Ellen White a Prophet of God?

Jim says "if angels say anything at all - let those they speak to be accursed" - (in essence).

But Paul says that we are NOT to reject prophets (1Cor 14) and he says we are to TEST the words of Apostles and even Angels (Gal 1:6-11) INSTEAD of saying "the test is that IF they say anything they are wrong" -- the text actually goes a direction much closer to "harmony" with 1Cor 12 and 14.

How surprising that Paul should be so "consistent" with scrpture in Gal 1 as compared to Jim's approach above.

Or maybe not.

In Any case I have already given the "reasonable" basis for non-SDAs rejecting Ellen White as a prophet - based on "scripture".

But for some strange reason - people are looking for some "other" avenue.

Kinda strange if you ask me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Did I already post that??

Ok - good! I thought so.

 

Wow! When will all those questions get answered??

Never?

Hmm!


Instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

Ok -

 

Bob

I said I ignore the differences of doctrine not that I was fine with doctrinal diferences.

SDA's seem to try to cover some outlandish statements with pathetic excuses for logic. These statements I am refering to our were she gave statements conflicting with the historical account given in the Bible not matters of doctrine. The defenders tacitlly admit that the plain understanding of her words are in conflict but then go on to promote an illogical conclusion. The breaking of bones defense is one of the most ridiculous.

Bob pretend many of these ridiculous statements were said by a Catholic and were defended in a similar manne by Catholicsr can you honestly say you wouldn't think the excuses were pathetic. Honestly answer that and I don't see how you can remain a follower of EW.

 

Wow! When will all those questions get answered??

Never?

Hmm!


Instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

Ok - </font>[/QUOTE]Probably not until you at least deal with the passage in Timothy. These other questions of yours are a diversion obviously supplied by you to divert attention away from Paul's clear instructions concerning AUTHORITY.

You people give AUTHORITY to this woman which she ought not have.

Are you going to deal with it?

No?

Very instructive.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Claudia said,


In 1844, at 17 years of age, Ellen Harmon was kneeling in a circle with a group of other young people. They were praying to God for wisdom and guidance, and while they were praying, suddenly young Ellen was taken in vision and was shown people walking along a narrow, winding pathway with a steep precipice on either side. The people were walking along very carefully, and as long as they kept their eyes heavenward, light shown on their pathway. As soon as they looked down, however, the light vanished, and they fell to the rocks below.
__________________________________________________
But Bob says,"
She was a 15 year old at the time they mentioned this to her and was only 17 in 1844 Oct 22. Her name then was Ellen Harmon and she had been given no visions or any prophetic ministry.

__________________________________________________

Perhaps I am confused. Or is it the SDA's who are?

Perhaps I have seen a vision?



Old Joe Smith saw visions also and told us of things NOT revealed in Scripture.

Just like EGW and her "investigative Judgement" huh?


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Bob,

Are Ellen White's visions additional revelation from God that we don't have in the scriptures?

 

The visions God gave Ellen White are just like the communication he gave to AGabus, Philips daughters, the women of 1Cor 11 and 1Cor 14, Anna, Deborah in the book of Judges etc.

If you are asking if the gift in 1Cor 12 is simply the gift of "re-phrasing scripture" I believe it is never stated that way in scripture.

According to the Word of God the means of communication is defined by God as "dreams or Visions" and the "Content" of the communication is strictly up to God.

Having said that - all doctrine is still "proven" - "Validated" - sola scriptura!

In Christ,

Bob

 

------------------------------------------
Since you "claim" you are "fine with the doctrinal differences" then what is meant by "destructive to the faith of many"??
In Christ,
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that is where the word "differences" comes in that I mentioned above.

the question remains.

Since you are not actually guoting anything or referencing anything I assume it is "up to my imagination"??

Is this the same kind of "object to historical account" where you object to the account of Creation that is given by God?

What historical account in the Bible are you talking about?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Regarding the Millerite expectation for the Lord's return -- I stated that when the Millerite message first reached Ellen Harmon she was around 15. So that would be some time before 1842.

Claudia then says that in 1844 AFTER the Oct 22 date - AFTER the time had passed --


"
In 1844, at 17 years of age, Ellen Harmon was kneeling in a circle with a group of other young people. They were praying to God for wisdom and guidance, and while they were praying, suddenly young Ellen was taken in vision ..."

This did not change "history" - because it is STILL true that in 1842 she was 15 and the fact that it was a few years BEFORE 1844 that she first heard and agreed with William Miller's ideas.


Beliefs she had as a teen BEFORE ANY vision was given can not possibly be used as a means of "testing the content of some vision".

The Point remains.

I think that would be a logical conclusion on this point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As "already pointed out" the spin Jim puts on the text in Timothy for women is spun in such a way as to make the following scriptures contradict Jim's views.

