The 3abn Massachusetts Lawsuit Poll Options

[Clay]

I didn't say that Ellen White was the Spirit of Prophecy. I said that the term is applied to her writings. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are disagreeing with?

If you feel that my explanation supports your position, then I may not be correctly understanding your position either. If the Bible teaches that later inspired writers can add non-contradictory details to biblical accounts, and that later inspired writers can illuminate Bible passages, then a truly sola scriptura position mandates that such be so. Correct?

The term "spirit of prophecy" cannot be applied to her writings. Her writings may be the product of the gift of prophecy, but they are not the spirit of prophecy.

Your references please for your assertion that the bible teaches that later inspired writers may add to biblical accounts. It is not correct that a true sola scriptura position mandates what you suggest. You seem to forget how the bible was compiled in the first place and to do what you would suggest opens a can of worms.

[Richard Sherwin]

I'd be interested in hearing more of this idea that the SDA church is " composed of several distinct groups of people." It could well be true, for better or worse, but I'd like to hear about it more. Maybe even a thread in the theology section?

Richard

Clay:

The fundamental issue that you bring up is: What/Who is a Seventh-day Adventist.

There are many (I am included in this.) who believe that the SDA Church today is composed of several distinct groups of people. One has suggested five groups. Others have suggested either more or less groups.

I will agree that there are some SDAS who place the writings of EGW above that of the Bible.

Others place her on the same level.

There are those who place her on several lower levels.

So, I agree that you comment is true as it applies to some SDAs and inaccurate as it applies to others.

Now the question comes: What is our offical teaching? I am willing to say that officially, the majority teaching is that the Bible should take priority over EGWs writings. But, in the mouths of some people that may not be clear.

[Pickle]

The term "spirit of prophecy" cannot be applied to her writings. Her writings may be the product of the gift of prophecy, but they are not the spirit of prophecy.

Your references please for your assertion that the bible teaches that later inspired writers may add to biblical accounts. It is not correct that a true sola scriptura position mandates what you suggest. You seem to forget how the bible was compiled in the first place and to do what you would suggest opens a can of worms.

1) According to EGWE 295, in 1931 a committee called to deal with Conradi spoke of "the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy." Looks like it was stated at the 1891 GC session, "We believe these writings are a manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy" (3Bio 484).

But I think I see you point, and I find it interesting. Are you thinking that if we call her writings the Spirit of Prophecy, it would be akin to calling her writings the Spirit rather than the results of the Spirit's working?

2) I think I already gave the references: Heb. 12:21 demonstrates how later inspired writers can add non-contradictory details, and Acts 4:25-27 demonstrates how later inspired writers can illuminate Bible passages. And these points are based on the presuppositions that immediately after Acts and Hebrews were written, a) they were not yet part of the Bible, 2) the NT was not completely written yet, and 3) they were considered authoritative and were being circulated amongst the churches.

If the Bible is the final rule of faith and practice, I do not see how any cans of worms get opened.

[Clay]

1) According to EGWE 295, in 1931 a committee called to deal with Conradi spoke of "the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy." Looks like it was stated at the 1891 GC session, "We believe these writings are a manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy" (3Bio 484).

But I think I see you point, and I find it interesting. Are you thinking that if we call her writings the Spirit of Prophecy, it would be akin to calling her writings the Spirit rather than the results of the Spirit's working?

2) I think I already gave the references: Heb. 12:21 demonstrates how later inspired writers can add non-contradictory details, and Acts 4:25-27 demonstrates how later inspired writers can illuminate Bible passages. And these points are based on the presuppositions that immediately after Acts and Hebrews were written, a) they were not yet part of the Bible, 2) the NT was not completely written yet, and 3) they were considered authoritative and were being circulated amongst the churches.

If the Bible is the final rule of faith and practice, I do not see how any cans of worms get opened.

The committee that compiled the bible selected documents that agreed for the most part and told the a consistent story. That is why the Gospel of Peter, as well as the Apocrypha was not included in the bible we have today. Though it is interesting to note that bibles published well into the late 1800s contained the Apocrypha.

Having said that, there is not a committee formed that will decide if something was inspired and should be included in the bible at this time. Though you seem willing to extend that to the writings of egw, as the Mormons extend that right to their prophets. The selection of what should or should not be included was a can of worms then, and it can be one now if you go down that road....

[LaurenceD]

God even talks to us through clay...

"God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, It was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision-the precious rays of light shining from the throne." -SM1 p.27, http://www.bible.ca/7-WhiteInspire.htm

(ducking and running)

[Clay]

God even talks to us through clay...

"God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, It was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision-the precious rays of light shining from the throne." -SM1 p.27, http://www.bible.ca/7-WhiteInspire.htm

(ducking and running)

there you go... hmmmmm you think I can get some of my comments here published? I mean if she said it, then that means its all good right?

[LaurenceD]

clay...well, your writings seem original enough (duh). I'd be willing to edit the questionable stuff though, or be your publisher. Maybe we could at least do a compilation and take some of your sage inspired advice out of context.




