Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[tall73]

They made a decision to make documents available that were never published (diaries, letters to friends and family etc) - for reasons that are not entirely clear. But one thing is for certain - the White Estate did not get a message from God to do it so it was their own off the cuff move.

Bob, if you have some correction of your own to give to the White Estate, you should direct it to the proper channels. I met with a rep from the White Estate. I am sure you can make an appointment.

Here is their rationale on releasing unpublished materials:

Ellen White Letters and Manuscripts to Be Released

The point remains - when God gives a message to a prophet - the entire point is to publish it for those He directs it to...

But if she wrote letters to individuals that contain things clearly indicated as inspired material, then even if you think they should not have been published, that does not mean they could not contain purported inspired information.

 

[BobRyan]

tall73 said: ↑
it was actually the White Estate who published this letter to their website. .

BobRyan said: ↑
They made a decision to make documents available that were never published (diaries, letters to friends and family etc) - for reasons that are not entirely clear. But one thing is for certain - the White Estate did not get a message from God to do it so it was their own off the cuff move.

Bob, if you have some correction of your own to give to the White Estate, you should direct it to the proper channels. I met with a rep from the White Estate. I am sure you can make an appointment.

I have been to the one in Silver Springs MD many times.

My post was not about arguing with the White Estate - my point was a response to your post that if the White Estate made private diaries and letters available in 1988 that this must somehow be a mandate from God declaring every word spoken at the breakfast table by Ellen White - some sort of inspired communication from God to the church. As I point out - it is nonsense to argue that off the cuff decision about private letters in 1988 decades after Ellen White died somehow constitutes a command by God that every private word or letter ever spoken by Ellen White is to be considered inspired and published to the church.

 

[BobRyan]

But if she wrote letters to individuals that contain things clearly indicated as inspired material, .

IF she said "an angel told me to tell to tell you to pray that..." or "an angel told me to tell you to kiss baby Charles" we would be having a different kind of conversation. In any case it is "odd" that with all your objections to published statements - you are now so tied to private unpublished statements to friends and family... That is a bit odd.

Here is what is irrefutable so far even in spite of this long sidetrack you have going here...

1. In Lev 16 The scapegoat plays no part in the sin offering in Lev 16:15 - so it cannot possibly diminish the sin offering or down size it because that sin offering is full and complete before anything at all is done with the scapegoat. So far every quote we have from Ellen White (private or not) about Satan and the scapegoat conforms to that obvious detail.

2. In Lev 16 The scapegoat plays no part in the work of High Priest in the sanctuary on the Day of ATonement in Lev 16 - so it cannot diminish that Sanctuary work or down size it because the sanctuary work is full and completed before anything at all is done with the scapegoat. So far every quote we have from Ellen White (private or not) about Satan and the scapegoat conforms to that obvious detail.

3. The phrasing and language you love to quote about prayer (statements never published) - is only useful by you when speaking to those who have no background info on this and are somewhat new to the details of Lev 16 or the Day of Atonement. Your claims via extreme inference have no supporting "An angel told me to tell you to pray this way..." from Ellen White. You rely on that lack of information on the part of your readers - as you post emotional "harrumph" style comments about something related to the suffering of the wicked that follows all the atoning work done by the sin offering and sanctuary - somehow going back in time and "diminishing" fully completed work that happens before anything at all is done with the scapegoat. An idea for which I have seen no logical argument so far beyond the obligatory pulpit-pounding style harrumph.

That means your only argument left is "God should have stopped Ellen White from saying something in private to one of her friends - that I could possibly spin this way - so many decades later after she died for those who do not have background in this material".

 

[tall73]

I have been to the one in Silver Springs MD many times.

My post was not about arguing with the White Estate - my point was a response to your post that if the White Estate made private diaries and letters available in 1988 that this must somehow be a mandate from God declaring every word spoken at the breakfast table by Ellen White - some sort of inspired communication from God to the church.

They didn't need to say that. She said her letters sent to people were not her own opinion. And there are elements in that letter that she clearly did not think were her opinion.


AND

You say you don't have a problem with the White Estate. But they were the ones who thought that this content was valuable to the discussion on the Scapegoat. And apparently the editors of Ministry Magazine agreed.

 

[tall73]

IF she said "an angel told me to tell to tell you to pray that..." or "an angel told me to tell you to kiss baby Charles" we would be having a different kind of conversation. In any case it is "odd" that with all your objections to published statements - you are now so tied to private unpublished statements to friends and family... That is a bit odd.

Bob, that is not odd at all. I can disagree both with Ellen White's published statements, and the ones that she sent to individuals.

And the EGW Estate and Ministry Magazine thought both were important in this discussion, especially since the letter contained theological content, and the statement did as well.

So I am odd in the same way as other people who think that the comment has a bearing on the subject.

