellen White having and relaying a vision or premonition WAS considered a "demonstration of the Holy Spirit" therefore any new doctrine that required a vision or affirmation from Ellen White was one of those new doctrines companies of devoted people couldn't extract (for sure) from the Bible Alone.

That's not the way I understand it.  Her affirming visions came after others had spent hours in prayer and study of Scripture. When they felt that they could find no more in Scripture, they turned to EGW who then affirmed or disavowed the doctrine they had extrapolated from Scripture. here is her own account of the experience:

"In the early days of the message, when our numbers were few, we studied diligently to understand the meaning of many scriptures. At times it seemed as if no explanation could be given. My mind seemed to be locked to an understanding of the Word; but when our brethren who had assembled for study, came to a point where they could go no farther, and had recourse to earnest prayer, the Spirit of God would rest upon me, and I would be taken off in vision, and be instructed in regard to the relation of scripture to scripture. These experiences were repeated over and over and over again. Thus many truths of the third angel's message were established, point by point." RH June 14, 1906, par. 18
 

Here is a quote which indicates that the proper order of the messages of the 3 angels is essential to the pillars:

"But the Lord said not thus. Brother Bell used much Scripture, but it was misapplied and put in the wrong frame work. His theories would undermine the pillars of our faith, by destroying the proper order of the first, second, and third angel’s messages. Your self-confidence led you to sanction that which you did not understand and had not investigated." 11LtMs, Lt 97, 1896, par. 3

 

I'm not sure that any new doctrine "required" affirmation by EGW. In the early days, those who searched Scripture were blessed by affirmations through EGW [so the story goes] but I'm not sure they were "required."

 

[DickOdenthal]

Kevin, no idea what you are trying to say. I have just found over the years that she does not always add clarity. She says she was the lesser light. I will just stick to the greater light.

[GHansen]

13 hours ago, DickOdenthal said:

By the Spirit the Father and the Son will come and make their abode with you

No problems with a statement like this; however, "We want the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ” and "Christ is to be known by the blessed name of Comforter." would probably make a lot of people uncomfortable. If we can really get that EGW is not Scripture, ,i.e., not read too much into statements of this sort, probably, we will be better off.

[Gustave]

Quote

GHansen said: 

That's not the way I understand it.  Her affirming visions came after others had spent hours in prayer and study of Scripture. When they felt that they could find no more in Scripture, they turned to EGW who then affirmed or disavowed the doctrine they had extrapolated from Scripture. here is her own account of the experience:

"In the early days of the message, when our numbers were few, we studied diligently to understand the meaning of many scriptures. At times it seemed as if no explanation could be given. My mind seemed to be locked to an understanding of the Word; but when our brethren who had assembled for study, came to a point where they could go no farther, and had recourse to earnest prayer, the Spirit of God would rest upon me, and I would be taken off in vision, and be instructed in regard to the relation of scripture to scripture. These experiences were repeated over and over and over again. Thus many truths of the third angel's message were established, point by point." RH June 14, 1906, par. 18

 

 

I'm thinking of Acts 15, 28 which I'd say is the early Church example of how doctrine is sorted out. In this example you had a bunch of well-intentioned Judaizers who claimed Christian converts needed to observe the Jewish religious laws to be saved. The Apostles met in Council and as the Good Book says in verse 28:

"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things"...

That's the binding and loosing authority Jesus said the Apostles would have in Matthew 18,18. In Catholicism the Apostles as a whole had the power to bind and loose with Peter possessing this power independently of the others. From what I'm gathering in the Ellen White quotes I produced as well as the ones you shared Ellen claimed SHE was the one enabled by God to clearly define Doctrines. 