(back for a good smack)

[Brick Step]

I was thrilled to hear on 3ABN a couple of years ago the address by Elder Stephen Bohr on Time Prophecies and Ellen White. I believe this is powerful biblical evidence with which we must reckon, and also, what we believe on such doctrinal issues is one of other important factors which can impact our ability to “ see as GOD sees” (Hebrew 11) the 3ABN saga.

In introduction Elder Bohr pointed to Revelation 12:17 and 19:10 as prophesying that the remnant church would have a prophet in its midst. Then he showed that the great waymarks of salvation history are all pointed to by time prophecies, given of course by a prophet. Then God called another prophet to speak to the fulfilling of the time prophecy, and lead out a remnant. The following in note form (based upon notes I took at the time the lecture was aired on 3ABN) is something of an outline of his address as I recall it.

A. Prophets and Time Prophecies
(a) God raises up a prophet.
(b ) God gives the prophet a message.
(c ) A time period is linked with the message.
(d) The message is one of judgment.
(e) The message is not present truth.

B. When the time Prophecy Comes to an End
(a) God raises up another prophet.
(b ) The prophet preaches the same message as the first prophet.
(c ) The time period is fulfilled.
(d) It is a message of judgment.’
(e) The message is now present truth.
(f) The second prophet leads out a remnant.

EXAMPLE 1
The first prophet, Enoch
He preached of righteousness and prophesied of judgment and the worldwide flood. (Jude 14, 15; Matt 24:37) [See also PP 50]
Enoch’s time prophecy was given in the name of his son, “Methuselah.”
Names are given significance in Genesis 75 times.
Methuselah from two Hebrew words:
Muwth = to die; and shalach = to send [See e.g. Strongs Concordance, nos 4968, 4970, 4962; and 7971]
Compound meaning: “When he dies it will be sent.”
Methuselah died 10 days before the flood (Gen 5:22, 25, 28; 7:11) (Also Jewish tradition) [See 1BC 247]

When the time prophecy of the flood was due to be fulfilled, God raised up the prophet Noah, and brought out the remnant eight in the Ark.

EXAMPLE 2
God called the prophet Abraham (Gen 20:7).
Abraham was given a message of judgment, and told that his seed would be strangers in Egypt for 400 years (Gen 15:13-15).
At the end of this time period God called Moses as His prophet (Hosea 12:13).
Moses led Israel out of Egypt “even the selfsame day” the time period expired (Ex 12:40, 41).

EXAMPLE 3
Jeremiah prophesied the captivity in Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:11, 12).
At the end of this 70 year time period, Daniel the prophet spoke to this time (Dan 9:2).
A remnant returned to rebuild Jerusalem.

EXAMPLE 4
Daniel (Dan 9:24) prophesied the 70 weeks to the anointing of the Messiah, the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah, and the close of probationary time for the Jewish theocracy.
At the end of the 70 weeks* God raised up John the Baptist.
Jesus’ fig tree parables declare the end of literal Israel.’
Jesus came, and the Christian church was born.

EXAMPLE 5
Daniel prophesied the 2300 days (Dan 8:14) and that the truth concerning this time prophecy was sealed till the time of the end (Dan 12:9).
At the end of the 2300 days, besides preachers like William Miller, God raised up the prophet, Ellen White. Her first vision addresses the 2300 day prophecy and the great disappointment as prophesied in Revelation 10. Counterfeit prophets and movements at the same time indicate the great significance of Dan 8:14.

1. Mormonism – Joseph smith
2. Christian Science – Mary Baker Eddy
3. JW’s – Charles Russell
4. Spiritualism – Fox sisters
5. Pentecostalism – Margaret Mc Donald
6. Evolutionism – Charles Darwin
7. Marxism – Karl Marx
8. Futurism – John Nelson Darby

But none of these movements addressed the 2300 day prophecy.

If Ellen White has been called of God to speak to the 2300 day* time prophecy, why downplay her role in bringing understanding of it? Why ignore her place in establishing and identifying the great eschatological remnant movement (Seventh-day Adventism) called to salvation; called also to witness to Christ, to the full story of His atonement, to 1844 and the investigative judgment, to bear the light of the everlasting gospel in the context of the three angels' messages, the "present truth" that is to save a remnant from the “whole world” (Rev 12:9) that falls for the deceptions of the angry red dragon who is Satan? To call a movement for a special task is NOT to say that God does not have His saints scattered through many denominations, NOR to say that all those who call themselves Christians and Seventh-day Adventists, ARE.

Ellen White’s role is not that of a canonical prophet. But she is not less inspired or less significant than all others of God’s prophets.

* I greatly value the insights in Dr Desmond Ford’s book, Daniel, Southern Publishing Association, 1978. Here, of course, he proves 1844, and the validity of the year-day principle (see Appendix F, pp. 300-304), teachings he has subsequently, of course, openly sought to repudiate.

[Clay]

interesting.... a living prophet or a dead one? are we that desperate to hold on to "our special status" that we will jump through various hoops to prove that we are the remnant?

