Ellen White a Prophet of God?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son…The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself." (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pp. 17,18,)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you avoiding anything like a "specific" objection as a way to leave it at the level of a vaguery?

Are you trying to say that Ellen White believed that Christ was created? Only an Angel? Can you actually come out and say something specific as the charge?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why mess around with the smoke and mirrors "invented" by these anti-sda sites when there are REAL differences that can be compared/discussed/debated??

...

Why not pick a "real" difference??
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Bob Ryan wrote,
**
I suppose you could argue that your deacon or elder should in theory be able to tell some prophet in the Corinth church that their message from God needed "some editing".

But that is going a little outside of the text that Paul gives.

I am just pointing out the list that Paul gave.
**


What I am saying is that if the text says the apostle is 'first' and then lists prophets, evangelists, etc. it is not saying that the apostles is the BOSS of the prophet, who is the BOSS of the evangelist, who is the BOSS of the apostle. It says 'first', not 'boss.'

I do believe the text shows a ranking of honor of 'office', but not a hierarchy of church authority. When we look at the scriptures, we see three roles among the Lord's people that have church authority:

1. apostle.
2. elder/overseer
3. brethren

Apostles have a 'measure of rule' that extends to the churches started through their evangelistic ministry. (II Corinthians 10.) Elders were appointed from within the churches they were a part of to oversee the flock of God. They have authority to lead.

Brethren in general also have God given authority to take part in certain church decisions. All three roles have to be subject to the Holy Spirit.

I do not believe that an elder or deacon has authority to cancel out a prophet's God-given message. But I do not believe an apostle has that authority either. The authority of a true prophet's true prophetic message is from God. The prophet is a mouthpiece for delivering the message. That does not give Him authority to boss the elders of the church around.

The gift of evangelist or prophet, as far as I can see, does not make one an overseer of the church. A prophet should not demand that the overseers submit to his own personal opinions because he is a prophet. A prophet could be an elder of the church if he meets the qualifications. But a novice in the faith could be gifted as a prophet, and so could a man who has not yet learn to rule his own house well. A woman could have the prophetic gift, but that does not make her the 'husband of one wife' or the head of a household. So being a prophet does not make one an overseer in the church.

THe glory of the office of the evangelistic office may be greater than that of the office of pastor, but this does not mean that the evangelist can lord it over pastors. Evangelists and pastors who are not elders of the church should submit to the elders of the church, who are charged by God to pastor the church.

I do not think that all Ephesians 4:11 pastors are necessarily elders of the church btw. Some do think that, but I do not see how we can conclude this from the text. The Bible does not say that 'pastors' per se have authority over the church. It does say that elders who meet certain qualifications are to oversee the church, and pastor it. I believe some people may have a gift of pastor which they use to take care of others, who have not matured to meet the Biblical qualifications for overseer.

 

[ July 25, 2005, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]

 

AS far as I know in both OT and NT there is no church "office" called prophet just as there is no "office" called "tongues speaker" or "interpreter" or "healer". But there IS a ministry - annointing - gift -- directive from God.

Having said that - my point that "the thing" the prophet is actually doing is merely "conveying messages" -- remains. It is only the message that is "Conveyed" (as we see Daniel doing in chapters 7 8 and 9 and as we see him do in chapter 2). They also urge the church to listen to God and to repent.

Ellen White held no church office. She was never a conference president nor did she ever serve as chairperson for conference administration. So in terms of "church office" -- she held less "office" than Christian women do today in our church.

Certainly less than the Judge+Prophetess Deborah did in God's One True Hebrew Nation Church.

