Was EGW inspired the same as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

[djconklin]

usually they are affiliated with Shepherd's Rod, SDA Reform or Remnant Of The Remnant.

Ah, the cultic off-shoots. I don't count them. Only amongst SDA's.

You HAVEN'T encountered any of these people in all your years in the denomination? Wow.

I'm in Minnesota; we tell people how cold it gets here* and all the ding-bats stay south.

* We have a running contest between Tower and Embarrass to see who can get the coldest. Occasionally Hell City, MI freezes over and beats us.

I happen to have Dr. Douglass's email address and have asked him about what you have said.

Some of the others I could imagine--but, they are so out in left field that they aren't even worth dealing with.

 

[NightEternal]

I wish I knew why it doesn't seem to register for them.

Reddogs, why do you keep bringing attacks against SDA's in respose to my posts? That is not even the issue I am addressing. If you want to declare war against the formers, have at it, but I really don't want to get involved. The topic under discussion is EGW's authourity.

And I don't think referring to formers as 'Satan's minions' does anything but make the problem even more inflammitory than it already is.

Of course nothing justifies attacks against balanced Adventists and I never said that they were justified in doing so. But you have to understand that the formers do not distinguish between the extremists and the average, sensible, mainline Adventist. We are all elevating her to the same level as the Bible in thier eyes, and they usually use the line from the fundamentals regarding 'continuing source of authourity' as thier basis.

I wish that part had never been added to the fundamentals. It was the worst thing we could ever have done as a church and now we are paying for it. Of course, the fundamentalists would have a coronary attack if it was ever considered being taken out, so here we are stuck in the corner the admin has painted us into.

We can still hold to our own personal ideas on the issue of her authourity, but I still don't appreciate a group of administrators sitting around, virtually altering a fundamental in a way that many Evangelical and Progressive Adventists have decried ever since.

Of course, no one consults us lay people about anything. The admin just virtually decides for us what we will have to accept as a baptized church member wether we like it or not. And tough noogies for us if we think it is a violation of Sola Scriptura. If there was ever a vote taken on this issue, I hadn't heard of it. My voice and many others would certainly have been made known!

Hey djconklin, why don't you ask Herb Douglass why the EGW Estate has chosen to bad-mouth Graeme Bradford's book and re-direct people to his book instead?

It's because Bradford's progressive and correct understanding of EGW's inspiration is considered faulty and dangerous in thier eyes, that's why. What a joke.

 

[djconklin]

Hey djconklin, why don't you ask Herb Douglass why the EGW Estate has chosen to bad-mouth Graeme Bradford's book and re-direct people to his book instead?

It's because Bradford's progressive and correct understanding of EGW's inspiration is considered faulty and dangerous in thier eyes, that's why. What a joke.

Because I don't have any evidence that they did such a thing? BTW, I own BOTH books.

On page 10 Dr. Bacchiocchi states that the mss had "favorable evaluations by respected Adventist church leaders, scholars, and officers of the E. G. White Estate ..."

 

[NightEternal]

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/more-prophet.asp

I'll leave it to you to read thier concerns and see if there isn't a deliberate attempt to undermine and discredit Bradford's research. If there was ever evidence of the dogmatic, inflexible, false understanding of inspiration rampant at the EGW Estate, these three points against Bradford's book are riddled with it.

Please note the statement at the bottom:

"For a well-balanced discussion of God's system of communication with human beings, we recommend...Messenger Of The Lord by Dr. Herbert E Douglass."

Not so subtly veiled implication: 'Bradford's book does not regurgitate the company line regarding inspiration, therefore he is not at all a credible, valid voice on the matter. We the Estate will decide who the official, valid voices are.'

Sorry. You don't speak for me EGW Estate.

A review of the book is coming soon. I can't wait.

I wonder if they will do a merciless hatchet job on it like Kevin Paulson did on Great Controversy.org:

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot1.php

Disgusting and putrid. Nothing but ad-hominem attacks on Bradford's character. What a bunch of legalistic jackals on that website! But they can't touch Bradford's excellent research, no matter how hard they will try.

I am amazed that the GC admin continually allows these two to spout thier heretical rubbish and murder Adventist progression.

This is war, and the likes of Kevin Paulson will never win as long as Progressive's and Evangelical's band together and fight this SDA fundamentalist rhetoric.

