Witnessing to 7th day adventist

Hi Bob,

So I am going to ask you the same question. What made you persoanlly believe that EGW was given new revelation from God for His children to honor and obey? You know what I mean? What made you say Ah Hah! Ellen must be a Prophet of the Living God.

God Bless!

 

Step #1 - was to verify her teaching (especially that teaching that she claimed that God was endorsing in vision) against what the Bible actually says.

Someone may come to my home and say "I have had a vision that God is going to let everyone out of Purgatory on Oct 27 this year. O how loving God is to do such a thing".

Of course the Bible says nothing about something happening with Purgatory this year so hard to checkout. But wait! I CAN find that the Bible shows us things about humanity, heaven and hell and salvation that makes purgatory IMPOSSIBLE!

In that way I can "test" a message that otherwise might not have a way to validate.

The same thing holds with Ellen White's visions. Since many of them (especially the early ones) highlight Bible principles that can be tested - we can apply that particular test.

Beyond that the Bible says in Matt 7 that the fruit of the person must also confirm that they are a saved born-again believer having the fruits of righteousness and not rebellion.

Basically the steps are the same for any prophet - testing them against the Bible based tests of a prophet.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Verifying a preacher's teaching against what the Bible actually says is what we do with all preachers (at least what I do and believe should be done).

How is this a step to concluding one a Prophet of God? If the Bible already says it, then there is no new revelation and you are left with, at the very most, simply a good preacher and nothing more.

I am not trying to prove her false here. I just want to understand what you see in her that I don't. I can't see why you believe that this would be a first step towards one being a Prophet.

God Bless!

 

It is a first step because Isaiah 8:20 makes it one and because Acts 17:11 makes it one (With the message of Paul himself being validated in this way) and because 1 Cor 14:32 makes it one and 1 John 4:1-6 makes it one.

So the fictional example I gave about Purgatory would be one where the prophet fails this particular test and the test shows the message to be false.

However (as you seem to point out above) I could claim to be given a message from God that is in fact just a paraphrase a Matt 5. A quick Bible comparison would show that my "message" was not opposed to Bible doctrine and would be "approved" from a Bible POV.

However that fact alone does not prove I am actually inspired. It just means I did not fail that particular test and it shows I can paraphrase Matt 5.

The guy making the claim about Purgatory would have failed the test however.

If one goes to books like "Steps to Christ" you will find a very good Bible based, (Arminian POV), Christian message on sin and salvation but this could have been written by any spirit-filled Christian author without having to have visions directly from God.

So as good as that is (For us Arminian Christians out here) - it too is not a good basis for saying that the text requires Ellen White to be an inspired prophet to be valid writing.

However it is "obvious" that the book of Revelation DOES require that John be "inspired" by visions from God in order to be "valid". OTherwise it is just so much early-first-centry-hollywood.

It has no value at all in its predictions of the future and in its evaluation of the past if it turns out to "just be John's imagination".

That is also the case with the book Early Writings. Other books like Great Controversy and Desire of Ages have large sections that would not need divine inpsiration to be useful or valid - but they also have unique sections that like the book of Revelation could only be of value if the person were actually inspired.

So again - this shows a "claim to inspiration" but the "Bible-based tests of a prophet" would have to be applied to know if the person actually IS one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As for "categories" of statements - Ellen White made statements on history, on how the world ends, on how sin started in heaven, on how the gospel solution impacts Gods entire Universe, on health, on education, on Christian living, the future judgment, the close of probation for mankind, the 7 last plagues, the mark of the beast, the role of the United States at the end of the world, etc.

So "a lot of subjects" that are either very helpful (if she is actually a prophet) or pretty much useless (if she is not).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thanks for the time spent explaining the point Bob.

OK, I can concede that a Prophet must have the gift of rightly dividing the word of truth. Of course this in and of itself will not declare one a Prophet, I think we agree. So where does that leave my inquiry? How did "you" personally bridge the gap for EGW from having a knowledge of Scripture to being a Prophet who is writing new Scripture on behalf of our Lord?

