Print
The Integrity of the Prophetic Gift
The drift of this study guide, as with the whole quarter, is more on defending Ellen White’s writings than helping us to understand the nature of biblical prophecy. Any charge against her integrity is offset by pointing out similar problems within the ministry of the Old Testament prophets. She said some very unpopular things, but so did Micaiah the prophet (1 Kings 22:10–18). Did she use literary assistants? So did Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 43:2–4). Ellen White’s later writings gained in theological insight and maturity compared with her earlier works, but then the prophets also advanced in understanding (Dan. 9:2; Gal. 2:11–16; 1 Pet.1:10).1 She sometimes got things wrong (for example, her belief in the “shut door”) and had to correct her false statements, but so did Nathan, the prophet (2 Sam. 7:1–7; 1 Chron. 22:8).2
This is a dangerous defense strategy, for in an effort to shield Ellen White the study guide may succeed in only undermining confidence in the Scriptures.3 Some might conclude that if the Bible and Ellen White’s writings manifest certain similar elements that conflict with their view of inspiration, then logically they should dismiss both. Clearly it can be either a case of united they stand or united they fall. The form of the argument might end up stimulating an unfortunate skepticism.
The fact that Ellen White left a written legacy distinguishes her from such prophets as Hulda or Nathan. A written source alongside the Bible presents a set of very real difficulties. Ellen White bequeathed to her spiritual heirs some twenty-five million words, and with them they inherited a monumental problem. How do we preserve the uniqueness of Scripture, and at the same time recognize her writings as prophetic? Are her writings complementary or supplementary to the Bible? Either option has problems. How to interface the two sources without compromising one or the other has been, and continues to be, a difficult assignment for Adventism.
If the lesser light is the means of illuminating or interpreting the greater light, then it in fact takes control. Even when the analogy shifts from light to a telescope, a testing instrument or to maps, the lesser ends up dictating to the greater.4 The tail truly then wags the dog. I think it’s very important, therefore, to distinguish Ellen White’s volumes from Scripture. The movement for gender equality taught me many things; one of which was the inclusive or exclusive power of language. If we speak of Ellen White as an inspired prophet, it becomes difficult not to do what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does with the Book of Mormon, that is, to make her writings and Scripture equal sources “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).5 We speak of a greater and lesser light. To maintain the unique role of Scripture, we must continue this differentiation in all the terms we use to describe Ellen White’s writings.6
| Scripture | Ellen White’s Writings |
|---|---|
| Greater Light | Lesser Light |
| Inspired | Wrote in the Spirit |
| Canonical | Noncanonical |
| Universal | Limited |
| Only rule for faith and practice | Personal Guide |
| Authoritative Source | Secondary Source |
At every point from the original writings to our reading of Scripture there is a very clear human contribution. When we read the Bible, we pray for the Spirit to guide us, but the process of understanding the text is manifestly a human endeavor too. Whatever version we use, the task of translating it was not the result of the Spirit alone. Readers of Hebrew or Greek do not escape the human work of the lexicographers, let alone their own humanity. Scribes were careful and skilled, and no doubt guided by the Spirit, but theirs was very much a human activity. Experts in textual analysis are skillful in their work, but the methods are still very human in nature. The collection of the accepted books of the Bible was directed by the Spirit, but still involved careful human decisions.
So the Bible we read today comes to us not only via the superintending power of God, but also through the frail limits of human skills and choices. The Bible we read is certainly not without errors, but it hinders none of us from finding an adequate knowledge of God and the One he sent. The Scriptures we have are in no way altered by postulating an inerrant original text (the so-called autographs), nor is the situation changed by accepting errors in the original text. If an inerrant text was important for our salvation, then God needed to control the process absolutely not only from the beginning but also until the end. It seems his supervision was relative from the start to the finish. Perhaps we should look at a classic example of a Biblical error.
In Matthew 23:35, the writer attributes the wrong father to Zechariah the priest. It's evident how the error occurred. Zechariah the prophet's father was Barachiah (Zech. 1:1). The description Jesus gives of Zechariah's death leaves no doubt that the reference is to the priest (2 Chron. 24:20–21). It's simply a case of memory applying the name of the prophet's father to the priest because they both had the same name. The name of Zechariah the priest's father was in fact Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20). In an attempt to rescue Matthew, one might hypothesize that the name of the priest's grandfather was Barachiah.7 However, if one allows this sort of speculative argument as legitimate, then of course any document can be demonstrated to be inerrant, even today's newspaper.
I do, therefore, accept the study guide’s argument that neither the Bible nor Ellen White were infallible or without error. “Ellen White was not infallible, and she never claimed infallibility. She grew, changed her mind on issues, and was constantly open for more light” (Thursday’s section). However, the study guide then adds this statement, which cannot be taken without question: “But as history has shown, if erroneous counsel has been given by a prophet, God will intervene [sometimes!] to correct the mistake” (Thursday’s section). If this was God’s consistent modus operandi, we would have no errors in either the Bible or Ellen White’s writings.
I became a Christian in my mid-twenties because I was fascinated and challenged by the person of Christ. Questions about the nature of the Christian documents that predicted or recounted Jesus’ story came later. Jesus once asked his disciples, “Do you wish to go away?” To which Peter protested, “Lord, to whom can we go?” (John 6:67–68). That is where we, too, end up: where do we go to get the Jesus story? The Scriptures, whatever their shortcomings, are the best and adequate source of a knowledge of Jesus. Not Tacitus, Josephus, the Gospel of Thomas, or even the Desire of Ages, are adequate.8 The Scriptures may not tell us all we’d like to know, but they do tell us all we need to know.
It’s unfortunate that other Christians often see us as having an alternate Bible. It’s vital that our words and actions disabuse our fellow Christians of this misunderstanding. In the end, the Scriptures are simply “they that testify on my [Jesus’] behalf” (John 5:39 NRSV). Adventists should covet not to be known as “the People of the Book,” but as the “People of the Person of whom the Book speaks.”
Notes and References
1. Presumably, the Galatians text is quoted to demonstrate Peter’s failure to see the importance of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together.
2. For a worthy but dated attempt to deal with many of these errors or corrections in Ellen White’s writings see F. D. Nichol, Ellen White and Her Critics (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald, 1951).
3. I do not say it’s an erroneous method, simply that it’s a double-edged sword.
4. See Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1998), 408–9.
5. Latter-day Saints appeal to Ezekiel 37:19, where the prophet speaks of two sticks becoming one in his hand. This refers, in their view, to the union of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In context, Ezekiel is talking about the uniting of Judah and the northern tribes in the post-exilic return.
6. One may change my choice of terms. The point is that the language used must consistently differentiate Ellen White’s writings from Scripture.
7. This is a popular ploy among some conservative Christians.
8. The Desire of Ages does not provide us with an independent historical source for the life of Christ. It belongs to the nineteenth-century “Life of Jesus” genre, even though it is one of the better examples of that format.
Norman Young is Honorary Research Fellow at Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW, Australia.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Dr. Young,
Thank you for this post. I found the two column "chart" especially helpful.
A few weeks ago, my mother, who is the Sabbath School superintendent at her church called me because she was puzzled about the lesson for that week. It tried to explain how God inspired prophets to speak/write in the Bible. This was fine.
But then the leap was made to comparing this to the way Mrs. White's writings were also generated. The take home message of the lesson was Ellen White's writings were analogous to that of the Biblical writers.
I told my mother just to concentrate on explaining Biblical inspiration and ignoring the connection to Ellen White, because this would just confuse everyone at Sabbath School!
From the article:
--
This is a dangerous defense strategy, for in an effort to shield Ellen White the study guide may succeed in only undermining confidence in the Scriptures.3 Some might conclude that if the Bible and Ellen White’s writings manifest certain similar elements that conflict with their view of inspiration, then logically they should dismiss both. Clearly it can be either a case of united they stand or united they fall. The form of the argument might end up stimulating an unfortunate skepticism.
--
You know that used to bother me. Only recently have I realized that the correct answer is to dismiss both. That is to get away from this idea that the Old Testament Prophets were so holy and correct in what they said. They were not. They were people with just as many preconceived and erroneous views as you or me or Ellen White. For practical purposes we don't continue to view many of the statements in the Bible as legitimate God given principles for all people for all time. Many of them may not have been good principles for the people or time they were given. Yet they may have been better principles then what they previously had. Take for instance stoning a rebellious son at the city gates with the Elders. Not really something that we would want to think God was instructing us to do but possibly way better then some father who because of the culture had absolute power over his family and could kill his rebellious son without any bodies interference. So what is a really an offensive Old Testament law is actually better then the absence of a law. Same with an eye for an eye. Way better then killing someone because they only injured you.
So we have to wade through a host of statements by writers and attributed to prophets in many cases of things that don't really fit the concept of God that Jesus gave us. The new testament writers are not much different, Paul's insistence that a woman not have any authority over a man or that a woman because she was deceived first in Eden is saved through child bearing. Not all that enlightened.
