EGW's writings--an inspired guide, per SDA General Conference

[tall73]

This statement was voted by the General Conference Session on
June 11, 2022.

https://executivecommittee.adventist.org/newsletter/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ECN-July-September-2022.pdf

​

We believe that the writings of Ellen G White were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are Christ centered and Bible based. Rather than replacing Scripture, they uplift its normative character, safeguard the Church from “every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14), and offer an inspired guide to Bible passages without exhausting their meaning or preventing further study. They also help us to overcome the human tendency to accept from the Bible what we like and to distort or disregard what we do not like.​

​

Some other official statements, voted on by the General Conference session regarding Ellen White's writings.

Here is a statement of confidence from the 2015 GC session:

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various

gc.adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.​

From the 28 fundamental beliefs, also voted by the General Conference session:

https://szu.adventist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/28_Beliefs.pdf

​

The Gift of Prophecy​

The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Num. 12:6; 2 Chron. 20:20; Amos 3:7; Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:8, 9.)​

 

[tall73]

Could some of the Adventists here explain how you use Ellen White's writings as an "inspired guide to Bible passages"?

 

[KevinT]

Could some of the Adventists here explain how you use Ellen White's writings as an "inspired guide to Bible passages"?

A few points. Early Adventist were resistant to organized religion as being "Babylon". So it is ironic to me that we have the General Conference making pronouncements akin to the Catholic church and the various decisions it has made over time.

Second, Mrs White herself said that she was God's penman, not His pen. So if God sent her a message (which she describes as messages coming from an angel), and if she then writes something down -- then I feel that there can still be things in her writings that are NOT the same as God saying them. For example, in the Desire of Ages, she does her best as a write to bring to life the stories stored in a few terse Bible verses. And in doing so, there will be little details added to fill the scene. The point is the same, but details are added. Many Adventists feel that these extra details have the same weight as the Bible, and could well be put into the Bible. I disagree and would argue that to support this view one would have to refer to her as an authority.

I, on the other hand, feel that the inspiration came in the form of God helping her understand the big picture. And she then did her best to convey her understanding to others. And there might be some facts in there that are off, or copied etc. If I read a textbook of mathematics, I don't believe the lessons because of the authority of the author, but because of the truthfulness of the facts that I can see for myself.

KT

 

[tall73]

A few points. Early Adventist were resistant to organized religion as being "Babylon". So it is ironic to me that we have the General Conference making pronouncements akin to the Catholic church and the various decisions it has made over time.

Second, Mrs White herself said that she was God's penman, not His pen. So if God sent her a message (which she describes as messages coming from an angel), and if the then writes something down -- then I feel that there can still be things in her writings that are NOT the same as God saying them. For example, in the Desire of Ages, she does her best as a write to bring to life the stories stored in a few terse Bible verses. And in doing so, there will be little details added to fill the scene. The point is the same, but details are added. Many Adventists feel that these extra details have the same weight as the Bible, and could well be put into the Bible. I disagree and would argue that to support this view one would have to refer to her as an authority.

I, on the other hand, feel that the inspiration came in the form of God helping her understand the big picture. And she then did her best to convey her understanding to others. And there might be some facts in there that are off, or copied etc. If I read a textbook of mathematics, I don't believe the lessons because of the authority of the author, but because of the truthfulness of the facts that I can see for myself.

KT

Thank you for weighing in.

 

[BobRyan]

This statement was voted by the General Conference Session on
June 11, 2022.

https://executivecommittee.adventist.org/newsletter/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ECN-July-September-2022.pdf

​

We believe that the writings of Ellen G White were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are Christ centered and Bible based. Rather than replacing Scripture, they uplift its normative character, safeguard the Church from “every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14), and offer an inspired guide to Bible passages without exhausting their meaning or preventing further study. They also help us to overcome the human tendency to accept from the Bible what we like and to distort or disregard what we do not like.​

​

Some other official statements, voted on by the General Conference session regarding Ellen White's writings.