God Bless!

 

Well first of all I would never say that "Ellen White writes new scripture" or "any scripture".

There are a lot of references in both OT and NT to prophets that wrote no scripture at all.

We also have indications that Paul wrote letter that are not included in scripture.

So the first difference is that I do not see 1Cor 12 or 1Cor 14 declaring that all prophets write scripture.

"All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares."

So in answer to your question


How did "you" personally bridge the gap for EGW from having a knowledge of Scripture to being a Prophet who is writing new Scripture on behalf of our Lord?


I never had to cross that bridge since she never claimed that and I don't believe in such a thing.
---------------------------

The second point of clarification is that I think you are missing the point on the test of scripture as in Isiah 8:20. That test is "not" the test of having perfect doctrine or perfect knowledge of all scripture. At the end of Daniel 8 Daniel admits that he does not even understand the vision he has been given.

The "test" has nothing to do with the prophet's ability to know everything about the Bible. Rather the test is based on the fact that God is perfect - and any message that comes from God will be perfectly in harmony with the Bible EVEN if the prophet does not fully understand what God has told them.

It is "the message" that they claim to have been given from God "that is tested" to see IF IT really is in harmony with the Bible.

Back to the example about a message about "purgatory" again. Clearly that "message" is in error regardless of how the prophet may or may not feel about it - or what they think about it.

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

Maybe we need to clarify what "is a prophet" according to 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14 before we get to "What made you think Ellen White was a prophet".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quoting Claudia T,
"God does not force anybody to be saved, neither does He force them to stay that way. Rv:3:20: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.""
The other Sunday morning I listened to a Dominee -a Calvinist Dominee- who preached on a similar Scripture, and when he had said the word, "will", he interjected: "Notice: the choice!".
One could do the same with this text, and after "if hear", interject and say: "Notice the choice".
That is adding to the Word of God, an adding denounced by the Word of God. Generally that is the biggest problem with 'interpreting' the Word - it usually is really just an adding of one's own ideas.
This text says: "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will ...". What God already HAD done, was to create an ear for that person who will open the door, and to create in that maerson first the will, and next the ability to open the door of his heart for Jesus. This text presupposes the prerequisite above anything else - God's and only God's doing - that required the almighty power of God whereby He created a NEW creature and a New propensity: as David prayed, BEING the saved and beloved child of God ALREADY.
No, there is NO 'choice' in there. On the contrary this text qualify the WHOLE of a human being's redemption for the work of God.
Then call it God's "force". I gaurantee nothing else and nothing less will save you!

 

I have MANY differences with the SDA Church, but free grace is the one dividing factor that prevents me from becoming a SDA. There just is no other Sabbath-keeping Community in my country besides the COG groups who here, are all denying the Divinity of Jesus, and besides are also Armenian. So what can a man do? We are only a few Calvinists who believe the Sabbath, and are scattered far apart.
It is difficult, because I truly believe in the living organism of the Body of Christ's Elect - without which, the Sabbath is of NO worth whatsoever!

 

I find it strange that you would say this. From what I have discussed with other SDA's, they declare EGW's writings as "authoritive" for Christians. If something is "authoritive" for Christians then it is equal to God saying it is so. That would be Scripture.

I found this on the SDA offical web site...

I don't see any other way to interpret " authoritive source of truth for the church " other than equal to Scripture or being Scripture itself.

Also, when they say that " This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church " what Scripture is used to determine this?

Also, this statement.... " As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction " declares that 1) She was speaking on behalf of God 2) It is without error 3) to disobey her writings would be to disobey God.

God Bless!

 

#1. That is where you and I differ.

