Was Ellen White Really a False Prophet--2?

[woobadooba]

“Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her."

But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Mar 10:2-9 NRSV)

Surely Moses thought that it was according to the will of God to give these people a "certificate of divorce". For, if he knew that it was against the Lord’s will he wouldn’t have done it, right?

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that it wasn’t according to the will of God that people be divorced, but that Moses commanded that this be done because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.

So it’s evident that even Moses made up some of his own rules, believing that they were of God; yet, here we find an example of a rule that he made that was not in harmony with the will of God according to Jesus.

But how do we know he believed that this was of God?

Well, notice where it's mentioned: Deut. 24:1-3. Now, if you will, take a closer look at this. You will notice that all kinds of “statutes”, “ordinances”, and “commands” are given in chapters 12-16 of Deuteronomy.

And it just so happens that in Deut. 26:16-18 Moses says, “This very day the Lord your God is commanding you to observe these statutes and ordinances; so observe them diligently with all your heart and with all your soul. Today you have obtained the Lord's agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him.

Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments“ (Deu 26:16-18 NRSV) Here it is obvious that what is being referred to as "statutes", "commandments", and "ordinances" of God, are what we find in chapters 12-26.

Hence, it is evident that Moses believed that God inspired this rule for a “certificate of divorce”, since it appears with all of the other "statutes", "ordinances", and "commands" that are declared by Moses to be of God."

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that God never commanded that a "certificate of divorce be given", but that this was a command of Moses (Mk. 10:3-5), which was given because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, not because God inspired it. Yet, Moses believed it was of God.

What does this tell us;)

It tells us that prophets can make mistakes, and assume that God inspired something that He really didn't inspire. It tells us that prophets are human.

Again, one has to look at the core message of that person, as well as the lifestyle that that so-called prophet lived by before ruling out that he/she wasn't really a prophet of God because he/she made some kind of theological error.

If we are going to accuse Ellen White of having been a false prophet because she made the mistake of assuming something to be of God that really wasn't of God, then we would have to do the same to Moses in order to be consistent with our own belief. Of course, one doesn't have to do that if he would just admit that a prophet is human, and can make mistakes just like the rest of us.

[Eila]

“Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her."

But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Mar 10:2-9 NRSV)

Surely Moses thought that it was according to the will of God to give these people a "certificate of divorce". For, if he knew that it was against the Lord’s will he wouldn’t have done it, right?

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that it wasn’t according to the will of God that people be divorced, but that Moses commanded that this be done because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.

So it’s evident that even Moses made up some of his own rules, believing that they were of God; yet, here we find an example of a rule that he made that was not in harmony with the will of God according to Jesus.

But how do we know he believed that this was of God?

Well, notice where it's mentioned: Deut. 24:1-3. Now, if you will, take a closer look at this. You will notice that all kinds of “statutes”, “ordinances”, and “commands” are given in chapters 12-16 of Deuteronomy.

And it just so happens that in Deut. 26:16-18 Moses says, “This very day the Lord your God is commanding you to observe these statutes and ordinances; so observe them diligently with all your heart and with all your soul. Today you have obtained the Lord's agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him.

Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments“ (Deu 26:16-18 NRSV) Here it is obvious that what is being referred to as "statutes", "commandments", and "ordinances" of God, are what we find in chapters 12-26.

Hence, it is evident that Moses believed that God inspired this rule for a “certificate of divorce”, since it appears with all of the other "statutes", "ordinances", and "commands" that are declared by Moses to be of God."

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that God never commanded that a "certificate of divorce be given", but that this was a command of Moses (Mk. 10:3-5), which was given because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, not because God inspired it. Yet, Moses believed it was of God.

What does this tell us;)

It tells us that prophets can make mistakes, and assume that God inspired something that He really didn't inspire. It tells us that prophets are human.

Again, one has to look at the core message of that person, as well as the lifestyle that that so-called prophet lived by before ruling out that he/she wasn't really a prophet of God because he/she made some kind of theological error.

If we are going to accuse Ellen White of having been a false prophet because she made the mistake of assuming something to be of God that really wasn't of God, then we would have to do the same to Moses in order to be consistent with our own belief. Of course, one doesn't have to do that if he would just admit that a prophet is human, and can make mistakes just like the rest of us.


I'm not sure I can comprehend the rationale you are using to say that the command in the law was from Moses and not from God. It said that the command was given because of the hardness of their heart - but God's perfect will was that no one be divorced. Born again Christians who do not have the hardened heart are held to a higher standard.

I personally believe all of the law was from God. It was given to Moses who gave it to the people.

Believing that some of the law was personally from Moses and some from God would lead to serious questions about the validity of the inspiration of the Bible.

I've seen this idea before. To me this says that the inspiration of the Bible needs to be degraded in order for EGW's inspiration to work.

[woobadooba]

I'm not sure I can comprehend the rationale you are using to say that the command in the law was from Moses and not from God. It said that the command was given because of the hardness of their heart - but God's perfect will was that no one be divorced. Born again Christians who do not have the hardened heart are held to a higher standard.

I personally believe all of the law was from God. It was given to Moses who gave it to the people.

Believing that some of the law was personally from Moses and some from God would lead to serious questions about the validity of the inspiration of the Bible.

I've seen this idea before. To me this says that the inspiration of the Bible needs to be degraded in order for EGW's inspiration to work.

Jesus was clear on the idea that it was not God's will for anyone to get divorced, but that MOSES (not God), gave the people a certificate of divorce.

So you have no argument here.

At this point your only true alternative is to admit that a prophet can make a mistake.

By the way, the idea that only certain moral laws apply to certain people is foreign to the Bible. God expects everyone to follow the same moral standards as disclosed in the Bible.

[Eila]

Jesus was clear on the idea that it was not God's will for anyone to get divorced, but that MOSES not God, gave them a certificate of divorce.

So you have no argument here.

Yes, it was not God's perfect will that anyone get divorced, but He gave the command to Moses to allow people to get divorced because of the hardness of their heart.


At this point your only true alternative is to admit that a prophet can make a mistake.


Prophets do make mistakes. I never said they didn't. Moses hit the rock when he shouldn't have. But the Bible is clear that he shouldn't have done that. The Bible is the infallible inspired Word of God. There are no mistakes in it.

[woobadooba]

Yes, it was not God's perfect will that anyone get divorced, but He gave the command to Moses to allow people to get divorced because of the hardness of their heart.

So are you saying that when Jesus said Moses gave them a certificate of divorce, that He really meant to say God gave it to them?

If so, why would He then say it wasn't according to God's will? Are you trying to suggest that God would do something that is not according to His will?

Do you even realize the implication of such a thought?

[woobadooba]

The Bible is the infallible inspired Word of God. There are no mistakes in it.

Do you really want to go here?

And Jehovah said to Abram, Go out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house into a land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing. And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed. And Abram departed, even as Jehovah had spoken to him. And Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.
(Gen 12:1-4 MKJV)

Then the high priest said, Then do you so hold these things? And he said, Men, brothers, and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. And He said to him, "Go out from your land and from your kindred, and come into a land which I shall show you." Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And from there, when his father was dead, he moved into this land in which you now dwell.(Act 7:1-4 MKJV)

Moses recorded the history as such that God appeared to Abraham when he lived in Haran. But Peter said this happened before he lived in Haran.

Did Peter have his history right?

[Eila]

So are you saying that when Jesus said Moses gave them a certificate of divorce, that He really meant to say God gave it to them?

No, Jesus didn't mean to say anything different than what He said. In the law of Moses (given by God) God allowed the people to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.


If so, why would He then say it wasn't according to God's will? Are you trying to suggest that God would do something that is not according to His will?

Do you even realize the implication of such a thought?

God's will doesn't always happen. God was dealing with people who were spiritually dead. God allowed them to divorce because of the hardness of their heart. It is no secret that the standards of the old covenant law were much lower than the new covenant command.

Matthew 5 "31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Jesus raised the bar. The standards for the born again person were to be higher than the ones who had hardness of heart.

[woobadooba]

No, Jesus didn't mean to say anything different than what He said. In the law of Moses (given by God) God allowed the people to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.



God's will doesn't always happen. God was dealing with people who were spiritually dead. God allowed them to divorce because of the hardness of their heart. It is no secret that the standards of the old covenant law were much lower than the new covenant command.

Matthew 5 "31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Jesus raised the bar. The standards for the born again person were to be higher than the ones who had hardness of heart.

This still doesn't answer the question.

Jesus was very clear when He had said Moses gave them divorce, and that it was never God's will for people to divorce.

