One Discrepancy Can Discard the Rest?

[AndrewK788]

Okay, I've been wondering what everyone's opinion on this. I hear a lot of people criticize Ellen G. White's writings as having some inconsistencies possibly with the Bible, and naturally this is the excuse some use to entirely disregard everything with her name on it. But my question, is this justified or is it ignorance? Just because a person lacks truth in a certain area means we are to discard everything else that they have said?

Martin Luther took great strides forward with the message of saved by grace and not works, yet he was a drunkard, health was unimportant, and naturally he never even mentioned the Sabbath issue. But did that mean the truth he did have was to be ignored?

Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?

 

[tall73]

That all depends on your view of inspiration.

I am not convinced of direct verbal inspiration. I don't think a mistake on an historical item or something is that big of a deal.

But major theological themes should be sound.

That was my issue with EGW in regards to the Sanctuary. Obviously some will not agree.

 

[AndrewK788]

That all depends on your view of inspiration.

I am not convinced of direct verbal inspiration. I don't think a mistake on an historical item or something is that big of a deal.

But major theological themes should be sound.

That was my issue with EGW in regards to the Sanctuary. Obviously some will not agree.

And you have every right to your own opinion. EGW was only human, as are we.

What aspect of the Sanctuary do you disagree with her on, if I may ask. I'll be honest, I haven't read enough of that area yet to have an informed opinion of my own.

 

[tall73]

And you have every right to your own opinion. EGW was only human, as are we.

What aspect of the Sanctuary do you disagree with her on, if I may ask. I'll be honest, I haven't read enough of that area yet to have an informed opinion of my own.

I don't care to side-track this thread. There are posts out there by me on the subject in the debate section if you want to look.

 

[Cribstyl]

Okay, I've been wondering what everyone's opinion on this. I hear a lot of people criticize Ellen G. White's writings as having some inconsistencies possibly with the Bible, and naturally this is the excuse some use to entirely disregard everything with her name on it. But my question, is this justified or is it ignorance? Just because a person lacks truth in a certain area means we are to discard everything else that they have said?

Martin Luther took great strides forward with the message of saved by grace and not works, yet he was a drunkard, health was unimportant, and naturally he never even mentioned the Sabbath issue. But did that mean the truth he did have was to be ignored?

Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?

Martin Luther's writting is not reference by Christians as a prophetic uterances from God.

You've given him credit for part of his work.

God, through the pen of Moses covered from the beginning of time to when Joshua took over.

Ellen's account of creation says more than Moses. It tell us that satan pick the fruit and gave it to Eve and she ate it, rather than the bible account.

Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

What should we believe....the bible or EGWhite?
I'm not bashing anybody.....I'm trying to establish God's word as the truth.

In Peace
CRIB


CRIB

 

[AndrewK788]

Martin Luther's writting is not reference by Christians as a prophetic uterances from God.

You've given him credit for part of his work.

God, through the pen of Moses covered from the beginning of time to when Joshua took over.

Ellen's account of creation says more than Moses. It tell us that satan pick the fruit and gave it to Eve and she ate it, rather than the bible account.

Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

What should we believe....the bible or EGWhite?
I'm not bashing anybody.....I'm trying to establish God's word as the truth.

In Peace
CRIB


CRIB

Naturally, we should take the Bible above all. But the point of my question is: with inconsistencies like the one you've mentioned, is it fair to disregard ALL of EGW's writings now because SOME of it disagreed with the Bible?

 

[Cribstyl]

Naturally, we should take the Bible above all. But the point of my question is: with inconsistencies like the one you've mentioned, is it fair to disregard ALL of EGW's writings now because SOME of it disagreed with the Bible?

No...the world donot disregard the contributions of it people.

Even Dr. Suess get's credit for helping my children to love reading, but his material does not take over everything we believe that God says.

Before I studied Adventism... I drank from the well of "steps to Christ" and other writting of EGW.
Like many great people of the past, their contributions will live on.

There is a problem when christians quote other than the bible in church regularly.

Mostly everything Adventist believe stems from her writings.
Sabbaths worship is primarily from her visions even though the poineer before her were sunday keepers.

CRIB

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Naturally, we should take the Bible above all. But the point of my question is: with inconsistencies like the one you've mentioned, is it fair to disregard ALL of EGW's writings now because SOME of it disagreed with the Bible?

Let us ask you a question. If some of her work disagrees with the Bible then should we ever grant her the position of an authority on truth? (not to mention her errors on history, science etc.)

 

[AndrewK788]

Let us ask you a question. If some of her work disagrees with the Bible then should we ever grant her the position of an authority on truth? (not to mention her errors on history, science etc.)