So I guess I am saying that I kinda agree with you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

He left the immediate presence of the Father, dissatisfied, and filled with envy against Jesus Christ. Concealing his real purposes, he assembled the angelic host. He introduced his subject, which was himself. As one aggrieved he related the preference God had given to Jesus to the neglect of himself. He told them that henceforth all the precious liberty the angels had enjoyed was at an end. For had not a ruler been appointed over them, to whom they from henceforth must yield servile honor? He stated to them that he had called them together to assure them that he no longer would submit to this invasion of his rights and theirs; that never would he again bow down to Christ; that he would take the honor upon himself which should have been conferred upon him, and would be the commander of all who would submit to follow him and obey him. There was contention among the angels. Satan and his sympathizers were striving to reform the government of God. They were discontented and unhappy because they could not look into his unsearchable wisdom and ascertain his purposes in exalting his Son Jesus, and endowing him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son. {ST, January 9, 1879 par. 3}

Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this first great rebel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Jesus Christ, and with forcible reasons sought to convince Satan that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which he had conferred upon his Son. They clearly set forth that Jesus was the Son of God, existing with him before the angels were created; and that he had ever stood at the right hand of God, and his mild, loving authority had not heretofore been questioned; and that he had given no commands but what it was joy for the heavenly host to execute. They had urged that Christ's receiving special honor from the Father, in the presence of the angels, did not detract from the honor that he had heretofore received. The angels wept, and anxiously sought to move Satan to renounce his wicked design and yield submission to their Creator. All had heretofore been peace and harmony, and what could occasion this dissenting, rebellious voice? {ST, January 9, 1879 par. 4}


__________________________________________________

Pure imagination. I could write fiction this silly.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

One can read the book of revelation and say "that is fiction and I could write that fiction just as easily".

Saying that proves nothing.

As I said - the issue is not "believe Ellen White THEN become an Adventist.

This issue is study the Bible and engage in actual dialog on doctrinal questions SUCH AS the 1Cor 12 spiritual gifts AND the 1Cor 14 PRACTICE of the NT saints regarding the gift of prophecy...etc.

ONLY after a sola-scriptura review of actual doctrine COULD one start to "guess" about how much of a prophets role (in some other denomination) they could "write on their own".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree with scripture that the 3 men walking toward Abraham were IN FACT God and two angels EVEN though they are called men.

You can argue all day long "but the Bible said MEN" -- it does not change the fact that while they may have APPEARED as men - they were in fact 2 ANGELS and God Himself (Jesus Christ is YHWH in the OT that is SEEN for NO one has seen the Father at any time John 1).

Kam is pointing out that the role of God the Son in heaven as "THE WORD" involves His role as the commander of the Angels the Archangel Michael. I believe that is a "form" he took as "The WORD" that "explains the infinite" to the finite.

But I do not believe that God the Son was ever - in substance - ontologically "an Angel" any more than I believe that the description of God in Genesis as " a man" walking toward Abraham means that God is in fact ontologically "a man".

This is in fact the offical SDA position in the 27 FB regarding God the Son.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]I'll take that as a "yes". You do have trouble giving simple answers to simple questions, don't you?

I'm sorry if you saw my question as sda bashing. It was not intended as such. This is simply an issue that intrigues me. Would you mind discussing it further with me? If not, would this be an appropriate thread, or should I start a new one?

Never

 

Go ahead and start a thread on that I will join in.

SDAs don't have a "doctrine" in our 27 fundamental beliefs saying "Michael is in fact God the Son appearing in the FORM of an Angel". WE don't say anything at all about Michael in our doctrinal statements but we do talk about God the Son.

But I am more than happy to discuss reasons why one might consider Michael to be simply a form taken by God the Son in His role as "The WORD" that EXPLAINs and communicates infinite God to finite creation.

(As complex a thought as that seems to be -- apparently)

Start the thread sir!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have heard the SDA described this way--that there are two wings to the movement. The 'conservatives' tend to be very fanatical about EGW's writings, almost treating them like scripture, and tend to think it is a sin to eat pork or meat in general and things of that nature. The 'liberals' are more similar to other evangelical Christians.

Personally, I do not care for the more radical SDA teachings. God gave Gentiles pork, shrimp, etc. to eat in the time of Noah. He required Israel not to eat it partly so that they would be distinct. Pork is to be unclean _to them._ Why should it be to me if God gave it to me and my ancestors. I am a Gentile saved by grace.

Neither the Old Testament nor New Testament required Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, with the one exception being the Gentiles who lived in the land of Israel. Gentile slaves living in Jewish homes had to be circumcised as well.

If all of these legalistic teachings come from EGW's writings, I see no reason to further examine her claim to be a prophet. There are enough people with strange teachings going around today claiming to be prophets for me to dig through EGWs books to wade through the sea of adjectives.