If we don't question and decide what in the Bible is not reasonable then we are left with a rather nasty religion. We are also left with many predictive prophecies that don't really have fulfillment. A lot of times we simply move the fulfillment to a distant future because as long as you can postpone a predictions fulfillment we can't say it was a false prophecy. This has led us to make too over reaching assumptions about what a prophet is. When we try to use those over reaching ideas on Ellen White we quickly see that she fails. Then we go back to the Bible and we see that those prophets failed also. That is not such a bad thing because maybe it is telling us that we are wrong in our assumptions about prophets. Now it could also be that Ellen White is not a prophet in any degree, but the fact that in trying to see if she is or is not we re-examine our beliefs and we end up growing in our understanding of the writers of the Bible. In which case even if Ellen White never uttered a God given prophecy she would still have acted in a prophetic way by spurring our development as we sought to understand prophets.
This leads us to the only logical position which is we have to test everything to see if it works, to see if it makes sense to see if it is consistent with a loving God. What does not work we discard whether from some Bible prophet or from an Early Church father or from our own church founders. We indeed have to pick and choose. Most all of us already do that but most of us are afraid to admit we do it because we have been conditioned with the over reaching view of the Bible and Bible period prophets. So we have what we believe in reality and what we pretend to believe to please the assumptions of those around us.
It is certainly time to break out of that trap however.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
"the Bible we read today comes to us not only via the superintending power of God, but also through the frail limits of human skills and choices."
This is a very difficult idea to accept when it is very apparent that the Bible contains numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. If God wanted to supervise a book, why did he allow so many errors? How can we be so certain that, while he left this job to frail humans, nevertheless, he left it to men to write as they wished?
Understanding that thousands of years before writing had been discovered, there were in many cultures, including those mentioned in the Bible, story tellers who passed down oral stories of their origins, their gods, their sacrifices and rituals helps us realize why it contains tales of their heroes that were filled with hyperbole before being written.
Compared with other great stories of contemporary times, they demonstrate similar origins: Earlier Sumerian flood stories resemble, very closely, the Genesis flood story; Hammurabi's law was evidently used as a source for the Ten Commandments (and it predates it by at least half a millennium); the seven days of Creation as accounted in the first chapter of Genesis is almost identical day-by-day as the Priestly version in the Bible.
As Ron has written, it is HOW we use the Bible that should be carefully examined. If we say it is "God's Word" and everything in its pages is inspired, how do we justify inspiration as being terribly wrong? Reading the Hebrew Bible, it clearly shows that they adopted many of the superstitious and cultic practices of their neighbors in deciding momentous questions by dividing animal carcasses; the test for an unfaithful wife was nothing but witchery, as were many of the rules given by God of how men should live. What do we do with those? Is it appropriate to select those to be obeyed today and eliminate others? On what basis are the choices made?
The Bible is nothing more and nothing less than the Hebrew's story of why they were selected by God and their belief that it was he who directed their lives even to the smallest detail. It is THEIR book, and they wrote it to glorify their ancestors and place in time as God's chosen people. This belief has been the cause of the nearly 2000 year struggle for the land in the Middle East they say God has given them, forgetting that Abraham's other son was also given land there as his inheritance. It is also the reason the Christian world will not dare to challenge that belief because they have also adopted the Bible as their version of God's will.
Bless you, Norman. This avenue of approach to Scripture may allow us to open all those doors that have been closed off to us for a hundred years.
Norman,
"This is a dangerous defense strategy, for in an effort to shield Ellen White the study guide may succeed in only undermining confidence in the Scriptures."
Spot on!
It is interesting to me that "conservative Adventism" indirectly or inadvertaly accomplishes what they despise about "liberal theology and higher criticism"...they both ultimately undermine the authority and confidence of Holy Scripture.
regards,
pat
Dr Young's commentary on this complex subject is an important contribution to what is often viewed as an in-house problem for Adventists. A couple of weeks ago I argued in my commentary here on Spectrum ["How to Recognize a Prophet When You See one"] that we should give prophets a functional description, for which I proposed we consider them "managers of social change toward divine values", whether or not they write scripture. How we understand scripture itself, however, remains a pivotal issue. I would suggest, using a Venn diagram, that prophecy, scripture and community represent a collection of sets that sometimes overlap, and sometimes do not. Occasionally, all three overlap. In Ellen White's case, her work as a prophet and her writings both overlap each other and one section of the larger Christian community, but not the central or core occupied by the Bible alone.
Dr Young's differentiations between Scripture and Ellen White's writings seem useful in some respects but problematic in others. What is the difference between "inspired" and "wrote in the Spirit"? Probably none. And to suggest that one is our "only rule of faith and practice" and the other a "personal guide" seems to fly the face of actual practice. Certainly the Bible is an "authoritative" or primary source for all Christians, as it is historically and culturally prior to all that comes later-- an enduring influence upon derivative or dependent prophets and authors such as Ellen White.
Fascinating epistomological challenge, this statement: 'The Bible we read is certainly not without errors, but it hinders none of us from finding an adequate knowledge of God and the One he sent.'
In the end, how do you know which part of the Bible is error and which part is correct, or how to interpret it or define truth? Does one try to create a balance between the chaos of independant thought and the order created by group recognition of some absolute as an anarchy preventing boundary. Who, or what is truth defined by if the Bible cannot be relied on, or how is truth defined?
One can see the reason the absolute authority of the Catholic magesterium was developed by the Catholic Church in a time of warfare, bloodshed and chaos where a different religious view point was enough of an excuse to fight once the Government lost the power to Govern.
The absolute authority excercised by the hierarchy of the church when the Empire was finally sacked was the only thing which kept Europe from totally self destructing with anarchy, and Christians such as Augustine believed that this was what was foretold by Prohecy (all nations will kneel...) This was seen as proof that the Catholic church was the one true church and that the power of the church over the state was God ordained. It was thanks to his Love that God guided the magesterium into all truth through openess to the spirit and the scrutiny of logic (Plato and Aristotle lent a hand throughout the centuries) and only thanks to God's love that all who differed from truth were crushed and burnt at the stake. Thankyou sweet Jesus.
The new Benedicts doctrine of the tyranny of relativism is the same thinking which justified the absolute tyranny of the magesterium of old. Amorality, immorality, disorder, lawlessness are thought to be due to a doctrinal or philosopical relativism. So many, to bring peace back, desire truth to be imposed by force. This is the reason the Christian right is gaining ascendancy.
For those of us who reject any 'absolute power' but God, we better work out our epistomology and derive truth from it which speaks to us deeply or we will just be another slave of the coming tyranny.
Ultimately "inspired" means "accepted by the community of believers."
The Bible's authority is not based on factual correctness, but its wide acceptance. The same goes for EGW. As long as her writings find acceptance in the SDA church, she'll be considered "inspired."
Religion is about stories, and about which story has the widest appeal. If we went by factual correctness, there would be no way we could say that the Book of Joshua was a truer story than the Book of Mormon. Neither one of them is rooted in actual history.
"Ultimately "inspired" means "accepted by the community of believers."
The Bible's authority is not based on factual correctness, but its wide acceptance. The same goes for EGW. As long as her writings find acceptance in the SDA church, she'll be considered "inspired."
Religion is about stories, and about which story has the widest appeal. If we went by factual correctness, there would be no way we could say that the Book of Joshua was a truer story than the Book of Mormon. Neither one of them is rooted in actual history."
Aage,
This is a most apt description. Thanks.
Norman voices concern that Adventists will give offense to other (conservative) Christians if we don't differentiate sufficiently between the role/status of the Bible and that of the EGW corpus.
Winning the approbation of evangelicals (or avoiding their disapprobation) is not a worthy mission for a church.
In contrast to the tidy evangelical theology, hermeneutics and epistemology embraced by many of my friends, I find the messiness of the divine-human engagement exemplified in EGW more believable.
God is involved with humanity. At least that is the most economical explanation of some of the phenomena. Even the most sublime religious/spiritual phenomena are shaped/colored/filtered by humanity. Neat descriptions of how the divine and human interact always omit large amounts of data.
So I read the Bible and EGW as the primary documents of my spiritual/religious community, quite intentionally picking "the good stuff." I determine what "the good stuff" is by whether or not it helps individuals and my congregation find health, hope and healing.
I also try to allow my own idiosyncratic perception of what is good to be corrected and enlarged by the wisdom that has developed through two thousand years of Christian experience and reflection. (Part of this wisdom, as has already been noted by someone else, is the danger of either radical individualism--exemplified by liberals like me--or excessive hierarchicalism--e.g. the papacy.)
"The drift of this study guide, as with the whole quarter, is more on defending Ellen White's writings than helping us to understand the nature of biblical prophecy. ... "
To those who view these guides as such consider that, whilst this may be the intent of the lesson author, editor or publisher, one with an open mind can still learn and gain much from identifying, as the guides have done, the work and methodology of the prophets of old, God's "ambassadors", as recorded in Scripture.
To those who would fully concur with the sentiments of the quote, perhaps you might like to think of whether your glass is half full or half empty.
Those who see things with half full glasses will, more than likely gain a blessing from their study, while those with their glass half empty, will likely feel disappointed, discomfitted, and perhaps, disillusioned.