Just because God allows something to happen, that doesn't mean He caused it to happen, or approved of the action. God does allow us to exercise free-will. What we choose to do has no bearing on the integrity of God.

So you have no argument here. For, just as Moses made the mistake of striking the rock twice, he made the mistake of assuming that it was God's will to issue a certificate of divorce, when in fact it was never according to the will of God for this to be.

[Eila]

Do you really want to go here?

And Jehovah said to Abram, Go out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house into a land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing. And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed. And Abram departed, even as Jehovah had spoken to him. And Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.
(Gen 12:1-4 MKJV)

Then the high priest said, Then do you so hold these things? And he said, Men, brothers, and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. And He said to him, "Go out from your land and from your kindred, and come into a land which I shall show you." Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And from there, when his father was dead, he moved into this land in which you now dwell.(Act 7:1-4 MKJV)

Moses recorded the history as such that God appeared to Abraham when he lived in Haran. But Peter said this happened before he lived in Haran.

Did Peter have his history right?

I see no inconsistency here. Genesis doesn't say where Abram was when God appeared to him.

I don't understand. You were upset when I mentioned that saying the inspiration of the Bible was degraded in order to make EGW's inspiration work. Yet it doesn't appear as though you believe the Bible is inspired and infallible.

[Eila]

This still doesn't answer the question.

Jesus was very clear when He had said Moses gave them divorce, and that it was never God's will.

Just because God allows something to happen, that doesn't mean He caused it to happen, or approved of it.

So you have no argument here. Just as Moses made the mistake of striking the rock twice, he made the mistake of assuming that it was God's will to issue a certificate of divorce.

It appears as though you and I have very different views on the inspiration of the Bible.

[freeindeed2]

I see no inconsistency here. Genesis doesn't say where Abram was when God appeared to him.

I don't understand. You were upset when I mentioned that saying the inspiration of the Bible was degraded in order to make EGW's inspiration work. Yet it doesn't appear as though you believe the Bible is inspired and infallible.
They don't believe it's 'infallible' in order to excuse the many problems with EGW. They believe it is 'thought' inspired and that the Bible contains many errors itself. (I just sat in on a Sabbath School lesson study on this very topic a couple weeks ago. It's part of the subject of the current 'study'.)

[woobadooba]

It appears as though you and I have very different views on the inspiration of the Bible.

I agree.

I am of the view that a prophet is capable of making a theological error, and you are of the view that this isn't possible.

[woobadooba]

They don't believe it's 'infallible' in order to excuse the many problems with EGW. They believe it is 'thought' inspired and that the Bible contains many errors itself. (I just sat in on a Sabbath School lesson study on this very topic a couple weeks ago. It's part of the subject of the current 'study'.)

We don't believe the Bible contains many errors. We believe that the Bible does contain some errors. There is a difference.

And we don't capitalize on these errors to prove that Ellen White was inspired, as Eila appears to be implying. Those of us who understand these things are merely trying to open people's eyes to the nature of inspiration.

Some are willing to see the truth, and others just aren't ready to see it.

[Eila]

I agree.

I am of the view that a prophet is capable of making a theological error, and you are of the view that this isn't possible.

Not exactly. I do believe a prophet is capable of making a theological error, but not when prophecying. Prophets are to be judged by the Bible. If a prophecy goes against the Bible it is either made up by the person or from another source other than God. If the Bible is not the infallible standard then what standard do you use to judge whether a prophecy is from God or not?

I don't think I was really a "thought-inspiration" believer when I was an SDA. Thought inspiration is far from what I believe now.

[woobadooba]

I see no inconsistency here. Genesis doesn't say where Abram was when God appeared to him.

I think you have a valid point here.

However, this is what the Bible says: "And Abram departed, even as Jehovah had spoken to him. And Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran"

It does not say Abram waited for a period of time to act according to God's will in this regard, or that he first moved to Haran before departing from the place that God wanted him to leave.

"Abram departed, even as Jehovah had spoken to him" suggests that he did not hesitate to do what God had commanded of him. It also states that he "departed from Haran", which seems to indicate that God appeared to him while he was in Haran to disclose this message to him.

But like I had said, you do have a valid point. At the same time however, I think I have a valid point too. I suppose we will just have to wait until we see Jesus in person to find out the 'absolute' answer to this one.

[woobadooba]

Not exactly. I do believe a prophet is capable of making a theological error, but not when prophecying. Prophets are to be judged by the Bible. If a prophecy goes against the Bible it is either made up by the person or from another source other than God. If the Bible is not the infallible standard then what standard do you use to judge whether a prophecy is from God or not?

I don't think I was really a "thought-inspiration" believer when I was an SDA. Thought inspiration is far from what I believe now.

I'm not saying the 'message' of the Bible isn't infallible. I'm saying that the Bible as written by men of God is not infallible. It does contain some errors (not many). In other words, the core message of the Bible is infallible, but the words themselves which the prophets used to disclose this message are not necessarily God's 'choice' words.

For example, when David said, "Jehovah tries the righteous; but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence,"
(Psa 11:5 MKJV)

Did God inspire David to use such words in describing how He feels about the wicked?

How could we believe that God inspired David to use the word "hate", while knowing that Jesus (God) had said, "Love your enemies"?

Is the Bible really inspired word for word in its totality, or thought inspired in its totality?

There is an answer as to why David used the word "hate" here, but that is a subject for another thread.

[Eila]

I'm not saying the message of the Bible isn't an infallible standard. I'm saying that the Bible as written by men of God is not infallible. It does contain some errors (not many).

For example, when David said, "Jehovah tries the righteous; but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence,"
(Psa 11:5 MKJV)

Did God inspire David to use such words in describing how He feels about the wicked?

How could we believe that God inspired David to use the word "hate", while knowing that Jesus (God) had said, "Love your enemies"?

Is the Bible really inspired word for word in its totality, or thought inspired in its totality?

Yes, word for word in its totality. We approach passages differently. If I see an inconsistency - the problem is with my understanding. It appears when you see an inconsistency - the problem is with the inspiration.

[woobadooba]

Just to let those of you who are looking at this thread know, I am willing to re-examine my position.

The question is, are you willing to do the same thing with yours?

[woobadooba]

Yes, word for word in its totality. We approach passages differently. If I see an inconsistency - the problem is with my understanding. It appears when you see an inconsistency - the problem is with the inspiration.

I don't see a problem with inspiration.

Again, I believe that the Bible is fully inspired by God.

Having said that, there are certain portions of it where you will find a "thus says the Lord", which means that portion is inspired word for word. However, not every word in the Bible is God's choice word for the thought that is being disclosed. I think I demonstrated that quite well with the words of David.

Does this mean I don't agree that the Bible is fully inspired by God? No. It means there is something more to the nature of inspiration than what you are willing to see at this time.

[Eila]

I don't see a problem with inspiration.

Again, I believe that the Bible is fully inspired by God.

Having said that, there are certain portions of it where you will find a "thus says the Lord", which means that portion is inspired word for word. However, not every word in the Bible is God's choice word for the thought that is being disclosed.

Dos this mean I don't agree that the Bible is fully inspired by God? No. It means there is something more to the nature of inspiration than what you are willing to see at this time.

The infallible inspired Word of God is the very basis of my Christian walk. If I find an error it is with me, not the Word of God.

These pretty much sums up my viewpoint

John 1 " 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

2 Timothy 3 "16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

[woobadooba]

The infallible inspired Word of God is the very basis of my Christian walk. If I find an error it is with me, not the Word of God.

These pretty much sums up my viewpoint

John 1 " 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

2 Timothy 3 "16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

Where in the Bible does it say the Holy Scriptures are inspired word by word, as in every word being exactly what God wanted it to be to express His thought?

Again, was it God's choice word for David to use the word "hate" in describing how He felt about His enemies?

[freeindeed2]

We don't believe the Bible contains many errors. We believe that the Bible does contain some errors. There is a difference.

And we don't capitalize on these errors to prove that Ellen White was inspired. Those of us who understand these things are merely trying to open people's eyes to the nature of inspiration.
With all due respect, the SDA church holds and teaches this view for a reason- an attempt to make the gross errors of their prophet sound more palettable. I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism. It makes it easier to try and defend EGW and she doesn't have to be accountable for the things she said.

Some are willing to see the truth, and others just aren't ready to see it.
I agree. 2 Cor. 3 talks about peple who can't see the truth because of a veil, and the only way the veil can be removed is by turning to Jesus. Read it and check it out.

[woobadooba]

With all due respect, the SDA church holds and teaches this view for a reason- an attempt to make the gross errors of their prophet sound more palettable. I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism. It makes it easier to try and defend EGW and she doesn't have to be accountable for the things she said.