For the sake of keeping this as simple as possible I'll say I'm speaking of Doctrines that if not observed could cause one to lose Salvation. I'm not talking about the equivalent of if a tomato should be below or above the beef in a burger. I'm talking about does abstinence from a true Doctrine or observance of a false one has bearing on one's

Quote

GHansen said: 

Here is a quote which indicates that the proper order of the messages of the 3 angels is essential to the pillars:

"But the Lord said not thus. Brother Bell used much Scripture, but it was misapplied and put in the wrong frame work. His theories would undermine the pillars of our faith, by destroying the proper order of the first, second, and third angel’s messages. Your self-confidence led you to sanction that which you did not understand and had not investigated." 11LtMs, Lt 97, 1896, par. 3

 

I'm not sure that any new doctrine "required" affirmation by EGW. In the early days, those who searched Scripture were blessed by affirmations through EGW [so the story goes] but I'm not sure they were "required."

I was going off what the quote said about how,  'it was THUS the points of [SDA Faith] were established' 

Thus = "as a result or consequence of this"

In other words the quote seems to be saying the Doctrine was approved as a result of - or as a consequence of - The Holy Spirit acting through Ellen White in such a manner to cause shock to the observer - as in whatever happened was described as a "demonstration" of supernatural power.

I mean no disrespect here but followed the long running show "Supernatural" where the Winchester brothers fought monsters, witches and different types of angels. When spiritual entities possessed a person you could tell by the way they acted ( a demonstration ). The person who was possessed or under the control of the Spirit was traditionally called "a meat suit". They acted in a way that was inconsistent with what a human could do - a "demonstration" of sorts would take place that left no doubt in the viewers mind something supernatural was going on here. 

Is this what the quotes mean when it says that Ellen's feats were a "demonstration", attended with wonderful power, etc? 

 

[GHansen]

49 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Is this what the quotes mean when it says that Ellen's feats were a "demonstration", attended with wonderful power, etc? 

Gustave, If there is a question about the teachings of any denomination, the most effective way to determine the validity of those teachings is to compare them with what the Bible, as you understand it, teaches. Naturally, since our own understanding of Scripture must determine the validity of said teachings, there is room for error.

What EGW wrote is not Scripture. She wrote a lot of good material. Ministry of Healing is a great book. My recollection is that the book Education is too. Much of the material preserved in Counsels on Diet and Foods is being vindicated by modern science ,e.g., the harmfulness of snacking.

People can move between denominations without never being converted, without having a saving relationship with Christ. Some Bible scholars eventually become atheists, more or less, as they deconstruct Scripture. The first 40 years or so of Adventism, the denomination didn't even understand the gospel. It wasn't understood or preached; consequently, you had a group of mostly men trying to construct a Christian denomination apart from the gospel. How would you expect that to turn out? If these fellows didn't understand the gospel, they couldn't have understood the Bible correctly, with or without EGW's help.

[phkrause]

23 hours ago, DickOdenthal said:

“I will pray the Father, and he shall send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” [John 14:16, 17.]

These are Jesus' words correct? Even he seems to be saying that he is the Comforter? And that his Father will be sending another Comforter?? Correct??

[Gustave]

Quote

GHansen said: Gustave, If there is a question about the teachings of any denomination, the most effective way to determine the validity of those teachings is to compare them with what the Bible, as you understand it, teaches. Naturally, since our own understanding of Scripture must determine the validity of said teachings, there is room for error.

This is the part I'd like to focus on by sharing my thoughts. I'm not sure how those alive at the time of Acts 15 could have applied this principle as the only Scriptures in existence at the time would have supported what the Judaizers were saying. These folks who came down from Jerusalem Scripture describes as "not having any authority". 

IF Sola Scriptura was an Old Testament Doctrine the Judaizers would have had authority by simply pointing to the Old Testament Scriptures on what a good Jew was to do - i.e. be circumcised and observe the law of Moses - because no New Testament Scriptures really existed yet. 

What is happening here in Acts 15 is you had a group of Christians gathered together and a demographic of that group was advocating a Doctrine, we could even call it a "NEW DOCTRINE". The advocators of this "NEW DOCTRINE" claimed it was important enough as to affect the outcome of Salvation. Paul (who definitely had authority to teach) along with Barnabus into a heated dispute with those teachers who had no authority from the Church to teach. It's decided the matter would go up the pipeline to Mother Church.