What's worse, the only one left standing beside Bradford with public endorsement is Bacchiocchi. George Knight and Jon Pauline, who both heartily endorsed Bradford's first book Prophets Are Human, have recently backed off and distanced themselves from Bradford in light of the concerns of the Estate.

Unlike Bacchiocchi, they have a lot to lose, but that is still no excuse to leave poor Graeme twisting in the wind, fodder for people like Paulson and Kirkpatrick to chew up and spit out with thier book reviews.

Come on you two, back this groundbreaking Aussie before his opponents cast him into the garbage heap like they did with Ford!

 

[reddogs]

I wish I knew why it doesn't seem to register for them.

Reddogs, why do you keep bringing attacks against SDA's in respose to my posts? That is not even the issue I am addressing. If you want to declare war against the formers, have at it, but I really don't want to get involved. The topic under discussion is EGW's authourity.

And I don't think referring to formers as 'Satan's minions' does anything but make the problem even more inflammitory than it already is.

Of course nothing justifies attacks against balanced Adventists and I never said that they were justified in doing so. But you have to understand that the formers do not distinguish between the extremists and the average, sensible, mainline Adventist. We are all elevating her to the same level as the Bible in thier eyes, and they usually use the line from the fundamentals regarding 'continuing source of authourity' as thier basis.

I wish that part had never been added to the fundamentals. It was the worst thing we could ever have done as a church and now we are paying for it. Of course, the fundamentalists would have a coronary attack if it was ever considered being taken out, so here we are stuck in the corner the admin has painted us into.

We can still hold to our own personal ideas on the issue of her authourity, but I still don't appreciate a group of administrators sitting around, virtually altering a fundamental in a way that many Evangelical and Progressive Adventists have decried ever since.

Of course, no one consults us lay people about anything. The admin just virtually decides for us what we will have to accept as a baptized church member wether we like it or not. And tough noogies for us if we think it is a violation of Sola Scriptura. If there was ever a vote taken on this issue, I hadn't heard of it. My voice and many others would certainly have been made known!

Hey djconklin, why don't you ask Herb Douglass why the EGW Estate has chosen to bad-mouth Graeme Bradford's book and re-direct people to his book instead?

It's because Bradford's progressive and correct understanding of EGW's inspiration is considered faulty and dangerous in thier eyes, that's why. What a joke.

I dont understand your post, I was agreeing with you that some hold Ellen White above the bible which can be gently corrected or did I miss something....

 

[reddogs]

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/more-prophet.asp

I'll leave it to you to read thier concerns and see if there isn't a deliberate attempt to undermine and discredit Bradford's research. If there was ever evidence of the dogmatic, inflexible, false understanding of inspiration rampant at the EGW Estate, these three points against Bradford's book are riddled with it.

Please note the statement at the bottom:

"For a well-balanced discussion of God's system of communication with human beings, we recommend...Messenger Of The Lord by Dr. Herbert E Douglass."

Not so subtly veiled implication: 'Bradford's book does not regurgitate the company line regarding inspiration, therefore he is not at all a credible, valid voice on the matter. We the Estate will decide who the official, valid voices are.'

Sorry. You don't speak for me EGW Estate.

A review of the book is coming soon. I can't wait.

I wonder if they will do a merciless hatchet job on it like Kevin Paulson did on Great Controversy.org:

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot1.php

Disgusting and putrid. Nothing but ad-hominem attacks on Bradford's character. What a bunch of legalistic jackals on that website! But they can't touch Bradford's excellent research, no matter how hard they will try.

I am amazed that the GC admin continually allows these two to spout thier heretical rubbish and murder Adventist progression.

This is war, and the likes of Kevin Paulson will never win as long as Progressive's and Evangelical's band together and fight this SDA fundamentalist rhetoric.

What's worse, the only one left standing beside Bradford with public endorsement is Bacchiocchi. George Knight and Jon Pauline, who both heartily endorsed Bradford's first book Prophets Are Human, have recently backed off and distanced themselves from Bradford in light of the concerns of the Estate.

Unlike Bacchiocchi, they have a lot to lose, but that is still no excuse to leave poor Graeme twisting in the wind, fodder for people like Paulson and Kirkpatrick to chew up and spit out with thier book reviews.

Come on you two, grow a spine already and back this groundbreaking Aussie before his opponents cast him into the garbage heap like they did with Ford!

