Ellen White a Prophet of God?

Is that an exact quote of 1Cor 14 or a paraphrase??

While you're thinking about it --

Here is what "My bible" says --

Hmmm (God -- or Hardsheller... God or Hardsheller...)

Wait! don't help me figure this one out - I almost have it!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

Baptists solved this long ago with the understanding that prophecy belongs in the prophetic office which is the Preaching task.

 

to prophecy simply put means to speak for God, which is a pastors role.

 

AS it turns out - God solved this problem even before Baptists -

Direct supernatural divine inspiration as one of the 1Cor 12 "gifts" to the church.

From which came not only scripture - but also all messages given by "dream or vision".

"If there is a prophet among I WILL make myself known to them BY DREAM or VISION..."

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is a true "Space filler" by Y4M2 - the Bible says the woman was tempted by the serpent and ate.

It does not even SPEAK to how she was found at the forbidden tree and Adam not speaking at all to the incident until she presents the deed-done and the fruit to Adam.

Ellen White sees the event and explains how all that came about.

And so this is brought up as "proof of something" by Y4M2???

Space filler - tossing things out into the air my friend.

In Christ,

Bob

 

There are a "few of my own fellers" that I have to also dispute their rejection of the Trinity (a small group but they "exist").

There are "a few of my own fellers" that I have to dispute their rejection of a literal 7 day creation week -- (a small group but "they exist").

As you point out - once we have a Bible "doctrinal" difference - all these rabbit trails listed don't mean a single thing since EVEN unraveling the twists and turns they present accomplishes NOTHING - the doctrinal difference still remains as a good point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is that an exact quote of 1Cor 14 or a paraphrase??

While you're thinking about it --

Here is what "My bible" says --

Hmmm (God -- or Hardsheller... God or Hardsheller...)

Wait! don't help me figure this one out - I almost have it!

</font>[/QUOTE]The points listed highlighted - placed in "Bold" - from 1Cor 14 have been faithfully "ignored" by those who attack God's Teaching on the Gifts in 1Cor 12.

At least the group opposed to this part of God's Word is "consistent".

This would be a good thread to demonstrate your Biblical reasons for rejecting those scriptures.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The following is a personal experience regarding the gift of prophecy, and EGW. Having read EGW’s account of the battle of Manassas, some years later, I obtained an account of my great great great grandfathers eye witness experience of this same battle, from my father. As I was reading his account, something about it seemed familiar, I remembered having read EGW’s account and went back to compare the two. The following are the results.


Testimonies for the Church Volume One, page 266, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: Slavery and the War

The North and the South were presented before me. The North have been deceived in regard to the South. They are better prepared for war than has been represented. Most of their men are well skilled in the use of arms, some of them from experience in battle, others from habitual sporting. They have the advantage of the North in this respect, but have not, as a general thing, the valor and the power of endurance that Northern men have.

I had a view of the disastrous battle at Manassas, Virginia. It was a most exciting, distressing scene. The Southern army had everything in their favor and were prepared for a dreadful contest. The Northern army was moving on with triumph, not doubting but that they would be victorious. Many were reckless and marched forward boastingly, as though victory were already theirs. As they neared the battlefield, many were almost fainting through weariness and want of refreshment. They did not expect so fierce an encounter. They
267
rushed into battle and fought bravely, desperately. The dead and dying were on every side. Both the North and the South suffered severely. The Southern men felt the battle, and in a little while would have been driven back still further. The Northern men were rushing on, although their destruction was very great. Just then an angel descended and waved his hand backward. Instantly there was confusion in the ranks. It appeared to the Northern men that their troops were retreating, when it was not so in reality, and a precipitate retreat commenced. This seemed wonderful to me.

Then it was explained that God had this nation in His own hand, and would not suffer victories to be gained faster than He ordained, and would permit no more losses to the Northern men than in His wisdom He saw fit, to punish them for their sins. And had the Northern army at this time pushed the battle still further in their fainting, exhausted condition, the far greater struggle and destruction which awaited them would have caused great triumph in the South. God would not permit this, and sent an angel to interfere. The sudden falling back of the Northern troops is a mystery to all. They know not that God's hand was in the matter.