With this in mind it is interesting to follow, in the Antipodes, the commentary on Barak Obama - the voice of hope for the US people.
People suicide because they have lost hope. Without hope all else is worth nothing. And Jesus through His life and ministry, His Word and His workers, (read prophets), has provided the world with hope, if we will but accept His word.
"inspired" means "accepted by the community of believers."
And equally, any prophet must be accepted and claimed by a body of believers. Otherwise, there will be no prophet.
The term "inspired" or "inspiration" is an overused word but only defined by the speaker or writer. If anyone truly believes that the mess of genealogies or figures hyped in the Bible were inspired, you would also be willing to purchase the Golden Gate Bridge. Neither proposition is possible.
Aage is right: "If we went by factual correctness, there would be no way we could say that the Book of Joshua was a truer story than the Book of Mormon. Neither one of them is rooted in actual history."
Just as children all love the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, or Red Riding Hood, it is not necessary that they be factually honest, only that they have a moral hidden within. Just so the Bible writers had reasons (puzzle: find the moral in the concubine cut-up in Judges), often etiological, for telling stories, many filled with hyperbole on heroic feats and expanded figures to glorify the protagonist.
Even the NT stories of a virgin birth had many counterparts in earlier epics and stories from other cultures. This gave the god(s) important positions and were told and retold for centuries.
If they were not added to the Jesus' story, why were they given such importance by two Gospels and the earliest writer and first Gospel knew nothing at all about a virgin birth. Such a story surely would have been told before then; leaving us to wonder why such important information was not known or eliminate in the first stories of Jesus. Again, one of the stories only found in the Bible.
John wrote:
--
So I read the Bible and EGW as the primary documents of my spiritual/religious community, quite intentionally picking "the good stuff." I determine what "the good stuff" is by whether or not it helps individuals and my congregation find health, hope and healing.
--
Since the Reformation the above principle has served the Protestant church. Luther was compelled to use his mind and his reasoning to form his religion. He was not at all supportive of others doing the same thing. You may recall that Luther had such animosity to Zwingli that at one time he said that one or the other of them was of God and the other of the devil. As I recall the issue was Transubstantiation of which Luther's view lost in the subsequent Protestant churches. But was it true that Luther or Zwingli one was of God and the other of the Devil. Not likely, the reality is that they both had some good things to contribute and some bad things that they contributed.
This is something very similar to Ellen White who claimed that her work was either of God or of the Devil. Not true at all most of us are not totally of God or totally of the Devil. She was as wrong to make that statement as Luther was of Zwingli, neither statement negates the good the person has done but the statements do show us that no matter what authority a community may give someone both the community and the person can be very wrong.
The tragedy of our fundamental belief about Ellen White as a continuing authority on truth is that she is not and the fundamental belief statement itself is not true either. Which means unless the church leadership steps back from the position they have taken they put the membership in the position of Reformation against the SDA organization. Reformation is good for us but it always hurts the organization that needs the reform. At least until the organizations can realize their need to grow and change something which apparently is against the credo of most organizations.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Good points Ron.
Reforming and ever Reforming only within the concepts of the Sola's.
Though I know you do not agree with me either,the issue I am making with Herb is this. SDA's since my childhood have led me to believe we were "heirs of the Protestant Ref." and thus the emphasis of the Protestant Reformers in GC which I have read through more than several times in my 63 yrs.
When EGW claims Luther clearly taught justification yet on quite a few occassions muddled what he said there is a problem. JBF alone was the major dividing point that broke the absolute power of the middle ages church. To confuse that doctrine makes one ingenuous or in a worst case scenario fraudulant.
If Adventist want to deny that heritage by preaching "another gospel" fine but I suggest they are not heirs of the Protestant Reformation if they do so. They are something else and that is my point...which they have a right to be "without their claims."
One may argue against what I have said but Neal Wilson's total lack of understanding or support of RBF/JBF to a default of "Salvation by Grace", which is by the way the same claimed by the RCC understanding, in order to avoid dispute and clarity of the doctrine is but proof we have not lived up to our claim.
It's time for confession and integrity.
My two cents.
regards,
pat
Well Pat I think all Christians even the Roman Catholics can continue the Protestant Reformation. But the Reformation was far more then the sola scriptora . It was an outgrowth of the humanism. So today we continue that line of thought when we ask for the reason, when we look at the logic behind a belief and the possibility of looking at the stories and teachings of the scriptures in different ways then our traditions have taught. Certainly for us Adventists we can't do that without also doing it to Ellen White also. Her claims were wrong, the community that made the claims was wrong, but that does not mean it is worthless, we learn from errors just often as from when someone got it right.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Norman has done a good job in calling forth all kinds of opinions relating to the basic issue of authority in determining truth and personal decision. I like his personal approbations. I still find it curious, however, that some still use the "shut door" issue as an example of Ellen's mistaken understanding of her own visions, etc.
One of the problems that exists almost pandemically is that so many Adventists do much of their writing by quoting other Adventists who make personal judgments. IMO, when one researches the documents of the 1840s and 1850s, Ellen's use of the phrase "shut door" is clearly understandable. I tried to do that with the space I was given in a particular chapter in MESSENGER OF THE LORD. Also note Merlin Burt's doctoral thesis.
Regarding her spiritual usefulness, think of the thousands on thousands of young and old who have found a life-changing relationship with Jesus through reading THE DESIRE OF AGES! Not many religious writers have rested on as many biblical texts as she--like a two-way street experientially but that is not proof of anything. Cheers, Herb
Herb Douglass wrote: "I still find it curious, however, that some still use the "shut door" issue as an example of Ellen's mistaken understanding of her own visions, etc."
So did the pioneers of the SDA church have a mistaken idea of the shut door or not? It seems like we have continued to shut the door when it comes to the sources of the Desire of Ages. I would like to see one paragraph that is not a paraphase from some other religious author. It's now over 25 years since Dr. Fred Veltmann did his research on some of the chapters of the Desire of Ages. Has the Ellen White estate documented the sources in the Desire of Ages? Are we still shutting the door to the many authors the Ellen White team (including her secretaries) used for many (if not most) of the ideas in the Desire of Ages?
I remember Dr. Eric Syme's explanation of when he became an Adventist and was introduced to the Desire of Ages. He said: "This is good stuff. This reminds me of Hanna and Edershime." Why do we have to be so exclusive? Why can't we give credit to whom it is due? In the 1919 Bible Conference minutes, A.G. Daniels states that he saw the secretaries of Ellen White in Australia with the books of other authors open and they were writing the Desire of Ages. So let's at least give some credit to them. I am not against giving credit to Ellen White for overseeing the writing of the book, just so long as we give credit to the authors they copied from.
I find it very interesting that when giving an example of Biblical error, we refer to a "name" in a genealogy; really? that's the ERROR? or perhaps a law that is not compatible with our sophisticated mentality.- there is progression in our understanding of God, but it should never be in order to criticize our previous understanding; if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't be here, we should acknowledge our shortcomings; we're all humans; but to be human is not an error; is the most wonderful experience there is. I often wonder why God uses Prophets? why fragile man like us? why not super humans? I think is because of humility, we don't like to be teach by other humans like us, so we love to point to their errors. if the prophet is pointing me away from Jesus, I will not accept it,is he is drawing me closer to Jesus I will leave him alone, that could only come from God, the devil will never direct you to Jesus.
Good thoughts Rudy but I suggest we should be careful of "Which Jesus."
It is the Jesus of "Spirit and Truth."
As Paul admonished Timothy,
"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." 1 Tim.4:16.
Truth and Practice/compassion. Love which includes Truth and Justice and not just compassion "without truth and justice."
regards,
pat
Good suggestion Pat.
The lesson this week is "Integrity". what do we mean by it? honesty? wholeness? We are all walking and experiencing, but not there yet: "Truth and Practice/compassion. Love which includes Truth and Justice and not just compassion "without truth and justice." and I'm going to have to through out there the classical but true: only Jesus can give us these complete commitment to all those areas, and sometimes He uses people like you and me or Ellen White, or the Bible, or Nature, or circumstances, and many others, Is this God great or what? all in order to bring us to a complete alliance to Himself.
Has anyone considered Hebrews 1:1,2?
Can one not deduce that after the Incarnation, prophets were not longer necessary? Only disciples and Apostles?
Did not Jesus say: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"?
Thus, wouldn't it be wise to use terms of identity other
that Prophet--seeing as much that we were also warned that many false prophets would appear?
At least Ellen White clained to the the "lesser" light.