"The Church" met in Council, a determination was made and a letter was written and delivered to the Church at Antioch - being delivered by "two prophets" so they could confirm by word what was in the Apostolic Letter. When we read the account of what happened in Acts 15 there was no "DEMONSTRATION" of supernatural events. The Apostles didn't go for long periods of not breathing, the Apostles didn't make a show of feats of strength, didn't jerk and writhe on the floor or give accounts of planetoids - all this type of stuff is absent. 

The other thing I noted was that Peter had a vision PRIOR TO the question coming up about the Gentiles and Jewish religious distinctives (not after). Peter stood up and said what he thought, explained why he thought the way he did and in the end the decision was described as the decision of both the Apostolic Church AND the Holy Spirit. 

My question, what I'm trying to understand is the mechanism by which SDA distinctive Doctrines were established if not by the mechanism Ellen White described. If the distinctive SDA Doctrines were established by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit at a time when the SDA Church founders didn't even grasp the Gospel how could anyone question those distinctive doctrines even with a mass of Scripture? 

Was / is there room for error in anything Ellen White said was confirmed by the demonstration of the Holy Spirit in the first 50 years of the SDA Church? Wouldn't these all be distinctive doctrines? 

Quote

GHansen said: What EGW wrote is not Scripture. She wrote a lot of good material. Ministry of Healing is a great book. My recollection is that the book Education is too. Much of the material preserved in Counsels on Diet and Foods is being vindicated by modern science ,e.g., the harmfulness of snacking.

I'm sure she did write a lot of good material - I'd give her that. Tim Staples, A Catholic Apologist I follow did a several hour audio on the SDA Church & Ellen White - he found Ellen White to be "nothing short of fascinating". I would concur with that. 

Quote

GHansen said: People can move between denominations without never being converted, without having a saving relationship with Christ. Some Bible scholars eventually become atheists, more or less, as they deconstruct Scripture. The first 40 years or so of Adventism, the denomination didn't even understand the gospel. It wasn't understood or preached; consequently, you had a group of mostly men trying to construct a Christian denomination apart from the gospel. How would you expect that to turn out? If these fellows didn't understand the gospel, they couldn't have understood the Bible correctly, with or without EGW's help.

You are a good person to have a conversation with GH! 

[GHansen]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

IF Sola Scriptura was an Old Testament Doctrine

That's a big IF. The Jews had an oral tradition which carried a lot of weight. Check out the Jewish Encyclopedia article on oral tradition, which they hold went back to Moses ORAL LAW - JewishEncyclopedia.com . An obvious one would have been Corban which Jesus denounced. He actually said that they invalidated the Word of God by their tradition ( Mt. 7:13). Whether this was an oral or written tradition, it was not part of the OT yet carried great weight. Matthew 7:3 refers to the traditions of the elders regarding washings, which Jesus also denounced. So I think we are mistaken to assume that the Jews of the NT were Sola Scriptura types.

As for the early SDA, if you are an apologist for the denomination, I'm sure there is a work around to justify her outsize influence on SDA doctrines while still  embracing Sola Scriptura. I've read  not all of her books and   magazine articles.  She wrote some very good things regarding diet as well as personal holiness. She did not intend that her writings be used as authoritative pronouncements on Biblical interpretation. In practice, sometimes, her remarks have simply created confusion, as each side scrambles to vindicate themselves by appealing to what she said. 

The discussion about the Jesus being the  Comforter is interesting, in this context. The passage in 1 John that describes Jesus as our Advocate is actually using the same Greek word that every where else in the NT is translated as "comforter." So EGW  was right in saying that Jesus is our comforter even though we are not used to hearing that. The LEB translates the 5 passages where the Greek word numbered 3875 in the OLB/Strong's system (παράκλητος) as Advocate, referring to the HS as our Advocate instead of Comforter.