But it seems you particularly do not want to have to look at what this statement says.

1. In Lev 16 The scapegoat plays no part in the sin offering in Lev 16:15 - so it cannot possibly diminish the sin offering or down size it because that sin offering is full and complete before anything at all is done with the scapegoat. So far every quote we have from Ellen White (private or not) about Satan and the scapegoat conforms to that obvious detail.

My argument is not with Lev. 16. It is with Ellen White's statement that satan pays the final penalty for the sins of God's people.

And that is a horrible statement whether it is in a published writing, a letter containing inspired information, or her breakfast table conversation.

You seem to only draw the line when she tells people to pray their sins are confessed on satan. But all of her statements on this point are a problem.

 

[BobRyan]

They didn't need to say that. She said her letters sent to people were not her own opinion.

She flat out denied that every word or letter she ever wrote came from God. As anyone who has read her writings in some sort of detail is aware...(which of course most of your readers are not in that "read in detail" group)

Here again - I am quoting from published statements (because I don't rely on private unpublished diaries and letters)

=============================


" there are times when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God. ... {1SM 39.3}


"I am watched, every word I write is criticised, every move I make is commented upon...." {3SM 351.3}

"I leave my work and its results until we gather about the great white throne. Do you see the Spirit of Christ in this watching, in these suspicions, in these conjectures, these suppositions? What right have they to suppose, to conjecture, to misinterpret my words? to misstate me as they do?" {3SM 351.4}

 

[BobRyan]

My argument is not with Lev. 16. It is with Ellen White's statement that satan pays the final penalty for the sins of God's people.

Because it is "too much for Satan"?? Or because "in your mind" that must automatically mean that in that lake of fire event future to our day - Satan surely most go back in time and delete/diminishe what was done 2000 years ago on the cross paying the debt of sin for all mankind in all of time -- even though both you and I already agree that Ellen White and Adventist doctrine and the Bible all agree that Christ's atoning sacrifice already completed on the cross, paid the debt owed for sin for all mankind in all of time?

(You never actually get around to giving rationale for that sort of harrumph.)

But all of her statements on this point are a problem.

Which means you "should" be able to object all day long using published statements.

 

[Leaf473]

It is the same contrast we see in Rev 12 - the war between Christ and Satan. We see it also in Job 1 and 2 -- so again in Lev 16 we see them in opposite roles ... one that cleanses those who come in contact with it - and the other that contaminates..

We definitely have different interpretations of Revelation 12.

I certainly don't see God as having an evil opposite in the accuser in Job 1 & 2.

I believe Jesus is of a much higher order than Satan. Do SDA's believe this as well?

 

[Leaf473]

The "point" of a message from God given to a prophet - is to convey it to people.

By contrast - we do not believe that everything said at the breakfast table - came straight from a vision or inspired dream.

If White believed herself to be in the role of prophet at the time she wrote something, does that writing count as speaking with prophetic authority even if it is unpublished?

 

[Leaf473]

Sins are recorded in the books of heaven and these are being reviewed in the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment going on now. They are blotted out from those books when the case of a given individual comes up , is reviewed and it is found that they are a true born-again Christian.

Another place where we have a different interpretation. I think the "blotting out" or not remembering of sins occurs at the same time as other parts of the New covenant, such as God writing his laws on our heart.
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.

But following your train of thought, if the sins of at least some Christians are now blotted out, how will they then be confessed over Satan?

 

[Leaf473]

If you take the time to actually read the post you just replied to - it is in the text of that post. Are you asking me to post it "again"? was there something unclear in the text of my post addressing that very point??

I'm asking you to explain the part I don't understand.

Ephesians 4:11 talks about apostles and prophets.

You say that passage indicates that the office of prophet must continue.

By that same reasoning, the office of apostle must also continue.

Then, yes, you do make a good case that the office of apostle has ceased.

So, it follows that if the office of apostle has ceased that the office of prophet may also have ceased.

Are you able to see what I'm not following, the question that I'm asking?

 

[Leaf473]

It is sent away according to Lev 16.



In Lev 16 one of them is a sin offering the other is not -- which is the point. When you see the term "The goat of the sin offering" in Lev 16 it is specifically not the scapegoat.

Yet the scapegoat does have all the sins confessed over it and is sent away from the camp of the saints. Satan never returns to harass the saints after his part in Rev 19 and 20 - just as the scapegoat never returns to the camp of the saints -- as already stated.

I could "keep posting" that point each time you ask for it - but I don't know what that accomplishes.



Not true because inside the city is God and the saints - and outside are the lost including Satan. And as Rev 20:10-11 points out they are then destroyed outside the city right where they are.

7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone,

If your spin on this were accepted then it would mean that destroying the wicked would also destroy the saints since you are returning them to the saints as if they are back once again in full contact with them.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that once the scapegoat is sent into the wilderness, that's the last we hear of it.