Here is a statement of confidence from the 2015 GC session:

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

As delegates to the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, we express our deep gratitude to God for the continuing presence of the various

gc.adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.​

From the 28 fundamental beliefs, also voted by the General Conference session:

https://szu.adventist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/28_Beliefs.pdf

​

The Gift of Prophecy​

The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Num. 12:6; 2 Chron. 20:20; Amos 3:7; Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:8, 9.)​

For about 160 years the public has known that Seventh-day Adventists accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12 AND that Ellen White had the gift of prophecy that we see stated there and in other places in the Bible.

This is not something new in 2015 -
I fully accept your sources above as stating the official POV in the Adventist denomination on the subject of the gift of prophecy.

 

[BobRyan]

Could some of the Adventists here explain how you use Ellen White's writings as an "inspired guide to Bible passages"?

read 1 Cor 12 and 2 Tim 3

"16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

IS it your claim that Adventists are among the many Christian groups that are not cessationist?

Is your question about how Christians can exist in the first century where in 1 Cor 14 all the people had spiritual gifts?

Are you thinking that the Adventist claim that one of their own members had the gift of prophecy is unique and no other denomination has ever experienced such a thing?

Or are you trying to say that if you believe someone has the Biblical gift of prophecy then you must have a problem with 2 Tim 3:16-17 about the significance of such a text??

Acts 17:11 'they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" --

That is how they handled the situation where prophets exist and we still test sola scriptura for all teaching and doctrine. Testing to see if scripture is being set aside or if the prophet is in line with scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

A few points. Early Adventist were resistant to organized religion as being "Babylon". So it is ironic to me that we have the General Conference making pronouncements akin to the Catholic church and the various decisions it has made over time.

Early in the 1870's Adventists started publishing official statements of belief - and giving ministerial credentials to our pastors - so that people would know if someone actually was an Adventist - teaching actual Adventist doctrine - or if they were simply a traveling evangelist that was borrowing the name "Adventist" for a while to gain an audience with Adventists.

 

[tall73]

read 1 Cor 12 and 2 Tim 3

"16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

IS it your claim that Adventists are the only people that know what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy ?

Or are you claiming that Adventist claim that one of their own members had the gift of prophecy and no other denomination has ever experienced such a thing?

Or are you trying to say that if you believe someone has the Biblical gift of prophecy you should then reject the statements we find in place like 2 Tim 3:16-17 about the significance of such a fact??

Acts 17:11 'they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- is it your claim that Paul did not have the gift of prophecy -- only Ellen White had it??

I have seen you toss out many off-the-cuff ideas about what this or that text is saying -- Are you asking that you be considered someone with the gift of prophecy on some of the texts that you expound upon?

In other words - is this thread going some place useful other than to make the point that you do not view yourself as someone who accepts Adventist doctrine??

This is a thread for Adventists to explain how they use Ellen White's writings as an inspired guide. Feel free to explain how you use them in such a manner.

 

[tall73]

For about 160 years the public has known that Seventh-day Adventists accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12 AND that Ellen White had the gift of prophecy that we see stated there and in other places in the Bible.

The idea that someone just discovered this fact in 2015 - is hard to take seriously

Since the article attached from the SDA executive committee discusses the history of such statements, and the more general endorsements spanning back further, I am not sure why you would think someone claimed that was discovered in 2015.

Feel free to discuss how you use Ellen White's writings as an inspired guide to Bible passages.

 

[KevinT]

read 1 Cor 12 and 2 Tim 3

"16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

IS it your claim that Adventists are the only people that know what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy ?

@BobRyan, I don't think you were talking directly to me, but I'll jump in. Adventists are not the only people that understand what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy. But I commonly encounter skepticism by other denominations that God spoke to a person in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary support and research. But what I see is that the claim is rejected out of hand.

Or are you claiming that Adventist claim that one of their own members had the gift of prophecy and no other denomination has ever experienced such a thing?