Not trying to be ignorant but can you identify some of these people of note as Americans dont always know every 'Aussie' that gets bantered about....

 

[djconklin]

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/more-prophet.asp

I'll leave it to you to read thier {sic} concerns and see if there isn't a deliberate attempt to undermine and discredit Bradford's research. If there was ever evidence of the dogmatic, inflexible, false understanding of inspiration rampant at the EGW Estate, these three points against Bradford's book are riddled with it.

Dropping the propaganda I do by all means recommend reading their concerns that are listed--the first two are quite troubling. Note that from the critics we do not get a point by point refutation of the points that are made. That alone is evidence of a dogmatic, inflexible, false understanding of logic and discourse.

 

[djconklin]

Disgusting and putrid. Nothing but ad-hominem attacks on Bradford's character. What a bunch of legalistic jackals on that website! But they can't touch Bradford's excellent research, no matter how hard they will try.

Again, more ad hominem (since it is Latin the customary procedure is to put it in italics) attacks vs. substance. With no hint as to why anyone should have listened to Dr. Paulson in the first place.

"excellant research"? How was that determined? What criteria was used? Or, was it that it simply agreed with a pre-existing opinion?

George Knight and Jon Pauline, who both heartily endorsed Bradford's first book Prophets Are Human, have recently backed off and distanced themselves from Bradford in light of the concerns of the Estate.

Again, no evidence is presented. BTW, his name is "Paulien."

BTW again, Did you know that he can read a Greek Bible and translate it as he goes along?

Come on you two, grow a spine already and back this groundbreaking Aussie before his opponents cast him into the garbage heap like they did with Ford!

"Grow a spine"? In line with your facetious jest: how about growing a brain, eh tinman?

 

[NightEternal]

I dont understand your post, I was agreeing with you that some hold Ellen White above the bible which can be gently corrected or did I miss something....

Redogs, I was not referring to you in my comments. I was referring to those individuals and ministries on my list to djconklin.

 

[NightEternal]

Again, more ad hominem (since it is Latin the customary procedure is to put it in italics) attacks vs. substance. With no hint as to why anyone should have listened to Dr. Paulson in the first place.

Good grief, is this a Latin class or an informal chatroom? Okay, pardon my grammatical faux paus...*rolls eyes*

Your right, no one with an ounce of common sense should listen to Paulson's diatribe. But the fact is that thousands of ultra-conservative Adventists DO listen to him and he will succeed in biasing legions of fundamentalists against Bradford.

The real does not match your ideal...

"excellant research"? How was that determined? What criteria was used? Or, was it that it simply agreed with a pre-existing opinion?

I have been studying the issue of inspiration for years. My assessment is that Bradford is head and shoulders above the rest. Alden Thompson set the groundwork with his book Inspiration and Bradford hit the ball home and took it to the next level.

Also, many Adventists I have spoken to had never even heard of the 1919 Bible Conference minutes until reading Bradford's book. Why is that?

Again, no evidence is presented. BTW, his name is "Paulien."

Oh come on, cut me some slack already. If I had to correct every spelling mistake I have seen on these boards I would be here all day.

BTW again, Did you know that he can read a Greek Bible and translate it as he goes along?

And? How does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? I am not attacking Paulien's credibility nor was I ever. I like him and what he has done for the church.

But the fact is that he and Knight (whom I both love and admire) have not stepped up to the plate on Bradford's behalf lately. In fact, I have not seen a single article or paper by a credible Evangelical Adventist refuting Paulson's shameless attacks on Bradford. Nor have I read any ringing endorsements from either man in the jacket of Bradford's book.

Grow a spine? How about grow a brain? And then, use it!

Now, was that really necessary?

Why did More Than A Prophet have to be published privately through Bacchiocchi instead of through the mainstream publisher like Pacific Press?

Answer that and you will have your evidence that Bradford in on his own with this thing.

The fact is that the official admin won't touch Bradford's conclusions with a thirty foot pole.

 

[djconklin]

Hmmm, a post disappeared!

Email from Dr. Douglass:

"Regarding EGW and Bible: I don’t think that I would put my understanding in writing as you have in quotes. I would simply say that the same Holy Spirit that revealed truth to Isaiah or John is the same Spirit of Prophecy that spoke to EGW and that there is no qualitative difference in their messages. In other words, no differences in degrees of inspiration, etc. Each successive prophet was given unfolded truth when God knew it was needed. No contradiction, just more of the unfolding truth."