Um...that's basically what I've been getting at. I wasn;t defending her if that's what you though.

 

[Eila]

The prophetic issue aside (which can complicate the situation) when I look at what some Christian teachers teach I tend to take the good and leave the bad. However, if a Christian teacher gets an important issue wrong it is difficult for me personally to respect anything else he teaches.

 

[ricker]

Martin Luther took great strides forward with the message of saved by grace and not works, yet he was a drunkard, health was unimportant, and naturally he never even mentioned the Sabbath issue. But did that mean the truth he did have was to be ignored?

As a Lutheran I will say that Martin Luther is admired by us, but not considered infallable or a prophet or anything like that. He didn't say he had countless visions directly from God, etc.

Mr. Luther did drink beer, as most Germans did, but calling him a drunkard is maybe a little harsh.

He did mention the Sabbath issue. This is just one thing he wrote:

This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is altogether an external matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to particular customs, persons, times, and places, and now have been made free through Christ.

God bless! Ricker

 

[Sophia7]

Let us ask you a question. If some of her work disagrees with the Bible then should we ever grant her the position of an authority on truth? (not to mention her errors on history, science etc.)

The prophetic issue aside (which can complicate the situation) when I look at what some Christian teachers teach I tend to take the good and leave the bad. However, if a Christian teacher gets an important issue wrong it is difficult for me personally to respect anything else he teaches.

I agree. EGW wrote some good, Christ-centered, uplifting things, but I also believe that she contradicted the Bible and history (which I do think is important) in many areas and was internally inconsistent as well. I think it's fine to take the good and leave the bad, but I could never again see her as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth."

 

[reddogs]

Okay, I've been wondering what everyone's opinion on this. I hear a lot of people criticize Ellen G. White's writings as having some inconsistencies possibly with the Bible, and naturally this is the excuse some use to entirely disregard everything with her name on it. But my question, is this justified or is it ignorance? Just because a person lacks truth in a certain area means we are to discard everything else that they have said?

Martin Luther took great strides forward with the message of saved by grace and not works, yet he was a drunkard, health was unimportant, and naturally he never even mentioned the Sabbath issue. But did that mean the truth he did have was to be ignored?

Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?

Satan tries to use every tactic and argument to wipe out anyone God uses and Prophets are especially dangerous to evil as they carry special messages or prophecy from the divine...

1. Matthew 5:12
   Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
   Matthew 5:11-13 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
2. Matthew 23:34
   Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
   Matthew 23:33-35 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter)
3. Luke 11:49
   Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
   Luke 11:48-50 (in Context) Luke 11 (Whole Chapter)
4. Acts 7:52
   Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
   Acts 7:51-53 (in Context) Acts 7 (Whole Chapter)
5. 1 Thessalonians 2:15
   Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
   1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 2 (Whole Chapter)

 

[OntheDL]

And you have every right to your own opinion. EGW was only human, as are we.

What aspect of the Sanctuary do you disagree with her on, if I may ask. I'll be honest, I haven't read enough of that area yet to have an informed opinion of my own.

Tall's arguments on the IJ has been well documented here. I and others (Jon and Jim) have tried to present the issues with Tall.

But I think now we agree to disagree.

Here is one thread I dig up. There are a few others. But this is a long read as it is. http://christianforums.com/t2564293

 

[OntheDL]

Okay, I've been wondering what everyone's opinion on this. I hear a lot of people criticize Ellen G. White's writings as having some inconsistencies possibly with the Bible, and naturally this is the excuse some use to entirely disregard everything with her name on it. But my question, is this justified or is it ignorance? Just because a person lacks truth in a certain area means we are to discard everything else that they have said?

Martin Luther took great strides forward with the message of saved by grace and not works, yet he was a drunkard, health was unimportant, and naturally he never even mentioned the Sabbath issue. But did that mean the truth he did have was to be ignored?

Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?

When we look at a writing of any length, it's very easy to nitpick to find faults to misinterpretate.

Use the Bible for example, the unbelievers use the 'discrepencies, (ie: the difference in Jesus' genealogy accounts)' in the bible to discredit the whole book.

 

[tall73]

http://christianforums.com/t6402262-the-ij-and-the-presentation-of-blood.html

http://christianforums.com/t6486465-was-the-type-books-or-was-the-type-blood.html


Actually while DL dropped out the Sanctuary discussions have continued. Those are the most recent discussions on the Sanctuary issue with Jon , Jim, etc.

In previous ones I was just beginning my study into the issues and was still pastoring so could not be as direct.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Um...that's basically what I've been getting at. I wasn;t defending her if that's what you though.

So if we cannot grant her prophetic authority at least in the way most people think of old testament prophetic authority, we are left with someone who said some good things and some bad things and we have to decide what to accept and what to reject just as we do with any teacher or pastor etc.

