Adventist Today truth mixed with lies

 Adventist Today once again strives to rewrite the beliefs of the Adventist church. The article Three ways to misuse Ellen White's writings Here are the three ways that Ron Hessel suggests are misuses:

Many take Ellen White to be a divinely inspired infallible biblical interpreter. She never claimed that. She refused to take that role.

I have yet to meet anyone who has claimed that Ellen White was a "divinely inspired, infallible biblical interpreter." In fact, while I would agree that she refused that role, I know of no one in history who would have accepted it.  Once you set infallible into anything, it nullifies the rest of the sentence. Infallible is simply too high a bar for any human to achieve. So the first suggested misuse of Ellen White's writings is not accurate and meaningless.

So why use a rather deceptive suggestion? The answer is that Hessel is attempting to make a straw man argument. It is not uncommon for Adventists to say that Ellen White is an inspired commentator. This is what Morris Venden did in his book from 1980 where he wrote:

“We have an inspired commentary that was given for the purpose of settling the disagreements among the uninspired commentaries. What do you do when the scholars disagree? Do you have to become a better scholar than the best in order to settle the disagreement in your own mind? No.”

Dealing with a straw man is much easier than dealing with what the Adventist church actually says. If you can accept the straw man accusations, you can accept the rationalizations against the straw man and come to the conclusions that Hessel thinks are meaningful yet they are not.

He then says:

I can’t say this strongly enough: Ellen White is not to be used as the interpreter of the Bible. The Bible interprets Ellen White. If Ellen White were the final say on the Bible, it would mean that she had authority over the Bible. She does not.

He puts this forth as simply something that is true. But every Adventist knows it is not true. And it is easily demonstrated. The Adventist church holds something they call the Great Controversy view. It revolves around things done in heaven before the creation of earth. None of it is found in the Bible but it is the central core of Adventist teaching, and it is solely because of the writings of Ellen White. Review the above Great Controversy view article by Herbert Douglas and see if it is originated in the Bible or not. It is in fact stated in brief in Fundamental Belief #8:

Belief 8: The Great Controversy

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels...

See the Lucifer Myth for more details

Hessel's second misuse rests on the assumption of perfection.

Isn’t a prophet supposed to always get things right? Be absolutely perfect in every word? Some people treat Ellen White’s writings that way. 

Let me say this clearly: Ellen White got stuff wrong.

Setting up that some people expect perfection is once again a straw man. Does the Adventist church say that Ellen White was perfect, if so give the quote. We can give a quote from Ellen White on her writings, but while it seems incredibly exaggerated, it does not claim perfection. 

"God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work... bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4, p. 230; also cited in Vol. 5, p. 671).

She invites her readers to make the choice when they find that she is wrong, but it was not perfection that she was asserting. Perfection is too high a bar for any writer. Language is a tremendous thing that has advanced societies all over the world, but it is not something that depends on the perfection of ideas presented or perceived by the reader. 

Like the first and second straw man, Hessel's third suggestion of misuse is this:

Another way in which Ellen White gets misused is by trying to apply everything she said to today. You can’t do that. Don’t try to apply everything Ellen White says to your life. You can’t do it. Nobody can. It will drive you insane. Consider this instruction from the 1860s:

Hopefully, people have learned by now that when you see words like "everything," "always," and other generalization those are often logical fallacies. Applying everything someone wrote to today is another impossible idea. So it is easy to say. You can't apply her statements about eggs today the way you could have applied them in 1860. Though you will notice he never tells the reader how it applied in 1860. He even tries to guess at a reason, thinking it is something about refrigeration, when in 1860, people traveled very short distances, and refrigeration would have little effect, especially on eggs. In 1860 unless a farm was close to a rail line or riverboat, the distance of eggs to their destination was a radius of 30 miles. In short, the majority of eggs were sold in less than a day's journey from the farm that produced them.