#2. The 27 doctrinal statements of the church are available on line and it can be seen that the church never declares her writings to be scripture or to be equal to scripture. In fact the church says that her writings are to be "judged" by scripture as I have already stated.

the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

#3. As has already been pointed out - we have many examples of inspired prophets in BOTH the OT and NT that wrote nothing in the canon of scripture. In fact we EVEN have evidence that some things Paul wrote never made it to the Bible.

The fact that God inspires the authore - means that the message "should be correct" if it is not correct - then this proves God did not inspire them to give that message.

But the fact that the message is correct - does not make it scripture as is evidenced by all the Prophets in both OT and NT that are NOT authors of scripture.

I don't see any other way to interpret " authoritive source of truth ... for the church comfort " other than equal to Scripture or being Scripture itself.
</font>[/QUOTE]If you are in the practice of judging scripture by scripture (i.e. Judging Matthew by Isaiah to SEE IF Matthew is valid) then and only then could you even begin to make that argument about the many non-canonical prophets of Both OT and NT.

You argue that if a prophet in OT or NT did not actually write scripture then the people of God were not obligated to listen to them.

No such doctrine on prophets or prophecy can be supported from scripture.

You argue that SINCE Adventist DO accept her writings as having authority and providing comfort, instruction and correction - THEN we must make her equal to scriptur EVEN though taking OT and NT prophets that did NOT write scripture as authorotative DID NOT make them the authors of scripture.

I find your reasoning facinating.

But as it is - the fact that we do not use her writings as scripture and we DO judge them by scripture (as we would judge all doctrinal statements from ANY Christian author) -- remains.

Rev 12:17 and 19:10 pointing out that the saints "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" -- "and the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy"

Here again - the issue is OT and NT role of prophecy and prophets in general - regardless if they write scripture or not.

Once a prophet gives a message from God and that message is tested by the Bible and shown to be valid - then lets go back to your 3 points.

Since the claim is that God has given this - and the claim is that it holds up to the test of scripture...

#1. Should it be listened to? Obviously yes.
#2. Is God going to be correct in what He says? Obviously yes.
#3. Are you obligated to hear His prophets? Obviously yes.

Those points would be true regardless of whether the specific prophet was one of the daughters of Philip or one of the prophets of 1Cor 14. As long as their message held up to the test of scripture - then a message given to them for you would have to be listened to by you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well let's see...

The Bible declares thus concerning Scripture...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Ti 3:16)

The SDA church declares thus concerning the writings of EGW...

"As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction".

You see a difference?!

#1 scripture is given be inspiration of God, scripture is the writings of those inspired by God to give us His message, EGW is called the Lord's messenger, it states that "As the Lord's messenger, her writings...", that would be no different than calling her writings scripture.

#2 EGW's writings as the Lord's messenger are given the same attributes as the scripture defined in 2 Ti 3:16. "Authoritive source" what is authoritive and what is the source? Her writings are authoritive because the source is God.

#3 "Comfort, guidance, instruction, correction" All of these are what is said about "scripture"

So all you have done was a play of words. EGW is called a messenger from God and that makes her as authoritive as Paul or any other messenger from God. Be it verbal or in writing.

EGW did write down what the Lord had given her. That makes these writings "scripture".

You can say that the church does not claim EGW's writings are equal to scripture all day long, but the evidence proves otherwise. Writings are just writings unless they are proven to be penned of behalf of God, then we call them "Holy Scripture". If her writings are not from God then they are not Holy and they are nothing more than commentary. If her writings are from God (and that is what they claim) then they are Holy and are considered Scripture. You can't have it two ways. Either her writings are the word of God or they are just the word of Ellen. Which way do you want it?

What does this have to do with the topic? I haven't said anything about all Prophets must write scripture.

I have no problem with this. I don't see what it has to do with the subject. Having a message that coinsides with scripture does not a Prophet make in and of itself and is what I already stated before.

If Ellen's writings only repeat what the Bible already states, if there is no new revelation, then why are they considered anything any different than any other good preacher's writings?