The Church has not always used her in that capacity. Tom
Mike: You are correct in asking whether any of Ellen's contemporaries were unclear regarding the "shut-door" issue. Yes, definitely, and she led them out of the fog. You refer to 1919 and Daniells: that he saw her secretaries writing out DA. I think I have read everything available on that conference but I never read anything like that, from him or anybody else. You may have read it but it was from another mistaken writer of which we have many. Thanks for sharing. Cheers, Herb
Hi Herb, Thanks for your observations. I was mistaken on some points in my previous post. Here is the actual quote from the 1919 Bible Conference minutes:
“A. G. Daniells: Yes, but you know there are some brethren who go in all over. We could mention some old and some young who think they cannot believe the Testimonies without just putting them up as absolutely infallible and word-inspired, taking the whole thing as given verbally by the Lord. They do not see how to believe them and how to get good out of them except in that way; and I suppose some people would feel that if they did not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, they could not have confidence in it, and take it as the great Book that they now see it to be. Some men are technical, and can hardly understand it in any other way. Some other men are not so technical in logic, but they have great faith and great confidence, and so they can go through on another line of thought. I am sure there has been advocated an idea of infallibility in Sister White and verbal inspiration in the Testimonies that has led people to expect too much and to make too great claims, and so we have gotten into difficulty.
Now, as I have studied it these years since I was thrown into the controversy at Battle Creek, I have endeavored to ascertain the truth and then be true to the truth. I do not know how to do except that way. It will never help me, or help the people, to make a false claim to evade some trouble. I know we have difficulties here, but let us dispose of some of the main things first. Brethren, are we going to evade difficulties or help out the difficulties by taking a false position? [Voices: No!] Well, then let us take an honest, true position, and reach our end somehow, because I never will put up a false claim to evade something that will come up a little later on. That is not honest and it is not Christian, and so I take my stand there.
In Australia I saw "The Desire of Ages" being made up, and I saw the rewriting of chapters, some of them written over and over and over again. I saw that, and when I talked with Sister Davis about it, I tell you I had to square up to this thing and begin to settle things about the spirit of prophecy. If these false positions had never been taken, the thing would be much plainer than it is today. What was charged as plagiarism would all have been simplified, and I believe men would have been saved to the cause if from the start we had understood this thing as it should have been. With those false views held, we face difficulties in straightening up. We will not meet those difficulties by resorting to a false claim. We could meet them just for today by saying, "Brethren, I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies; I believe in the infallibility of the one through whom they came, and everything that is written there I will take and I will stand on that against all comers."
If we did that, I would just take everything from A to Z exactly as it was written, without making any explanations to any one; and I would not eat butter or salt or eggs if I believed that the Lord gave the words in those Testimonies to Sister White for the whole body of people in this world. But I do not believe it. “
Herb, Elder Daniell’s observation was not a casual one, as considerable time must have gone by for him to have observed the “rewriting of chapters, some of them written over and over and over again.” The fact that he spoke with Sister Davis (Marian Davis) who was Ellen White’s chief secretary about it, implies to me that it probably was her secretaries who Elder Daniells observed. Do you think that it was Ellen White herself that Elder Daniells observed? Was the “rewriting of chapters….over and over and over again” to make sure that the Desire of Ages was a paraphrase and not a word for word copy?
In any case, the GC decided not to share this information with the church . I personally saw a Desire of Ages book during the time of Dr. Fred Veltman’s research at his research centre in Angwin in 1983. Colouring pencils were used to show the different books and authors that were borrowed. Most of the book was filled with different colours. Of those coloured portions, according to Dr. Veltman’s secretary, very few of them were word for word” quotes. Most of the colour represented paraphrasing. That’s why I would like to see one paragraph from the book that we could honestly say was not borrowed from some other book. Nevertheless, I do want to confirm that the Desire of Ages is one of the most wonderful books outside of the Bible. In my opinion footnotes would enhance it. Can’t we admit that Ellen White’s writings were in part influenced by authors outside the SDA church? My understanding is that Ellen White was open about her use of sources, and even encouraged the members of the church to read those same books. I believe that she sincerely wanted to share the best information available with the church and draw us all closer to Christ. If she was so open, why have we become so exclusive?
The way the more recent comments have turned causes me to wonder about the study and understanding of our churches publishing history. There was a day when books such as "The Desire of Ages" did have footnotes and page after page of reference numbers given. I have held these books in my hands. Unfortunately I couldn't afford the used book stores price while being a poor working stiff college student. The references were there, nothing was being hidden. The move by some to disallow for secretaries and people like W.W. Prescott who hasn't been mentioned yet who helped in the writting and appropriate grammer has been missed too. When we want to buy into the Evangelical concept of verbal dictation of the scriptures we end up doing the same to EGW and really mess things up. And yes she did encourage reading books like Edershimes life of Christ and others she never hid any of that and she never, that I recall claimed to be a stenographer for God. Just some more thoughts... Brother Michael (not to be confused with the well spoken "Michael" or the thoughtful "Mike" of which I am neither.)
To Herbert Douglas: What Mike should have quoted in his last comments. The following is a word for word quote from the 1919 Bible Conference minutes and precedes what I quoted above to place the above quotation in its context:
C. M. Sorenson: Does Sister White use the word "inspiration" concerning her own writings, or is that merely a theory we have worked up ourselves? I ask for information? I have never seen that in her writings.
Our Difficulty Lies in Two Points: Infallibility and Verbal Inspiration
A. G. Daniells: I hardly know where to begin or what to say. I think I must repeat this, that our difficulty lies in two points, especially. One is on infallibility and the other is on verbal inspiration. I think Brother James White foresaw difficulties along this line away back at the beginning. He knew that he took Sister White's testimonies and helped to write them out and make them clear and grammatical and plain. He knew that he was doing that right along. And he knew that the secretaries they employed took them and put them into grammatical condition, transposed sentences, completed sentences, and used words that Sister White did not herself write in her original copy. He saw that, and yet he saw some brethren who did not know this, and who had great confidence in the Testimonies, just believing and teaching that these words were given to Sister White as well as the thought. And he tried to correct that idea. You will find those statements in the Review and Herald, like the one Brother Wilcox read the other day. If that explanation had been accepted and passed on down, we would have been free from a great many perplexities that we have now.
F. M. Wilcox: Articles were published in those early Reviews disclaiming that.
A. G. Daniells: Yes, but you know there are some brethren who go in all over....... (as quoted above)."
Herb, the above quote speaks for itself, and specifically does mention the secretaries. So what follows with the example in Australia is Elder Daniells' personal observations to illustrate the points that he had just made.
When I first read E.G. White I thought wow, she is so insightful. After reading a few of her letters I feel she would not have had the depth to come up with some of the insights in those conflict of the ages books due to the shallow nature of some of her letters which reflect a lack of understanding of the reality of certain situations she was commenting on. Yet she is thought of this incredibly wise woman, whilst I feel she is wiser than average but not incredibly wise. i want to know why their is such deceit. Let me ask a simple question, are the heads of the adventist church, themselves (not including church funds used for charity church building health mesage etc...) very rich? Was E.G. White rich? Were the adventist leaders back then, very rich? This is important to me, if any has the answer to this do let me know please.
Brother Michael
I suggest your memory is failing you. There never was a day when EGW's books were footnoted with reference to sources. Great Controversy has limited sourcing to D'Aubigny and a few other writers but nothing approaching full acknowledgement of sources.
When Walter Rae brought the full extent of EGW's borrowing to the attention of the church thirty years ago, he was treated as an enemy, and his career and reputation were destroyed. To this day the GC has still not, to my knowledge, informed the church of the full truth about EGW's literary dependency on other authors.
For thirty years, the prophetic status of EGW has survived on the kind of constant life-support drip of special pleading that no Adventist would accept if applied to Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy.
friend
The issue is best stated that E.G.White and later heads of the church had personal access to wealth if not personally wealthy.
It should be noted the Joseph Bates became an Adventist wealthy and died in poverty--all in the name of the Church.
At the present time, the people of wealth within the "work" are the CEO's of the Adventist Health System. Tom
That neither the writings of EGW nor Scripture nor any other human being is wholly free from error is beyond doubt. This means that we need to use our minds when reading them.
No one should ever believe anything on the basis of nothing but formal and absolute authority [FAAA]. Evidence and sound thinking is what counts. If something makes sense all things considered, with primary emphasis on Scripture, believe it. If it doesn't, don't.
It appears to me that trying to escape the FAAA of EGW by finding shelter in the FAAA of Scripture doesn't solve the problem. It merely moves the discussion back a step where it starts up all over again.
The best solution in my view is to abandon the idea of FAAA in the first place.
Dave:
You are, of course, bringing up the issue of Divine Command Theory. The issue was first raised in writing by Plato in The Euthyphro, 10a, where Socrates asks Euthyphro 'Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy?'
This issue of whether some presumed revelatory source can trump an independent standard (albeit incompletely understood) has been an ongoing struggle for Theists, no doubt long before Plato wrote those words.
Unfortunately we seem to still be struggling mightily with the question even - and perhaps especially - in today's world.
Dave,
Glad we are here. So you don't agree that scripture is to be our final authority for faith and practice...fair enough.
regards,
pat
Dave,
EGW says, “Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the selfsame principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the church; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to their creed or the established teaching of their church.” {GC 596.3}
Is it not now possible that it could be worded this way for SDA’s?
They (SDA’s) are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by EGW; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to the established teaching of their church so understood by that interpretation.
That’s my point! Enough said on this by me for the present.
Regards,
pat
Dave and Pat...