You assume to think that I don't know Jesus because I don't agree with you that the Bible is inspired word for word, as in every single word that is used in it is God's 'choice' word to express His thoughts.

Instead of making such condemnatory accusations why don't you give an actual answer to the issues that I have raised.

Can you do that?

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that the punctuation in the Bible is inspired by God?

[freeindeed2]

You assume to think that I don't know Jesus because I don't agree with you that the Bible is inspired word for word, as in every single word that is used in it is God's 'choice' word to express His thoughts.

Instead of making such condemnatory accusations why don't you give an actual answer to the issues that I have raised.

Can you do that?

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that the punctuation in the Bible is inspired by God?
Wooba, from my experience with you I believe you do know Christ and that his Spirit lives in you. I count you as a brother in Christ, whether you agree with me or you agree with someone else. Fair enough? My statements were not directed at you, rather they were directed at SDAism beliefs and teachings themselves. Discussing the beliefs taught by a denomination is not the same as making personal judgments against individuals. I apologize if you took my post personally, but if you'll go back and read it again you'll see that I was careful to discuss SDA teachings rather than you personally (thus I used words like SDAism, representing that belief system).

[freeindeed2]

Instead of making such condemnatory accusations why don't you give an actual answer to the issues that I have raised.

Can you do that?
There are definitely difficulties in Scripture. With no original documents they will be wrestled with 'till kingdom come. I believe the Bible is infallible Word of God in it's original languages. None of the apparent difficulties take away from anything major, and just because we don't understand them, or wrestle with them, doesn't reflect on them being erronious, rather it reflects on us.

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that the punctuation in the Bible is inspired by God?
There wasn't punctuation in the originals. So translators had to apply it according to the intended meaning of the author.

[woobadooba]

There are definitely difficulties in Scripture. With no original documents they will be wrestled with 'till kingdom come. I believe the Bible is infallible Word of God in it's original languages. None of the apparent difficulties take away from anything major, and just because we don't understand them, or wrestle with them, doesn't reflect on them being erronious, rather it reflects on us.

What you are referring to is spelling errors, and perhaps errors in calculation.

However, what I am referring to is entirely different. I am referring to actual thoughts, such as Moses giving a certificate of divorce, and assuming that it was God's will for this to be, and Peter not quoting Joel correctly when referring to his prophecy. Moreover, David used the word "hate" to describe what he believed to be God's thoughts about the wicked, yet, Jesus said "love your enemies".

Again, my contention is not with the inspiration of the Bible, but with the idea that every thought in it consists of God's choice words to express that thought, and that every idea that a prophet of God expressed in it was given to that prophet by God to be expressed as that which was directly given to him by God.

To give you another example that a prophet of God can err in assuming that something is according to the will of God, when in fact it isn't, we can find such a case in 1Chronicles 7:1-4, wherein David was contemplating within his heart to build God a house. Nathan, the prophet of God, had informed David that he should do all that is in his heart, because the Lord was with him. In other words, he was informing David that the Lord approved of what David wanted to do.

However, the Lord later informed Nathan that it wasn't according to His will for David to build such a house. So Nathan, thinking that it was according to the will of God for David to do this, soon discovered that he was wrong, that the thought that he assumed to be of God was merely an assumption.

"And it happened as David sat in his house, David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in a house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of Jehovah is under curtains. And Nathan said to David, Do all that is in your heart, for God is with you. And it happened the same night the Word of God came to Nathan, saying, Go and tell David My servant, So says Jehovah, You shall not build Me a house to dwell in." (1Ch 17:1-4 MKJV)

Should we now believe that Nathan really wasn't a prophet of God because he assumed something to be of God that really wasn't of God? That is, was he not a real prophet of God because he had informed David that he had God's approval to build God a house, when in fact it really wasn't according to God's will for David to build such a house?

When looking at things like this, it is hard to justify how anyone could continue to believe that a prophet of God couldn't assume something to be of God, when in fact it really isn't of God. God is infallible. Prophets are merely men. They are not infallible, and can therefore err on any point. It doesn't make them any less a prophet of God because this happens. It just means they are human, just like the rest of us.

Again, one ought to look at the core message of a prophet, and the lifestyle that he promotes to determine if he has such a gift before concluding that he doesn't have the gift because he has erred on some point of doctrine, or has assumed something to be according to the wll of God when in fact it isn't. There is much more to the nature of inspiration than most people are willing to discern.

Incidentally, we know that David was a prophet of God too. Why then did David need Nathan to inform him later that it wasn't according to the will of God for him to build this house? For that matter, why didn't David, being a prophet of God, not have the discernment to know that Natan's thoughts were really not of God?

There is much more to the nature of inspiration than what we understand.

There wasn't punctuation in the originals. So translators had to apply it according to the intended meaning of the author.

This is correct.

[BigNorsk]

In Chapter 11 of Genesis Abram left Ur to settle in Canaan, but they stopped in Haran.

Then in 12 the focus goes to the appearance of the Lord to Abram and Him telling Abram that he was giving Abram and his decendants the land and Abram was to go there.

So if you add it all up, it could very well be that God appeared to Abram while he was in Ur, else why does chapter 11 say they were going to Canaan? For whatever reason Abram's father decided to settle in Haran, and it is easily explainable that Moses stayed there until his father's death in honor of his father. Doing so made it clear that the land was given to Abram and not his father who would have been the rightful head if they had immediately gone from Ur to Canaan.

We tend to read things in a very linear manner, which isn't always how the story is told.

If God did not tell Abram to go to Canaan while in Ur, then you are left with the problem of explaining why Abram was going to Canaan before God told him too.

So, in this case, I think the account in Acts is correct about the timing of things, it's just not obvious from the way the Genesis account is written.

Marv

[Jimlarmore]

With all due respect, the SDA church holds and teaches this view for a reason- an attempt to make the gross errors of their prophet sound more palettable. I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism. It makes it easier to try and defend EGW and she doesn't have to be accountable for the things she said.

This is a pretty harsh accusation. Being an ex-adventist preacher I suppose you have documented support for such a thing. If so I'd surely like to see it now or when ever you can produce it. If not then what you are saying is just your personal perspective which could be very skewed from the truth indeed.


I agree. 2 Cor. 3 talks about peple who can't see the truth because of a veil, and the only way the veil can be removed is by turning to Jesus. Read it and check it out.

From my perspective this statement of yours is like the pot calling the kettle black.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[freeindeed2]

This is a pretty harsh accusation. Being an ex-adventist preacher I suppose you have documented support for such a thing. If so I'd surely like to see it now or when ever you can produce it. If not then what you are saying is just your personal perspective which could be very skewed from the truth indeed.
You can observe it every time this subject is discussed between SDA's and most Christians. SDA's will tear the Bible down to justify the problems with EGW. It's observable, and I've seen it on every forum I post on. Sorry, I don't have a 'study' on this, but you can observe it quite easily.

From my perspective this statement of yours is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I understand why you must say that. However, 2 Cor 3 will say otherwise. When legalists (law-based denominations) run back to Moses' writings a veil is firmly in place, and they CANNOT see the truth. I wouldn't expect them to be able to see the truth. The Bible says they can't.

[woobadooba]

You can observe it every time this subject is discussed between SDA's and most Christians. SDA's will tear the Bible down to justify the problems with EGW. It's observable, and I've seen it on every forum I post on. Sorry, I don't have a 'study' on this, but you can observe it quite easily.

Is this what you see me doing here?

I do think I have presented some valid points.

Bible prophets were not perfect. They did err at times, not only on matters of discerning God's will, but also on matters of interpretation, as I have clearly shown in this thread.

Those who can't see these things just don't want to see them, because they feel that to agree with such ideas one must deny the inspiration of the Bible. Where they go wrong here is that they imply that the Bible was written by the finger of God, while failing to remember that it was written by men.

Yes, they were inspired by God, but they were also human. The message of the Bible is infallible; but the men that wrote it weren't.

[djconklin]

I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism.

In the seminary we spent most of our time studying the very book (the Bible) that you suggest we "put down." In fact, I'd suggest that if you tried to enter the seminary with that attitude you would be rejected--other seminaries might welcome you with open arms becuase you'd be a kindred spirit. The SDA church lifts up the Bible; we do NOT put it down in any shape, manner, or form.

[Adventtruth]

The SDA church lifts up the Bible; we do NOT put it down in any shape, manner, or form.

Not in the Adventist churches I was a part of.

AT:)

[woobadooba]

Not in the Adventist churches I was a part of.

AT:)

You will find people in every church that espouse views that are contrary to the scriptures. That doesn't mean the Church is at fault. It just simply means that the Church has members that are not educated well enough on such matters, to properly handle the Word of Truth.

