"Lay Sister White right to one side.."

[reddogs]

Graham Bradford and Jon Paulien are now writing a series on Reveleation which is coming out soon.

I am sure it will upset a few of the old established views on the end time.

It will be interesting to see just what is it in or better what is not in it.

Bradford has not so long ago wrote on EGW. It would be good if you all could get a copy and see waht he has come up with.

He does not throw EGW out but is very honest about her. Much more than the Church has been over the last 100 plus years.

Honesty is to be desired in all things which is as it should be..
However, anyone who is saved by Ellen White raise their hands, hmmm I don't see any.......she saves no one but does the one thing that all prophets do and that is prepare God's people for the challange of the Evil one and point them back to the scriptures and truth and to God where Christ awaits with his saving grace, what more is needed?

 

[NightEternal]

__

 

[reddogs]

_______________________________________________

I am right behind you Night

We always have to be honest and forthright especially with God's work, and never, never be afraid of truth as God is our father and Jesus is our Saviour and that is the long and short of it........

Peter loved Christ and he testified the Jesus was "..the Christ, the Son of the living God." but yet he was wrong in his view on the Gentiles versus Pauls correct view, and who can forget the denials when the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed..

Yet, do we throw Peters testimony out because of it, God forbid....

 

[NightEternal]

I recall from the 1919 minutes, one of the delegates made the comment (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here):

"Are we not setting ourselves up for a great deal of trouble in the future by being dishonest about her gift and not properly educating the people on how inspiration works?"

Well, here we are, years into the future since that conference, neck deep in trouble and controversy.

The sad thing is, it did not have to be this way.

 

[djconklin]

The kicker is they weren't being dishonest--others were.

 

[Cliff2]

We are certainly kneee deep in trouble with EGW/SOP. The way I see it is that it is not the fault of EGW but how the Church has portrayed her during the past 100 plus years.

Until we are honest about it all we will never get out of it.

You do a Google search on EGW and most of it is negative.

Take a book like Steps to Christ. I believe one of the best books ever written. Desire of Ages much the same.

Where we have gone wrong is putting her on a level where she never wanted her work to be.

Use and use her work in a manner that promotes the Bible and Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

 

[reddogs]

We are certainly kneee deep in trouble with EGW/SOP. The way I see it is that it is not the fault of EGW but how the Church has portrayed her during the past 100 plus years.

Until we are honest about it all we will never get out of it.

You do a Google search on EGW and most of it is negative.

Take a book like Steps to Christ. I believe one of the best books ever written. Desire of Ages much the same.

Where we have gone wrong is putting her on a level where she never wanted her work to be.

Use and use her work in a manner that promotes the Bible and Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

So how do we get things the way God intended with the Spirit of Phophecy, how Ellen White and her counsel and direction for the church should have been used and prophecies for the remnant who are God's people at the end......

 

[Sophia7]

Bradford has not so long ago wrote on EGW. It would be good if you all could get a copy and see waht he has come up with.

He does not throw EGW out but is very honest about her. Much more than the Church has been over the last 100 plus years.

Bradford's book More Than a Prophet is available free online:
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/index.htm.

He definitely is more honest in addressing the criticisms of EGW than some of the more traditional Adventist authors have been. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, however.

 

[Cliff2]

reddogs

Sofia7 has given us the link to what Bradford wrote and without me going over every little thing it would be best to go there and get what he suggests we do.

He has nothing against reading her work but we now know that not all her was actually her work. That does not bother me at all as many Biblical writers also used other people's work.

Look how much of the New Testament is taken from the Old. It is OK to dop that as long as we do not try and make out that every word that Ellen wrote was from above.

 

[reddogs]

So when the prophets came to Isreal when they had wandered or gone to worhiping Baal and told them to do Gods will and follow his laws and precepts that were already written, that was not from above?

 

[NightEternal]

I don't agree with all of his conclusions, however.

Sophia7, you are indeed entitled to your opinion of Bradford's research. However, my experience with those who take issue with Bradford's book is that they all, without exception, have a black and white, all or nothing understanding of inspiration. That goes for both the EGW venerators and EGW rejectors alike.