Another thing that concerns me is the tendency from some SDA radicals to consider all of EGW's writings to be inspired. I can understanding paying attention to 'thus saith the Lord' type prophecies. But treating a library of books on health and interpretations of church history almost as if they were scripture just because some claim the author is a prophet is too extreme, imo.

I see no reason from scripture to think that Michael is the preincarnate Christ. The only argument I can see for this is that his name is 'who is like God?' But is that reason to consider Michael to be God? I do not think so. "For to which of the angels said he at any time, thou art My Son, this day have I beggotten Thee?"

If Michael is the prince of God's people, does that make him divine? Daniel writes about the prince of Persia and Paul wrote of principalities and powers. Jude mentions 'dignitaries.' Why would Michael being described as a prince be an argument for his being Christ?

Look at 'Elijah's' name. There were people named 'Yeshua' before Jesus Christ. What if someone tried to claim the OT priest in the time of Zechariah was Christ?

There is no strong argument to believe that Micahel is Christ. This seems to be a case of unfounded speculation on the scriptures being turned into doctrine.

 

As with almost every group there are conservatives, liberals and then the main stream that is some place in the middle.

The conservative and mainstream group all tend to accept the writings of Ellen White as examples of the 1Cor 12 gift of Prophecy.

The liberals are generally lucky to know that the Bible contains 66 books. (But that is probably no different than liberals in any other denomination).

You would have to "define" evangelical doctrinally or "in practice" for me to say which ones fit that model. I am probably more mainstream but I certainly enjoy attending non-SDA evangelical worship services.

As for the Lev 11 issue of unclean meats that you see in Genesis 6, 7 and 8. This is actually a stated "Doctrine" of the church that has nothing at all to do with "proof via Ellen White".

The case for it is made on the Bible "alone" by the mainstream group AND in the published 27 Fundamental Beliefs. (Recently changed to 28)

As far as I know - no gentile was compelled to be circumcised -- they could be if they chose to be - but were not required to do it.

The doctrine on Sabbath is also a non-Ellen White based Bible teaching that is found in the 27 FB. So even new SDAs that do not read Ellen White - would hold to the Sabbath teaching based on the Bible based proofs.

First of all you are wise to look at specific doctrinal statements.

But you have been mislead if you think that these doctrines are "based on Ellen White" inside Adventism or in its published doctrinal statements.

The case for them is based only on the Bible. Which means that "testing/rejecting/accepting" them is ONLY done sola-scriptura.

But your point about Ellen White is also a good one in that she does claim to have messages from God that are in support of these Bible based doctrines. As she also claims about the Trinity.

That means that anyone who reads their Bible and finds that these doctrines can not be supported would have to quickly conclude that not ONLY are Adventists wrong about thinking these doctrines are Biblically sound - but Ellen White is also not a true prophet.

This is the right way to resolve the issue.

Here again - I think you are taking the right approach. Once the claim is made that Ellen White DID have visions affirming these doctrines there really is no need to read anything she wrote to "Test" her since any interest at all in the doctrinal differences can be researched "sola scriptura".

And lets face it - there is a lot of room for studying the Bible.

WEll of course this is a discussion on the very points that the argument above has been trying to negate... but since you bring it up...

Inspiration (regarding the gift of Prophecy) works just as God describes in Numbers 12 and in 1Cor 12. Not much we can do about that.

In regard to the topics you mentioned - IF Ellen White was writing in things like "I think we should all eat cake on tuesdays" that is certainly nothing to change your diet over. But if she says that "God showed me that..." and spoke about education, health, doctrine etc.

Then you have the "Basic" question for any group that has an accepted prophet among them (as in the case in 1Cor 14 and the many prophets in that church).

This is not actually a doctrine of the Adventist church. But many do believe it as they believe that the "3 men" of Gen 18 are in fact 2 Angels plus God the Son.

No the reasons given for Michael are that in Daniel Michael is called "The Prince of your People" and in Isaiah 9 we are told that the PRINCE that is given to us is none other than God the Son.

In Rev 12 Michael has HIS angels. But the angels have allegiance to God "alone" so Michael has to be God.