 

[djconklin]

Now, was that really necessary?

You started it by insinuating that we were spineless. What goes around, comes around.

Why did More Than A Prophet have to be published privately through Bacchiocchi instead of through the mainstream publisher like Pacific Press?

Because it is flawed?

But, it is much easier to believe a conspiracy theory than to actually analyze the available evidence.

 

[NightEternal]

Hmmm, a post disappeared!

Email from Dr. Douglass:

"Regarding EGW and Bible: I don’t think that I would put my understanding in writing as you have in quotes. I would simply say that the same Holy Spirit that revealed truth to Isaiah or John is the same Spirit of Prophecy that spoke to EGW and that there is no qualitative difference in their messages. In other words, no differences in degrees of inspiration, etc. Each successive prophet was given unfolded truth when God knew it was needed. No contradiction, just more of the unfolding truth."

In other words, company man EGW apologetics which reinforce the false idea that she is equal to the Bible prophets in authourity and hence, totally equal to the Bible itself in authourity.

No thanks Mr. Douglass. I will stick with Bradford's premise.

Bible: "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and instructing in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

Fundamental Belief # 18: "Her writings are a continuing and authouritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance , instruction and correction."

That is pretty brazen and presumptious for our church to use almost the same wording as Paul decribing the authourity of the Bible to describe EGW's authourity.

We have gone too far with this statement in the fundamentals, and everyone except those in the church who choose to ignore it knows that.

Why do so many not see the corner we have painted ourselves into?

 

[NightEternal]

You started it by insinuating that we were spineless. What goes around, comes around.

Obviously you misunderstood who I was referring to in my post.

I was not directing the comment to you and reddogs. The 'two' I was referring to were Paulien and Knight. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

t takes courage to stand up to theological bullies like Paulson, and I don't see that courage anywhere in Adventism at the moment. If Paulien and Knight endorse Bradford's views, then they need to take it all the way and make it known in no uncertain terms, not bail when the pressure is on and things get hot.

At least Bacchiocchi has demonstrated he indeed has a spine and will not be bullied.

Because it is flawed?

No actually, it's not.

But, it is much easier to believe a conspiracy theory than to actually analyze the available evidence.

Tell you what, why don't you contact the GC and ask them for an explanation as to why Bradford's book was not published by and endorsed through official church channels? Assuming they are honest with thier answer, you may discover that some things aren't so conspiratorial after all.

_________________________________________________

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
Hmmm, a post disappeared!

Email from Dr. Douglass:

"Regarding EGW and Bible: I don’t think that I would put my understanding in writing as you have in quotes. I would simply say that the same Holy Spirit that revealed truth to Isaiah or John is the same Spirit of Prophecy that spoke to EGW and that there is no qualitative difference in their messages. In other words, no differences in degrees of inspiration, etc. Each successive prophet was given unfolded truth when God knew it was needed. No contradiction, just more of the unfolding truth."

In other words, company man EGW apologetics which reinforce the false idea that she is equal to the Bible prophets in authourity and hence, totally equal to the Bible itself in authourity.

Well, we've got a problem right off: he doesn't say what you said he said.

 

[djconklin]

I was not directing the comment to you and reddogs. The 'two' I was referring to were Paulien and Knight. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

And you "sigh"?!? Who "two" are here" Do you see Paulien and Knight posting here? If you do we have other problems.

Because it is flawed?

No actually, it's not.

The difference between what you post and what the EGW Estate says is that at least they give us specific points. Now they need to be more specific and show specific quotes on specific pages. But, you give us nothing to work with. Care to guess which side is standing on higher ground?

But, it is much easier to believe a conspiracy theory than to actually analyze the available evidence.

Tell you what, why don't you contact the GC and ask them for an explanation as to why Bradford's book was not published by and endorsed through official church channels? Assuming they are honest with thier answer, you may discover that some things aren't so conspiratorial after all.

For starters, and this is quite elemental to all honest efforts to analyze a subject, neither they, nor me, have the burden of proof.

 

[NightEternal]

And you "sigh"?!? Who "two" are here" Do you see Paulien and Knight posting here? If you do we have other problems.