Once Satan is sent into the abyss, that is not the last we hear of him.

A simple, clear difference between Satan and the scapegoat.

Is the difference compelling in itself? No, I don't think so. But added together with the other differences the link between Satan and the scapegoat is very weak imo.

 

[Leaf473]

Bob, did I say this was originally sent to the whole church?

It is a letter. But it is a letter that has direct indicators that EGW is spelling out inspired information. And the statement in question is a statement with theological content.




Because Ellen White did not say that only published items to the whole church relate inspired content.

In fact she stated that she also wrote letters to people that contained inspired content.

And she said that she was able to select from previous lessons given:

I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ.
RH, September 6, 1906 par. 1


Did you notice the similarity of portions of the statement to another of her related visions?

pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.
August 4, 1850

Compare with:

Then, while the plagues are falling, the scapegoat is being led away. He makes a mighty struggle to escape, but he is held fast by the hand that bears him away. If he should effect his escape, Israel would be destroyed (or slain).I saw that it would take time to bear him away into the land of forgetfulness after the sins were put upon his head.
The Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts: Volume 1
October 23, 1850, Dorchester, Massachusetts

Interesting how the phrasing is similar to her later vision.



Yeah, it is!



Now Bob, you mean the EGW White Estate, not just me, got sidetracked with a letter than she states is relating inspired material? And they thought that a comment relating theological content in that letter was important?

Are you sure it is an emotional appeal Bob?

You don't think there is any theological content to confessing your sins over satan? How do you know it is not inspired, or from an earlier inspired vision?

At this point in reading this exchange of posts regarding White's letter, a letter we call third John came to mind:

3 John 1
The elder to Gaius the beloved, whom I love in truth.

The letter has a very personal tone, though it does also deal with a church issue. It was "unpublished" in the sense that it was not sent to a factory with printing presses until many centuries later.

The only reason we have it is because someone along the way made copies of it and distributed them, much like the White estate is doing with White's letter.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
If you take the time to actually read the post you just replied to - it is in the text of that post....was there something unclear in the text of my post addressing that very point??

I'm asking you to explain the part I don't understand.

Ephesians 4:11 talks about apostles and prophets.

And pastors and teachers.

11 And He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of people, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, that is, Christ

You say that passage indicates that the office of prophet must continue.

As I would say that also about evangelists, teachers, pastors etc in that chapter. They are all needed until "WE ALL" attain to unity and knowledge and maturity that belongs to the "fullness of Christ" - i.e. - the second coming.

By that same reasoning, the office of apostle must also continue.

Not so since I already showed what the NT qualification for Apostle is in Acts 1.

Then, yes, you do make a good case that the office of apostle has ceased.

And I notice that we do not see those Acts 1 qualifications for any other office in the church in Eph 4 or in 1 Cor 12 regarding spiritual gifts. Which is why in 1 Cor 14 Paul points out "when you come together EACH ONE has a revelation".

All of this...already posted so far.

So, it follows that if the office of apostle has ceased that the office of prophet may also have ceased.

That would only makes sense if they both had same restricting qualifications as in Acts 1 - which we both admit is not the case.

So I don't see "the hard part" here. Is there something you are not mentioning that then would make it confusing??

 

[tall73]

Not so since I already showed what the NT qualification for Apostle is in Acts 1.

Yet we see an example of an apostle, chosen by God, accepted as such by those in Jerusalem, who was not a witness from the beginning, but was a witness supernaturally, and and was taught by Christ directly, in Paul.

So God can still do so if He wishes. But there would need to be tremendous evidence to point that out.

 

[tall73]

" there are times when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God. ... {1SM 39.3}

Indeed, but this was not one of those because it specifically spelled out statements that were indicated to have been shown, etc. And it included direct advice, which she said when she wrote they were not her opinion.

Now what you are trying to do is to divide what portions of a letter are inspired. And she warned against that as well.

Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me.
5T 67.2

As eager as you are to dismiss her statement, this was not a letter dedicated to mundane matters. Now if you want to look at some that were, I have some examples of those that folks may find interesting for other reasons.

 

[BobRyan]

But following your train of thought, if the sins of at least some Christians are now blotted out, how will they then be confessed over Satan?

Sins blotted out means they no longer count against the person for whom they were blotted out. Sins paid for at the cross by the all sufficient blood of Christ have full payment - but the payment is not assigned to the person until they are first "born into existence" and then make some appeal to our High Priest in heaven for forgiveness.

All the payment in the form of atoning sacrifice must be completed once for all at the cross before the work in the heavenly sanctuary with Christ as our High priest can begin -- so that is long before anything at all is done with the scapegoat according to God's Word in Lev 16.