And as you point out - the name for Michael indicates that in fact He is really God and not a created Angel.

This is true - but remember Adventists don't claim that Michael is actually a real angel any more than the 3 men of Gen 18 were real men.

Not that alone. But the Prince given to US in Isaiah 9 is divine. And in fact there is only one Prince in heaven that is given to us.

That is God the Son.

Someone can "claim" anything - the question is what is the Bible position?

And as I said - this particular point is not even a Doctrine of the SDA church. It is just that many of us find evidence in scripture to support this role of God the Son in heaven among the Angels of God.

AS I said - this is not a Doctrine in the Adventist church.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob are you claiming that your false prophet did not teach that Jesus Christ was also Michael the Archangel.

 

I am not saying anything at all about a "False prophet".

I am saying that Adventists do not have the teaching that Chirst was Michael as a doctrinal statement. So those who make that accusation are simply bashing at random.

I am saying that many Adventists DO think that the Bible supports the fact in Isaiah 9 that Christ IS the PRINCE given "to US" and that Daniel 10 confirms that same point using the figure of Michael.

I am saying that JUST as in Gen 18 the THREE MEN are not actually MEN but 2 Angels and God -- so ALSO God the Son is not actually an ANGEL just because He appears as one. (In fact He also appears as "The Angel of the Lord" in the OT).

This was also the view that Ellen White claimed to have seen.

Since I have already said this - the question I have is "Does saying it again" help clarify what was said?

In Christ,

Bob

 

she also claimed she went to the third heaven, and "saw the forth commandment glow brighter than the others".....adventist theology has been so well refuted. but here you are:

#17 The Gift of Prophecy
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a CONTINUEING AND AUTHORATIVE SOURCEOF TRUTH which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. Support is found in these Bible passages: Joel 2:28,29: Acts 2:14-21: Hebrews 1:1-3: Revelation 12:17: Revelation 19:10

and just how many of her "writings" must we go through to proove she is a false prophet?
www.ellenwhite.org

#19 The Sabbath
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. Support is found in these Bible passages: Genesis 2:1-3: Exodus 20:8-11: Luke 4:16: Isaiah 56:5,6: Isaiah 58:13,14: Matthew 12:1-12: Exodus 31:13-17: Ezekiel 20:12 and 20:20: Deuteronomy 5:12-15: Hebrews 4:1-11: Leviticus 23:32: Mark 1:32


i have 85 questions about this one....sure you have seen the post if not: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3309/3.html

there's your fundamental truths you asked for.

thankyou and God Bless

 

Bob if Ellen White, (someone Adventists believe is a prophet of God) taught that Jesus was Michael why don't Adventists officially believe it or teach it.

How does the Adventist church decide which EW teachings they believe to be true or not.

 

It is not a question of "Which Ellen White Teachings...".

Ellen Harmon was a teen when the early Adventist leaders began formalizing their doctrinal platform. Within a year or two of having her first vision she married James White (I think she was 18 or 19 when she married). The Whites were adamant that doctrinal statements should not be based on the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy outside of scripture.

Ellen White influenced the church in that her visions often help to clarify some point of doctrine - but if you check out the 27 Fundamental Beliefs online - the "proof" is taken from scripture. Adventists have always been willing to submit every doctrinal point to a sola-scriptura review.

That means that anyone who "thinks" those doctrines would really need Ellen White to "prove them" -- should have a cake walk with that doctrine when Adventists start out saying they will not use any inspired source outside of scripture to evaluate the validity of that doctrine.

But what the detractors "claim" when speaking with non-SDAs -- is not what they "can actually do" when addressing the issue with Adventists - sola-scriptura.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you asking if this is a "doctrinal position"??

What exactly is your question?

Do you accept the 1Cor 12 concept of spiritual gifts and the gift of prophecy? Are you arguing that the 1Cor 12 gift does not exist or that the claim you quote above could not possibly be made by anyone who HAD that gift?

