Ellen White and 'Sola Scriptura'

reddogs · Dec 14, 2007

Infallibility matters when theological disagreements appear, so was Ellen White infallible, of course not, she was human and subject to all the frailties that come with it. We must begin all truth with the word of God, as it never fails us, and has been the unfaillible test against any and all truth and the understanding which flows from God.

Some ask Adventist believers "Do you regard the interpretations of the Bible by Ellen G. White to be infallible, that is, to be the infallible rule of interpreting Scripture?"

It would be the same as if Albert Eistein would come monthly and explain the 'theory of relativity' in relation to time, or to the speed of light, etc... I could only understand a little bit, but as he put the pieces together for me I would increase in my comprehension and understanding of the theory so I could pass it on or teach it to others. So it is with Ellen White, some of her writings are compilations that dont show things in good context, other parts use comtempory ideas of her time to make a point, sometimes she writes words that have more of her own than from anything in a vision. But one thing is unshakeable, the truth that she was given came from the same source as all the other prophets, the messenger may have been human, but the source was the same as given to Enoch, Elijah, Isaiah, and all the prophets.

Numbers 12:5-6
5And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, .. 6And he said
"Listen to my words:
"When a prophet of the LORD is among you,
I reveal myself to him in visions,
I speak to him in dreams.

"The truths given us after the passing of the time in 1844 are just as certain and unchangeable as when the Lord gave them to us in answer to our urgent prayers. The visions that the Lord has given me are so remarkable that we know that what we have accepted is the truth. This was demonstrated by the Holy Spirit." Ellen White, MR 760, p. 22, (Letter 50, 1906, to W. W. Simpson, January 30, 1906)

Cliff2 · Dec 14, 2007

Was Ellen White infallible?

We all know that was was not and even she did not claim to be.

Only God can claim that.

StormyOne · Dec 14, 2007

Cliff2 said:
Was Ellen White infallible?

We all know that was was not and even she did not claim to be.

Only God can claim that.

agreed...

Avonia · Dec 14, 2007

Cliff2 said:
Was Ellen White infallible?

We all know that was was not and even she did not claim to be.

Only God can claim that.

Stormy, Cliff, and Red, it does seem like it's partly one's own doubt that causes an obsession with infallibility. What I find curious is that even if the source, be it Mrs. White or the Bible, is inerrant, we are not inerrant! So, you have the same issue one step down the line. A fallible reader of an infallible text still equals a partially fallible product. What do you think?

sentipente · Dec 14, 2007

Avonia said:
Stormy, Cliff, and Red, it does seem like it's partly one's own doubt that causes an obsession with infallibility. What I find curious is that even if the source, be it Mrs. White or the Bible, is inerrant, we are not inerrant! So, you have the same issue one step down the line. A fallible reader of an infallible text still equals a partially fallible product. What do you think?

Absolutely. As we so often say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Cribstyl · Dec 14, 2007

Yes, yes, I know, I know,...but when she is compared to Moses (and many of prophets) to cover up for prophetic errors exposed as contradiction of the bible, it cast an ugly shadow on what God has said prophetically about creation, Israel etc, as written in Genesis-Duet by Moses and the prophets.

Any comparecent with God's prophets of the bible is a slap in the face...because they prophesied and God and Jesus had to fulfill every word through their mouths, as written in the bible or God was mistaken.

It was Moses who wrote Genesis.
It was Moses to whom God first gave His laws.
Moses did not leave out sabbath in Eden. It's not there to speak of.
Moses explained the recieving of the sabbath..Ex 16
Moses explained the recieving of God's law. Ex 19,20
How can you accept the bible's account if you have an 1800s American woman saying more than family of the seed to whom God have chosen. All the prophets were Hebrews and the Apostles were also of the seed of Abrahams...that's prophetic truth.

Did I mention that Jesus chose Apostles to preach His Gospel?

IN LOVE
CRIB

Avonia · Dec 14, 2007

Cribstyl said:
God and Jesus had to fulfill every word through their mouths, as written in the bible or God was mistaken.

Hi CRIB! How would you view the prophecy Jonah? Was it wrong, conditional, or something else?

Cribstyl · Dec 14, 2007

Avonia said:
Hi CRIB! How would you view the prophecy Jonah? Was it wrong, conditional, or something else?

I'm not sure what you're asking,(be more specific) but here goes my thoughts on Jonah.

God wanted Jonah to tell Nineveh to repent. He tried to avoid that mission. Because of His personal conviction of the people of Ninevah. He judged them unworthy.
In the dept of the sea, He had a change of heart. :sorry:

He preached repentance to Ninevah and the people repented.

God knew all along the end from the beginning of this matter.