Yes (for part A), and No (for part B). God can speak to whomever He wishes. Adventists have no claim of exclusivity. But I am personally unaware of explicit messages from God -- not speaking of the impressions towards good that the Spirit gives individuals.

Or are you trying to say that if you believe someone has the Biblical gift of prophecy you should then reject the statements we find in place like 2 Tim 3:16-17 about the significance of such a fact??

I don't understand this logic. If someone has the gift of prophecy, then it seems that this would directly align with 2 Tim 3:16-17, so I seem to be missing your point.

Acts 17:11 'they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO" -- is it your claim that Paul did not have the gift of prophecy -- only Ellen White had it??

As an Adventist, I have never heard anyone say that Paul did not have the gift of prophecy. I think what you are getting at is that Paul superficial may seem to say something different than White. If that is your point, I would argue that when God inspires a human, that does not mean that everything they say and write is exactly as God intended. Paul himself distinguishes in 1 Cor 7 between explicit commands from God, and the Godly advice that Paul himself is giving, based on his understanding of the situation.

I have seen you toss out many off-the-cuff ideas about what this or that text is saying -- Are you asking that you be considered someone with the gift of prophecy on some of the texts that you expound upon?

I didn't see any hint of such a request of claim in the OP

In other words - is this thread going some place useful other than to make the point that you do not view yourself as someone who accepts Adventist doctrine??

I think you must be reacting to prior experience with poster, as I don't see any of this in the OP.

KT

 

[tall73]

As an Adventist, I have never heard anyone say that Paul did not have the gift of prophecy. I think what you are getting at is that Paul superficial may seem to say something different than White. If that is your point, I would argue that when God inspires a human, that does not mean that everything they say and write is exactly as God intended. Paul himself distinguishes in 1 Cor 7 between explicit commands from God, and the Godly advice that Paul himself is giving, based on his understanding of the situation.

Thank you for the clarification. You may, or may not, be familiar with his work, but is your view somewhat similar to that expressed by Adventist theologian Alden Thompson in his book "Inspiration"?

Based on your earlier statement as well, it sounds like you hold, as do many Adventists, (and as do I, though no longer an Adventist), to thought inspiration rather than plenary verbal inspiration. They were "carried along" by the Holy Spirit. Of course, it is still, "God breathed" as well. So both Isaiah, from a priestly background, and Amos from a more agricultural background were still inspired to communicate what God wanted, but expressing it in their own grammar, etc.

By the way, how does this later portion of I Corinthians 7 inform your take on that passage?

1Co 7:40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.​

​

To my current thinking, when Paul uses the formulation "I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy" he is distinguishing between the already existing statements of Jesus on the one flesh marriage union, adultery, etc. (for instance, in Matthew 19) and the additional guidance Paul is giving. But I don't see Paul's as uninspired. He is just noting we already have clear guidance on some points from the Lord. And now he is laying down more guidance. But he indicates this new guidance, while not comprising strict rules, because of the scenarios, is nonetheless inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[tall73]

I think you must be reacting to prior experience with poster, as I don't see any of this in the OP.

Yes, I imagine so. I have, as you noted, made no claim to inspiration, either here or in the other threads.

Bob is correct that I no longer agree with a number of aspects of Adventist theology, and have been critical of those aspects in this forum. So he is probably just relating to the thread in that way.

But this thread is actually intended to discuss the different approaches of Adventists to Ellen White's writings, and to Scripture, with the quotes as a jumping off point.

 

[tall73]

But I commonly encounter skepticism by other denominations that God spoke to a person in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary support and research. But what I see is that the claim is rejected out of hand.

By the way, so you know where I am coming from, I am not a cessationist, and believe the Holy Spirit still works through the gifts of the Spirit.

I do not reject the possibility of prophecy outside of Scripture. And the issue then of how that relates to Scripture is still important, wether one accepts the specific claim that Ellen White was so inspired, or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Since the article attached from the SDA executive committee discusses the history of such statements, and the more general endorsements spanning back further, I am not sure why you would think someone claimed that was discovered in 2015.