The following is from the Magazine of the Jefferson County Historical Society, Volume LIV, Dec. 1988, pages 89 & 95. Cleon Moore was my great great great grandfather. I think I have the amount of greats right.

“Cleon Moore was born in 1840, the son of Thomas A. Moore, the long serving clerk of the court of Jefferson County. Cleon Moore served through the entire Civil War from the 1st Manassas to Appomatox. He entered the army as a private in Bott's Greys, which was a part of Stonewall Jackson's Brigade, and completed his service as a lieutenant.”

Excerpt from his account of the battle of Manassas.

‘To resume-the firing of musketry was now very heavy-the battle was going on in earnest. We were marched slowly to the scene of action, ascended a hill just beyond what was known as " Henry House" and formed line of battle on the brow of the hill, in the edge of a pine thicket. For some time after we got fixed the musketry ceased firing. But for about two and a half hours the artillery wared Pendalton's battery on our rear and a Federal battery (afterwards ascertained to be Sherman's) replied to each other. While occupying this position, General Wm. Smith of Va. & Gen'l Beauregarde rode along the lines. General Smith introduced the General, some of the men leaped out of ranks and shook them by the hand. Both of them appeared in fine spirits. Colonel Cummings' Regt, 33rd Va. occupied a position to our left. He was ordered to charge and did it bravely, but was compelled to retreat. There was some misunderstanding about our regiments moving forward. Some of the men were clamorous to charge, but orders were given to keep in place. In the meantime, the enemy had executed a flank movement, and we were first apprised of it by a sprinkle of musketry along the line, then a volley. We commenced firing. It was difficult to see anyone, although some of the men said they saw men with red pants. The fire was very destructive, someone called out to fall back and the left of the regiment was driven back in confusion. The right rallied under Lieutenant Colonel Lackland and made a charge, some reinforcements come up and soon after the shouts of our soldiers, announced the Federal army in full retreat. It was something I could not understand, a whole army as if swayed by an invisible influence suddenly took to flight, threw down their guns and ran to Washington city. Our artillery and cavalry under Gen'l J. E. B. Stewart followed.”

My great great great grandfather, happened to be at the precise line of battle at which the Federal troops decided to commence a full retreat. As an eye witness to the account, he was baffled by their retreat. Even suggesting that it seemed like an invisible influence caused the retreat. According to EGW, this is exactly what happened.

I haven’t had time, nor am I sure that I will find the time to address all of the accusations that have been brought forward on this board. At one time I thought to address these issues, until I realized it would be an endless checking out of the claims of those who wish to defrock EGW. I will however search through my old posts, and share with you the many lies I found being propounded by these supposed experts on EGW. Understand that these posts are addressing others in a different time and place, what they are addressing though, is still relevant.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Not a chance.

 

This is a spin of the point and ignores the Isaiah 8:20 test of a prophet that I referenced for this.

Is 8
20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

It is going to be much easier to refute my positions and defend your own views if you relax a bit from the spin - and take note of the point I am making. Then you can go after it.

The Isaiah 8:20 point requires that a Prophet's message claimed to be from God - be doctrinally correct.

"By Definition" that means that any prophet whose MESSAGE deals with doctrinal distinctives CAN NOT be accepted across denominational boundaries.

If you know of same way AROUND that problem - please show it. So far you have made no effort at all to find fault with those specifics you simply summarize your view as not accepting it - for some reason.

That is not a compelling form of argument in your favor.

I urge you to be a bit more direct and objective on that one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I believe that ALL doctrine is to be "vetted" established/proven/based/tested "Sola-Scriptura". I have said this before - and that remains my position.

#2. Proof: NO Adventist doctrine appeals to a SINGLE WORD from Ellen White for proof.

