Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Statement

[tall73]

The following is part of a statement regarding Ellen White's writings, which was voted by the General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventists Church in San Antonio, Texas, July 2-11, 2015.

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - 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.


Could the Seventh-day Adventists here explain how Ellen White's writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture?

 

[spiritfilledjm]

I'm getting deja vu here...

 

[tall73]

I'm getting deja vu here...

This statement was not presented in the earlier thread.

But there are some related issues!

 

[spiritfilledjm]

This statement was not presented in the earlier thread.

But there are some related issues!

I think you did end up posting this bit later on but yeah, this paragraph is worth discussing by itself.

 

[tall73]

I think you did end up posting this bit later on but yeah, this paragraph is worth discussing by itself.

I thought you meant the one where we examined the fundamental belief.

Yes, this was posted in another currently active thread but LGW indicated this was off-topic to that thread. I do not agree it is off-topic to that other thread, but started a discussion here so that we can focus on the statement.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

My issue is with "divinely inspired." There is nothing divinely inspired outside of Scripture.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Tall wrote:

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.

The end of the sentence says derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture. It does not mention scripture. You are twisting this statement to say something it doesn't.

My issue is with "divinely inspired." There is nothing divinely inspired outside of Scripture.

Agree- which is why Ellen has made it clear that everything must be tested by scripture.

@Freth already made the point it is part of the SDA fundamental beliefs
If this were true, number 18 of the SDA fundamental beliefs would not profess Ellen's position specifically, which states that "They [her writings] also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

 

[tall73]

Did you not read the end of the sentence derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture. It does not mention scripture.

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.

of "it" refers back to the antecedents "Bible" and "Scripture".

Please explain how the writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture in the Adventist church.

 

[tall73]

My issue is with "divinely inspired." There is nothing divinely inspired outside of Scripture.

There were prophets mentioned in Scripture, such as Philip's daughters. They would be inspired by God.

But this is about how Ellen White's writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture

 

[tall73]

Agree- which is why Ellen has made it clear that everything must be tested by scripture.

Are you sure you agree with his statement?

My issue is with "divinely inspired." There is nothing divinely inspired outside of Scripture.

@Freth already made the point it is part of the SDA fundamental beliefs
If this were true, number 18 of the SDA fundamental beliefs would not profess Ellen's position specifically, which states that "They [her writings] also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

Yes, and the General Conference Session made both statements.

Please explain how Ellen White's writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

 

[Hammster]

Agree- which is why Ellen has made it clear that everything must be tested by scripture.

How do you test one divinely inspired writing against another?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

How do you test one divinely inspired writing against another?

The bible is the authority. One way scripture tells us how to test if it is coming from God or the "other spirit"
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Is someone or an institution is claiming the holy spirit has deleted the law of God this clearly tells us there is no light in them. That is not the case with EGW. She tells us the bible is the ultimate authority she magnifies our Savior and does not put the light on her. Most people who disagree with scripture try to blame it on EGW, but she never wrote the Law of God, God did.

 

[tall73]

The bible is the authority.

Can you explain how Ellen White applied that rule here?

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Please keep it on topic. ​

 

[tall73]

That is not the case with EGW. She tells us the bible is the ultimate authority she magnifies our Savior and does not put the light on her.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit.{4T 147.4}

 

[Hammster]

The bible is the authority. One way scripture tells us how to test if it is coming from God or the "other spirit"
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Is someone or an institution is claiming the holy spirit has deleted the law of God this clearly tells us there is no light in them. That is not the case with EGW. She tells us the bible is the ultimate authority she magnifies our Savior and does not put the light on her. Most people who disagree with scripture try to blame it on EGW, but she never wrote the Law of God, God did.

If the Bible is the authority, then why do we need to test other divine writings against it? I can see testing non-divine writings against scripture. But I don't test Paul or Jude against other scripture.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Can you explain how Ellen White applied that rule here?

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

I probably shouldn't post in this thread and it will be my last post.

It's no different than what we see on these threads everyday. People gather mass scripture like Colossians 2:14-17 which is taken way out of context to make an argument against a commandment of God. Anyone can take a selective scripture and try to make their argument. Just like anyone can take a small section from a book and use it out of context to try to make a point. Doesn't make it true.