[PeacefulBe]

interesting.... a living prophet or a dead one? are we that desperate to hold on to "our special status" that we will jump through various hoops to prove that we are the remnant?

Just for the record, Clay, I believe that there are some within the SDA church who ARE a part of the remnant that will be waiting with uplifted eyes and open arms for their ride home.

[Clay]

Just for the record, Clay, I believe that there are some within the SDA church who ARE a part of the remnant that will be waiting with uplifted eyes and open arms for their ride home.

I share that belief PB, but I disagree that a church can proclaim itself "the remnant." A church can say, we are a part of the remnant, but it cannot say, "we are the remnant."

[Voktar of Zargon]

Thank you Brick Step for those interesting examples. Thought provoking. I think I had heard a good deal of that before but good to have your notes now. I also appreciated your comments from your previous post:
"I have to say I have seen too much unattractive fruitage in the lives of Adventists who have become antagonistic towards Ellen White's writings, fruitage that does not impress me to follow where they have gone.
Yes, sad to say, some Adventists quote her when they should be quoting the Bible. But this is something Ellen White counselled us not to do, and it is interesting we can point to some powerful evangelists and soul winners today, whose public lectures are taken entirely from the Bible, but who themselves found Jesus and developed their love for the Bible by first reading The Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ, The Great Controversy, Ministry of Healing, Education, or another of Ellen White's books.
It's not a sin to quote Ellen White sometimes. She points like no other, to Christ and the Bible. I've lost count of the number of times I've read some of her books. But for all my love of them, it is my Bible that shows the most wear and tare."
Your testimony has the tone of someone who has experienced the spiritually inspiring and life transforming power found in both the writings of the Biblical prophets and of the non-canonical prophet Ellen White. Unfortunately many people who grow up in an Adventist environment have an adverse response to an erroneous and negative use of her work. In some cases they are never able to respond positively as a result. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can not have a life changing experience by reading 'Desire of Ages' devotionally. This is one of the proofs of the inspiration of both the Bible and "Spirit of Prophecy" - the changed lives that result from reading them. It is ironic that Ellen White predicted that those who would cavill against her work would end up doing the same with the Bible itself! How telling that we see many professing Adventists doing exactly that today. Most of the same arguments that are used to to undermine the inspiration or authority of the "Spirit of Prophecy" have been used for years to likewise weaken confidence in the Bible. Manuscript conflicts, historical innacuracies, abuses commited in their name etc. Because there is a fallible/human element in the prophets and in their writings does not negate their infallible/God-breathed message and power - anymore than Jesus' incarnation as a human being negated him also being God.
When Moses came into the presence of the burning bush (a symbol of the union of the human and the divine) he took off his shoes because he was on holy ground and took the Word of God to heart. He didn't make irreverent jokes about the humble imperfect bush or the voice that came from it. When we undermine confidence in God's prophetic word we do so at great hazard to ourselves and others.

[Pickle]

Having said that, there is not a committee formed that will decide if something was inspired and should be included in the bible at this time. Though you seem willing to extend that to the writings of egw, as the Mormons extend that right to their prophets. The selection of what should or should not be included was a can of worms then, and it can be one now if you go down that road....

Rather than saying anything about putting Ellen White's writings into the Bible, I was merely showing what the Bible says about appropriate uses of non-canonical, inspired texts.

According to Scripture, inspired writers that are not part of the canon can add non-contradictory details to biblical stories, and can point out obviously correct interpretations of biblical passages.

Of course, since I believe in sola scriptura, I am open to your citing a Bible verse that would indicate otherwise, as long as it doesn't contradict Heb. 12 or Acts 4.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jul 9 2007, 03:32 PM

[Pickle]

I share that belief PB, but I disagree that a church can proclaim itself "the remnant." A church can say, we are a part of the remnant, but it cannot say, "we are the remnant."

Yet we have been saying that we are the remnant church since about the beginning of our history, and Ellen White's usage of the term harmonizes with that understanding.

For example, see page 11 of the Aug. 14, 1883 Sup. that is reachable via a link from http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=15869, after installing the required plugin. Read the entire second paragraph in the second column of GC President G. I. Butler's article on that page. His comments are insightful.

Did you have a Bible verse that would say that we are not the remnant church, and thus that our baptismal vows should be changed which require all new members to acknowledge that they believe that we are the remnant church?

[YogusBearus]

Yet we have been saying that we are the remnant church since about the beginning of our history, and Ellen White's usage of the term harmonizes with that understanding.

For example, see page 11 of the Aug. 14, 1883 Sup. that is reachable via a link from http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=15869, after installing the required plugin. Read the entire second paragraph in the second column of GC President G. I. Butler's article on that page. His comments are insightful.

Did you have a Bible verse that would say that we are not the remnant church, and thus that our baptismal vows should be changed which require all new members to acknowledge that they believe that we are the remnant church?

Bob, would the new "optional" baptismal vows have to be changed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_baptismal_vow

-bear