#3. I believe the 1Cor 14 reference to the "Gift of prophecy" is the SAME as the one found in 1Cor 12 and is the SAME one God references in Numbers 12.

It is communication DIRECT from God - special divine supernatural communication AS God defines it!

This type of communication defined in scriptures for those with the gift of prophecy is beyond dispute.

We are "unnable" to limit God in this matter.

My ability to "think God's Thoughts" is not the basis for the gift of Prophecy.

In 1Cor 12 we are told that the "Sprit gives EACH gift as HE wills". It does not say that "ALL prophesy" in 1Cor 12. On the contrary it insists that "ALL" do not.

You ask me defend "why" God would have that as His policy. I do not know. But answering that question is not a Basis for the gift.

Futher - the role of teacher and pastor is DISTINCT from that of prophet in 1Cor 12.

ALL are not teachers ALL are not pastors and ALL are not Prophets.

The communications "mechanism" God defines in Numbers 12 is NOT the role of a teacher OR a pastor.

This is beyond dispute.

It was already stated that Hiram Edson had a vision about the role of Christ in heaven and it was stated that 2 men prior to Ellen White were given her same "first vision" and asked by God to take on the role of that ministry - but they did not feel up to the task.

However "THOSE incidentals" are not PROOF of anything NOR are they some kind of prerequisite to the gift of Prophecy according to 1Cor 12.

This side avenue of questions has nothing to do with either the 1Cor 12 "details" or the 1Cor 14 "exercise" of the gift.

The "Why is God doing it this way" line of questioning is interesting but is not a proof of anything NOR is it a detail mentioned in 1Cor 12.

What we DO see that "is instructive" in 1Cor 14 is that with the gift of tongues ORDER is the rule and one must supress the gift bringing it in line with an orderly services. BUT in 1Cor 14 the gift of prophecy SUPERCEDES order. That is IF one is standing and relating a prophetic message AND ANOTHER is GIVEN a message then the first must SIT down and let the one stand up.

This "interrruption" could not happen with any other gift. All other gifts would HAVE to be subject to order. The ONLY way prophecy could ever work on such a disorderly basis - is that God HIMSELF is in complete control of WHO gets what message and WHEN.

This is very different than teaching/preaching/tongues ets. In those cases the gift "is with you" and you may choose to have some idea, some teaching, some message at any time. Your own thinking must then be subjected to the ORDER of the church service to avoid chaos in church.

This disinction seen in 1Cor 14 is telling us something about the way the gift of prophecy "works" as opposed to the other gifts.

Questioning why God does not do that Numbers 12 thing with "everyone" is not part of the gift "specifics/proofs" in 1Cor 12.

In fact - it is pointed out specifically that God does NOT do that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

so Bob no amount of proof that she does not fill the office of prophet will be acceptable to you, same for most sda's i have ever met.


guess i won't bother you anymore on this, thany you for your time on this thread.

you're a blast (and consistent) to debate with.

thankyou and God Bless

 

I have already given the most Bible-defensible reason for a non-SDA to reject Ellen White as a prophet - and that is to focus on the doctrinal test where she does explicitly claim that God affirms points of doctrine that are in fact distinctives for Adventism.

That means that the prophetic test is easily made - just by evaluating those doctrines "sola scriptura".

It could not BE any easier - or simpler.

What I don't agree to is - setting the Bible aside when it comes to doctrinal tests and trying to engage in a pointless exercise OUTSIDE of that. (As much as "some" non-SDAs may prefer that approach).

I have been pretty consistent on that point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Their own accounts placed them in a more "unfavorable" light regarding the way they turned God down.

#1. I don't have an exhaustive list of The Holy Spirit's "dividing up the gifts as HE WILLS" over the last 2000 years.

#2. Even if I did - it is not a basis for "doubting" 1Cor 12 or 1Cor 14.

In the end - doctrinal views have to be established in scripture. There is just no substitute.

In Christ,

Bob