It seems that Dave is saying that our reason and evidence should be the final authority...while Pat is saying that scripture is to be the final authority, our reason being subordinated to it. At least that is what I think I'm hearing.
Both positions seem to have their merit. How can we understand and interpret Scripture apart from our power of reason and cognitive thought? OTOH, much of the revelation of Scripture transcends our reasoning...God manifesting himself to humanity as a human, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the experience of new birth, all surpass our human reasoning, though not necessarily totally bypassing it.
Like Pat, however, the issue that I have with much traditional Adventist practice, and that this quarterly does not do much to dislodge, is that both our interpretation of Scripture and our reason are to be subordinated to the authority of the writings of EGW.
Many fundamentalists have been very often stuck in a total literalism concerning every jot and tittle of the Scriptures. They often do exegetical gymnastics to find harmonizations of seemingly conflicting passages where none exsist, and at times fail to acknowledge the cultural context and views of the biblical writers, thus making labored and twisted applications for today.
However, we have been stuck in the same type of box in relation to the writings of EGW. More damage has been inflicted within our church because of our refusal to look beyond the jot and tittles of her work, the endless labored and sanitized apologetics that have been done in her defense, this quarterly included, and the mythic like status that she has been and continues to be accorded.
Neither of these practices are healthy.
Thanks...
Frank
Frank,
As usual your writing skills and expressiveness exceed mine.
The late Ron Nash deals with some of these issues in "The Word of God and the Mind of Man." P&R Publishing, 1982.
regards,
pat
"Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy?"
We could also ask: Is the Bible holy because man has given it that designation, or is it intrinsically holy on its own?
Were we to be given an ancient book containing writings of unknown authors at a non-certain time, and it contained miraculous events, god(s) doing strange unexplainable things, violent murders and more, laws for all functions of life, what would be our reaction? Would we simply accept it as wonderful truth?
There is an abundance of such writings, much older than the Bible:
The Enuma Elish; the Gilgamesh Epic, the separate codes of the Sumerians, Hittite, and Haammurabi, plus many more. There is no difficulty whatsoever in finding multiple comparisons with portions of nearly every book of the Bible. There is little that is new in the Bible that was not previously written; yet nearly half the world hold it in a special place like no other. Its "truths" are not at all unique and have been expressed by many others before as how humans should live peaceably together.
Nor is the fact that someone was born of a virgin any different than numerous other figures at that time: even the Caesars were worshiped as gods and there were believed to be virginal conceptions between a god and human that no one questioned--which is why Matthew and Luke's story not only were credible, but designed to equal other very familiar and accepted births.
Has anyone here read and believed the Gnostic gospels and taken their fantastic stories as literally true? They are readily seen as myths.I
It is only long familiarity, tradition and cultural prejudice that prevent us from seeing the New Testament gospels in the same light. If those gospels had also been lost to us and only recently discovered (as were the Gnostic gospels) who would read these tales for the first time and believe they were actual historical accounts of a man born of a vigin, who had walked on water and returned from the dead? (If you read it in check-out headlines would you believe it?) Is its antiquity sufficient reason to remove all logic and reason?
Why should we consider the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras and other pagan mystery savior as fables, yet read essentially the same story told in a Jewish context and believe it to be the biography of a carpenter from Bethlehem?
There are important guides to better living to be found in the Bible: exhortations, prohibitions, and rules. Even these must be read using our common sense to discern which are applicable to our lives today; those that are not may simply be interesting history of how people lived at one time. To claim inspiration for a book (for some of the Levitical rules?), what is it based upon? Probably half the Bible should not be deemed as "inspired" but are only lists of events, people's daily lives, struggles, genealogy and more. There is no way to determine the accuracy of any of it and the pedestal on which it has been placed has caused more battles than any other book ever written. Not something for which its promoters should be proud. Let it stand on its own, or fall on its own. Fundamentalists have almost destroyed it.
Pat, Frank, Elaine and Others:
Thanks for the conversation!
Perhaps a few additional words from me. I understand that these further comments might make things more complicated; however, because these issues are inherently complex, I do not know how else to move forward.
1. I'm not comfortable when Pat says: "So you don't agree that scripture is to be our final authority for faith and practice...fair enough."
I am uncomfortable with this way of putting it because to me this leaves the impression that I think there is something else that is more authoritative than Scripture. I explicitly and most emphatically do not believe any such thing. I am questioning all formal and absolute appeals to authority [FAAA]. I repeat: all of them.
2. The adjectives "formal" and "absolute" are important to me. I believe that the authority any human assertion may possess is material and presumptive. By "material" I mean that the assertion itself possesses the authority, if any, not the human person or group who makes it. By "presummptive" I mean that those who challenge the human assertion bear the burden of establishing its error.
2. Some say that in formulations like mine "reason" becomes more authoritative than Scripture. If I were using the term "reason" in a sustantive sense, I would see the point. But because I am using it in a methodological sense, as I think is usual, I think the criticism sails past my position without making contact. We use reason in the sense that I am using the term whenever we read Scripture or anything else. I'm not certain how else we could do it. The point is to do it consciously and to do it well.
3. Luther's "sola scriptura" doctrine was hammmered out in what I take to be his rightful protests against Roman Catholicism which, even to this day, I believe, resists the distinction between Scripture and Tradition. Rather, Roman Catholicism tends to see Scripture as one part of a single sacred tradition that stretches from antiquity to the present with the Church in its established procedures and personel as the final determiner of what it should mean and how it should be applied in any given moment. Pastor Bill Cork or Priest Jim, Elaine (who I think studied at a Roman Catholic school) or someone else may correct me on this; however, till they do, this is my understanding of the Roman Catholic doctrinal tendencies. Thus the question is not quite "Scripture or Tradition?" but rather whether "Scripture as tradition" captures what Christians should believe. When this is the issue, I am wholly on the side of Luther, Calvin, etc.
4. I am always perplexed when people assert that Seventh-day Adventists must believe this or that even though they find the concept only in the writings of EGW and not in Scripture itself. Because I personally have rarely seen anyone lose his or her church membership or denominational employment for this reason alone, I'm not certain what people have in mind. This does happen, but not often.
5. I am aware that if some person openly denounces or derides the honestly held beliefs of others----even while proclaiming his or her love for the bretheren who, sadly, are not as well educated, though, God bless them, are doing the best they can with what little they know, and most certainly will be in the Kingdom, probably even closer to the throne of God----leaders and members of our denomination get defensive and reactive. I don't blame them. Such conduct is irresponsible and unprofesessional. At least this is what I was taught in ecumenical--liberal--theological centers.
6. No Seventh-day Adventists formulates his or her beliefs precisely as the "Twenty-eight Fundamental Beliefs" of our denomination do. Sooner or later, we all say something like "Well, that's not the way I would put it." The question is whether there is enough overlap in honestly held beliefs to make a mutually enriching and enabling relationship possible. Again, this is true in any denomination. Think of how much many contemporary Roman Cathoic theologians patiently endure and quietly challenge because on balance they are blessed by the church and believe that it is a blessing to others! They have my respect.
7. In all families there are times when we "agree to disagree," to use a trite cliche. In part this means that we don't keep bringing up subjects about which we painfully differ. This is because our love for each other is deeper and wider than the beliefs that would divide us if we made them the object of constant attention and consternation.
8. With respect to the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, which seems to be the issue that drives these discussions in SDA circles, my suggestion is to believe it or not believe it on the basis of your best reading of all the relevant evidence. If you come up with something other than the traditional SDA position, make your views known in the appropriate times and places--preferably with peers who are able to stand up to you--while doing everything you otherwise can to be a positive presence in our denomination's life. If this is your practice, I doubt that very many will give you a hard time.
9. Any denomination's theologians have an additional responsibility, however. This is to mine and plumb what the denomination has believed in previous generations for ideas and practices that, when reformulated to meet present needs, bless others. Denominational theologians must do more than deconstruct erroenous positions. It is their responsibility to make constructive proposals on the very issues they find troubling that will take the best in those traditional positions and make something better.
10. It is more important to read Scripture than to argue about its authority. Millions of people who look upon it as nothing more than a "cultural classic" are blessed by it every day of the year.
My thanks to anyone who honored me by reading all this!
Dave
Dave,
Thanks for you sincere time and effort in explaining your position.
But doesn't that no FAAA say the Scriptures Themselves (not our understanding which may be in error) do not contain the material/information from which we glean that which is to be authoritative for faith and practice?
It/scripture judges all other sources of information/material and is not on par with them? Scripture within itself does have a "legitimare claim" for Christians.
#4.."I am always perplexed when people assert that Seventh-day Adventists must believe this or that even though they find the concept only in the writings of EGW and not in Scripture itself."
I am simply saying that it "may seem to be good advice" but it does not have authority over me for faith and practice in the Christian community.
For example..."do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Col.2:21-23.
regards,
pat
Scripture only has the authority we give it. We have the freedom to choose whether it is an authority for us or a religious history book. The authority given is is as different and varied as the individuals select.
