Is Ellen White the final interpreter of scripture for SDA?

[payattention]

How do we decide, though, without just picking and choosing what we like?

We always pick and choose what we like, even when reading the beloved Bible. How many of us take Jesus seriously regarding what He told the rich young ruler? We claim to take to heart what He told other people, why not that? The rule is simple. Determine if the message is applicable to you. If you are pulling God's strings you will suffer the consequences. You cannot fool God. If you want to fool me on that, do it to your heart's content.

 

[Sophia7]

The problem begins with your view of the Bible and inspiration. Deep inside most Christians, including Adventists, believe that God plugged into the biblical writers and gave them the Bible. We know that is not what happened but that how we view it. Inspiration is the process by which men receive information that they are not taught by other humans. There is nothing special about it. It is happens to every one. Because we have an elevated view of the Bible and inspiration we now don't know how to handle EGW relative to the Bible. The proper view is that what really matters is the truth about the character of God regardless of the source from which we obtain it.

I do not believe, as you suggest, that God plugged the exact words of the Bible into its writers. I believe that inspiration often involved their putting what God had told them or shown them into their own words although there are some exact words from God recorded in the Bible as well.

Inspiration might happen to everyone, but not everyone is a prophet. And we should have an elevated view of the Bible and inspiration. Otherwise, how can the Bible be any more authoritative than any other religious book?

Here again we are reading through our own filters. There was a message in the dream does not mean that God decided to send her a dream. He could have but it does not necessarily follow.

The only problem with your statement is that Ellen White definitely took the dream as a direct message from God. As a result of her dream, she said, "I have no duty to stand in General Conference. The Lord forbids me. That is enough." Whether or not it actually was, she interpreted it that way.

 

[payattention]

Inspiration might happen to everyone, but not everyone is a prophet. And we should have an elevated view of the Bible and inspiration. Otherwise, how can the Bible be any more authoritative than any other religious book?

The reality is that we do treat the Bible the same way we treat any other book. In spite of our boasts I know of know one who consistently says, "this is what the Bible says so this is what I do." We interpret it to death and decide what applies and what does not apply. That is not deference. The only way in which we are somewhat true to our words is in teaching. We do not teach with the same authority from other religious books as we do from the Bible but that is about it.

The only problem with your statement is that Ellen White definitely took the dream as a direct message from God. As a result of her dream, she said, "I have no duty to stand in General Conference. The Lord forbids me. That is enough." Whether or not it actually was, she interpreted it that way.

I don't believe she was a prophet because Christ nullified the need for prophets. She was a messenger from God whose messages have to be tested as the messages from any other messenger.

 

[tall73]

A few points primarily addressed to payattention, but by no means limited to him.

a. Jesus clearly accepted certain books as Scripture in His day. So whatever we may think of the cannonization process of the NT, the OT seems rather settled as more than just any other book. If you want to say people don't go by it, that is the fault of the people, not a limitation on the book.

I would agree that the same Spirit gives the messages. It is just as inspired. But the community has accepted a body of texts which have been thoroughly tested, with the OT accepted by the Savior Himself. Those are a measure that we use safely to guage other revelation by. Others may be just inspired, but they are tested by what came before them. This is not unusual. The later books in the cannon were guaged by the earlier ones. And since we don't know how reliable EVERYONE is we test them by what we know to be reliable.

b. EGW herself pointed to the Bible as above her work, and indicated we would not need such a clear voice as herself if we would study the Bible. She also viewed the Bible cannon as closed, and did not expect to be on the same level apparently. If she herself didn't expect her writings to be on the same level, why should I?

c. Where do you find that God no longer needed prophets? The gifts of the spirit are for all ages.

AC 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Peter specifically mentioned prophecy in that same section as part of the gift. So where is your text that they are gone?

Paul said to eagerly desire the greater gifts, and prophecy he mentioned twice because it edified the church. Why would God not give it now?

d. You are holding some mightily contradicting views. You say all receive inspiration but EGW was not a prophet. If you feel that we are all getting inspiration then you are basically saying that we are ALL prophets. And moreover the scriptures make clear that all do NOT prophecy, all do not receive messages from wisdom, all do not have all the gifts. Why would Paul say prophecy is a greater gift that we should desire if all had it? Why would we all have it now if it was never mentioned?