The good news is Jesus can see right though all of this and everything will get sorted out with His soon return.

 

[tall73]

I probably shouldn't post in this thread and it will be my last post.

It's no different than what we see on these threads everyday. People gather mass scripture like Colossians 2:14-17 which is taken way out of context to make an argument against a commandment of God. Anyone can take a selective scripture and try to make their argument. Just like anyone can take a small section from a book and use it out of context to try to make a point. Doesn't make it true.

The good news is Jesus can see right though all of this and everything will get sorted out with His soon return.

It is up to you whether you wish to post. However, did you notice the basis for insisting on this interpretation?

And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

Compare:

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.

 

[BobRyan]

The following is part of a statement regarding Ellen White's writings, which was voted by the General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventists Church in San Antonio, Texas, July 2-11, 2015.

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - 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.


Could the Seventh-day Adventists here explain how Ellen White's writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture?

deja vu topic?

That was the 2015 voted statement. Apparently Seventh-day Adventists claim that Ellen White had the real 1 Cor 12 "gift of prophecy" as did the saints in Corinth according to Paul in 1 Cor 14...

My guess is that if Ellen White had an opinion on something she kept it to herself (as she said many times) but when God told her something she "relayed the message".

Even so it does not change the test of a prophet for each individual. Individuals must give an account for themselves - not for someone else. And that test includes comparing what the person says God is teaching with the actual Bible to see if any contradictions are found in what the person claims God has said.

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

I love discussing that point.

But I don't enjoy "all Ellen White all the time" focus when there are plenty of Bible doctrines to cover. So my participation on this thread may be limited.

======== so let's cut to the chase here --

My posts show that the voted Fundamental Belief statement #1 (which you are avoiding at all costs) - about establishing all doctrine - by the Bible, are what we do in practice and if you ever gave even one Bible study as an SDA pastor to someone wanting to join the church - you probably did that as well "sola scriptura". But it is difficult to be certain of that given your strong inclination to go "all Ellen White all the time" in each of your posts recently.

Why not mention GC president Wilson asking Ford to accept correction on the sanctuary by considering Ellen White an authority? Notice how he wants Ford to accept her as a doctrinal authority. And he wants Ford to see her as an inspired commenter on Scripture.

.

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

Belief #1 - of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

That is in PERFECT agreement with the decision to ACCEPT rather than reject the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy. ... as it turns out.

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

Almost all denominations confront doctrinal error in their group by having scholars review the Bible evidence and come to some conclusion. Any scholar among Southern Baptists wanting to make a case against sola scriptura testing of doctrine, or a Bible argument against the Trinity - would find that the scholars in that denomination - "do not agree with him" no matter how much he insists his own spin on how the Bible teaches that doctrine is the right spin.

In the case of the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment, SDA Bible scholars did weigh in and present the sola scriptura case for that doctrine. But Ford had his own unique spin to claim as "the better suggestion".

The denomination has voted on this doctrine and affirmed the Bible teaching on that point.

In all denominations that is pretty much "the end of it". Which I think is a problem for your suggestion at this point.

But in our case we ALSO have inspiration in these last days affirming this Dan 7 doctrine.

 

[tall73]

That was the 2015 voted statement. Apparently Seventh-day Adventists claim that Ellen White had the real 1 Cor 12 "gift of prophecy" as did the saints in Corinth according to Paul in 1 Cor 14...

Agreed!

So can you explain how Ellen White's writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture?

------------------------
Edit November 1--since Bob went back to edit the post this responds to after the fact, I have added additional response:,

Belief #1 - of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

That is in PERFECT agreement with the decision to ACCEPT rather than reject the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy. ... as it turns out.

The statement that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture in the OP, show that in fact they do not test everything by Scripture.

Because anyone bringing Scripture is seen as uninspired, while she is seen as inspired. Therefore, her view of Scripture becomes the test.

We see this in her own statement here when people within the movement attempted to apply a Scripture test to the sanctuary doctrine. Ellen White did not in fact want the leadership to test by Scripture. She told them not to entertain such arguments.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

@Danthemailman

Because you rated this post when it was much shorter, before Bob decided to go back and edit the post I was responding to, I am notifying you if you want to review your rating to see if it still applies.