If it makes sense, we may choose to listen; if not, we may reject it. There is no one living today who has, or is even able to live by every law and principle found in the Bible. However, the pretense follows: it is our final guide for life and contains all the truth necessary.
E,
I suggest that there is more "liberty" than you might think with scripture being our "formal and absolute" authority for faith and practice. It rules out tons of tradition and new ideas that would take us captive...especially as seen through the information given by the "inspired" writings of Paul.
regards.
pat
While Adventism has "ruled out" much; at the same time tradition has adopted more of its major pillars and doctrines than most realize; ones that are hard to come by reading Scripture alone.
"Tradition" is not necessarily wrong. It just must be verified by scripture alone and subject to change FOR THOSE who claim to be Protestant.
Have a good evening.
pat
But it's not like those pentecostal pastors who really rip their flock off, or is it? I mean, I HATE churches which are clearly businesses first spiritual second, so I need to find out more about where the 10 percent tithe goes to before I can agree to baptisimal classes. so who can tell me a little more?
We should not assume that everything Ellen White wrote was infallible, merely because she had a spiritual gift. Clearly, not everything she said or wrote came from God. And she admitted as much. I believe that if we would heed the wise counsel of Drs. Hans LaRondelle and Desmond Ford, we would be able to use Ellen White's writings in a profitable way and yet maintain the integrity of scripture and the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura.
Desmond Ford rightly stated that Ellen White's writings have pastoral authority, not canonical authority. And Hans LaRondelle used to tell his seminary classes that when Ellen White agrees with the Bible, he is happy to accept her insights. However, when Ellen White disagrees with the Bible, Dr. LaRondelle stated that he has to go with the Bible.
It is obvious that Ellen White made mistakes, including theological mistakes, particularly in her earlier years. And as Dr. Gerhard Pfandl points out in the S.S. lessons, the Holy Spirit eventually led her to correct many of those mistakes. But it is also clear that she died before some of her mistakes were corrected, and some still remain uncorrected, at least in the minds of more traditional Adventists.
I am saying these things as one who loves Ellen White's writings. Unlike some, I do not find them to be legalistic. I find them to be filled with the gospel of free grace. This in itself is a sign that her gift was genuine, as false prophets are never Christ-centered. But we abuse her writings when we exalt them to a level where they do not belong.
Bob,
90% spot on!...with Des and Hans thoughts...and the last one..."But we abuse her writings when we exalt them to a level where they do not belong."
As well is not an open discussion of her literary borrowing...while not wrong in itself deceitful if not made known...if not then...NOW. How much is in this Quarterly to that effect?
The other 10%...the countless many that were harmed and disrespected because of her errors not being corrected!
regards,
pat
I realize that EGW made errors, but the one that gets me most is her belief in the shut door. I know that she corrected it, and helped lead others out of it, but from what I could find, she never admitted that she was ever personally in error over the issue. In fact, she claimed that she wasn't infallible, but never once have I encountered in her writings a specific admission of error on any significant point.
Apologists try to defend her by pointing out that Peter was in error over Gentiles being admitted into equal fellowship until God corrected him through vision. They parallel this to the vision that EGW was given that corrected her misapprehension of the shut door.
However, this attempt at a one to one correlation seems to break down when pressed a bit further. Peter was never given a vision that he used to support his previous stance on Gentile admission. It simply grew out of his prejudice. EGW, OTOH, based her erroneous suppositions on divinely inspired vision. And she went as far as publicly rebuking one who said that her position was wrong, using the authority of God, her gift, and her vision as grounds for the rebuke.
The defense is also made that biblical prophets, like Nathan, were sometimes wrong. However, after giving David the thumbs up on building the temple, Nathan went home that night, and it seems that he was given a correction immediately. Whether it was a day or more, it seems that his next message to David was given very shortly after the fact.
EGW, if I'm not mistaken, believed the door was shut to salvation for five years! That's quite a long period for such crucial theological error, error that could impact the eternal destiny of many.
In looking to defend her gift and calling, I just wish the quarterly would be more forthright about such problems. I also wish that in looking to defend her, they would not press the biblical examples so hard, and in such a way that ends up straining credulity.
If I am wrong about any of the details I've stated above concerning the shut door, I am certainly open to correction.
Thanks...
Frank
Frank
Ellen White and the church abandoned the Shut Door doctrine in 1851, and the fact that she had claimed divine inspiration for a view that had to be scrapped is a very likely explanation for the very critical things James White wrote about her "gift" in the Review and Herald, from whose pages he virtually banned her during his editorship.
Furthermore, when former friends and acquaintances of the Whites from their Shut Door days in Maine went public in the 1870s and charged that the Whites had misrepresented the truth about their promotion of this doctrine in their first biography, Ellen White chose to accuse her critics of lying rather than admit the truth.
As late as in Great Controversy (1888) Ellen White promoted a truncated version of the Shut Door doctrine in that she claimed that those who had rejected William Miller's message had forever shut themselves out from the kingdom of God.
Dear Pat and Frank,
Although I spoke positively of the current SS Bible Study Guide by Gerhard Pfandl, I should add that I really consider it a mixed bag. I'm glad Gerhard Pfandl admits that Ellen White and her writings are fallible, but I still believe he puts her writings too close to Holy Scripture in terms of authority. And he over defends her, almost to the point of being reactionary.
About Ellen White's literary borrowing without citing sources - it was a common practice of many authors in days gone by, and it was certainly not illegal. Furthermore, I don't think she had malicious intent when she engaged in this practice. But I still wish she hadn't done so much of it. Standards have changed, and her actions have caused us a heap of trouble in more recent times.
It does seem to me that Ellen White admitted her error regarding the shut door doctrine. See 1SM p. 63. And remember that the errors of other godly people have also caused extensive harm. I believe that God used Martin Luther in a wonderful way, but shortly before his death when he was ill-tempered, he wrote some extremely nasty things about the Jews that the Nazis (who were anti-Christian and whom Luther would condemn) used as an excuse for the Holocaust. This is a great tragedy and a blot on Luther's character. Fortunately, Luther was covered by the one hope for all of us - Christ's imputed righteousness.
In summary, I believe there is great good in Ellen White's writings. They point us to Jesus and His grace, and they encourage godly living as a response to that grace. But we should remember that Christians who have spiritual gifts - even the gift of prophecy - are still sinners and still make mistakes. So let's appreciate the good in Ellen White's writings, but let's also have the courage to leave the warts behind.
Astonishing life, prolific writer with excellent editors and rewriters, dominating personality, prophet no. Tom
Of what use is the notion of religious "authority" in the first place if it isn't to make people to think or do things they otherwise wouldn't?
Is this what God actually wants? Coerced conviction? Forced followers? Compelled compliance? I can't imagine that this is so.
Would any one of us want these from a spouse? Does God desire our informed and voluntary devotion any less? Not in my book.
Perhaps this is why the New Testament uses the notion of authority (exousia) very sparingly. And when it does make use of this concept, it usually applies it to Jesus himself, whether his interactions with the Jerusalem teachers, in adult speaches as compiled in places like the Sermon on the Mount, in his powers over natural and demonic powers and as the exalted Creator and Redeemer of the Universe. These are not all the uses, but almost all of them.
This is why I think it more useful to take a good hard look at the notion of religous authority itself than constantly to debate what should have the most authority in our lives.
Any adult who believes out of coercion rather than conviction doesn't really believe. What sense does it make to say:
"I believe this even though I wouldn't otherwise believe it because I believe that I have to believe it?"
Dave,
Does yours perhaps lead to, "why believe because there is really nothing authoritative/cognitive truth on which to base my belief?"
Believe what? What is the source of belief? I say the Bible...for the Christian.
regards,
pat
Hi Pat!
We're now moving into one of the distinctions between modern and postmodern epistemology, aren't we?
From Descartes on, modernity was devoted to finding the one true foundation upon which to build all other beliefs and there were many debates in religious and secular sources as to what this should be. As I understand it, all forms of postmodernism reject this kind of "foundationalism."
But from there on out there are many differences. One of them is that some postmodernists believe there is no such thing as Truth, or at least no way that we could know much about it, while others like myself contend that the idea of Truth still has power but that we are more likely to come closer to it if we use a multiple sources rather than one.
Shifting the metaphor from a building's one solid foundation to a spider's amazingly strong web that connects to other things at many points rather than only one might be a helpful analogy.
Yet even if I were a foundationalist, as we are using the term here, I wouldn't say that we can learn what that foundation is merely by appealing to some authority.
In the end things have to make sense, all things considered.
Otherwise, our convictions are not convincing to ourselves or to anyone else.
Dave.
Isn't that what developing faith/making sense of "the faith" as a gift of the Spirit is about? Where else is "THE FAITH" taught more completely than scripture?
As Rom.10:14-17 says: "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”
19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
20 And Isaiah boldly says,
“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."
regards,
pat
Pat what part of the Bible do you accept as authority an upon what part of the Bible do you reject other parts of the Bible. Do you still stone a sabbath breaker? why not? it is a clear command from the Lord. When was the last time a suspected adulterous wife was put through the test of the wasting water of the book of Numbers officiated by Priests.
