George Knight's AT article on EGW's authourity

[Adventtruth]

Hey you give the people their own prophet, that has a direct line to God, who needs or has time for the bible?

AT

 

[Sophia7]

I am not going to be one who whitewashes ansd tries to defend the indefensible. The fact is, she plagiarized, didn't practice what she preached in the area of meat-eating, believed in sinless perfection theology, crushed many of her opponents, had racist tendencies, contradicted herself, took conflicting stands on many issues, made mistakes and got things wrong. Her testimonies can be psychologically damaging for those not prepared to handle the guilt-inducing fear-mongering they contain.

But even in spite of these flaws, God still used her.

All of her errors and contradictions and other flaws make it impossible for me to look to her as any kind of trustworthy authority, even pastoral. Yes, I think that God used her in some ways, but God can use any of us; that doesn't make us prophets.

I do not accept her as the final authourity on any and every area of life. I believe she grew in her understanding of many things and that both culture and environment influenced her views heavily. She interpreted some things God showed her quite badly and, in some cases, flat-out wrong. We should use our God-given judgment, discernment and common sense when dealing with her views, just like we would with any other inspired writer. She was also heavily influenced by Uriah Smith, William Miller and John Kellogg.

Test all things and hold fast to that which is good. Discard the rest. That is my personal approach to her wether the Trads like it or not.

My version of the statement that I bolded above would be that we should use our God-given judgment, discernment and common sense when dealing with her views, just as we would with any other writer (inspired or not). I wouldn't start with the assumption that she was inspired, which your statement does.

 

[Adventtruth]

I'm particularly dumbfounded by the comment by EGW that God had told her what the law in Galatians was, but she lost that one paper where it was written. Could she not remember what God said? It's a pretty big deal to get direct information on such an important subject from the Lord himself. Simply amazing that anyone could write and believe such silliness. This is supposed to bolster belief in EGW as a prophet? Does anyone else think this is absurd?

The alarming thing and question about that paper is why would God even give such. It's all there in Galatians for all to glean. I agree with you...its absurd.

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

The point of my posting Knight's article was not to make a case for EGW. It was simply to show that not all Adventists believe she has the authourity of Scripture.

This is a given NE. While I was attending Sabbath mornings, I knew of those who had problems with her authority.

AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Hey you give the people their own prophet, that has a direct line to God, who needs or has time for the bible?

AT

Worse then that, who needs to think and study for themselves. That of course led to the thinking that it was perfectly acceptable to point to her writings to end debate or discussion. Which is no doubt why she used the terms testimonies of God and Spirit of prophecy for her works.

I would place her in category of Martin Luther, a person who was a devoted Christian and who heart was in the right place yet said and did some horrible things. Whose views of God were often foolish or naive yet who would attack anyone who disagreed with their views. Yet both were certainly reformers to their generations. And neither were prophets even when they produced the most wonderful and uplifting writings.

 

[Cliff2]

Foofighter, we have gone round and round with this topic so may times on this forum. I am literally wearied by it after almost a year of hashing it out.

I am going to just link you to a thread that pretty much encapsulates my personal view on the matter:

This is the book that reflects what I believe concerning EGW more or less. I highly recommend it!

Table of Contents

Foreword9 Introduction 13Part One: Prophets Old And New

1 Ellen White Under Attack 17 2 Steps to understanding biblical inspiration 23 3 God speaks in various ways 31 4 Literary assistance for inspired writers 37 5 The problem of differences in the Bible 39 6 How much do prophets know? 45 7 Testing prophets 53 8 Change in the prophetic role 65 9 The need for discernment 7710 The post-biblical era 85Part Two: More Than A Prophet

11 The gift of prophecy in Adventism 89 12 Borrowing to illustrate spiritual truth 95 13 A multi-gifted prophet107 14 Ellen White's spiritual growth115 15 Ellen White's theological growth121 16Ellen White and her culture131 17Ellen White and the end times137 18The 1919 Bible Conference and its aftermath151 19Building an inerrant Ellen White165 20Post War Adventism175 21Evangelicals and Adventists meet185 22Adventist historians come of age195 23The 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop199 24Ellen White and the Bible205 25Implications for the future213 26The Place of the Adventist Church in the larger Christian world.221 27Why be a Seventh-day Adventist?-Some Reasons227 Appendix AAppendix BAppendix C

http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/index.htm

I believe she was inspired, but my understanding of inspiration is not the same as the Trad understanding. I believe she is subject to the apostles and that her authourity does not extend beyond pastoral. She does not have the authourity of the OT prophets nor does she have doctrinal authourity.

I am not going to be one who whitewashes ansd tries to defend the indefensible. The fact is, she plagiarized, didn't practice what she preached in the area of meat-eating, believed in sinless perfection theology, crushed many of her opponents, had racist tendencies, contradicted herself, took conflicting stands on many issues, made mistakes and got things wrong. Her testimonies can be psychologically damaging for those not prepared to handle the guilt-inducing fear-mongering they contain.

But even in spite of these flaws, God still used her.

I do not accept her as the final authourity on any and every area of life. I believe she grew in her understanding of many things and that both culture and environment influenced her views heavily. She interpreted some things God showed her quite badly and, in some cases, flat-out wrong. We should use our God-given judgment, discernment and common sense when dealing with her views, just like we would with any other inspired writer. She was also heavily influenced by Uriah Smith, William Miller and John Kellogg.

Test all things and hold fast to that which is good. Discard the rest. That is my personal approach to her wether the Trads like it or not.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=40699048#post40699048

I have read the book by Bradford and agree with it. It is a very good summary of EGW.

Bradford is in no way against EGW but gives a balanced view of how she wrote and received messages from God.

Then as a Church as to how we would be better off viewing her writings.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Hey you give the people their own prophet, that has a direct line to God, who needs or has time for the bible?

AT

he he he he he AT you are funny

 

[freeindeed2]

All of her errors and contradictions and other flaws make it impossible for me to look to her as any kind of trustworthy authority, even pastoral. Yes, I think that God used her in some ways, but God can use any of us; that doesn't make us prophets.

Like Pharoh?

My version of the statement that I bolded above would be that we should use our God-given judgment, discernment and common sense when dealing with her views, just as we would with any other writer (inspired or not). I wouldn't start with the assumption that she was inspired, which your statement does.

All of these discussions about SDA's second source of authority (which interprets the first) are built on assumption(s), namely that she was inspired by God.

 

[Adventtruth]

Worse then that, who needs to think and study for themselves. That of course led to the thinking that it was perfectly acceptable to point to her writings to end debate or discussion. Which is no doubt why she used the terms testimonies of God and Spirit of prophecy for her works.

I would place her in category of Martin Luther, a person who was a devoted Christian and who heart was in the right place yet said and did some horrible things. Whose views of God were often foolish or naive yet who would attack anyone who disagreed with their views. Yet both were certainly reformers to their generations. And neither were prophets even when they produced the most wonderful and uplifting writings.

If that where in fact the case, there would not be as much divide and conquer within the ranks of Adventism. And just maybe she would be more orthodox. As it is now she enjoys being seen as the ugly duckling or unpromising one, because she thinks she is the real apple of Gods eye and will be justifed as so in the end,thus being established as THE Remnant people.

Gods covenant people under the law also saw in the prophets that Messiah would come...They believed with sword and power to establish and Justify them as His true people above all the nations on the earth, but It was not as they percieved, and they went out, and they went on and Killed the Lord of Glory.

One other odd note...there are those today and of the past who claimed that Luther claimed himself a prophet. How silly is that!

AT