Certainly we don't disregard anyone because they are wrong on something otherwise we would be left with nothing because we disregard everybody.

Now it becomes more problematic because EGW says you can't pick and choose what is from God and what is Sister Whites opinion. But since we have already determined that she does not have that authority and that she does say good things and bad things we can also ignore statements which are grandiose.

So it is not those who have come to this conclusion that are the problem because they can accept or reject as they see fit, it is those who declare you must ignore the problems and hold to EGW as an authoritative source of truth that are creating the problems. In the large scheme of Christianity does it really matter if one holds to EGW in a pastoral way or pays no attention to her at all. Hardly how can a writer from the 19th century be that important to the nearly 2,000 year old history of Christianity?

 

[ricker]

Now it becomes more problematic because EGW says you can't pick and choose what is from God and what is Sister Whites opinion. But since we have already determined that she does not have that authority and that she does say good things and bad things we can also ignore statements which are grandiose.

I like this statement! I was thinking all or nothing when it comes to Mrs. White, but this makes sense.
God bless! Ricker

 

[JohnT]

Okay, I've been wondering what everyone's opinion on this. I hear a lot of people criticize Ellen G. White's writings as having some inconsistencies possibly with the Bible, and naturally this is the excuse some use to entirely disregard everything with her name on it. But my question, is this justified or is it ignorance? Just because a person lacks truth in a certain area means we are to discard everything else that they have said?

Martin Luther took great strides forward with the message of saved by grace and not works, yet he was a drunkard, health was unimportant, and naturally he never even mentioned the Sabbath issue. But did that mean the truth he did have was to be ignored?

Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?

I just came over from CARM, where I have a very good reputation. I say that not to brag, but to let you know that while I am a newbie here, I do know what I am talking about, for I have studied the SDAs from afar. BTW I an more apologetic in nature, so I will tone down things and be a good boy here

AK,

Your lament at the the way Ellen is treated is a common reaction, but those of us who push that issue due to the way the SDAs in general, and the official statements (Fund Bel 18) in particular say about her. It is almost like a veneration of Mary. Here's why.

Mary is considered sinless. I have seen no SDA on CARM or ChristiaNet criticize some of the wild things she wrote. ( (I choose not to list them or hijack the thread, but can we not all agree that there are things in her writings that cause controversy, and that do not conform to reality?) Why is that? I believe that it is because she is venerated as a SDA prophetess.

Then we take the qualifications for prophet in the OT, and then apply them to Ellen, saying "if you guys say she is a prophet, then here are the rules for prophets" However, the SDA apologists say to us. "You can't do that!!" but provide no consistent hermeneutic principle for making the exception. To us, it sounds as if you say, "Just listen to us on this one, OK? We are right, and Ellen is also."

Therefore to point out discrepancies is not ignorance, it is being a Berean, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and using more than the KJV or Clear Word.

And because FB 18 calls her writings "authoritative" and a "continuing source of revelation" it is a clear reference to 2 Timothy 3:16, we take the position that the official position of the SDA church is to make her writings equal to Scripture. Can you NOT see how irksome that position is to formers and nons?

Martin Luther also wrote some gross stuff, but calling him a drunkard and "not concerned with health or not a Sabbath observer" is over the top, and immaterial to the issue. Many of us, including me, see this as condescension to others because we do not follow the rules of EGW. Nor as another poster pointed out do Lutherans venerate him or his writings. They take the good stuff, laugh at the gross stuff, and ignore the irrelevant stuff. That does not seem to be the case with EGW and the SDAs. They seem to promote an all-or-nothing approach.

Your last paragraph is commendable.

Do we truly analyze every piece of information against the Bible, or do we take one fault and use that as motive to discard the rest? And if so, is it wrong to do so?

It asks the essential question, but unfortunately, it also lacks direction. Rarely have I seen a SDA affirm an inerrant autographa. That is crucial, for if you claim nothing is inerrant (again the OFFICIAL SDA statement on Scriptures limits infallibility to only "the revealed will of God, whatever that may mean) then you have no base on which to stand. And if you insist on using only KJV (it is not a perfect translation, sorry to say) or CW, then you are endorsing the teachings of Ellen as as authoritative as the Bible. Thus we see a faulty and circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not inherently evil if it has a firm premise on which to begin.

Therefore, because you guys do not play with the rules of Scripture consistently, especially as it pertains to EGW, we see you as hitting foul balls, and then trying to run the bases. The field of play is obvious, and there are definite rules.

Please do not balk.

 

[StormyOne]

JohnT, I like the way you think.... thank you for showing up...