An Ellen White Reality Check..., something long overdue... Options

[Green Cochoa]

EGW's writings are not scripture. In fact, a whole lot of folks were writing when the Bible writers as we know them now were writing, I am sure at least some of them were inpired to write, they just didn't make the cut by the catholic priests to compile the Bible as we know it. However, no one, except for Moses, with the Ten Commandment were told "what" to write. God actually dictated to him what to write. The rest just recorded history as they saw it, including Moses before and after the writing of the !0C. They were just told "to" write. It does not change the fact that their writings were subject to their education, comprehension skills, belief systems and culture at the time of their writings.

Am I missing your point here?

Yeah. First of all, the Ten Commandments were not "dictated" to Moses. Those have such a high status as to have been written by God's own hand, in stone no less. However, I'm sure we both agree that the Ten Commandments are not the only Scripture in existence today, just because God didn't etch any more into stone for us. So, what is your definition of "Scripture?"

First of all, trusting the Scriptures to give us a definition for Scripture is already circular reasoning. I'm sorry, but it takes a faith choice--and this is true for all of Christendom, not just Adventists. So, assuming you, like me, are willing to put your faith in those "self-proclaimed" scriptures, what are the specific texts to show what the definition of "Scripture" is? Once you have thus defined Scripture, go back and see if Ellen White's writings can fall into a different category than any of the Bible authors' writings do.

The basic problem, here, is that Adventists have misinterpreted for years the meaning of the term "spirit of prophecy" spoken of in Revelation. That has contributed to a false understanding of the role of Ellen White. We have been ever since making comparisons to the Bible that were unwarranted.

[PrincessDrRe]

No, not a few extremists. it is as basic as SDAs believing that a no meant diet is the only preferred, and carried some favor with God. Why do I say that? Because, the case cannot be made this his reasoning from the Bible, but is always made from EGW writings about the future state of meat, and the compiled writings of her advice for which we are not given the questions or particular situations, etc. We have made doctrine from it to the point hat it is an issue about eating/serving it on church/institution grounds. In that instance you[general] EGW's writings above the Bible, because they are not pointing to any "greater light" in the Bible. You[once again, general] have made doctrine from something she said, but has no biblical basis.

Another example is that recently there was thread started about the Bible not contradicting itself. The OP contained one Bible text and at least 4 EGW quotes. Ok about the Bible not contradicting itself? It read more like EGW not contradicting herself, or the Bible.

So, it is not a clear and concise proclamation as it is our actions. We give lip service to the fact that we don't place her writings equal or above the Bible, however, whenever we cannot make our doctrinal case from the Bible and the Bible only, in using her writings to complete that case, you have given them at least equal status. Let me just say that I do believe that she was inspired to write, but like the Bible writers not dictated what to write. So, her writings are also subject to her understanding of whatever revelations she was given. Had there been two people writing at that time we would probably have the same basic message, but from two different perspectives. The four Gospels were written by men who saw the same things happen at the same time and yet the perspective is different. The basic message is[The Good News], however, still there.

Also if it were only a few extremist, SDAs would not be widely known as a cult that follows EGW more than the Bible. That is a reputaion that has stuck for as long as I can remember. If it was only a few extremist, it would have died with them. Instead it is so prevalent the label did and still stands today. It is, I believe, one of the reasons churches are "encouraged" to have Rev. Sems. in other places than our churches, the literature for them does not identify them to be SDA in origin, etc. to spare us the first impressions. I do realize that many are held at churches and full disclosure is made, but as those who claim to have "The Truth" the practice should not be acceptable as business as usual. So this mean we are fully aware of this less than stellar reputation.

It is not a few extremist, it was and is the impression we give to the world. The only way to stop it is for us to truly understand, as a denomination, and just not in lip service the true place of her writings, as she asked. We are not of one accord on this, because we have failed to make it crystal clear from the beginning. As she said herself, her writings are for "after" you understand the Bible on it's own. It actually had meaning before she started to write several centuries later. We see the danger in trying to get that initial understanding through her writings.

Dead on! Too dead on! Thank you!

Any denomination that is not mainstream is considered an cult...for SDA's it begins with keeping the Sabbath and then the Sanctuary, State of the Dead, etc....our beliefs are different w/o EGW....

Fortunately, that belief (of SDA being a cult) is the exception and not the rule in 2006.

We are still considered a cult. If you look up a listing of "cults" we are still listed as a "cult". Is the B'hai religion (a sector of Islam) considered a cult?

.....The basic problem, here, is that Adventists have misinterpreted for years the meaning of the term "spirit of prophecy" spoken of in Revelation. That has contributed to a false understanding of the role of Ellen White. We have been ever since making comparisons to the Bible that were unwarranted.