Yes, God had to change Jonah's mind.
God had to change (Saul)Paul's mind.

God's does not make mistakes when He choses men, nor did he ever use another prophet to get His eternal word brighter or dimmer.
Once a word goes out of His mouth, it accomplishes all that He says or He is not God at all.

Truth to consider is this text......

Deu 18:22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

CRIB

JohnT · Dec 14, 2007

Red, your post is double talk, and is followed by a faulty analogy. BTW I am analyzing the post, not attacking you in any way.

You write:

so was Ellen White infallible, of course not, she was human and subject to all the frailties that come with it. We must begin all truth with the word of God, as it never fails us, and has been the unfaillible test against any and all truth and the understanding which flows from God.

Some ask Adventist believers "Do you regard the interpretations of the Bible by Ellen G. White to be infallible, that is, to be the infallible rule of interpreting Scripture?"

More to the point you skip over the application of the first premise.

The Evangelical definition of infallible includes a reference to the Autographa, the original writings, but the official SDA statement about Scripture severely limits the concept of inerrancy, and has nothing to do with plenary inspiration. It calls Scripture " an inerrant revealer of God's WILL" and leaves to human imagination the extent of the definition of God's will. Since it is an OFFICIAL STATEMENT. and it is silent as to the autographa, and full verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, it is safe to assume that the omission was deliberate, and that the SDAs as a whole, do not believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of inerrant autographa.

Therefore, while Red's belief may differ from the official SDA position, when any SDA talks about inerrancy, I have to remember that it is not the same as an evangelical believes. I AM NOT ACCUSING RED OF INTENTIONAL DOUBLE TALK, but it surely is difficult to discuss that when the official position of the group differs from the common understanding of a term.

Therefore, if you do not mind, let me paraphrase your quote above" Since EGW was not infallible, when we begin with the Word of God, ( as it never fails us, and has been the unfaillible test against any and all truth and the understanding which flows from God) we see that she was a fallible teacher of a fallible Scripture"

Your faulty analogy is with Einstein

So it is with Ellen White, some of her writings are compilations that dont show things in good context, other parts use contemporary ideas of her time to make a point, sometimes she writes words that have more of her own than from anything in a vision.

Einstein could use an empirical science, mathematics, to demonstrate the validity of his theory. Visions are by definition subjective, and up to the individual to report them without embellishment. By their nature, visions are an inaccurate proof of anything,

Also, the reliance on her visions also neglects the wisdom of the ages in that many godly scholars with direct association with the words of the Apostles is largely discounted as being inaccurately called "Roman Catholic" or dismissed altogether, like Augustine. That is the outcome of the faulty analogy.

Now as to the implication of your first premise, since there is a fallible EGW, coupled with a severely limited degree of infallibility of Scripture, it is not illogical to say that there may be some SDAs who say that both Scripture and EGW's words are equal, despite official denials.

Let me prove that. Have you EVER heard a SDA saying that EGW was wrong on this or that? I never saw a SDA say that on a blog. The position is that "If you are not for words of EGW, then you are against her and other SDAs"

In light of your admission that you say she is fallible, how is it inconceivable that SDAs as a whole, are at a loss to say she is wrong on this, or that?

Avonia · Dec 14, 2007

Cribstyl said:
I'm not sure what you're asking,(be more specific) but here goes my thoughts on Jonah.

God wanted Jonah to tell Nineveh to repent. He tried to avoid that mission. Because of His personal conviction of the people of Ninevah. He judged them unworthy.
In the dept of the sea, He had a change of heart.

He preached repentance to Ninevah and the people repented.

God knew all along the end from the beginning of this matter.

Yes, God had to change Jonah's mind.
God had to change (Saul)Paul's mind.

God's does not make mistakes when He choses men, nor did he ever use another prophet to get His eternal word brighter or dimmer.
Once a word goes out of His mouth, it accomplishes all that He says or He is not God at all.

Truth to consider is this text......

Deu 18:22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

CRIB

I'm with you so far, but how will we know if another prophecy is conditional to a change of our hearts?

reddogs · Dec 14, 2007

JohnT said:
Red, your post is double talk, and is followed by a faulty analogy. BTW I am analyzing the post, not attacking you in any way.

You write: More to the point you skip over the application of the first premise.

The Evangelical definition of infallible includes a reference to the Autographa, the original writings, but the official SDA statement about Scripture severely limits the concept of inerrancy, and has nothing to do with plenary inspiration. It calls Scripture " an inerrant revealer of God's WILL" and leaves to human imagination the extent of the definition of God's will. Since it is an OFFICIAL STATEMENT. and it is silent as to the autographa, and full verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, it is safe to assume that the omission was deliberate, and that the SDAs as a whole, do not believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of inerrant autographa.

