The basis for even knowing and accepting any prophet is the 1Cor 12 basis of spiritual gifts. Turns out the gift of prophecy is one of them.
1Thess 5:19-20 says that we are neither to "quench the Spirit" nor are we to "despise prophetic messages".
1Cor 14 says that when the NT church met "EACH ONE had a teaching, a revelation, a tongue" - yet we know that we have no text of scripture handed down to us today from "each one at the church of Corinth". Thus we have one of many examples that the gift of prophecy did not necessarily make one a "Bible writer".
Rev 19 states that the saints are known as those who have the Testimony of Jesus - which is (according to the text) the "Spirit of prophecy"
1 John 4 tells us to test the prophets. We are not to accept everyone who claims the gift of prophecy.
The first test of a prophet is the Is 8:20 test "to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word - they have no light"
1Cor 14 states that prophecy is "a sign for believers" - that is those who hold to the same understanding of the Bible - a common doctrinal POV that can be used to test the prophets.
For that reason (obviously) a context where not all Christians are in agreement on all doctrines - you have no basis for insisting that they all accept a methodist, or baptist, or presbyterian, or Adventist as a prophet.
Just stating the obvious so far.
So in the 1John 4 test
One of the tests applied is Is 8:20 "agreement" with the Bible.
Which is why I compared the statements in Gen 6 about what happened before the flood - with one small section of what Ellen White claimed to have been told about that time period.
In 2Cor 11:1-4 Paul claims to have been "caught up to the third heaven" and to have been shown things that it is not proper to relate to others.
He adds nothing more. So nothing there one way or the other to judge Paul.
So if that were the ONLY thing we ever had from Paul - we would not know if he was for real -- or had just said it on his own.
Fortunately we have a lot of things from Paul that confirm he was given divine inspiration.
In the same way - I showed from Gen 6 that Ellen White's very detailed statement on pre-flood conditions is consistent with the more general statements of Genesis 6 - but they certainly do not give the level of detail on the subject of "all flesh being corrupted" that she does.
So is she right or wrong? From that statement alone - you cannot tell. All you know is that it does not contradict Genesis 6.
The actual TEST then has to do with the many other statetments she makes that have actual doctrinal testable value in terms of testing them against the Bible.
Adventist doctrine did not come from Ellen White - historically. And even to this day Adventists do not quote Ellen White as some kind of proof for our doctrine. (Hint -- attend one of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs evangelistic series some time to see).
However over the years Ellen White did claim to have visions related to almost all of our doctrines - showing the importance of those Bible truths as it played out in the history of the world (or in some other aspects).
Thus - her 50,000 pages of manuscript easily cover direct Bible doctrines that CAN be tested.
Why you pick these little obtuse fringe examples is then somewhat baffling.
in Christ,
Bob