Wow! When will all those questions get answered??

Never?

Hmm!

Instructive.[/quote]

So now we find Jimi asking that we NOT think about how scripture conflicts his view of the text in Timothy --

So now I AM the source of PAUL's clear instruction in 1Cor 11 and 12 and 14??

(How instructive -- again).

Jim you are squirmming on this one.

Why not show how your spin of Timothy fits with the above teachings from Paul and other Bible writers?

Why so silent??

No wait!! Let me guess!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Isn't that circular reasoning?

Didn't you say that you wanted to SEE IF she had a prediction WITH a fulfillment and so instead of ASSUMING that it is a fulfillement you wanted to see details that could be "verified"??

So what kind of logic are you using there to "verify"????

Opinion??

I point to the facts that ARE verifiable - you want to ignore them and ONLY focus on "opinion" in your effort to see IF this is a fulfillment. But then you spin the opinion angle in a circular argument as if it is SHOWING something.

Why in the world are you doing that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

No less than four times I have asked how in the world my opinion would change anything at all when it comes to "proving" that this was a fulfilled prophecy or not.

You seem to want to go out on your rabbit trail EVEN if it serves no actual purpose. I find that very strange.

BUT MAYBE what you really mean to say is that GIVEN the VERIFIABLE specifics "NY city, Tall skyscrapers, certified to be fireproof, burning like pitch, firemen unnable to stop it" - THEN EVEN YOU would have to conclude that this is a MATCH (based on the verifiable specifics that is).

And that your "problem would THEN BE" that you would be challenged by the view that Ellen White Claims that God has of that event.

Is this what you are trying to say? Is it simply "collateral" from admitting to the obvious "verifiable" facts that is the problem?? If that is really your problem why not look at the Bible examples I gave at the start -- examples of the SAME issues in scripture and work through them??

In Christ,

Bob

 

You all should go online and read a book written to explain the prophetic role of Ellen White if you would like to understand it.

"Messenger of the Lord"
--The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White
by Herbert E. Douglass

READ IT ONLINE HERE:
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/TOC.html

 

The visions God gave Ellen White are just like the communication he gave to AGabus, Philips daughters, the women of 1Cor 11 and 1Cor 14, Anna, Deborah in the book of Judges etc.

If you are asking if the gift in 1Cor 12 is simply the gift of "re-phrasing scripture" I believe it is never stated that way in scripture.

According to the Word of God the means of communication is defined by God as "dreams or Visions" and the "Content" of the communication is strictly up to God.

Having said that - all doctrine is still "proven" - "Validated" - sola scriptura!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Then what value do the writings of Ellen White have to the church today besides historical value for your particular denomination?

 

First of all - I have already argued that a cross-denominational evaluation will always find that she spoke on the "distinctives" that differntiate this denomination from others. So someone outside that doctrinal belief system would always reject her as not a valid prophet.

Secondly - some people don't accept 1Cor 12 either. So they for sure would not have any benefit received from any message God gave to Ellen White no matter what the content. She could be warning them about Islamic terrorism and they would have to reject it outright!

But as for "why" God would even HAVE such a gift as non-canonical prophets...

What value did Agabus have?

What value did the prophets of 1Cor 14 have?

What value did the women prophets of 1Cor 11 have?

What value did the judge and prophet Deborah have?

What value did the non-scripture writing prophet Nathan have?

Here is the "instruction" of just how much importance the NT church was to give to non-canonical prophets.

Paul argues that "Each one" had a revelation from God in Corinth. Certainly this has to be at the very least "many" and can not be "Assumed" to exclude women as though they were lesser beings.

Prophets must be tested by what has gone before them (sola scriptura). But the church is to desire this gift above the others.

This instruction is a far cry from what many Christians will submit to today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

1Ti 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

WHO is spinning like a top Bob?

The best you can do is dodge, avoid, divert and accuse, yet you have NOT dealt with the issue of AUTHORITY!

Your church gives unbiblical authority to this woman.

Deal with it. For the third time I have asked you to address it. Yet you heap aspersions upon me or my character. How very instructive.

And BTW: The examples you give of other women in Scripture are prior to the closing of the canon. This occured in approx 96 AD. You CANNOT point to any "prophetess" who supplied any kind of "revelation" from God after the closing of canon. In ADDITION you cannot supply any authoritative teachings from those women who ARE cited in scripture. Therefore: deal with the issue of AUTHORITY in the church. No woman is to usurp authority OVER THE MEN IN THE CHURCH.

Clearly your "church" is in direct opposition to Scripture.

Deal with the passage as it is written! You cannot. Not without your OWN brand of SPIN.

Also; you CONVIENIENTLY ignore this:
1Co 14:34
¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36
¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1Co 14:39
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1Co 14:40
Let all things be done decently and in order.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Born again Catholic...

WHAT website???

Mike