1CO 12:4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

1CO 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines....

1CO 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.....

1CO 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

So, lets have it. You already said you don't accpet EGW as a prophet (right after saying she was on an equal level with the Bible, that all inspiration is the same), so are you saying that the Bible writers were not prophets either?

 

[payattention]

a. Jesus clearly accepted certain books as Scripture in His day. So whatever we may think of the cannonization process of the NT, the OT seems rather settled as more than just any other book. If you want to say people don't go by it, that is the fault of the people, not a limitation on the book.

Jesus made reference to the Scriptures used by the Jews to validate His office as the Messiah. This does not mean that He intended them to maintain the same position they had then. Nor does it mean that He accepted every think that were in those Scriptures. He certainly did not agree that the earth is fixed but He was the Word so it really did not matter what the OT scriptures said. God has written His law in our hearts and that is all that matters. There is nothing wrong with getting guidance from the Bible or any other religious book, but when we use the Bible to contradict what nature reveals of God we have stepped into a minefield.

I would agree that the same Spirit gives the messages. It is just as inspired. But the community has accepted a body of texts which have been thoroughly tested, with the OT accepted by the Savior Himself. Those are a measure that we use safely to guage other revelation by. Others may be just inspired, but they are tested by what came before them.

I use a different standard. I judge everything by what it says about the Creator. If what Paul says denigrates the Creator I put it down to Paul's humanity. If Ghandi or the Dalai Lama says something that is in line with the character of God then I accept it. I give my allegiance to only One.

c. Where do you find that God no longer needed prophets? The gifts of the spirit are for all ages.
<snip>
So, lets have it. You already said you don't accpet EGW as a prophet (right after saying she was on an equal level with the Bible, that all inspiration is the same), so are you saying that the Bible writers were not prophets either?

The gift of prophecy is still available to men and God may manifest it at different times in different people. But, the office of prophet was nullified when Jesus arrived. The people were to follow the prophet without question because of where they were in relation to the Creator, like some who is being led out of a forest by a guide. When Christ arrived there was no longer a need for someone of that authority, just as the guide is no longer needed when the individual is back on the familiar road. But God uses many different people as messengers. He may use you and He may use me. But we are to test every message because sometimes the enemy spams.

 

[tall73]

If God uses all, then should we not listen when God uses someone? Unless you want to ignore the word that God sends them, basically ignoring God.

If saying that there is no longer an office of prophet is your way of getting around what God says by the gift of prophecy you basically are saying you don't care what God says.

Then of course you contradict yourself by saying you listen to anyone, including Ghandi etc.

Do you not realize that you have just set YOURSELF up as the final arbiter of who is speaking for the Creator and who is not?

Now, let's clarify. Do you accept SOME things that EGW says as inspired then?

 

[payattention]

If saying that there is no longer an office of prophet is your way of getting around what God says by the gift of prophecy you basically are saying you don't care what God says.

Not only is this a misrepresentation of what I believe, the conclusion does not logically follow. I won't spend time debunking it.

<snip>

Do you not realize that you have just set YOURSELF up as the final arbiter of who is speaking for the Creator and who is not?

<snip>

This is obviously now clarified by the fact that if YOU AGREE with something it is God speaking.

But, despite your consistency, I don't agree with you at all.

Everyone sets himself as the final arbiter of who is speaking for the Creator because that is how He wants it. That is why he asked each individual to test every spirit. He did not ask you to ask someone else to test the Spirit for you. You live according to what you believe God is saying. You won't be able to say at the end "This is what Matthew said, even though I did not agree with him." God judges each according to what he believes not according to what someone else believes. I expect each man to be the final arbiter of what he believes God is saying. Each man knows if he is faking or not. For this reason I do not spend my time convincing men as to what they should think but in teaching them how to think. God wants us to depend on our minds not on our memories.