While it is tempting to want to believe his conclusion, it, like his other statements, is simply wrong:

And if you have a problem believing Ellen White’s prophetic gift, that’s okay. Lots of people did, all through the church’s history—even in her own time. It is not a reason to leave the church. It is not a requirement to believe that Ellen White was a prophet to belong to the Adventist Church. Use your common sense, and the Bible as a filter when trying to figure out what parts of her writings are applicable to any situation.

 It is not in fact Okay because while Hessel links to another article he had written on Adventist Today, which was titled You Don't Have to Believe Ellen White is a Prophet to Be an Adventist. Which, sadly, is just another demonstration of deceptive information. You can read my response to that article here. 

Another Adventist Today Lie Baptismal vows

The Baptismal vows call the member to   Affirm that "I know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church..." That is from Baptismal vow number 11, which Hessel somehow managed to miss in his article. 

I wish Adventist Today luck in changing the Adventist church, but you will never get there by deceiving and ignoring the real positions of the Adventist church. This pretending needs to stop. Deal with the problems, deal with the issues, be honest. Yes, you can reject Ellen White as a prophet and be part of the Adventist church, but they will get rid of you when you become a problem to them, and if you don't believe their prophet is a prophet, they remove you from any position of responsibility sooner or later. If you feel God is leading you to change the Adventist church than follow God's leading but I suggest just take the one precaution of not working for the Adventist church for you salary. We have seen too many of our scholars who did that and only after they retired could they be honest about what they really thought of Ellen White. The Adventist church needs more young people standing up for truth and not waiting until they retire to stand for truth.

 

 

They mystery of reclaiming a prophet

Adventist Today recently offered this program 

Eric Anderson, “What Would Adventism Be Without a Prophet?”
Here is a 60-second snipped clip:

Well, I keep thinking about how we're defining prophet and I found that the definition that I offered in reclaiming the prophet was for some people a a tremendous watering down uh an evasion. 

Maybe I should quote that. Um, and I'm a little mystified. I still don't understand this. Why this is a bad way to define the term prophet. I wrote the authors of reclaiming the prophet will often employ the term  prophet to describe Ellen White. The point is not to mystify readers nor to hide ordinary thoughts or central historical context. Using non-technical layman's language is a prophet is a person who in God's name persuades a leader who changes people's behavior. And I went on to talk about her achievements and the ways in which uh we need to take those into account. That bothered some people and they thought that was um explaining away a prophet. That was a a bad definition of a prophet. I still don't quite get that a leader is a person who in God's name persuades. That sounds like a prophet to me. Quite quite an interesting approach 1:15:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLxn2k3WcoM 

I am unsure why he is mystified because, in fact, his definition is simply a slightly obscured meaning of prophet, but certainly covers what prophet means. A prophet in the Bible is someone chosen by God to speak for God, acting as a messenger to convey the message God wants to the people. So why do I say his definition uses an obscuring meaning? Because in his definition, the most important part seems to be glossed over. "prophet is a person who in God's name". 

So before anyone listens to "the persuades a leader to change other people," they would have to accept that the prophet is speaking in God's name, which parts are really the parts God wants to convey. That is the entire problem with Ellen White, someone with numerous false prophecies and a known serial plagiarist speaking in God's name at all. There is also the second problem with the redefinition in that it is addressed to leaders; it is up to the leaders to change people's behavior. If you had a prophet, should the information be limited to leaders? Why would that be?

The more I hear from these writers of Reclaiming the Prophet the more I think that what they really want is to be the academic leaders who explain Ellen White to the Adventist Church. They want to have the historical context to interpret Ellen White. So that the people in higher education, the Ellen White Scholars and the Adventist historians can tell the rest of us what Ellen White meant and did not mean. So they can tell us when Ellen White contradicts herself which principle will rule. Some will even say to take her only in a pastoral role. That may sound good, but if your pastor was plagiarizing others' sermons and using false history and numerous pieces of Biblical fiction, that is things that are not in the Bible but pretended to be part of the Bible. Would you really even take that person in a pastoral role? At best, you might see them as having some sort of devotional material that, if you can avoid all the problems, might be encouraging in some way. This seems to be the great hope of Progressive Adventists, but I don't see it as much to be hoped for, I think it is an attempt at church control, which I have for quite some time said is what Progressive Adventists have really wanted. But I don't think that a change in bureaucracy is really a cure for Adventists problems.