If you found this argument in something I said, then my apologies. I haven't a clue were it came from. Maybe I mis-spoke somewhere.

This is not what I argue. I have pointed out above what I argue about the declarations of the SDA church on their offical website concerning the writings of EGW. I made no distinctions between OT, NT or "oral" verses "writings". I speak only about EGW's writings verses the Bible and what is said about each.

So what is she to you Bob? A Christian author or a messenger from God who happen to write down the message that God gave her?

Bob, this is NOT being a Prophet (capital P, giving NEW revelation). This is nothing more than being a good preacher who has been given the NT gift of prophecy which is the abillity to rightly divide the word of truth precept upon precept.

If all Ellen ever did was write things which helped others interpret the already established written word of God, then she is nothing more than a Christian with the gift of prophecy, she has no authority other than that given her by her followers.

The final conclusion is that men, not God, have raised Ellen's writings up to the authoritive level of Scripture. If in your heart you take Ellen's writings the same as the writings you read in the Bible, haven't you made her writings Scripture?

The SDA declares EGW's writings and the interpretation therein as correct and authoritve. This is no different than the book of Mormon, the Watch Tower or the RCC and their writings they use from the Popes.

Anyways, you have taken me off the reason I started this engagement. I don't want to debate whether or not EGW is a Prophet or whether she had the gift of prophecy. I simply wanted to know what it was about Ellen that made you believe that she was given writings from God for Christians to observe. We already went over your step one, rightly dividing the word of truth. This is done by thousands of Christians so we don't need Ellen's writings for that. So can we move on? What else was there?

God Bless!

 

Quoting Claudia T,
"... Read her little book called Steps to Christ:"

I have in a previous poste stated why I cannot be a SDA, the reason outstanding being that I believe free grace, which the SDA's do not.

Here I see the same dividing principle ruling: "Steps to Christ".
No, no single step to Christ is true! Christ's steps "to us-ward" (Eph.1:19) - there's the Gospel! And He had to run far and fast after us to catch up with us running away from Him!

Even the Sabbath-Truth is so orientated in SDA-thinking, that it becomes a matter - to use Mrs. White's words - "the Law the Law", "as dry as the hills of Gilboa"!
So dry has the Sabbath-Truth become in SDA doctrine and practice that it has almost become a sin to say the Sabbath points to Christ. It is an unheard of thing one shouls ever think Jesus resurrection from the dead is what ultimately gives reason for and meaning to the Sabbath Day.

It is made capital of the RCC change to the Fourth Commandment; yet is made pettiness to even suggest the anti-Christ would corrupt the Word of God in other Scriptures particularly those making statements about the Sabbath Day.

So I think the SDA Church is most satisfied with itself - just like they say they are according to their own interpretation of the Seventh Letter to the Churches of Revelation - only don't admit before anybody outside!

 

All one has to do is to go the Bible - where Christ the Creator MAKES His Holy Seventh-day memorial - and then "SHOW" how its full intent was to point Adam to his need of salvation and to His redeemer as the one who would get him out of his totally depraved and doomed condition.

Once that is established - it is very easy to see that in the Creator's Seventh-day "Holy Day".

Or were you speaking of another one?

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Yes" that is true as already noted.

The same would be true of messages given by God to Philips daughters.

The same would be true of any message given by God in Corinth for the church.

See how "easy" this is?

You have no other way out - so just take the obvious. The saints in Corinth were not writing inscripture - even though your way of thinking of prophecy will not allow you any other choice.

Your tradition in that regard is simply incorrect and it is obviously so in scripture as we see the saints in Corinth BEING prophets but NOT writing scripture!

How easy can this be?


Now lets watch as you try to get all those inspired prophets in Corinth to "Write scripture" just so you can view Ellen White as a source of scripture...

There you have it - your claim is that ONCE they are a prophet (and by definition - inspired ) If they hold true to the Numbers 12 statement of God about prophets then in your tradition you assume they MUST be writing scripture in Corinth.