I do not, nor have I ever had that dogmatic understanding of her gift. And it is not a new understanding that originated with Bradford either. George Knight has been advocating a subdued version of this for years. Alden Thompson kicked the door to balance and reason open with his book Inspiration. Bradford just fleshed out the issues more and crystalized the matter.

People criticize it as the 'pick and choose' method, but I say that reason and common sense require, nay, demand that sort of approach. If we hang up our common sense, discernment and personal judgment at the door with regards to the scope of her numerous materials, that places us in a very precarious position. God never meant for us to swallow everything wholesale from any mortal human being nor put aside our natural filtering processes which is needed to sift the wheat from the chaff.

I will not hang my judgment and discernment out to dry for anyone, including Ellen White.

Test all things and hold fast to that which is good is an ideal principal to keep in mind. And if you come across some statement regarding meat-eating, beautiful people on Saturn, amalgamation, masturbation, wigs, etc. which you know is not accurate, bear in mind that was the understanding of her time, she was WRONG, and move on with life. And this goes for doctrinal areas as well. EGW relied heavily on Uriah Smith for her theological resources. If anyone wants to contend Uriah Smith was infallible and inerrant in his theological formulation, be my guest. The same goes for Kellogg as well, from whom many of the medical and health claims were based.

Bottom line: There is no reason to discard the whole thing in totality because EGW had obvious limitations. In her writings you will find discrepancies, contradictions, false information, limited understanding, culturally influenced ideas, imperialistic claims and sometimes embarrasing and immature formulations.

You will also find a fallible, flawed instrument who God worked through inspite of these things, someone who most definitely did have a supernatural gift.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

NightE wrote:

I do not, nor have I ever had that dogmatic understanding of her gift. And it is not a new understanding that originated with Bradford either. George Knight has been advocating a subdued version of this for years. Alden Thompson kicked the door to balance and reason open with his book Inspiration. Bradford just fleshed out the issues more and crystalized the matter.

Well I have not read any Kight books since 1888 to Apostasy but his comments at the 2005 EGW summit (which is being repeated at the 2007 Gladstone Campmeeting in July) indicate that he is in agreement with the White Estate and traditional Adventism. Here is a section from my blog article from Feb. 2 2006

Moderator’s question:
“How do you respond to people who use Deut. 18:21 to disqualify Ellen White in the light of her vision where an angel told her that some present at Battle Creek would not die before Christ returned?”

George Knight response:
“That’s one I want to take. We’re finding a lot of people are finally realize that Ellen White had a lot of prophecies that never come.. came true. And we used to teach …Deuteronomy that when a prophets prophecy did come true then you know they were a true prophet. What these people fail recognize is the Bible is full of unfulfilled prophecies. You take a look at the old testament woooph [exclaimation sound] most of the prophecies in the huh prophets are unfulfilled. Why? Ellen White gives the answer in Manuscript 4 1883. That all of God’s prophecies are conditional. If Israel would have behaved itself and done God’s will then those old testament prophecies would have been fulfilled. And I personally believe if God’s Church would have done God’s will we wouldn’t be here. But all prophecy and this is Ellen White herself, all prophecy is conditional prophecy and maybe the best article in all the articles of the 7 volumes of the SDA Bible Commentaries in volume 4 on conditional prophecy. Read it. That is a jewel.”
--Question and answer period (part 8) 2005 Ellen White Summit beginning at 24 minutes into session.

When you hear this statement of George Knight you realize why elsewhere he said that he did not hold to any old tests for a prophet.

“You know why I believe Ellen White’s a prophet I don’t go for any of the old tests number one she points me to Jesus number two she points me to the Bible. That’s it! She never points to herself…I can’t get off on that.”
--From Using and Interpreting Ellen White by George Knight {Part2} 2005 Ellen White Summit 33 minutes in

George Knight’s position is not much different from the White Estate’s position. First let us refresh our memory about what Ellen White actually said:

 

[NightEternal]

I hear many who reject EGW use the statement she made that 'nothing she wrote was of her own opinion' against her as a vehicle to discredit her.