Of course, it could also mean that there are people within the Church that are wolves in sheep's clothing. Meaning, they know they are liars, but intentionally distort the truth for personal gain. Such people are usually operating under the influence of Satanic powers.

[Adventtruth]

You will find people in every church that espouse views that are contrary to the scriptures. That doesn't mean the Church is at fault. It just simply means that the Church has members that are not educated well enough on such matters, to properly handle the Word of Truth.

Of course, it could also mean that there are people within the Church that are wolves in sheep's clothing. Meaning, they know they are liars, but intentionally distort the truth for personal gain. Such people are usually operating under the influence of Satanic powers.

I find the weekly prayer meeting a joke. The pastor and the elders are wondering why no one comes. They just went through the 28 fundalmental beliefs, and now are going through the Ministry of Healing. One member asked the pastor "why don't we just study a book of the bible like Romans? The pastor replied "the ministry of healing has a lot of bible text in it".

This is the problem...More brain wahing through the SOP and not the bible. The Holy Spirit all ways attends to the pure gospel.

AT:)

[woobadooba]

I find the weekly prayer meeting a joke. The pastor and the elders are wondering why no one comes. They just went through the 28 fundalmental beliefs, and now are going through the Ministry of Healing. One member asked the pastor "why don't we just study a book of the bible like Romans? The pastor replied "the ministry of healing has a lot of bible text in it".

This is the problem...More brain wahing through the SOP and not the bible. The Holy Spirit all ways attends to the pure gospel.

AT:)

Brain washing?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with using such material for study. If the teachings reflect those that are of the Bible, such an endeavor would not impede ones growth in Christ; rather, it would serve to enhance that person's relationship with God.

Do you read nothing but the Bible?

[Adventtruth]

Brain washing?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with using such material for study. If the teachings reflect those that are of the Bible, such an endeavor would not impede ones growth in Christ; rather, it would serve to enhance that person's relationship with God.

Do you read nothing but the Bible?

Yes Brain washing. Many of the members wont believe the bible but will believe what the SOP says. Example. One Adventist member was in a conversation with me, her husband, my wife. I said that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God. She asked where do you get that idea becasue the Sabbath is the seal of God. I then read from Eph. 4:30:

Ephesians 4:30 (KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

She then took my bible and then read it herself and to every ones surprise even her husband she said "thats not what that says!" Then her husband read it and said "honey that is what it says". My wife then read it and said "yes thats what it says".

His wife then took the bible and read it her self and said "thats not what it says. She then said, "let me go and get my bible". So she went to her car and got it, and read from teh back of her EGW STUDY BIBLE that the seal of God was the Sabbath and not the Holy Spirit.

This sort of stuff happens all the time. The SOP teaches we are saved by faith but kept and judged by works for salvation. This is a distortion of the gospel

AT:)

[freeindeed2]

Yes Brain washing. Many of the members wont believe the bible but will believe what the SOP says. Example. One Adventist member was in a conversation with me, her husband, my wife. I said that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God. She asked where do you get that idea becasue the Sabbath is the seal of God. I then read from Eph. 4:30:

Ephesians 4:30 (KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

She then took my bible and then read it herself and to every ones surprise even her husband she said "thats not what that says!" Then her husband read it and said "honey that is what it says". My wife then read it and said "yes thats what it says".

His wife then took the bible and read it her self and said "thats not what it says. She then said, "let me go and get my bible". So she went to her car and got it, and read from teh back of her EGW STUDY BIBLE that the seal of God was the Sabbath and not the Holy Spirit.

This sort of stuff happens all the time. The SOP teaches we are saved by faith but kept and judged by works for salvation. This is a distortion of the gospel

AT:)
Absolutely! I've had similar experiences many times (most of them while I was still a 'full-fledged' SDA).

[Cribstyl]

Bible prophets were not perfect. They did err at times, not only on matters of discerning God's will, but also on matters of interpretation, as I have clearly shown in this thread.

Not to be argumentive Woo, but
you've showed no such thing. :doh: (You're trying to justify EGWhite as a prophet by comparing apples with oranges.) For cryingoutloud, these prophets are messengers who predated Jesus Christ.

Your first argument is this.

... I am referring to actual thoughts, such as Moses giving a certificate of divorce, and assuming that it was God's will for this to be,......

You're implying that giving a certification of divorce was Moses' will and not God's will?
That understanding is falsely reasoned through misinterpreting Jesus response to 2 questions asked by Pharisees. Mat 19:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=3&version=kjv#3)The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every (any) cause?
Mat 19:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=7&version=kjv#7)They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mat 19:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=8&version=kjv#8)He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Christ validate Moses as the prophet who gave to Israel God's commandment, statutes, and judgements.

By isolating this text above someone can say that Moses gave the people a way out of marriage, but by looking back to the day when Moses makes that decree Deu 24:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Deu&chapter=24&verse=1&version=kjv#1)-4, there are many other commandments given that are not considered as from Moses.
(before)Deu 10:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Deu&chapter=10&verse=13&version=kjv#13)To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

(after) Deu 26:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Deu&chapter=26&translation=kjv&x=12&y=8#) This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. Deu 26:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Deu&chapter=26&translation=kjv&x=12&y=8#)Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:

If you count all the times Moses say that these commandments are God's commandments, statutes and judgements, then, you can learn that Moses did not come up with divorce.


At the sermon on the mount when Jesus taught that calling someone a fool is as bad as murder. He taught that adultry was a reason for divorce.


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

Where in the Bible does it say the Holy Scriptures are inspired word by word, as in every word being exactly what God wanted it to be to express His thought?



2Ti 3:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=2Ti&chapter=3&translation=kjv&x=8&y=12#) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=2Ti&chapter=3&translation=kjv&x=8&y=12#)That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


What part of "ALL SCRIPTURE" does not mean "word by word?" The problem comes when someone doubts what is written to suggest that the words of the prophet is false based on their private understanding.

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




Again, was it God's choice word for David to use the word "hate" in describing how He felt about His enemies?
:doh: Is every word prophetic? No. Does these arguments make your case that a prophet makes errors? I dont think so.

[Cribstyl]

Brain washing?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with using such material for study. If the teachings reflect those that are of the Bible, such an endeavor would not impede ones growth in Christ; rather, it would serve to enhance that person's relationship with God.

Do you read nothing but the Bible?

Of course you dont because from your prophet said, "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light" (Review and Herald, January 20, 1903).

That's one reason that SDA use the lesser light and called it as inspired as the bible.

Why did Christ call Apostles to preach the gospel rather than another prophet to explain Genesis to Revelation?
Why did Paul teach "
1Cr 12:28 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=12&v=28&version=KJV#28)And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The apostles message is about Jesus Christ. The prophets message is the comming of Jesus Christ and His kingdom.
The preaching of selective Laws is another Gospel.
Gal 1:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Gal 1:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,

Gal 1:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=1&translation=kjv&x=9&y=17#)Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

[woobadooba]

Not to be argumentive Woo, but
you've showed no such thing. :doh: (You're trying to justify EGWhite as a prophet by comparing apples with oranges.) For cryingoutloud, these prophets are messengers who predated Jesus Christ.

Your first argument is this.

You're implying that giving a certification of divorce was Moses' will and not God's will?
That understanding is falsely reasoned through misinterpreting Jesus response to 2 questions asked by Pharisees. Mat 19:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=3&version=kjv#3)The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every (any) cause?
Mat 19:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=7&version=kjv#7)They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mat 19:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=8&version=kjv#8)He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Christ validate Moses as the prophet who gave to Israel God's commandment, statutes, and judgements.

By isolating this text above someone can say that Moses gave the people a way out of marriage, but by looking back to the day when Moses makes that decree Deu 24:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Deu&chapter=24&verse=1&version=kjv#1)-4, there are many other commandments given that are not considered as from Moses.
(before)Deu 10:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Deu&chapter=10&verse=13&version=kjv#13)To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

(after) Deu 26:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Deu&chapter=26&translation=kjv&x=12&y=8#) This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. Deu 26:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Deu&chapter=26&translation=kjv&x=12&y=8#)Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:

If you count all the times Moses say that these commandments are God's commandments, statutes and judgements, then, you can learn that Moses did not come up with divorce.


At the sermon on the mount when Jesus taught that calling someone a fool is as bad as murder. He taught that adultry was a reason for divorce.


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




2Ti 3:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=2Ti&chapter=3&translation=kjv&x=8&y=12#) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=2Ti&chapter=3&translation=kjv&x=8&y=12#)That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


What part of "ALL SCRIPTURE" does not mean "word by word?" The problem comes when someone doubts what is written to suggest that the words of the prophet is false based on their private understanding.