Therefore, while Red's belief may differ from the official SDA position, when any SDA talks about inerrancy, I have to remember that it is not the same as an evangelical believes. I AM NOT ACCUSING RED OF INTENTIONAL DOUBLE TALK, but it surely is difficult to discuss that when the official position of the group differs from the common understanding of a term.

Therefore, if you do not mind, let me paraphrase your quote above" Since EGW was not infallible, when we begin with the Word of God, ( as it never fails us, and has been the unfaillible test against any and all truth and the understanding which flows from God) we see that she was a fallible teacher of a fallible Scripture"

Your faulty analogy is with Einstein Einstein could use an empirical science, mathematics, to demonstrate the validity of his theory. Visions are by definition subjective, and up to the individual to report them without embellishment. By their nature, visions are an inaccurate proof of anything,

Also, the reliance on her visions also neglects the wisdom of the ages in that many godly scholars with direct association with the words of the Apostles is largely discounted as being inaccurately called "Roman Catholic" or dismissed altogether, like Augustine. That is the outcome of the faulty analogy.

Now as to the implication of your first premise, since there is a fallible EGW, coupled with a severely limited degree of infallibility of Scripture, it is not illogical to say that there may be some SDAs who say that both Scripture and EGW's words are equal, despite official denials.

Let me prove that. Have you EVER heard a SDA saying that EGW was wrong on this or that? I never saw a SDA say that on a blog. The position is that "If you are not for words of EGW, then you are against her and other SDAs"

In light of your admission that you say she is fallible, how is it inconceivable that SDAs as a whole, are at a loss to say she is wrong on this, or that?

Though you deny the accusation, the effect is the same...might as well have called me a 'honourable man' ....

ANTONY
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

RND · Dec 14, 2007

reddogs said:
Some ask Adventist believers "Do you regard the interpretations of the Bible by Ellen G. White to be infallible, that is, to be the infallible rule of interpreting Scripture?"

A question no doubt equal to:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

"Have you stopped kicking the dog?"

"Have you stopped beating your children?"

"Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?"

No matter how one answers the question they are already wrong.

Cribstyl · Dec 14, 2007

Avonia said:
I'm with you so far, but how will we know if another prophecy is conditional to a change of our hearts?

God's power and forknowlege of what we need is seen in His word.
His word is prophetic, it saves, it heals, it set's men free from sin. His word has already went forth.
That's why, established in the church is apostles first and secondarily prophets.

1Cr 15:1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Cr 15:2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Cr 15:3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Cr 15:4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Cr 15:5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Cr 15:6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Cr 15:7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Cr 15:8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

1Cr 15:9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1Cr 15:10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

1Cr 15:11Therefore whether [it were] I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was a completed work over 1800yrs.

The Apostles are eyewitnesses of Jesus and Paul and Peter was to establish the Gentiles into the church.

Paul letters are the doctrines of the church.

The word of God is sacred and can be tested line upon line.

CRIB

JohnT · Dec 15, 2007

Avonia said:
I'm with you so far, but how will we know if another prophecy is conditional to a change of our hearts?

Avonia

You describe a hypothetical condition contrary to fact.

If it is a prophecy of God it will come to pass
God is not a man,,,that he should change his mind
Therefore a prophet can not prophecy A today, and NOT A tomorrow, claiming that both are prophecies of God.

That is in regard to prophecy, it does not include the pleadings of a servant, like Abraham did for his nephew Lot. That is an entirely different circumstance, for God did not use a prophet. Instead, he talked to him face to face.

JohnT · Dec 15, 2007

reddogs said:
Though you deny the accusation, the effect is the same...might as well have called me a 'honourable man' ....

ANTONY
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Let me make this very clear:

I attack the words of people, but I do not attack the people who write the words.

There is a HUGE difference in the two, and the fact that your quoted Antony's speech in Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2 indicates that you may believe my words to be as duplicitous as Antony's in praising Brutus. I sincerely hope this is not the case, because such an erroneous insinuation may be a reportable violation.

I CLEARLY said "Your POST is double talk" and then I went on to clearly explain the reason why but it surely is difficult to discuss that when the official position of the group differs from the common understanding of a term

It was an analysis of frustration due to "slipperiness". When dealing with some adventists, I try to quote the official positions, and then I am rebuffed by "But I personally do not believe that". Dealing with that is like taking a coin toss bet when the tosser says, "Heads I win, tails you lose"

Slipperiness comes because there is a disconnect between the writer, and the official position, or even the denotative meaning of a term and it is a no-win situation for those who wish to rationally discuss an issue.