The thing is, what is the context of that statement? That is what I wish to know. Is she referring to a specific situation where she was required to make such a dogmatic claim? If context doesn't demand it, we should not go overboard and use that statement to make an unreasonable blanket generalization. If we do, we are then backed into a corner where we have to regard even her shopping list as inspired and directly from God.

Obviously not EVERYTHING she wrote was directly from God or a result of inspiration. She was probably faced with a specific case were someone was strongly challenging her with regards to a select situation and claiming that she was merely giving her own opinion when she was actually recieving direct light from God on the matter. He bit, she bit back. Probably the "nothing I write..." statement was made referring to a paragraph or small passage dealing with that specific case, not the complete breadth of everything she ever wrote and published! That is preposterous!

That being said, she was known to make some pretty grand claims. That doesn't bother me. Maybe the whole 'prophetess' thing was starting to go to her head, I don't know. I mean, who among us, if a whole denominational body was relying on us to clarify or settle every little matter and was waiting with baited breath for the next batch of verbal manna from Heaven from us, would be able to always be humble and not overreach a little? It's human nature and she was human. It could also go a long ways in explaining her scathing treatment of Canwright, Kellogg, Ballenger, Fannie Bolton, etc.

I like the fact that God could use a flawed individual who made some pretty big blunders. It gives me great hope.

Knight still does tow the company line to a degree in regards to EGW, I don't deny that. That is why I was careful to say he was purporting a SUBDUED version of thought inspiration. Knight has never really gone all the way and taken this thing to its logical conclusion like Thompson or Bradford. Nevertheless, Knight was a pioneer in this area, especially with his books Meeting Ellen White and Reading Ellen White.

Well, I could be wrong here, who knows. I am not an EGW apologist, nor is this an attempt to be one. I am just relating how I have personally made my peace with this whole matter in order to preserve my sanity.

 

[NightEternal]

_____

 

[NightEternal]

_______

 

[reddogs]

I recall from the 1919 minutes, one of the delegates made the comment (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here):

"Are we not setting ourselves up for a great deal of trouble in the future by being dishonest about her gift and not properly educating the people on how inspiration works?"

Well, here we are, years into the future since that conference, neck deep in trouble and controversy.

The sad thing is, it did not have to be this way.

As long as we understand that scripture is the basis for God's truth, I dont think there is a problem that can't be carefully laid out so church members can understand it, and her place and writings be put in proper perspective as a lesser light.

 

[sumofox]

Red dogs you are on target with Sister White .I am glad that you are not stoning the prophet.

 

[NightEternal]

Oh brother.

Can we just stop with these ridiculous, extreme statements already? Here's a novel idea :

If people choose to believe she did not have the prophetic gift, that is thier decision. Why can we not just leave it at that?

No, instead we have to make sensational statements like the above one and demonize these people. Now they are not just making an informed decision yet still respecting her, but actively hating and 'stoning' EGW.

One of the posters on this forum who takes issue with EGW is a pastor's wife BTW. Will you also brand her as a heretic and a hater out for EGW blood?

Come on! Can we just keep things in thier proper perspective here?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Oh brother.

Can we just stop with these ridiculous, extreme statements already? Here's a novel idea :

If people choose to believe she did not have the prophetic gift, that is thier decision. Why can we not just leave it at that?

No, instead we have to make sensational statements like the above one and demonize these people. Now they are not just making an informed decision yet still respecting her, but actively hating and 'stoning' EGW.

One of the posters on this forum who takes issue with EGW is a pastor's wife BTW. Will you also brand her as a heretic and a hater out for EGW blood?

Come on! Can we just keep things in thier proper perspective here?

No offense Night, but you're probably the last person I'd go to for advice on how to keep things in perspective.

That being said, I love you dearly and I think you're a kind soul underneath all the brash words, but you certainly have a weird way of showing it.

 

[NightEternal]

No offense taken.

My persepctive is quite fine however.

Love you too BTW.