You really should read an argument before responding to it!

My point is that Christ said a certificate of divorce wasn't according to God's will, but was given by Moses as a result of the hardness of the hearts of God's people. In other words, God didn't give the people a certificate of divorce. Moses did!

Yet, Moses, in Deut., designated a certificate of divorce as being one of God's statutes, thus implying that it was given
by God.

Now who are we to believe, Moses, or God Himself?

Obviously Moses added something to the law that wasn't according to God's will. Hence it wasn't inspired by God.

This then leads us to the question of what does "given by inspiration of God" really mean?

By the way, my point here isn't to prove that Ellen White had the prophetic gift; rather it is to argue the point that one can't assume someone to not have the prophetic gift simply because he/she has erred on some point of doctrine, or has incorrectly discerned the will of God. For, as anyone who takes an honest look at these things can see, even Biblical prophets erred on matters of truth at times. In other words, they were not infallible.

[djconklin]

The SDA church lifts up the Bible; we do NOT put it down in any shape, manner, or form.
Not in the Adventist churches I was a part of.

Name them; I want to go and see for myself.

[djconklin]

One member asked the pastor "why don't we just study a book of the bible like Romans?

That's what the Sabbath School and sermons should be on. I started a series at my home town church.

[djconklin]

I said that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God. She asked where do you get that idea becasue the Sabbath is the seal of God.

Two different seals. That's why we, sometimes jokingly and sometimes in all seriousness, call Sabbath School a pooling of ignorance.

[djconklin]

Of course you dont because from your prophet said, "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light" (Review and Herald, January 20, 1903).

Ellen G. White did not call herself a prophet and neither should anyone else.

[Eila]

Ellen G. White did not call herself a prophet and neither should anyone else.

True, she called herself more than a prophet.

[woobadooba]

True, she called herself more than a prophet.

And what if she was? Why would you be so upset about that?

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36702796#post36702796)
Ellen G. White did not call herself a prophet and neither should anyone else.

True, she called herself more than a prophet.

Actually, what she said was:

"My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there." (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 36, 1906)

During the discourse [at Battle Creek, October 2, 1904], I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ.--Letter 55, 1905.

Some people have a naive view of the work of a prophet, that's why she never called herself a prophet.

[Eila]

Actually, what she said was:

"My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there." (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 36, 1906)

During the discourse [at Battle Creek, October 2, 1904], I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ.--Letter 55, 1905.

Some people have a naive view of the work of a prophet, that's why she never called herself a prophet.

Yes, she didn't want to be called a prophet. She actually thought her role was more than a prophet.

Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be his messenger. 'Your work,' he instructed me, 'is to bear my word. ... It is not you that speaketh: it is the Lord that giveth the messages of warning and reproof. Never deviate from the truth under any circumstances . Give the light I shall give you. The messages for these last days shall be written in books, and shall stand immortalized, to testify against those who have once rejoiced in the light, but who have been led to give it up because of the seductive influences of evil.' Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies." (Review and Herald, July 26, 1907)

From Selected Messages Volume 1

"The Work of a Prophet and More

During the discourse, I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as
36
much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ. {1SM 35.6} My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people.--Letter 55, 1905. {1SM 36.1}

I am now instructed that I am not to be hindered in my work by those who engage in suppositions regarding its nature, whose minds are struggling with so many intricate problems connected with the supposed work of a prophet. My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend.--Letter 244, 1906. (Addressed to elders of Battle Creek church.) {1SM 36.2}"

[Sophia7]

Here is one more quote:
To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I can not call myself other than a messenger sent to bear a message from the Lord to his people, and to take up work in any line that he points out. {RH, July 26, 1906 par. 18}

[woobadooba]

Here is one more quote: To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I can not call myself other than a messenger sent to bear a message from the Lord to his people, and to take up work in any line that he points out. {RH, July 26, 1906 par. 18}

And you have a problem with this? Why?

[djconklin]

Here is one more quote:
To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I can not call myself other than a messenger sent to bear a message from the Lord to his people, and to take up work in any line that he points out. {RH, July 26, 1906 par. 18}
And if I had been there I would have told her "No." But, I now think this is a testing point for some people. God allows people to "think" for themselves vs trusting in Him. And some "think" they know it all and they know better than God.

[Eila]

And if I had been there I would have told her "No." But, I now think this is a testing point for some people. God allows people to "think" for themselves vs trusting in Him. And some "think" they know it all and they know better than God.

:scratch: You are saying that those who "think" for themselves do not believe in EGW? How is trusting in Him related to EGW at all? Does one need to accept EGW to trust in God?

[djconklin]

You are saying that those who "think" for themselves do not believe in EGW?

That the word "think" was in quotes indicates that it was not to be taken literally. They think they think when they are not doing so.

Does one need to accept EGW to trust in God?

The other way around. If you trust God then you will accept Ellen White. Truth has a certain "ring" to it that error will never have.

[Eila]

The other way around. If you trust God then you will accept Ellen White. Truth has a certain "ring" to it that error will never have.

Ellen White is error-free?

[Sophia7]

And you have a problem with this? Why?

I have a problem with the fact that some people say that according to her, she shouldn't be called a prophet. Although she didn't use the term herself, she had "no controversy" with those who did.

[woobadooba]

I have a problem with the fact that some people say that according to her, she shouldn't be called a prophet. Although she didn't use the term herself, she had "no controversy" with those who did.

Do you believe she was a true prophet of God? If not, why?

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36733866#post36733866)
The other way around. If you trust God then you will accept Ellen White. Truth has a certain "ring" to it that error will never have.

Ellen White is error-free?

1) I was speaking of the principle that motivated the messenger/messages. To compare: those who claim that Ellen White was a plagiarist and have not yet done the work that Dr. Veltman pointed out in 1988 that needed to be done are in error. They started in and are motivated by error.

2) In answer to your question: no more and no less than Nathan the OT prophet when he goofed.

3) Implicit in this type of question is that when one has been inspired one can never be a mere mortal and make mistakes again. This is a false and unbiblical belief.

[Eila]

1) I was speaking of the principle that motivated the messenger/messages. To compare: those who claim that Ellen White was a plagiarist and have not yet done the work that Dr. Veltman pointed out in 1988 that needed to be done are in error. They started in and are motivated by error.

2) In answer to your question: no more and no less than Nathan the OT prophet when he goofed.

3) Implicit in this type of question is that when one has been inspired one can never be a mere mortal and make mistakes again. This is a false and unbiblical belief.

A prophet can make mistakes, but not when saying "I was shown", "I saw", "My accompanying angel showed me", "thus saith the Lord", etc.

Where did Nathan the prophet goof when prophesying?

[woobadooba]

A prophet can make mistakes, but not when saying "I was shown", "I saw", "My accompanying angel showed me", "thus saith the Lord", etc.

Where did Nathan the prophet goof when prophesying?

"That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains. And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee." (2Sa 7:2-3)

The implication here is that Nathan assured David that he had the Lord's approval to do something that the Lord really didn't approve of.

Now had this been Ellen White, you would use this as an excuse to denounce her prophetic gift, but because it is Nathan it is OK?

I don't think you or the other critics are approaching the issue with true integrity.

[Eila]

"That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains. And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee." (2Sa 7:2-3)

The implication here is that Nathan assured David that he had the Lord's approval to do something that the Lord really didn't approve of.

Now had this been Ellen White, you would use this as an excuse to denounce her prophetic gift, but because it is Nathan it is OK?

I don't think you or the other critics are approaching the issue with true integrity.

2 points to consider - Nathan was not prophesying when he said that.

The correction was given by God that same night and Nathan relayed the correction as a "thus says the Lord".

Were EGW's errors only errors on things where she was not relaying "I was shown", "I saw", "I have been shown", "My accompany angel showed me"? If so, I could see the comparison. And were her errors corrected by God with a "thus says the Lord"?

[woobadooba]

2 points to consider - Nathan was not prophesying when he said that.

The correction was given by God that same night and Nathan relayed the correction as a "thus says the Lord".

Were EGW's errors only errors on things where she was not relaying "I was shown", "I saw", "I have been shown", "My accompany angel showed me"? If so, I could see the comparison. And were her errors corrected by God with a "thus says the Lord"?

The point is that Nathan was wrong. He` assumed something to be of God and it wasn't. There are no buts about it. He was wrong; and according to your standards you would consider him to have been a false prophet. I see that you have a double standard here.

Can someone be shown something in vision and assume it to mean something other than what the Lord intended?

Does God allow for a prophet to interpret a vision for a time?