 

[tall73]

a. it is not illogical. And it follows because you seem to assert that you won't spend time worrying about what EGW said because you don't think she had the OFFICE of a prophet. So let's clarify. Do you believe everything that say...Isaiah said? He had the OFFICE of a prophet? No, I am sure you do not believe everything he said. My point is that your distinction is a false one. You do not believe everything that ANYONE said.

b. Now that is fine in itself. I agree that there are times when humanity is expressed in the Bible. And it may very well be that when the exilic author said that he wanted God to bash babies heads in, or when Paul wanted the false teachers to immasculate themselves, that it was clearly NOT God speaking. I can deal with that. The problem is when you make false distinctions to avoid dealing with a PARTICULAR person who spoke for God. If what you meant was that you reject the human elements in her message, ok fine. I think she would actually agree with you, though some here might not. But if you use artificial semantics to avoid her completely, and at the same time endorse Ghandi, then you are being wildly inconsistent.

 

[payattention]

Hold on. Where did you get the idea that I discount EGW? You may have mixed me up with someone else. I follow the essential teaching of [BIBLE]Hebrews 1:1-2[/BIBLE]

 

[tall73]

Hold on. Where did you get the idea that I discount EGW? You may have mixed me up with someone else. I follow the essential teaching of Hebrews 1:1-21 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

That is a wonderful text that says absolutely nothing about the question at hand. Unless you are saying that after speaking through Jesus he stopped speaking through others. In which case you agree with my contention. And you disagree with Peter who says that He was speaking through them at Pentecost, and with Paul who talks about prophesying, desiring prophecy etc.

If I asked you
"do you believe that the sky is blue, it seems you don't"

and you said
" I am incensed that you said I don't believe the sky is blue, I believe that trees are brown with little green leafs"

How would that answer the charge? The question was not whether you accept that God spoke through prophets and through Jesus particularly, but whether you accept Ellen White to have been inspired, or to have the gift of prophecy.

I also asked a few other questions, such as, if you believe that the office of a prophet was different, and they had to accept everything they said, then do you accept everything Isaiah said.

But you chose to answer NONE of those questions. So if from your previous statements it is in question what you believe, and you seem to deny EGW the status of prophet, why would you be incensed if I made a conclusion or asked for clarification?

I thought we were SUPPOSED to dialogue here. I thought all questions were fair game? So if you object so much to my trying to make sense of your views then say your views.

You said you don't accept her to be a prophet. So I ASKED do you take anything she says to be inspired. So, do you?

 

[payattention]

I don't know how much clearer I can be. The gift of prophecy is only one part of the gift of the Spirit. Whether it is used to foretell or forthtell is God's decision. I yield to God's direction regardless of the instrument he chooses, but it is my responsibility to determine the validity of any message. 5T is one of my favorite books in the nine Testimonies series, and it encouraged me always be open to fresh insights from God. I don't understand why we claim to accept her ministry yet object when her directions are followed.

As far as inspiration is concerned, you asked the wrong question. God inspires people, so the anwer to your question would be No. Inspiration is the mechanism by which communicates with humans. There is no other way. The popular teaching on inspiration as a kind of certification process is not supported by Scripture. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" does not mean "ONLY Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The purpose was to establish that they were not human ideas.

 

[tall73]

God inspires the writer to do what?

perhaps write?

I am not saying her very words were inspired. I am asking if you think any of the THOUGHTS were inspired.

You seem to say yes, and that you must validate it. Fair enough, that was not hard was it? I only asked because I think you COULD be much clearer than you had been.

 

[payattention]

God inspires the writer to do what?

perhaps write?

I am not saying her very words were inspired. I am asking if you think any of the THOUGHTS were inspired.

You seem to say yes, and that you must validate it. Fair enough, that was not hard was it? I only asked because I think you COULD be much clearer than you had been.

It is not that simple. When the writer chooses to write and some are offended the writer may be banished to Australia or have his integrity challenged and be accused of fraudulently adopting an icon to which he is not entitled.

 

[tall73]

It is not that simple. When the writer chooses to write and some are offended the writer may be banished to Australia or have his integrity challenged and be accused of fraudulently adopting an icon to which he is not entitled.

See my reply on the other conversation. I would rather you express your views openly, and if were up to me I would let anyone into this forum to ask any questions they wanted if they were following forum rules. But I too intend to continue asking questions if I am not seeing eye to eye, and I think that is legitimate.