Dead on again! So why does EG White have to be conpared to the BIBLE? Is it a way of SDA's justifying her writings as being "dead on truth" without a need of questioning?

[Green Cochoa]

Dead on again! So why does EG White have to be conpared to the BIBLE? Is it a way of SDA's justifying her writings as being "dead on truth" without a need of questioning?

Lest you be overly gleeful, hahaha! Actually, the "lesser light" (or the moon) and the "spirit of prophecy" are BOTH referring to scripture, which in turn is defined as Holy Spirit-inspired writings. Can you tell me, then, what the "greater light" represents?

[awesumtenor]

I'll abandon that position right now. It has a false statement in it. Can you find/prove to me that Ellen White said her writings were the lesser light leading to the greater light of scripture? That is heresy.

Review and Herald, Jan 20, 1903:

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field. {RH, January 20, 1903 par. 7}
Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation. {RH, January 20, 1903 par. 8}
The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {RH, January 20, 1903 par. 9}

In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

Ok, so you missed the part of the story where Moses got mad at the COI down there worshipping the golden calf and broke the wone written by God, and he had to write the second set himself. So not only did God write them he also dictated them. Scripture is the Bible, not EGW writings. this is exactly how people get confused. her writings do not hold the same weight as Biblical Scripture. She said so herself. You are tight, however, that EGW is not "The" Spirit of Prophecy. We ar eerrant in that it still stands stoday. When in the baptismal vows condidates are asked if they believe in the Spirit of Prophecy, the are asking if they believe in EGW. This is also the SOP referred to int he 28 FB.

Yeah. First of all, the Ten Commandments were not "dictated" to Moses. Those have such a high status as to have been written by God's own hand, in stone no less. However, I'm sure we both agree that the Ten Commandments are not the only Scripture in existence today, just because God didn't etch any more into stone for us. So, what is your definition of "Scripture?"

First of all, trusting the Scriptures to give us a definition for Scripture is already circular reasoning. I'm sorry, but it takes a faith choice--and this is true for all of Christendom, not just Adventists. So, assuming you, like me, are willing to put your faith in those "self-proclaimed" scriptures, what are the specific texts to show what the definition of "Scripture" is? Once you have thus defined Scripture, go back and see if Ellen White's writings can fall into a different category than any of the Bible authors' writings do.

The basic problem, here, is that Adventists have misinterpreted for years the meaning of the term "spirit of prophecy" spoken of in Revelation. That has contributed to a false understanding of the role of Ellen White. We have been ever since making comparisons to the Bible that were unwarranted.

[awesumtenor]

You said it! She was inspired. Well, then? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

1. Her belief is significant beyond herself only if you believe Di's utterance is authoritative for the church.

2. While All scripture is given by inspiration, all that is given by inspiration is not scripture. Any time the word is rightly divided, it is by inspiration since spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Green Cochoa]

...
The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {RH, January 20, 1903 par. 9}

In His service,
Mr. J

Yes, Mr. J, that's exactly what I mean. And what do you infer from that passage to be the meaning of "lesser light" and of "greater light"? Please share.

[awesumtenor]

Yes, Mr. J, that's exactly what I mean. And what do you infer from that passage to be the meaning of "lesser light" and of "greater light"? Please share.

Nothing to infer and nothing is implied; the explicit context makes it plain that she is referring to her writings as the lesser light.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Green Cochoa]

1. Her belief is significant beyond herself only if you believe Di's utterance is authoritative for the church.

2. While All scripture is given by inspiration, all that is given by inspiration is not scripture. Any time the word is rightly divided, it is by inspiration since spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

In His service,
Mr. J

And by so saying in 1) you imply to me one of the following:
A) You do not believe Ellen White was inspired, and therefore choose to differ with Di and myself and/or the church.
You are wishing to argue this point because you feel there is a different interpretation.
C) You simply wish to have a more authoritative (i.e. supporting evidence) source.

If A, I cannot help you, for you surely have seen much of the same evidence I myself have built my faith upon. If B, I'm concerned that you might be heading towards A, where again, I may have nothing for you. If C, what evidence do you feel you need? I'd be happy to study this part together, but realize that in the end, each of us makes a faith choice. I have made mine, and will not be moved from it. You are free to choose for yourself as well.

Point 2) you have chosen to twist the meaning of scripture. Scripture, in its very root meaning, implies written matter. You can divide the Word of Truth rightly, but your understanding through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit does not convert to "Scripture." Scripture is simply writing done under inspiration of God for the purposes of reproof, doctrine, correction, and instruction in righteousness. If it does not have those purposes, or it was not written from inspiration of God, then it is not scripture.

I, for one, do not believe that only that contained in the "Canon" is scripture and nothing else. That simply does not follow from the Bible's own definition. It is quite possible that the Bible has left out many documents which were equally inspired by God during the same time period.

