There is a few
1. She was not given a message on an infinite number of topics/details.. so "a limit".
I was talking about levels of inspiration. But sure, she talks on a finite number of topics. However, the amount of material is so great that few are able to actually remember it all in any case.
2. All messages are tested "sola scriptura" to see if they are in harmony with the Bible.
No they are not. And that is the problem. As people read through the Bible, major doctrine or just a story in the Bible, if they disagree with Ellen White people insist they are wrong from the outset. They would usually not even entertain a discussion on the point.
That was one of the things that bothered me about Adventist practice. They say in their evangelistic meetings that you should be willing to look at Scripture to see what it says. And in the evangelistic meetings they stick to that.
But in Sabbath School, or conversation, if anyone brings up something that disagrees with Ellen White then they are told it is wrong.
And of course, there are some issues where one Adventist thinks Ellen White favored their view, and others think she favored a different view, and then they just quote dueling Ellen White quotes to see who wins out.
3. All of our doctrine stand or fall "sola scriptura" -- with that testing alone. And that is how all of our evangelism works as well (as you may recall).
Bob, Ellen White said the following:
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. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. 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 161.2}
She forbids application of Scripture that questions Adventist special points. She basis that on her experience.
But your statement is possibly more revealing than you may have intended. Your argument is that no matter the test of the Bible - the sola scriptura test and a person that passes that test as a genuine prophet - then once you find that to be true... "there is no limit" in your mind right? and apparently "that is also bad"...
so no matter if they pass or fail the sola scriptura test - you view it as a negative?
I am saying that once an Adventist accepts that she is inspired they must take her Scriptural interpretations, just as someone who accepts Paul as inspired would take his interpretation of the Old Testament.
So there is no saying you only go by Scripture, or you only use Scripture for doctrine, or she is not on par with Scripture. If you accept her as inspired, then she is inspired, end of story.
And she says you cannot even entertain Scriptural arguments against the Pillars.
What point would that be - that a genuine prophet should be ignored?? or listened to in your POV?
Just the opposite. I am saying you cannot ignore her, doctrine or not.
(this is case with you going after Adventists on this point - it is not a context where SDAs reach out to non-SDAs on Genesis 6 and Ellen White, which we do not see here)
your point seems to be that when we exclude doctrinal topics - and just look at "details" that are not spelled out in the Bible (like the number of Children Adam had above 5) - then guessing is fine - but God can never tell someone the answer to that detail - because doing so would mean we have to banish all sola-scriptura testing of doctrine. That my friend is not logical.
I am saying once you except Ellen White then you must accept all of her biblical interpretations, even to the point of her saying that you cannot entertain other views from Scripture regarding the pillars.