In Christ,

Bob

 

and just how many of her "writings" must we go through to proove she is a false prophet?
www.ellenwhite.org

#19 The Sabbath
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. Support is found in these Bible passages: Genesis 2:1-3: Exodus 20:8-11: Luke 4:16: Isaiah 56:5,6: Isaiah 58:13,14: Matthew 12:1-12: Exodus 31:13-17: Ezekiel 20:12 and 20:20: Deuteronomy 5:12-15: Hebrews 4:1-11: Leviticus 23:32: Mark 1:32


i have 85 questions about this one....sure you have seen the post if not: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3309/3.html

there's your fundamental truths you asked for.

thankyou and God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]The doctrinal statement above affirms the 1Cor 12 gift of Prophecy saying that IT is authorotative and that it is valid. It also points to Ellen White as an instance of that gift being given in more recent times.

As "has already been pointed out" the test or a prophet's message includes doctrinal correctness. For example if a Prophet says that God has just shown them that Christ is not the Son of God or the Holy Spirit is not the Third Person of the Godhead, or salvation is not by grace etc then you have "proof" that the person claiming to be a prophet -- is not.

I also pointed out that JWS would use that same rule and claim that Christ is NOT equal with the Father as God and the Holy Spirit is NOT the Third Person of the Godhead and for those reasons would say that Ellen White could not possibly be a prophet.

I also pointed out that there is "no shortcut around scripture" in this case. This means it is pointless to say "well lets ignore scripture and try to evaluate prophets on some OTHER basis".

In Christ,

Bob

 

"You" have 85 questions?

Your questions are simply filling space. Why not pick a few that you are actually serious about.

For example take the first one as a good example of a "space filler".

There are no examples of anyone before the flood eating breakfast.

Moses speaks about "Clean and Unclean" animals in Gen 6 but does not tell us what that IS until Lev 11.

Moses speaks of Cain and SIN in Gen 4 but does not show us the Law of God saying "Thou shalt not murder" until Exodus 20.

The 5 books were all written by one man - and he wrote as though the reader had access to Genesis and Leviticus as well as the actual history of Exodus 20 that occured in Moses' generation.

This is all obvious. I can not believe that is a "doctrinal question".

Gen 2:3 DOES have the word for Sabbath rest AND DOES say that the 7th day was MADE a Holy Day.

The question simply "ignores" this devastating fact of Genesis two and looks for "other words" as well.

The word SHABATH is found in Gen 2:2 and 2:3 for rest.

Is there a "Bible principle" in that kind of work??? IS that a "Doctrinal" view to dodge and evade the clear statement of scripture in Gen 2:3 that the day IS a Holy Day?

How in the world can that be a serious question "of yours"??

The question listed is not a form of exegesis -- at all!!

In Gen 2:3 Christ the Creator makes the day a Holy Day.

In Exodus 20:8-11 He says that the Gen 2:2-3 facts ALONE establish the day as SET APART and a to be honored. "Therefore HE BLESSED and HE SANCTIFIED".

Christ The Creator said that when HE made it HE made it "FOR mankind" Mark 2:27.

The first of your 85 seems like a "squirm" effort to get away from what the Bible actually does say - by speculating about what it does NOT say.

You can't possibly be serious with that one.

Number 2 on your list asks "why were the Patriarchs never instructed" --

"AS IF" Moses wrote out an exhaustive account of all the "Commandments, laws and statutes" given to the Patriarchs BEFORE HE wrote out the exhaustive list of all "Commandments laws and statutes" in Leviticus!

Notice Gen 26:5

Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

Obviously we know that we do not have an exhaustive account of all that God spoke prior to Moses and certainly Gen 26:5 indicates that even in the life of Abraham we do not have an exhaustive record.

But CHRIST said that the day was MADE for mankind. Showing explicitly that the scope for the day is MANKIND

And Moses TELLS US that it was made a holy day IN Gen 2:2-3.

And God says that these Gen 2:2-3 facts ALONE established our oblication.

And then there is Isaiah 66 telling us that even in the NEW EARTH it is a day for all MANKIND to "Come before God and worship"

Ignoring these devastating points - the list of 85 seems to content itself with "why is there air" kinds of questions.

Pick some that you actually take seriously and we will discuss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just an observation after reading this thread.

If My denomination had any human teacher, prophet, or preacher that generated as much disagreement as does Ellen White, I would bury her and her writings and stick with the Bible.

If my denomination wouldn't change - I'd change denominations.