So, if as you say "all that is given by inspiration is not scripture," what is your definition of scripture?

Nothing to infer and nothing is implied; the explicit context makes it plain that she is referring to her writings as the lesser light.

In His service,
Mr. J

Well, I think you have the same view as that of multitudes of Adventists. Perhaps you are right, but as one who has studied languages extensively, I view the grammar of Ellen White's statement carefully, and find it to be ambiguous. It certainly could have the meaning you suggest. However, I also see another possibility, and I hope you and many other Adventists might allow yourselves to consider something new. For clarity and comparison to a text in scripture of similar construction, I shall requote that sentence of hers:

"Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain!" -EGW

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." -- John 5:39

[awesumtenor]

And by so saying in 1) you imply to me one of the following:
A) You do not believe Ellen White was inspired, and therefore choose to differ with Di and myself and/or the church.
You are wishing to argue this point because you feel there is a different interpretation.
C) You simply wish to have a more authoritative (i.e. supporting evidence) source.

You need to learn the difference between implication and inference. You may infer the things stated above, however that in no wise obligates me to have implied them. FWIW you are wrong on all three counts.

If A, I cannot help you, for you surely have seen much of the same evidence I myself have built my faith upon. If B, I'm concerned that you might be heading towards A, where again, I may have nothing for you. If C, what evidence do you feel you need? I'd be happy to study this part together, but realize that in the end, each of us makes a faith choice. I have made mine, and will not be moved from it. You are free to choose for yourself as well.

Your argument is built on a set of fallacious premises and as such requires no refutation; it is prima facie errant from the outset.

Point 2) you have chosen to twist the meaning of scripture. Scripture, in its very root meaning, implies written matter. You can divide the Word of Truth rightly, but your understanding through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit does not convert to "Scripture." Scripture is simply writing done under inspiration of God for the purposes of reproof, doctrine, correction, and instruction in righteousness. If it does not have those purposes, or it was not written from inspiration of God, then it is not scripture.

I did not make the claim that if I rightly divide the word, my doing so is scripture; in fact, the bolded statement you make above in a supposed attempt to refute what I've said actually supports the argument I made... I have twisted nothing; the bible speaks of men of God who judged and prophesied and acted under inspiration of the Holy Ghost and never wrote any of it down. The inspiration which led them is the same that caused holy men of God to speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost but their actions, decisions and counsel are not in and of themselves scripture... even if the fact that they performed said actions, made said decision and gave said counsel is noted in scripture.

I, for one, do not believe that only that contained in the "Canon" is scripture and nothing else. That simply does not follow from the Bible's own definition. It is quite possible that the Bible has left out many documents which were equally inspired by God during the same time period.

So, if as you say "all that is given by inspiration is not scripture," what is your definition of scripture?
Well, I think you have the same view as that of multitudes of Adventists. Perhaps you are right, but as one who has studied languages extensively, I view the grammar of Ellen White's statement carefully, and find it to be ambiguous. It certainly could have the meaning you suggest. However, I also see another possibility, and I hope you and many other Adventists might allow yourselves to consider something new. For clarity and comparison to a text in scripture of similar construction, I shall requote that sentence of hers:

"Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain!" -EGW

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." -- John 5:39

You have not considered the context of either statement and it is arguable that your lack of consideration in that wise was by intent. I've never been one who was particularly swayed by "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" type arguemnts and that is what you have offered here. If it helps you to swallow that particular camel by categorizing me based on your presumptions, then I'm glad I could be of assistance... but suffice it to say that you are so wrong... on so many levels.

In His service,
Mr. J

[västergötland]

I have said this for about a year and a half...the church does not put EGW over the Bible...a few extremist do.... So Watchbird!!!!

That has nothing to do with her messages not being inspired...

A few?

[Green Cochoa]

When I said "imply to me", I meant just that. That's how it came across. You cannot refute a personal testimony, which is what that was, though of course it is possible to misunderstand it. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Or perhaps you would like to express it more clearly.

[västergötland]

I'll abandon that position right now. It has a false statement in it. Can you find/prove to me that Ellen White said her writings were the lesser light leading to the greater light of scripture? That is heresy.

How does that qualify as heresy?



Main Entry: her·e·sy
Pronunciation: 'her-&-sE, 'he-r&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

[Green Cochoa]

How does that qualify as heresy?

I'm using this defintion of heresy:

A teaching which denies a doctrine essential to the existence of the Gospel.

[västergötland]

I'm using this defintion of heresy:

A teaching which denies a doctrine essential to the existence of the Gospel.

Now I understand even less. In what way is anything that has to do with Ellen essential to the existence of a Gospel preached and shared for 1800 years before Ellen was born?