And 'yet' - they are not! ( "obviously".)

Now see - that is really easy to get! Your assumption is obviously just wrong.

How easy can this be?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Once "Again" you argue that since the source is God then the result must not only have authority - IT MUST be scripture!

But obviously Numbers 12 and 1Cor 14 forbid that assumption.

You would be stuck even without Ellen White as an example exposing the error in your assumptions.

1Cor 14 alone does that nicely.

Now lets watch as you try another ploy to get the non-canonical prophets of the Bible to be writing scripture.

Here you assume that the only reason that one is not canonical - is that they failed to write. (like that is ever stated in scripture!)

Again another "assumption".

But we have the great case of Paul who we ADMIT to writing scripture - and yet he tells the church about letters he has written that we DO NOT have as scripture.

So not only are the writings of the NON-canonical prophets NOT scripture - EVEN the writings of Paul are not ALL scripture!

Where are you going to go to get Ellen White as a source of scripture now??

How will you do it?

Indeed.

And that would the a true fact - the SDA church does make the argument that Ellen White is not writing scripture.

This means that anything she writes has to be tested BY scripture.

Something we normally don't do WITH scripture. For example - we don't test Matthew against Isaiah.

Get it?

It is just too easy - no sense in missing the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that God inspires the authore - means that the message "should be correct" if it is not correct - then this proves God did not inspire them to give that message.

But the fact that the message is correct - does not make it scripture as is evidenced by all the Prophets in both OT and NT that are NOT authors of scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is "odd" that seeing prophets in OT and NT like those in Corinth and Philips Daughters and the prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel - non-canonical non-scripture prophets - that you would have to try to say that seeing the same claim made today "appears to have nothing to with the subject" of non-canonical prophets as the Bible mentiones the subject.

How truely "odd".

As I have already said. But that does not remove the Bible injunction to TEST the prophets against scripture.

So..... the point remains.

I already pointed out that this is not what any prophet claiming to do not the canonical ones AND not the non-canonical ones in scripture.

That point remains unchanged.

They would not be - but as Numbers 12 points out - that is not the way the ministry the gift works. God DOES speak to them as HE said He does in Numbers 12.

Ignoring God is not an option for those who understand that these messages are in harmony with Bible teaching.

As I said before - this is the easy part.

Deciding on which one is validated by scripture is the part where differences come in.

The fact that we have to keep going over what a non-canonical prophet is - is basic to the subject but should not be the area of difference since it is so easy to see in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Should they believe him?"

Should they be writing down all of his messages in a way that would get them included in scripture?

Did Agabus write that message down?

Do we have every scrap of paper - every letter from the first century?

Did Agabus write something that we don't have today?

In Christ,

Bob

 

All one has to do is to go the Bible - where Christ the Creator MAKES His Holy Seventh-day memorial - and then "SHOW" how its full intent was to point Adam to his need of salvation and to His redeemer as the one who would get him out of his totally depraved and doomed condition.

Once that is established - it is very easy to see that in the Creator's Seventh-day "Holy Day".

Or were you speaking of another one?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You see Bob. here you illustrate exactly what I mean! I'll say to you what I mean, using your words (or some of them):

All one has to do is to go the Bible - where Christ the REDEEMER makes HOLY His Seventh-day REST - and then "shows" how its full intent was to point Adam to his need of salvation and to His redeemer as the one who would get him out of his totally depraved and doomed condition, by resurrection from the dead.

Sorry, Cry the beloved Day, not recognised despite! You still don't, and won't, admit God's honouring the Day. You still allow, and insist, God's honouring of the Seventh Day Sabbath belongs to the First day of the week. If God not in Christ entered upon His Own Rest as God, "THEN THEREFORE there remaineth" NO Sabbatismos for the People of God. Sorry, Cry the beloved Day!