Indeed - it is illogical to argue that some 2015 document is the source/change/start of SDA acceptance of the fact that Ellen White had the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy.

My question was whether you are quoting the 2015 statement as if it were "a change" from our long standing position or whether it is just to get a current official statement of our POV to discuss it.

Since it looks like it is the latter -- and I agree with your method.

Feel free to discuss how you use Ellen White's writings as an inspired guide to Bible passages.

We read the Bible and apply the Acts 17:11 test - "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so that were spoken by the Apostle Paul" -- if an actual Apostle like Paul can be subjected to such a sola scritura model of testing his doctrine - then most certainly the teaching of prophets like Ellen White can be subjected to that same test.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan, I don't think you were talking directly to me, but I'll jump in. Adventists are not the only people that understand what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy. But I commonly encounter skepticism by other denominations that God spoke to a person in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary support and research. But what I see is that the claim is rejected out of hand.

good point.

We have the sola scriptura test of Paul in Acts 17:11, and we apply the same for anyone. But as you point out, there is the supposition of an entirely extra-biblical test of the form "no prophets can exist now - no matter what the Bible says to the contrary - so we need not look into this"

Yes (for part A), and No (for part B). God can speak to whomever He wishes. Adventists have no claim of exclusivity.

True. God is free to speak to anyone.

I don't understand this logic. If someone has the gift of prophecy, then it seems that this would directly align with 2 Tim 3:16-17,

true - but first they must be tested to see if indeed they pass the test.

As an Adventist, I have never heard anyone say that Paul did not have the gift of prophecy.

agreed.

I would argue that when God inspires a human, that does not mean that everything they say and write is exactly as God intended.

True. Just because God inspired King David or Aggabus in the book of Acts - does not mean that everything they said at the breakfast table came directly from God.

I think you must be reacting to prior experience with poster, as I don't see any of this in the OP.

The poster is on record as rejecting the teaching of the Adventist church and rejecting the teaching of Ellen White.

Everyone has free will they can reject whatever they wish.

My question was about the purpose of this thread from the POV of the OP.
It "could be" that his point is just that Adventists are one of many Christian denominations that are not cessationist and he is not clear as to how a non-cessationist would read both the Bible and a contemporary prophet. Some folks today think you can have one or the other but not both.

 

[KevinT]

Thank you for the clarification. You may, or may not, be familiar with his work, but is your view somewhat similar to that expressed by Adventist theologian Alden Thompson in his book "Inspiration"?

I have not heard of him. Can you tell me more about him?

Based on your earlier statement as well, it sounds like you hold, as do many Adventists, (and as do I, though no longer an Adventist), to thought inspiration rather than plenary verbal inspiration. They were "carried along" by the Holy Spirit. Of course, it is still, "God breathed" as well. So both Isaiah, from a priestly background, and Amos from a more agricultural background were still inspired to communicate what God wanted, but expressing it in their own grammar, etc.

I'm not sure I would even go so far as thought inspiration -- but let me explain. If God give a prophet thought #1, then #2, then #3 etc, and the prophet rights each of these down, 1, 2, 3, then that seems very much to me like dictation. The Bible clearly does show examples where God would tell a prophet very explicit instructions, including instructions to run away fast as soon as the message is delivered (I can't find the reference now, but it was right after one of the kings of Israel was anointed by a prophet I think). So God certainly could have spoken to White that way. But think also that when White had her first vision, she was very young, and many of the SDA doctrines that would later to come were foreign to her. So imagine then that she gets up and preaches of what God (or one of His angels) showed her in vision. Does that mean that she understands everything 100%? Might she not quite understand the framing of the topic etc?