Yes I sighed, because I was troubled that you thought I was directing the 'spineless' comment to you and reddogs, and that was not the case at all. Again, I did not make it clear enough in my post. My bad. I guess I was speaking in the first person sense as if they were actually privy to our conversation. I do that sometimes.

BTW, the 'spineless' comment was not meant in a mean way, just a friendly, good-natured jab. I really do respect both Knight and Paulien. This medium leaves a lot to be desired in getting across tone...

Hey, I wish Knight and Paulien would join the discussion. That would be awesome!

[/color]

The difference between what you post and what the EGW Estate says is that at least they give us specific points. Now they need to be more specific and show specific quotes on specific pages. But, you give us nothing to work with. Care to guess which side is standing on higher ground?

It's obvious the EGW White Estate has no use for Bradford's book, just like I have no use for thier apologetics. So we'll go our separate ways and that will be that.

[/color]

For starters, and this is quite elemental to all honest efforts to analyze a subject, neither they, nor me, have the burden of proof.

I call them as I perceive them.

By the way djconklin, do you have to approach everything as it were a journalists research project or some kind of defense document in a court room?

 

[djconklin]

Again, I did not make it clear enough in my post. My bad.

Well, that's a first! Would you mind teaching a few other critics how to apologize with grace?

BTW, the 'spineless' comment was not meant in a mean way, just a friendly, good-natured jab.

I have never ever heard of calling someone "spinless" in a "friendly, good-natured jab."

The difference between what you post and what the EGW Estate says is that at least they give us specific points. Now they need to be more specific and show specific quotes on specific pages. But, you give us nothing to work with. Care to guess which side is standing on higher ground?

It's obvious the EGW White Estate has no use for Bradford's book, just like I have no use for thier apologetics. So we'll go our separate ways and that will be that. ... I call them as I perceive them.

Hmmm, put down other people and then don't defend your point of view? Is it really that weak?

Calling things as you see them is one thing, but how about trying to support them with some actual facts?

By the way djconklin, do you have to approach everything as it were a journalists research project or some kind of defense document in a court room?

Do you have to approach everything like a school-yard brawl? Always with the snide put-downs and then run when called on it? I do admit that I watch Law & Order so I have learned how things work in a courtroom--where one has to actually prove one's claims or your claim would get chucked and/or one could possibly wind up in jail for contempt of court.

Why would any respectable scholar want to go someplace where they'd be treated like dirt?

 

[NightEternal]

[/b]

Well, that's a first! Would you mind teaching a few other critics how to apologize with grace?

Okay, I conceded a point and clarified. Let's not push it, alright?

[/b]

I have never ever heard of calling someone "spinless" in a "friendly, good-natured jab."

Then you obviously have not dialogued with very many circles of different types of people.

But if you're going to keep harping on the issue, then fine, I should have used a different word.

Hmmm, put down other people and then don't defend your point of view? Is it really that weak?

I was not 'putting down' Pauline and Knight.

I LIKE THEM and agree with them in many areas.

Oh forget it...

Calling things as you see them is one thing, but how about trying to support them with some actual facts?

Facts are not always available so sometimes a person has to go with what they percieve. If that bothers you, that's not my problem.

[/b]

Do you have to approach everything like a school-yard brawl?

You seem to be doing just fine in that department as well, especially with the formers.

Always with the snide put-downs

Well that's the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

and then run when called on it

And when have I ever run from anything? If you are referring to my brief departure from here, I wasn't about to stay where I wasn't wanted and I had no intentions of coming back. It certainly was not because I was 'running' from any airtight arguments.

Congratulations for sinking to a new low and using something I have already apologized for as ammunition against me BTW.

I do admit that I watch Law & Order so I have learned how things work in a courtroom--where one has to actually prove one's claims or your claim would get chucked and/or one could possibly wind up in jail for contempt of court.

Then maybe we should not dialogue very much in the future, because that is not my approach to chat forums at all.

Why would any respectable scholar want to go someplace where they'd be treated like dirt?

That is a false charge. I have already explained that I was not insulting Knight or Pauline ad-nauseum, let alone 'treating them like dirt'.

You are apparently going to believe what you want, so forget it. I have clarified this countless times.

_______________________________________________

 

[djconklin]

>Then you obviously have not dialogued with very many circles of different types of people.


I'm sorry I don't frequent the bars on the wrong side of the tracks.

We're done.