Moreover, I feel like I am having to pull teeth to get it out of you, but surprisingly your view might not be terribly much different than mine on how to examine Ellen White's writings. I do think that with any of the authors, as EGW said herself, it is not God's mode of thought that is in the Bible, or even in EGW 's writings. . Now that is not to mean if you read the context that she was not saying it was not God-inspired, but that the human ways of expressing it always impact the text and thoughts themselves.

In that we agree. And it may be that at times we can discern clear human elements.

I am not always sure I agree on the nature refuting part, as natural discoveries change too. But there might be instances.

But when it takes several pages just to see what you do or don't accept, why you do it etc. it is frustrating. I realize some might fear an inquisition, but from who? The only reason I can think you would be really worried is if you are a denominational employee and fear someone might report you! (for agreeing with what EGW said?)

 

[Peguero]

I have to admit i love EGW writtings. I'm reading the The Great Controversy for the first time and it is amazing.

 

[tall73]

Great to hear Peguero. And glad you are with us!

 

[reddogs]

I find it interesting that Ellen White was shown at critical junctures in the churchs early days what course should be taken. If not for her guidance, there may have been some crucial mistakes or fanaticism such as the 'Holy Flesh' movement, that would have led to spiritual confusion if not outright religious schisms as we see in some of the churches today.....

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/discern/holyspirit.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/discern/flesh.htm

 

[NightEternal]

_________

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If God does not give different degrees of inspiration, why would the writings of Ellen White not be placed on the same level as the Bible? By the way, I don't think that they should; if anything that Ellen White says contradicts the Bible, I would have to believe the Bible.

I believe that Ellen White was inspired and a prophet, but there are a few things that she wrote that seem to go against the Bible. I came across one in particular a couple of weeks ago that I have a hard time with. It is from the book The Retirement Years, chapter 13, "The Hour of Bereavement," pp. 161-163. I believe this portion was originally from a letter (Letter 17, 1881) written to her son after the death of James. I am quoting this not to undermine anyone's belief that EGW was a prophet but because former Adventists and anti-Adventists often use this as a reason to get rid of Ellen White, and I really want to know how to reconcile this with the Bible.



My question on this is why would God give Ellen White a dream in which she talks to her dead husband and gets advice from him? If I had such a dream, I would not believe that it was God talking to me through the dream since the Bible says that we are not supposed to talk to the dead. This was not just a normal dream because God obviously was giving her a message through it.

My other question about Ellen White is that, realizing that she is human and fallible, how do we know which things she wrote are inspired and which things are her opinion and which things were informed by the time period in which she lived more than they were inspired by God? When she wrote letters to people, were they always inspired? Certainly, not everything she wrote was, was it? Some people believe that we should accept only the Conflict of the Ages series and her visions as inspired, but I don't believe that. How do we decide, though, without just picking and choosing what we like?

since this was over a year and a half ago. i was wondering if you still believe this? sophia7 current posting would indicate that you have changed your mind on the subject could you clarify please.

 

[OntheDL]

Is Ellen White the final interpreter of Scripture for SDA?

Of course she is. This is even under question? There is not one doctrine the church holds that has not passed the 'Ellen' test. If she does not endorse it, the church never has nor ever will accept it. Anyone who thinks Adventism is a progressive denomination where people are free to study for themselves and come to thier own conclusions is either lying or in complete denial.

Just ask Samuele Bacchiocchi if any Adventist is free to come to different conclusions than what Ellen endorsed.

She is the final word on any theological matter in the church, period. And when a fallible human is given that sort of authoritative theological license you know you are on the fringes of cult mentality.

Not even Graeme Bradford's groundbreaking, excellent book More Than A Prophet will move the fanatical, fundamentalist EGW worshippers one inch. He is already a marked man by the right-wing and just as hated and maligned as Ford.

Just goes to show how utterly futile a task it is to bring some reason, sanity and balance to this church.

The Spirit of Prophecy is not Ellen White but Jesus Christ Himself. They are special testimonies of Jesus for His endtime people. They don't supercede the bible. They only magnify it.

You are entitled to your opinion. But then no one forces you to remain in the SDA church if you are so bitter about what it teaches.