And where is your evidence anyway?

[djconklin]

Nathan was not prophesying when he said that.

Good thing I didn't say that he was at the time, right? The point was very simple: prophets can make mirtakes!

Were EGW's errors only errors on things where she was not relaying "I was shown", "I saw", "I have been shown", "My accompany angel showed me"?

1) The latter phrase was never written by EGW. Your source erred.
2) It has been shown (I believe it was either by her son Willie, or Arthur) that some of the "I saw" statement refer to written text and not to a vision. She saw the truth in it.

And were her errors corrected by God with a "thus says the Lord"?

Didn't have to. She once wriote that the Paradfise valey Sanitarium had 40 rooms. Some knucklehead who believed in verbal inspiration went out and counted the rooms (there were 38). You can read the rest of the story here: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pay/PAYc21.html

You will note that the above is from Jemison's book "A Prophet Among You" that came pout in 1955. I would suggest thet you put it at the top of your reading list.

[djconklin]

Where did Nathan the prophet goof when prophesying?

We have no evidence that EGW "goofed" when prophesying. We do know that Jonah "goofed."

[Eila]

1) The latter phrase was never written by EGW. Your source erred.
2) It has been shown (I believe it was either by her son Willie, or Arthur) that some of the "I saw" statement refer to written text and not to a vision. She saw the truth in it.

What source? I was going from memory. I looked it up and the actual phrases mean the same thing "My accompanying angel informed me", "Said my accompanying angel", "My accompanyingangel presented..."

Are all the "I saw" statements that do not refer to any texts free from error. If not, how do you know that prophets like Daniel got it right?


We have no evidence that EGW "goofed" when prophesying. We do know that Jonah "goofed."

Where did Jonah goof when prophesying?

You believe that everything that EGW prophesied is free from error?

[djconklin]

What source? I was going from memory. I looked it up and the actual phrases mean the same thing "My accompanying angel informed me", "Said my accompanying angel", "My accompanyingangel presented..."

Well, then like my memory it is highly flawed and not to be trusted--have to re-verify everything, dang! If you go to http://www.whiteestate.org/ and click on "GUI search" and then at "Full text Search" type in what you have (I used the "angel showed me" from your previous post and got only one hit that didn't say what you had).

Are all the "I saw" statements that do not refer to any texts free from error.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me.

If not, how do you know that prophets like Daniel got it right?

"If not"? Why do you start from an assumption that he, or any other prophet, might have got it wrong? Where's the proof that he, or any other, got anything wrong?


Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36754902#post36754902)
We have no evidence that EGW "goofed" when prophesying. We do know that Jonah "goofed."

Where did Jonah goof when prophesying?

Hmmm, back to basics 101. He prophesied that in 40 days Nineveh would be overthrown. it wasn't.

You believe that everything that EGW prophesied is free from error?

Here you go again starting with the assumption that EGW prophesied something somewhere that was in error. Got proof? If not, then why start with the assumption?

This is like debating with the anti-Bible people who start with an assumption that the Bible is not free from errors. They don't prove it, they just assume it. Then they post what they think is "evidence" to support their foregone conclusion.

[Eila]

Well, then like my memory it is highly flawed and not to be trusted--have to re-verify everything, dang! If you go to http://www.whiteestate.org/ and click on "GUI search" and then at "Full text Search" type in what you have (I used the "angel showed me" from your previous post and got only one hit that didn't say what you had).

Yes, I went to the EGW site and that is where I listed the quotes from my last response. I looked it up and the actual phrases mean the same thing "My accompanying angel informed me", "Said my accompanying angel", "My accompanying angel presented..."

Angel showed me is pretty much the same as the actual quotes :) But yes, the "angel showed me" won't give you many hits.

Would you agree that this statement from EGW is Biblically sound? She is reporting exactly what the angel told her in her vision.

"I have seen in vision that tobacco was a filthy weed, and that it
must be laid aside or given up. Said my accompanying angel, "If
it is an idol, it is high time it was given up, and unless it is
given up, the frown of God will be upon the one that uses it, and he cannot be sealed with the seal of the living God." {1BIO 224.2}



I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me.

You had said that many of the instances where EGW said "I saw" referred to texts. I was asking if the instances where EGW said "I saw" where she was not referring to texts were error free.



"If not"? Why do you start from an assumption that he, or any other prophet, might have got it wrong? Where's the proof that he, or any other, got anything wrong?


That's the thing. Prophets of God don't get things wrong when they are prophesying.



Hmmm, back to basics 101. He prophesied that in 40 days Nineveh would be overthrown. it wasn't.

Not because Jonah prophesied incorrectly, but because of the mercy of God.

Jonah 3 "6The word reached[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=39&chapter=3&version=47#fen-ESV-22562c)] the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, "By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, 8but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish." 10When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it."

Jonah proclaimed what God told him to proclaim.





Here you go agains starting with the assumption that EGW prophesied something somewhere that was in error. Got proof? If not, then why start with the assumption?

This is like debating with the anti-Bible people who start with an assumption that the Bible is not free from errors. They don't prove it, they just assume it. Then they post what they think is "evidence" to support their foregone conclusion.

I just quoted something above.

[djconklin]

Would you agree that this statement from EGW is Biblically sound? She is reporting exactly what the angel told her in her vision.

"I have seen in vision that tobacco was a filthy weed, and that it
must be laid aside or given up. Said my accompanying angel, "If
it is an idol, it is high time it was given up, and unless it is
given up, the frown of God will be upon the one that uses it, and he cannot be sealed with the seal of the living God." {1BIO 224.2}

Where would be the problem? The Surgeon Genreal of the US and most physicians would tell you that in order to enjoy good health and stop killing those around you with your second-hand smoke that you shouldn't start smoking in the first place and if are a smoker then you should quit.

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36759320#post36759320)

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me.

You had said that many of the instances where EGW said "I saw" referred to texts. I was asking if the instances where EGW said "I saw" where she was not referring to texts were error free.

I didn't say "many." I have no evidence that those texts were error free. nor do I have any evidence that they are in error. I don't make assumptions and then proceed to build castles in the clouds.

[djconklin]

Prophets of God don't get things wrong when they are prophesying.

Jonah did! He really expected Nineveh to be destroyed; that's why he went out to wait for the end of the 40 days. I didn't say that he prophesied incorrectly. I just noted that what he preached/prophesied didn't happen. In a literal reading of the text he was a false prophet.

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36759320#post36759320)
Here you go again starting with the assumption that EGW prophesied something somewhere that was in error. Got proof? If not, then why start with the assumption?

This is like debating with the anti-Bible people who start with an assumption that the Bible is not free from errors. They don't prove it, they just assume it. Then they post what they think is "evidence" to support their foregone conclusion.

I just quoted something above.

And it wasn't a prophesy, either! Do you know the difference?

[Eila]

Where would be the problem? The Surgeon Genreal of the US and most physicians would tell you that in order to enjoy good health and stop killing those around you with your second-hand smoke that you shouldn't start smoking in the first place and if are a smoker then you should quit.

The problem is she is saying that a person isn't sealed by God until they have quit using tobacco. That says a person needs to be cleaned-up before he is born again and it says that salvation is by your works.

Jonah did! He really expected Nineveh to be destroyed; that's why he went out to wait for the end of the 40 days. I didn't say that he prophesied incorrectly. I just noted that what he preached/prophesied didn't happen. In a literal reading of the text he was a false prophet.

Jonah didn't get anything wrong. He said exactly what God told Him to say.

According to Jonah he knew that God would show mercy. Jonah 4 "1But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. 2And he prayed to the LORD and said, "O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. "

And it wasn't a prophesy, either! Do you know the difference?

She is relating what the accompanying angel told her. Prophesying isn't restricted to foretelling the future. I am referring to every instance where it says she was shown something, where she saw something, where the angel told her something, etc.

The defiinition of prophet from Strong's isn't limited to one who foretells the future.

some prophets
New Testament Greek Definition:
4396 prophetes {prof-ay'-tace}
from a compound of 4253 and 5346; TDNT - 6:781,952; n m
AV - prophet 149; 149
1) in Greek writings, an interpreter of oracles or of other hidden things
2) one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or
spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by
inspiration, especially concerning future events, and in
particular such as relate to the cause and kingdom of God and to
human salvation
2a) the OT prophets, having foretold the kingdom, deeds and death,
of Jesus the Messiah.
2b) of John the Baptist, the herald of Jesus the Messiah
2c) of the illustrious prophet, the Jews expected before the advent
of the Messiah
2d) the Messiah
2e) of men filled with the Spirit of God, who by God's authority
and command in words of weight pleads the cause of God and
urges salvation of men
2f) of prophets that appeared in the apostolic age among Christians
2f1) they are associated with the apostles
2f2) they discerned and did what is best for the Christian
cause, foretelling certain future events. (Acts 11:27)
2f3) in the religious assemblies of the Christians, they were
moved by the Holy Spirit to speak, having power to
instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and
stimulate, their hearers
3) a poet (because poets were believed to sing under divine
inspiration)
3a) of Epimenides (Tit. 1:12)

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36762072#post36762072)
Where would be the problem? The Surgeon Genreal of the US and most physicians would tell you that in order to enjoy good health and stop killing those around you with your second-hand smoke that you shouldn't start smoking in the first place and if are a smoker then you should quit.