All the work in the sanctuary must end - full and complete before anything at all is done with the scapegoat according to God's Word in Lev 16.

The scapegoat has all those sins confessed over it - as Lev 16 states - only AFTER all the work for sin offering and blotting out is done in the sanctuary.

Your point "seems to be" that either heaven-itself or maybe even God-Himself can't possibly know about the sin and its amount once it is blotted from the record of the individual that did the sin - or possibly that Satan might wish to have an exact transaction rollup spreadsheet. A detailed record with every person listed and the exact amount of torment due as per that person's sins documented so he could presumably double check those figures before seeing himself flung into the lake of fire. I am just not sure God would not still be "all knowing" - or that the folks in heaven care all that much at that point as to how "satisfied' Satan is regarding that exact amount and whose portion was equal to what.

 

[BobRyan]

She flat out denied that every word or letter she ever wrote came from God....
" there are times when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God. ... {1SM 39.3}

Indeed, but this was not one of those because it specifically spelled out statements that were indicated to have been shown, etc.

Or is it?

Your comment above is that private letters to friends about "kissing baby Charles on the head" cannot reference anything at all in the Bible or else they are "not common", not ordinary private letters.

That is more "extreme preference" and/or "extreme inference" on your part - and surely you can see how many in the actual Adventist church would not be so easily walked out onto such a limb.

Now what you are trying to do is to divide what portions of a letter are inspired.

Indeed for example her complaint about the "rooms in the sanitarium" where someone wanted to make the wild suggestion that God was sending messages to Ellen White to tell the church how many rooms the sanitarium had in it - yet this was part of a letter that actually did have a message in it - that was from God - but the room # was not part of that message.

Looks like common sense to a lot of people - but to others I think it is rocket science.

So while you may struggle with something that other readers would call commons sense - I avoid the entire thing by not getting into your unpublished statements in private letters and diaries rabbit trail.

 

[BobRyan]

But there is a case for Apostles "ceasing" made in Acts 1.

15 At this time Peter stood up among the brothers and sisters (a group of about 120 people was there together), and said, ....21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

So then not very many people could be qualified as "Apostle" by that criteria. By contrast that is not at all the Criteria that the Bible uses for prophets - so then the Bible calls Anna in the Temple a prophet, it calls Agabus a prophet and Paul says everyone in 1 Cor 14 had the gift of prophecy which could only have happened after Christ went to heaven since there were no Christian evangelists in Corinth before that.

Yet we see an example of an apostle, chosen by God, accepted as such by those in Jerusalem, who was not a witness from the beginning, but was a witness supernaturally, and and was taught by Christ directly, in Paul.

True - God took over in that case in making Paul an Apostle.

My point is there is not even a hint of a "first-century-limiting qualifier" for pastor and Prophet and bible teacher like there is for Apostle.

 

[klutedavid]

IF she said "an angel told me to tell to tell you to pray that..." or "an angel told me to tell you to kiss baby Charles" we would be having a different kind of conversation. In any case it is "odd" that with all your objections to published statements - you are now so tied to private unpublished statements to friends and family... That is a bit odd.

Here is what is irrefutable so far even in spite of this long sidetrack you have going here...

1. In Lev 16 The scapegoat plays no part in the sin offering in Lev 16:15 - so it cannot possibly diminish the sin offering or down size it because that sin offering is full and complete before anything at all is done with the scapegoat. So far every quote we have from Ellen White (private or not) about Satan and the scapegoat conforms to that obvious detail.

2. In Lev 16 The scapegoat plays no part in the work of High Priest in the sanctuary on the Day of ATonement in Lev 16 - so it cannot diminish that Sanctuary work or down size it because the sanctuary work is full and completed before anything at all is done with the scapegoat. So far every quote we have from Ellen White (private or not) about Satan and the scapegoat conforms to that obvious detail.

3. The phrasing and language you love to quote about prayer (statements never published) - is only useful by you when speaking to those who have no background info on this and are somewhat new to the details of Lev 16 or the Day of Atonement. Your claims via extreme inference have no supporting "An angel told me to tell you to pray this way..." from Ellen White. You rely on that lack of information on the part of your readers - as you post emotional "harrumph" style comments about something related to the suffering of the wicked that follows all the atoning work done by the sin offering and sanctuary - somehow going back in time and "diminishing" fully completed work that happens before anything at all is done with the scapegoat. An idea for which I have seen no logical argument so far beyond the obligatory pulpit-pounding style harrumph.

That means your only argument left is "God should have stopped Ellen White from saying something in private to one of her friends - that I could possibly spin this way - so many decades later after she died for those who do not have background in this material".

There were two goats not one goat.

The first goat cleansed the temple and the second goat bore the sin of the people. The second goat was sent outside the holy city, off into the wilderness you go.