Clearly the Bible as a collection of books has a vast array of statements practices and instructions from God. Which one is the authority, you say well I take the overall teaching of the Bible. What is that, in fact it is your interpretation of how you can form a unified theory out of a host of information. That Pat is reason, You may be basing your reasoned opinions upon what you find important in the Bible but it is still based upon your interpretations. It is what the reformation showed us. If you go by the Bible you are going by the way you interpret the Bible. That means there can be many different interpretations. So the authority of the Bible really is not an authority at all. It is a starting point for a hopefully logical interpretation of life. Of course sometimes it is not terribly logical, but those are the kind of people who say the Bible is the authority but the authority is interpreted only by their view.
Think about it.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
We and I don't stone "under God's direction" because we don't live under Israel's theocracy.
"That means there can be many different interpretations"
...no doubt and "our reason" is a part of this.
I have never said it's authority is based on mine or others interpretation. It's authority is based on the belief that it is the Word of God...not our interpretations which without doubt are at times in error.
You may not choose to believe this,ok...I do...so you may not choose to have it as your "final authority" but Christians especially since the Reformation have. I choose to agree with them.
regards,
pat
(Sorry for the "E" moniker, my ususal name is that of a "registered user" :-)
Pat, you wrote about the Bible:
"It's authority is based on the belief that it is the Word of God...not our interpretations which without doubt are at times in error."
RC has clearly shown that you do not, and have not based your beliefs and practices on the Bible, but with YOUR own interpretation. He has cited several examples: stoning, testing for adultery, which you firmly reject " because we don't live under Israel's theocracy."
If you are consistent in that position, then why are you observing the seventh day which was clearly and explicitly given ONLY to the Israelites under the theocracy given by God (according to their history)? Do you discard all the dietry and other laws given to the Israelite theocracy? How many? How do you interpret them today? Do you eliminate all, or some?
It is absolutely impossible for anyone (and even Jesus did not obey the Sabbath as the Jews interpreted the law), NOT to interpret the Bible each time it is read. To do otherwise would be insane as the various writers contradicted constantly. Are we justified by faith or is faith without works, dead? No interpretation there?
E,
As I perceive your comments, I will answer you. I am a gentile and not Jewish. I believe in the principles that I believe are laid out for me in the NT in Continuity with what was taught in the old as related by the NT authors.
My understandings are not the final authority or my interpretations...as EGW's or anyone else's by the way...but God's WORD which judges all of our understandings. That's the point of "final authority."
When someone condemns/judges you it is your hope that your position is led of scripture and the Spirit and not theirs...it is not of tradition on which my hope should be made or appealed to. God through His Word discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart and ultimately He makes known those who love Him.
I believe the gentiles are "allowed" to worship on Saturday or Sunday in fellowship with other believing Christians...and I have no right to judge them on this point. Rom.14:1-6.(Nor should 7th day keepers be judged by them)
I have asked this question before. Who might I have more in common with...a first day observer who worships His Lord, Atoning Savior, and Creator OR a 7th day Sabbath worshiper who doesn't share those beliefs?
I say the former given those options of a "fellowshiping group availiable."
My personal belief is that the concept of the "eschatological Sabbath rest that remains" has much richness and avoids pitfalls to concepts shared by some that "the new creation" has come in reality/fullness/consummation which may lead to the believed possibility of a perfected order in the present age. Sabbath rest "consummated" only occurs at His appearing.
These answers are to your questions as I understand them.
regards,
pat
All right Pat since the Old Testament laws are compromised by being under Israel's Theocracy (something of course you interpret and not found in the Bible) Lets go with something from the New Testament. Paul says a woman should be silent in church is that true? A woman should not have authority over a man, is that true? Is a woman really saved through childbirth? All those are things written in what you have called the "word of God". What do you do with those statements. They are as you said the word of God since they are contained in the Bible. Now I am not asking for your interpretation of those statements, just are the statements true as literally stated. Because anything else is an interpretation and you don't accept the idea of interpretation because you say:
--I have never said it's authority is based on mine or others interpretation. It's authority is based on the belief that it is the Word of God...not our interpretations which without doubt are at times in error.
--
The problem I see with your view is that the authority for the Bible or Ellen White is based upon your belief that it is the word of God or for EGW a message from the Lord. In either case the authority is merely your belief, or in the community that has your belief. Why would your belief have authority however? The fact is to modern and even post modern minds a reasonable interpretation is more value then asking them to believe in your belief or your faith communities belief (in this case it is only a segment of your faith community as others in the community heartily disagree with you). Authority logically only has value if those who accept something as authority respect and understand the authority and you just can't get there without reasoning and interpretation of the data available.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Hi Bob...
"About Ellen White's literary borrowing without citing sources - it was a common practice of many authors in days gone by, and it was certainly not illegal."
Yes, it wasn't illegal at that time, and the church always holds that up as the argument stopper. But the more I've investigated, the more I have found that by that time, it was not a common practice among most authors, and was considered by many to be less than ethical, even if it wasn't strictly illegal. And the church did nearly run into legal problems even at that time, over "Sketches of the Life of Paul."
I also kind of find it to be a bit incredulous when her use of sources is justified by that of the biblical prophets. Writings in biblical culture were often considered community property, being written records of the oral histories, stories and morality tales of the community. The prophets and anyone else could all borrow freely from a shared pool, without a second thought.
I would have no problem if the church, or this quarterly, explained EGW's borrowings from fellow Adventist writers in this way. But she borrowed from the intellectual property of many who were outside the Adventist circle, without giving credit. I'm not saying she did it maliciously, but the one to one correlation with the biblical prophets' methodology breaks down for me at this point along with the attempted justification.
It leaves thinking, who am I reading? Were Edersheim or Hanna as inspired as her? Am I supposed to believe, for instance, that the portions of the romanticized fictions of the life of Christ that she sourced are now inspired because she put her name on them? And what was the reason for not giving credit? It all leads to possible question marks over her integrity, and if not her's, then definitely the subsequent administrations that chose to pothhumously bury the facts.
**************************************************************
"And remember that the errors of other godly people have also caused extensive harm. I believe that God used Martin Luther in a wonderful way, but shortly before his death when he was ill-tempered, he wrote some extremely nasty things about the Jews that the Nazis (who were anti-Christian and whom Luther would condemn) used as an excuse for the Holocaust. This is a great tragedy and a blot on Luther's character."
Yes Bob, far worse than what EGW did. The only problem that I have with this comparison, is that Lutherans, while holding Luther in a venerable position, do not have a codified fundamental belief that states he is an inspired prophet, and that his writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth...language that puts such practically on par with the Bible. And, I wonder if the Lutheran church today would spend the time and energy trying to defend, justify and explain away his less than exemplary record in the way that our apologists have done, and continue to do with this quarterly.
I believe that much good can and has come from EGW's life and ministry. But I am someone who has just recently come across the other side of the coin that we never hear through the "party pipeline." It has been difficult and dissillusioning, but something I am still trying to grapple with and put in its proper place.
Thanks...
Frank
Pat
Maybe I can express myself in a more positive way.
As I understand it, you are a convinced of the truth of the doctrine of Justification by Faith as you understand it to be taught in Scripture, particularly in Paul's letters. It is my hunch that this is so not merely because you believe you must defer to Paul's "authority" and if you don't submit to this "authority" God will send you to hell.
Rather, I wager that you hold to this teaching in large part because it has proved to be a genuine blessing in your life. I suspect that your hesitancy to abandon or even modify your understanding of if is due at least as much to your experiental confirmation of its value as it is to Paul's "authority."
To my way of thinking this is exactly as it should be. Paul's says something, you act in harmony with your best reading of what Paul had in mind and you find that the results are very positive.
What's wrong with that, with openly acknowledging the role of experience in theololgical decision-making? We can ask the same question about other things we also consider when thinking theologically.
Thanks!
Dave
"just are the statements true as literally stated?"
They are true in the original Greek text in the context and purpose in which Paul said them.
"Why would your belief have authority however?"
Ron,is sola scriptura something new to you? Yes, it is the "held belief" of at least post reformation Protestants who believe that it alone contains final authority for God's revealed will for "faith and practice."(above EGW under that claim)
They are convinced of it's authority because of such verses of scripture ,"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." Heb.4:12,13.
Those who compiled the Canon were convinced of the continuity of thought and Spirit that made these books a collective whole.
Obviously no one can make you or anyone else accept that this is our final authority...but that doesn't mean you won't be judged by them and the one who knows the thoughts and intent of our hearts and why we reject them.
Where else is there a better expressed will for God's people than here?
regards,
pat
Dave,
My experiences due to the writings of Paul and other scripture in regards to JBF validates for me and many others experience the "authority and inspiration through the Spirit" in which Paul wrote for the Christian church.