The problem is she is saying that a person isn't sealed by God until they have quit using tobacco. That says a person needs to be cleaned-up before he is born again and it says that salvation is by your works.

It didn't say anything about being cleaned up "before" being born again. You read way too much into the quote.


Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36762219#post36762219)
Jonah did! He really expected Nineveh to be destroyed; that's why he went out to wait for the end of the 40 days. I didn't say that he prophesied incorrectly. I just noted that what he preached/prophesied didn't happen. In a literal reading of the text he was a false prophet.

Jonah didn't get anything wrong. He said exactly what God told Him to say.

Did I say that he didn't? Why do you bring up stuff that is irrelvant?


Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36762276#post36762276)
And it wasn't a prophesy, either! Do you know the difference?

She is relating what the accompanying angel told her. Prophesying isn't restricted to foretelling the future. I am referring to every instance where it says she was shown something, where she saw something, where the angel told her something, etc.

Ciorrection: in the conventional sense of the word to make a prophesy is to predict the future. In the Biblical sense the work of the propeht includes more than predicting the future. Have you never heard that sloppy wording breeds sloppy thinking?

The defiinition of prophet from Strong's isn't limited to one who foretells the future.

That's what I just said.

[Eila]

It didn't say anything about being cleaned up "before" being born again. You read way too much into the quote.

When you are born again you are sealed. The angel said tobacco users aren't sealed.

" "I have seen in vision that tobacco was a filthy weed, and that it
must be laid aside or given up. Said my accompanying angel, "If
it is an idol, it is high time it was given up, and unless it is
given up, the frown of God will be upon the one that uses it, and he cannot be sealed with the seal of the living God." {1BIO 224.2}"

[djconklin]

When you are born again you are sealed.

Please show the Bible verse for that.

[Eila]

Please show the Bible verse for that.

Ephesians 1 "13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

[Loveaboveall]

When you are born again you are sealed. The angel said tobacco users aren't sealed.

" "I have seen in vision that tobacco was a filthy weed, and that it
must be laid aside or given up. Said my accompanying angel, "If
it is an idol, it is high time it was given up, and unless it is
given up, the frown of God will be upon the one that uses it, and he cannot be sealed with the seal of the living God." {1BIO 224.2}"

Maybe looking at what is written from a different perspective could help.

Is it possible what was mean was that those who have idols, and do not give them up cannot be sealed. If tobacco is an idol for a person, then how can they have given their WHOLE heart to God? They are still hanging on to something they cherish. How can the HS only seal part of a person? The whole person must be surrendered!

To understand the message as tobacco users cannot be sealed is to completely misunderstand the point made. IF tobacco is an idol they cannot be sealed. IDOL is the important word that must be focused on, not tobacco.

[Eila]

Maybe looking at what is written from a different perspective could help.

Is it possible what was mean was that those who have idols, and do not give them up cannot be sealed. If tobacco is an idol for a person, then how can they have given their WHOLE heart to God? They are still hanging on to something they cherish. How can the HS only seal part of a person? The whole person must be surrendered!

To understand the message as tobacco users cannot be sealed is to completely misunderstand the point made. IF tobacco is an idol they cannot be sealed. IDOL is the important word that must be focused on, not tobacco.

So Ellen White had no problem with occasional tobacco users? Why were tobacco users disfellowshipped?

She was also shown that those who were messy were not Christians.

" I then saw a lack of cleanliness among Sabbathkeepers. . . . I saw that God would not acknowledge an untidy and unclean person as a Christian. . . . {5MR 377.2}"

[Loveaboveall]

So Ellen White had no problem with occasional tobacco users? Why were tobacco users disfellowshipped?

She was also shown that those who were messy were not Christians.

" I then saw a lack of cleanliness among Sabbathkeepers. . . . I saw that God would not acknowledge an untidy and unclean person as a Christian. . . . {5MR 377.2}"


Eila,

You took a specific quote to try to prove that Mrs. White sayed something that she really did not. You don't acknowledge you were wrong, but try to twist words to still prove you are right.

You then move on to another subject because you were called out on your previous quote misinterpretation, and you take another quote to try an prove that Mrs. White said something that she does not.

This begs the question, Why should we believe anything you say about Mrs. White?

[Loveaboveall]

Before you pass judgment on a scripture in the bible you study everything the bible says about it. Then you can make an informed judgement about what the bible actually says regarding a specific thing. Should not this also be applied to other writings? Especially when these writings are claimed to be from God? Can you just take one phrase and say "there it is, false prophet, that is completely wrong. Maybe you should visit some of the websites that do this with the bible. You may be surprised! You will always find what you are looking for. here is some more writings on the topic of tidiness that may help you in understanding the true meaning of what is written. I pray that your heart will be softened to the Holy Spirit and His leading.


Believers should be taught that even though they may be poor, they need not be uncleanly or untidy in their persons or in their homes. Help must be given in this line to those who seem to have no sense of the meaning and importance of cleanliness. They are to be taught that those who are to represent the high and holy God must keep their souls pure and clean, and that this purity must extend to their dress, and to everything in the home, so that the ministering angels will have evidence that the truth has wrought a change in the life, purifying the soul and refining the tastes. Those who, after receiving the truth, make no change in word or deportment, in dress or surroundings, are living to themselves, not to Christ. They have not been created anew in Christ Jesus, unto purification and holiness. {RH, June 10, 1902 par. 4}

Some are very untidy in person. They need to be guided by the Holy Spirit to prepare for a pure and holy heaven. God declared that when the children of Israel came to the mount, to hear the proclamation of the law, they were to come with clean bodies and clean clothes. Today his people are to honor him by habits of scrupulous neatness and purity. {RH, June 10, 1902 par. 5}

[Eila]

Eila,

You took a specific quote to try to prove that Mrs. White sayed something that she really did not. You don't acknowledge you were wrong, but try to twist words to still prove you are right.

You then move on to another subject because you were called out on your previous quote misinterpretation, and you take another quote to try an prove that Mrs. White said something that she does not.

This begs the question, Why should we believe anything you say about Mrs. White?

I don't acknowledge I was wrong because I believe your interpretation is wrong based upon the writings of EGW. Please show me where EGW allowed any tobacco use.

I have quoted EGW. How am I twisting her words?

When we come to Christ we come as we are. We are not instructed to clean up our lives and get rid of habits. We come believing in the sacrifice of Jesus and accepting Him as our Savior. Then He changes us. According to the angels words we must get cleaned up before we are saved.

Didn't she consider any use of tobacco wrong? Are the angels words inconsistent with other EGW quotes?

" Were Peter upon the earth now he would exhort the professed followers of Christ to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul. And Paul would call upon the churches in general to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. And Christ would drive from the temple those who are defiled by the use of tobacco, polluting the sanctuary of God by their tobacconized breaths. He would say to these worshipers, as He did to the Jews, "My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." We would say to such, Your unholy offerings of ejected quids of tobacco defile the temple, and are abhorred of God. Your worship is not acceptable, for your bodies which should be the temple for the Holy Ghost are defiled. You also rob the treasury of God of thousands of dollars through the indulgence of unnatural appetite.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 13, 1874. {Te 64.3}"

"He Will Not Defile God's Temple.--God desires all who believe in Him to feel the necessity of improvement. Every entrusted faculty is to be enlarged. Not one gift is to be laid aside. As God's husbandry and building, man is under His supervision in every sense of the word, and the better he becomes acquainted with his Maker, the more sacred will his life become in his estimation. He will not place tobacco in his mouth, knowing that it defiles God's temple. He will not drink wine or liquor, for, like tobacco, it degrades the whole being.--Manuscript 130, 1899."