Think also of the Great Controversy. I am fairly sure that White was give the understanding of the concept in vision. But then she had to work long and hard to get it all set down properly on paper. And since she needed real world facts to explain the issues, she used reference works from her library. This is a far greater role of communication on White's part than simply putting a string of thought inspirations to paper. She writes that the great earthquakes of her time were a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Now, with the passage of time, I suspect there are still great earthquakes to come as a more true fulfillment of prophecy. So did God tell her to put down that fact? I think not. I think she was trying to match what she was shown to the world around her.

By the way, how does this later portion of I Corinthians 7 inform your take on that passage?

1Co 7:40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.​

My understanding of this is as follows. In the Kingdom of God there are many different ways that things can be carried out. Paul can pick this traveling companion, or in situations of conflict, a different one. The Spirit is able to work in both situations. There are base principles (Love, loyalty, etc) that can provide guidance. Sometimes the Spirit would say "No,", such as when Paul and companion were prohibited from entering Asia. But other times the Spirit would leave humans to solve the day to day problems as seemed best to them. So Paul is saying that he has the Spirit of God, and that if he is way off base, the Spirit will let him know, and he thinks that he understands the underlying principles -- and therefore he thinks he is correct. But he does understand that there is wiggle room for different ways of thinking, and thus he lays out the provisions.

​

To my current thinking, when Paul uses the formulation "I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy" he is distinguishing between the already existing statements of Jesus on the one flesh marriage union, adultery, etc. (for instance, in Matthew 19) and the additional guidance Paul is giving. But I don't see Paul's as uninspired. He is just noting we already have clear guidance on some points from the Lord. And now he is laying down more guidance. But he indicates this new guidance, while not comprising strict rules, because of the scenarios, is nonetheless inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I can agree with most of what you say here. I might nuance it with the a consideration of what it means to be inspired by the Spirit. I think many (perhaps not you) think that when God (or the Spirit) starts talking, He is going to tell everyone exactly what they need to do. Thus everyone might as well just turn off their brains and leave all decision making to God. But it is God himself who made us to solve day-to-day problems and to want autonomy and satisfaction from deriving a plan and executing on it. So sometimes God gives exact instructions (e.g. telling Peter to go to the centurion's house), but it seems most of the other times, He lets people decide. So to be inspired by the Spirit might just mean thinking and acting with the Spirit's encouragement and watchful care -- like when parents let their children sort things out, while ensuring they don't come to harm.

The reason I'm so hesitant on this issue is that I see the following logic:

1. Paul was inspired by God. Therefore when Paul says something, it's like God saying the thing.
2. Paul said that women should not have authority over a man -- ignoring that Debra was one of the judges (rulers) in the Old Testament.
3. Therefore any time a woman has authority over a man, it is clearly a violation of God's express will for everyone today.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

The poster is on record as rejecting the teaching of the Adventist church and rejecting the teaching of Ellen White.

Everyone has free will they can reject whatever they wish.

My question was about the purpose of this thread from the POV of the OP.

Ahh, I see.

Well, I prefer to consider what is actually true as compared to appealing to the authority of the SDA church to issue doctrines. And regarding White, I personally believe she received visions and instructions from God. But that one has to interpret what was said to see if it applies to my situation. Paul said women should keep their heads covered. White said a woman's hem should be a few inches from the ground. Both of these instructions need interpretation.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[BobRyan]

But this thread is actually intended to discuss the different approaches of Adventists to Ellen White's writings, and to Scripture, with the quotes as a jumping off point.

Ok - I have added some posts to address that.

 

[BobRyan]

This is a thread for Adventists to explain how they use Ellen White's writings as an inspired guide. Feel free to explain how you use them in such a manner.

The Bible says to listen to prophets. So we think that is important.
In Acts 17:11 they do not listen to Paul "instead of" studying scripture daily.
Agreed?

 

[BobRyan]

But this thread is actually intended to discuss the different approaches of Adventists to Ellen White's writings, and to Scripture, with the quotes as a jumping off point.

Our view is that the Bible teaches Christians to test the prophets and then if they are found to be in harmony with scripture - listen to what God is saying through His prophets.