Where else do I find "special revelation" but here alone that test all other Spirits?
regards,
pat
Pat I am well aware of the term sola scriptura. But it now just as much a tradition as the traditions of the Catholic church when Luther argued against them. And he argued against them. In fact a good example is the difference between Zwingli and Luther on Transubstantiation. At one point the king calls a counsel and while Zwigli is explaining how the blood and the wine are symbolic Luther writes "this is my body" and says explain your way around that. His Roman Catholic tradition had infused his thinking so much that he could not even acknowledge the possibility of another way to interpret the Bible. Both sides were actually using the same Bible but the interpretation was different. Thus we can see that one has to interpret one has to reason. The authority is not belief in something that is the word of God.
I don't understand why Zwingli did not reply to Luther by asking the simple question was the bread Christ held really Christ's body, because His body was still there and still whole.
In any case am I to be judged by the words of a book made by compilation. Of course not my Judge is God. Your final line just confuses things because if you say where is there better expressed will for God's people than here you are left with people stoning sabbath breakers, women saved through child bearing etc. The Bible is critical in making interpretations, a good starting point in the process of developing a logical and useful religion. But useless with out the interpretations and useless without logical and meaningful interpretations.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Pat
You write: "My experience...validates." We agree! Neither of us would hold that experience is the only thing that can validate an interpretation of Scripture, however.
Many thanks!
Dave
Ron,
I think you confuse the issue of "interpretation" vs. the meaning in context for the purposes scripture was originally written. It is true none of us "perfectly" interpret.
I am more than happy to agree to disagee. Of what value would it be to do otherwise?
regards,
pat
Pat wrote:
--
I think you confuse the issue of "interpretation" vs. the meaning in context for the purposes scripture was originally written. It is true none of us "perfectly" interpret.
--
Then we have no reason to agree to disagree because you agree with me. The Bible has to be interpreted, it has to be interpreted by logic and experience and philosophical assertions. All who interpret the scriptures have to do the same thing, even those who don't apply rigorous logic or even adequate reason have to use some interpretive techniques. So the claim is never adequate to say I believe it is the word of God because it has to be interpreted. If it is interpreted then we have to determine what is really the purpose and the eternal instruction of God versus something that was time or place specific instruction versus what is just somebodies explanation about what they believe.
If none of us interpret perfectly then our interpretations vary and someone saying this is the meaning because I believe this is the word of God is just making a gratuitous assertion. That is a logical fallacy so we don't even need to test it, what we have to test is the interpretations and they have to be tested by reason and experience and how well they work in the philosophical big picture.
Glad we finally agree.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Glad we finally agree...
No we don't...but if you think so that is ok.
pat
Dear Frank,
My father's side of our family were all members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and my dad is still a member.
So I have a good understanding of conservative, confessional Lutheranism. Some of Luther's writings (the Small and Large Catechisms, the Smalcald Articles, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope) were incorporated into the Book of Concord.
No, confessional Lutherans do not claim that Luther had the gift of prophecy. But it might surprise you to learn that the Book of Concord has binding authority in the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods. These conservative, confessional Lutherans claim that the doctrine of the Book of Concord accords with scripture 100%, and their pastors are not permitted to question it. If they do express doubts about any teaching in the Book of Concord, they are dismissed from the ministry. Now I would have to say that's pretty authoritative! I only mention this to point out that the grass is not always as green on the other side of the denominational fence as we might think it is. Other denominations also wrestle with the question of how much authority non-canonical literature should have.
Now back to Ellen White - why do we have a problem with the idea that a prophet can make mistakes and commit sins?
The gift of prophecy is just a spiritual gift, and all Christians have spiritual gifts. In a very real sense, someone with the gift of prophecy is on the same level as all other Christians. He or she merely has one of the more charismatic gifts. Yes, someone with this gift is speaking for God and therefore speaks with a higher measure of authority than is usual in the church. But prophets are not always on duty. In fact, some of them may only experience the gift for a brief period in their lives. So we should not assume that everything a prophet says or writes comes directly from God. This is why the new covenant manifestation of the gift must always be tested by scripture. And it must always be subject to scripture. The greatest revelation came through Jesus Christ, which is why the Canon closed with the New Testament. So a new covenant prophet can never have a new revelation of truth that transcends the truth revealed in the Canon. He or she merely testifies about Jesus and points people to Jesus and to canonical truth.
I sense that Ellen White's literary borrowing bothers you. It has never been a big issue with me, although it does trouble me considerably that the leaders of the SDA church tried to hide it for many years. This was wrong, and it has done great harm.
Yes, in Bible times, writing was community property, and authors could borrow freely from the shared pool without a second thought. But it has only been in comparatively recent times that thinking has changed about this. The transition was occurring in Ellen White's time, but the definition of plagarism was not nearly as strict in her time as it is today.
Now having said this, please understand that I'm not defending her borrowing 100%. I rather wish she had cited more of her sources, but she was human and made errors of judgment.
I look on Ellen White as a Christian leader who was blessed with visions and dreams, and who had the guidance of the Spirit as she wrote. But she should not have ultimate auithority over me or any other Christian. This is where we get into trouble! I actually believe that there are other Christians who have the gift of prophecy, but we don't hear much about them because they were not connected with the founding of the SDA Church like Ellen White was. For example, I've known Christians in the last few years who have related visions or dreams that seemed to come from God. And historically, I think it likely that both the Anglo-Saxon poet Caedmon and Joan of Arc possessed the gift of prophecy. But I hope no one thinks they were infallible or gives them binding authority. And for me, Ellen White falls in the same category exactly!
So Frank, this summarizes how I view Ellen White. I really appreciate her, but I don't canonize her or make her my infallible authority or guru. I'm a sola scripture guy. The Bible is my only rule of faith. And Christ's free grace and forensic justification are the center of my theology. I trust that in you judgment, this isn't too far off base!
Ron,
Just one last comment that I have thought about with my "uncreative" mind on the way to play seniors softball this morning.
A "human/contemporary" illustration may look like this.
The U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights are the "final authority" for law and rights in the U.S.
There are various interpretations by various view ponts/segments of society in regards to the document.
Does the fact that "interpretive differences" occur change what might be the original intents of the nations founders?
Does the fact that some feel it needs interpretation void it's original meaning?
The Bible is believed to above a "human document" by many especially of the post Reformation and has at least,I suggest, as much "authority" for Christian "faith and practice" than does the US Constitution for "rights and law."
The various views put forth as interpretation that some feel necessary in both cases does not nullify the "original intent" of the writers for authority in their respective realms.
Great efforts are legitimately made to understand the original intent to see if with appropriate applications to today any change/new law is legitimate.
Likewise, State laws (alternate "inspiration"/traditions) are not allowed to go against the US Constitution.
This is my best illustration to express why I disagree with your final thought of "agreement."
All that is best,
pat
Bob...
Thanks for your thoughtful and gracious reply. If only our denominational leadership held such a healthy view. This quarterly, as you said, is quite reactionary. Too me, it comes out sounding more like the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods. Same with our official fundamental belief.
But then, "let every person be convinced in ther own mind."
Thanks...
Frank
Thanks Frank. Fortunately, there are those in Adventism who hold balanced views on Ellen White, including some conference administrators. I became an Adventist when I was a teenager back in the 1970s, and think we have made some progress since then; it's just that ecclesiastical organizations change slowly.
It's interesting - both Adventists and Lutherans profess sola scriptura. But among Adventists, one often hears the expression, "the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy" - as if they have equal authority. And among conservative Lutherans, one often hears, "the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions" - again as if they have equal authority.
I actually think the Lutheran Confessions are great, and I agree with about 80% of the Book of Concord. But the LCMS and especially the WELS are not satisfied with that. The problem isn't with the Lutheran Confessions; it's with human beings who idolize them. And the same goes for Ellen White's writings.
Bob,
Hope your working for one of those, "balanced conference administrators"now. ;~)
regards,
pat
Dear Pat,
I can't say that I have always worked for balanced administrators, but I am happy to say that I do right now.
I'm employed part time with the Ohio Conference, which has to be one of the most Christ-centered conferences in the NAD.
The statements I have posted in my blogs are exactly what you will hear from the conference office in Mount Vernon, OH.
In fact, the Ohio Conference has developed an official working document, which states that the conference is committed to a christocentric approach that affirms salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Our conference leaders - Raj Attiken, Hubert Cisneros, and Marwood Hallett - are great people who love the gospel.
It is a joy to work under their administration!
Happy for you Bob.
Blessings,
pat
Whew! I did not mean to malign "Desire of Ages." Chapters like Gethsemane and In Remembrance of Me are sublime and spiritually uplifting. I had no intention of currying the favour of other Christians; just anxious that we express our view of Ellen White's writings so as to be understood and not thought to have a second Bible. The purpose in the parallel columns was to say we needed to use differing terms from those we used for the Bible to describe Ellen White's writings. The choice of terms is not the main point. If there's a better term than "writing in the Spirit" to contrast with "inspired," then use it. There are errors in the Bible--just look at the variants in the manuscripts, we are not infallible in sorting out the correct readings--but these do not destroy the big picture nor prevent us from gaining a good knowledge of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Thank you all for responding to my brief thoughts with such depth. May God bless each of you as we journey together.
Have a joyous Sabbath,
Norman H Young