"No man can be a true minister of righteousness, and yet be under the inspiration of sensual appetites. He cannot indulge the habit of using tobacco, and yet win souls to the platform of true temperance. The cloud of smoke coming from his lips has no salutary effect upon liquor drinkers. The gospel sermon must come from lips undefiled by tobacco smoke. With pure, clean lips God's servants must tell the triumphs of the cross. The practice of using liquor, tobacco, tea, and coffee must be overcome by the converting power of God. There shall nothing enter into the kingdom of God that defileth.-- Manuscript 86, 1897. {Te 69.2}"

[Eila]

Before you pass judgment on a scripture in the bible you study everything the bible says about it. Then you can make an informed judgement about what the bible actually says regarding a specific thing. Should not this also be applied to other writings? Especially when these writings are claimed to be from God? Can you just take one phrase and say "there it is, false prophet, that is completely wrong. Maybe you should visit some of the websites that do this with the bible. You may be surprised! You will always find what you are looking for. here is some more writings on the topic of tidiness that may help you in understanding the true meaning of what is written. I pray that your heart will be softened to the Holy Spirit and His leading.


Believers should be taught that even though they may be poor, they need not be uncleanly or untidy in their persons or in their homes. Help must be given in this line to those who seem to have no sense of the meaning and importance of cleanliness. They are to be taught that those who are to represent the high and holy God must keep their souls pure and clean, and that this purity must extend to their dress, and to everything in the home, so that the ministering angels will have evidence that the truth has wrought a change in the life, purifying the soul and refining the tastes. Those who, after receiving the truth, make no change in word or deportment, in dress or surroundings, are living to themselves, not to Christ. They have not been created anew in Christ Jesus, unto purification and holiness. {RH, June 10, 1902 par. 4}

Some are very untidy in person. They need to be guided by the Holy Spirit to prepare for a pure and holy heaven. God declared that when the children of Israel came to the mount, to hear the proclamation of the law, they were to come with clean bodies and clean clothes. Today his people are to honor him by habits of scrupulous neatness and purity. {RH, June 10, 1902 par. 5}

That phrase I quoted stood all by itself in the EGW book I quoted. I got that directly from the EGW site.

Here is the fuller quote:

" I then saw a lack of cleanliness among Sabbath-keepers. I saw that God would have a clean and holy people, a people that He can delight in. I saw that the camp must be cleansed or the Lord would pass by and see the uncleanness of the children of Israel and would not go forth with their armies to battle, but would turn from them in displeasure and our enemies would triumph over us, and we left weak in shame and disgrace. I saw that God would not acknowledge an untidy and unclean person as a Christian. His frown was upon such. Our souls, bodies, and spirits are to be presented blameless by Jesus to His Father, and unless we are clean in person and pure in heart, we cannot be presented blameless to God. I saw that the houses of the saints should be kept tidy and neat from dirt and filth and all uncleanness. I saw that the house of God had been desecrated by the carelessness of parents, with their children, and by the untidiness and uncleanness there. I saw that these things should meet with an open rebuke, and if there was not a change immediately in some that profess the truth, in these things, they should be put out of the camp. {6MR 217.3}"

This has the same theme as the tobacco quote. Righteousness by works, not by faith. Both cases were ones where she is relating what was revealed to her in vision.

How are are the tobacco quote and the cleanliness vision quotes anywhere near Biblical? We must clean ourselves up to be presentable before God or to get sealed? That is not the gospel.

Your quotes are not ones where she is directly relating things from a vision. I could acknowledge error in those, but there should be no error in the visions.

[djconklin]

Righteousness by works, not by faith.

Righteousness without is by definition a work--but it isn't the work that saves you--it is the faith that allowed you to do the work in the first place. Righteousness is always and only by faith. Now to follow the traditionas and teachings of man is also a work and is not faith--and whatsoever is not of faith is a sin.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

I could acknowledge error in those, but there should be no error in the visions.

Scripture please.

[Eila]

Righteousness without is by definition a work--but it isn't the work that saves you--it is the faith that allowed you to do the work in the first place. Righteousness is always and only by faith. Now to follow the traditionas and teachings of man is also a work and is not faith--and whatsoever is not of faith is a sin.

Romans 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


Righteousness without works is a work? If righteousness by faith is a work then salvation is not by grace.

Romans 4 '16Therefore, [inheriting] the promise is the outcome of faith and depends [entirely] on faith, in order that it might be given as an act of grace (unmerited favor), to make it stable and valid and guaranteed to all his descendants--not only to the devotees and adherents of the Law, but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, who is [thus] the father of us all."


Scripture please.

18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' 21And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'— 22when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

[djconklin]

Righteousness without works is a work?

Pardon my English was oversimplified. If you do a righteous deed (i.e., outside the body where everyone can see it) that is "righteousness without." It is then, a work.

If righteousness by faith is a work then salvation is not by grace.

No, because as I clearly stated: "it isn't the work that saves you--it is the faith that allowed you to do the work in the first place. Righteousness is always and only by faith."

Thank you for trying to provide the requested text. However, the text doesn't prove your claim: "there should be no error in the visions." And how would you know if there was an error in the vision?

[Eila]

Pardon my English was oversimplified. If you do a righteous deed (i.e., outside the body where everyone can see it) that is "righteousness without." It is then, a work.

^_^ Okay, I'm sure you don't mean what I'm reading here. "Outside the body"? Your spirit is doing righteous deeds :)



No, because as I clearly stated: "it isn't the work that saves you--it is the faith that allowed you to do the work in the first place. Righteousness is always and only by faith."

I agree. Works are a fruit of faith. This is contrary to the visions of EGW though. The angel told her that a person is not sealed until they are cleaned up. How is that righteousness by faith? She was shown in vision that those who are messy can not be presented blameless before God. How is that righteousness by faith?


Thank you for trying to provide the requested text. However, the text doesn't prove your claim: "there should be no error in the visions." And how would you know if there was an error in the vision?

Because they contradict the Bible. Just in the 2 quotes I provided EGW relates from her visions that righteousness is by works.

[djconklin]

Your spirit is doing righteous deeds

I think any reasonable person would say that "deeds" are something that is done outside the body.

Works are a fruit of faith.

That is true.

This is contrary to the visions of EGW though. The angel told her that a person is not sealed until they are cleaned up.

This is no contradiction here. By continuing to willfully sin they show that they haven't yet been converted.

How is that righteousness by faith?

Righteousness by faith takes place after/during one has been converted.

She was shown in vision that those who are messy can not be presented blameless before God. How is that righteousness by faith?

When you are righteous by faith you have put on the robe of righteousness that Christ has given you. People who are not converted are not given the robe. You have to choose: either be converted and put on Christ's rightousness or die in your sins.

Just in the 2 quotes I provided EGW relates from her visions that righteousness is by works.

Only if you assume too much and assume the wrong things.

[Eila]

I think any reasonable person would say that "deeds" are something that is done outside the body.

Maybe I'm unreasonable then :) It sounded like an out-of-body experience^_^



This is no contradiction here. By continuing to willfully sin they show that they haven't yet been converted.

What does it take to be converted?



Righteousness by faith takes place after/during one has been converted.

Please elaborate. This statement doesn't make sense to me.



When you are righteous by faith you have put on the robe of righteousness that Christ has given you. People who are not converted are not given the robe. You have to choose: either be converted and put on Christ's rightousness or die in your sins.

What does conversion have to do with tobacco or being messy? Receiving Christ's righteousness is as simple as accepting it. There are no requirements for receiving Christ's righteousness other than believing. Cleaning up your life in order to receive Christ's righteousness is righteousness by works.

[Cribstyl]

Jesus was clear on the idea that it was not God's will for anyone to get divorced, but that MOSES (not God), gave the people a certificate of divorce.

So you have no argument here.

At this point your only true alternative is to admit that a prophet can make a mistake.




I disagree with your arguments because from your rational, God also subjected himself to Moses mistake, because He also gave Israel a bill of divorce. ;)
Jer 3:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jer&chapter=3&verse=8&version=kjv#8)And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

The facts in the Matt19 lesson is, Christ is reemphasizing God's perfect plan for man" at the beginning of time" does not mean that God allowed Moses to create His own laws.
The mistake is with your exegesis.
Jesus was saying to the pharisees that knew the law, that men use a letter of divorce as a legal way out of a marriage which God had no intention give when He created man.


Mat 19:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=4&version=kjv#4)......he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&verse=8&version=kjv#8)He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Here are references that proves that Israel heart were hardend against God laws, which were given by His spirit to the prophet Moses. (if you challenge my statement or verse 12 below, the context of Zec7 contain laws and prophecies given by Moses.)
Zec 7:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=7&verse=12&version=kjv#12)Yea, they made their hearts [as] an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts.
Proof that Moses is referenced here as one of the former prophets are these commandments.......
Zec 7:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Zec&chapter=7&verse=10&version=kjv#10)And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.

....which cross