Please take my words as I wrote them, and not as you wrongly infer because that inference is directly oppositional to the carefully chosen words and their intention.

reddogs · Dec 15, 2007

JohnT said:
Let me make this very clear:

I attack the words of people, but I do not attack the people who write the words.

There is a HUGE difference in the two, and the fact that your quoted Antony's speech in Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2 indicates that you may believe my words to be as duplicitous as Antony's in praising Brutus. I sincerely hope this is not the case, because such an erroneous insinuation may be a reportable violation.

I CLEARLY said "Your POST is double talk" and then I went on to clearly explain the reason why but it surely is difficult to discuss that when the official position of the group differs from the common understanding of a term

It was an analysis of frustration due to "slipperiness". When dealing with some adventists, I try to quote the official positions, and then I am rebuffed by "But I personally do not believe that". Dealing with that is like taking a coin toss bet when the tosser says, "Heads I win, tails you lose"

Slipperiness comes because there is a disconnect between the writer, and the official position, or even the denotative meaning of a term and it is a no-win situation for those who wish to rationally discuss an issue.

Please take my words as I wrote them, and not as you wrongly infer because that inference is directly oppositional to the carefully chosen words and their intention.

The effect is the same, old and well worm CARM tactics...

JohnT · Dec 16, 2007

reddogs said:
The effect is the same, old and well worm CARM tactics...

I'll bet that if " SDA" would be in place of CARM in your quote, that it would be justifiably reportable, right? But you can do that to me, and it is NOT a personal attack? Do the OTHER mods agree with this, for it does seem on the surface to be a double standard.

Let me see if I am correct in this analysis: Despite my plainly stating TWO TIMES that there was no personal affront intended, and that I merely addressed the topic of your post, you nevertheless choose to assume personal affront.

Truly, that makes no sense to me, and I am hoping that you can help me understand your rationale.

I also request that you address my concern posted in my reply.

There is a HUGE difference in the two, and the fact that your quoted Antony's speech in Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2 indicates that you may believe my words to be as duplicitous as Antony's in praising Brutus. I sincerely hope this is not the case, because such an erroneous insinuation may be a reportable violation

Please be straightforward. Are you calling me a liar?

IntoTheCrimsonSky · Dec 16, 2007

Just wanted to say to be careful guys, lets not make this into a full out arguement.

If someone feels a post is a flame against them, don't bite back..simply report and let the mods judge.

Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed. This also applies to groups. In other words, play nice, don't hurt others, nor call them names.
If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.

Try discussing what the different views are, but don't point fingers at anyone because of it.

Just a friendly reminder. :wave:

djconklin · Dec 19, 2007

It was Moses to whom God first gave His laws.
Moses did not leave out sabbath in Eden. It's not there to speak of.
Moses explained the recieving of the sabbath..Ex 16

If God's laws were not known till Moses then there was not sin and God was not just to punish the pre-flood people for their sin. Nor, was he just to punish Sodom and Gommorrah. In actual fact, God told Cain that "sin lieth at the door" and Cain did not have to ask what He meant.

That the Sabbath was known before the Law was given can be seen in the fact that when the languages were confused at Babel in over 100 languages the name of the seventh day is "sabbath." Plus, when God gave them manna in chapter 16 He didn't have to explain what the sabbath was--just how to deal with the manna on the Sabbath. Moses does NOT explain the "receiving of the sabbath" at that time.

Cribstyl · Dec 19, 2007

djconklin said:
If God's laws were not known till Moses then there was not sin and God was not just to punish the pre-flood people for their sin.

Should we flush God's word and accept your reasoning, which we find in error?

Nor, was he just to punish Sodom and Gommorrah.

Now you're stacking dominoes, with no text

In actual fact, God told Cain that "sin lieth at the door" and Cain did not have to ask what He meant.

So, your reasoning trumps God's word?
Should we discard the texts that teach us that there was sin before the Law?
How come after we present these texts to answer your questions above, we hear no further comments?

I keep saying that doctrines are clear teaching. These text needs no commentary.

Rom12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

The bible says that sin was in the world before the law. The bible says that death reigned as the penalty for sin from Adam to Moses.

These are the texts that Christ apostle Paul teaches the doctrine about the original sin.

I dont think we should talk about anythingelse until you explain Rom5 and 6 teaching about sin

Respectfully
CRIB

Ellen White and 'Sola Scriptura'

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Just look through the telescope . . .

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Just look through the telescope . . .

Veteran

Regular Member

Just look through the telescope . . .

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Regular Member

~ ¤ Love. It's in you. ¤ ~

Moderate SDA

Veteran

Similar threads