A Response to Alden Thompson on Conditional Prophecy

In the most recent issue of Adventist Today (Fall 2011) Alden Thompson has an article entitled Conditional Prophecy and Last-Day Events. I had mentioned to a friend that he seemed to waste a lot of the article on talking about the Sabbath. My friend who knows Alden and thus I suspect has a bit more insight into his thinking, but is also a bit less critical of what he actually said, suggested that the underlying reason for the Sabbath inclusion in the article was to develop subtly the idea that the Sabbath is not an end time Seal of God and the conditional prophecy was a method of planting those ideas into the reader.

Thus I had to re-read the article to see if I could see those subtle connections as my friend explained it. If there I thought I would be in substantial agreement though likely not with his conditional prophecy position.


Alden Thompson introduces us to his subject after explaining through the process of some rather gratuitous assertions the solid foundation of the Sabbath and that “the New Testament is equally clear pressing the question of how to keep the Sabbath but never quarreling over the fact of the Sabbath.” True enough but what does the “fact” of the sabbath really mean. That the New Testament acknowledges the Sabbath is true but does not in any way seek to endorse it as a continuing obligation, leaving it up to the conscience of people (Rom. 14:5). But when someone says the fact of the sabbath to an Adventist I think they often have a different understanding, the fact to them being the continuing obligation of Seventh day Sabbath keeping as their proof of true commandment keeping. I will come back to that after I cover the next area of Thompson's article where he recounts the conflict of 1888 through Ellen Whites perspective.
The article covers an area of all or nothing thinking which he seems to want to use to develop his concept of conditional prophecy. He recounts this incident from the 1888 Ellen White Materials page 220 I will give the full two paragraphs:

I told them I had been shown that some of our brethren had educated themselves as debaters. The process of this education and the mold received by such an education were not after God's order, neither did they meet the approval of God. In many respects men trained in this kind of school unfitted themselves to become pastors of the sheep and lambs; and in combating an opponent, as in the way of discussions, usually harm is done with but little good results. The combative spirit is raised in both parties, and a defiant, hard spirit becomes habitual when their track is crossed. They become criticizers and do not always handle the Scriptures fairly, but wrest the Scriptures to make their point.

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel it my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear, tell them the statement is incorrect. The question at issue is not a vital question and should not be treated as such. The wonderful importance and magnitude of this subject has been exaggerated. For this reason--through misconception and perverted ideas-- we see the spirit that prevails at this meeting, which is unchristlike, and which we should never see exhibited among brethren. There has been a spirit of Pharisaism coming in among us which I shall lift my voice against wherever it may be revealed." Full 1888 materials in PDF

The brother who says we don't have the third angel's message is on the side that says the law in Galatians is the Ceremonial law (which by the way is an entirely artificial designation the Jews did not separate the law as moral or ceremonial). The brother was working against the position of Jones and Waggoner that the law in Galatians was the moral law (by which Adventists mean the 10 commandments, again a fictional law division).

Thompson then begins on the Conditional prophecy portion by saying that the Adventists had two pillars which can be found in the simple covenant that Adventists first signed when they formed as a church in 1861. “covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ [Rev. 14:12] Central to the commandments is the Sabbath;”

So even though Ellen White thought the brother was exaggerating his thinking, that if the law in Galatians was our school master to lead us to Christ and then fade we can't be correct in our statement of the third angel's message which is that last part of the verse in Rev 14:12. Thus the brother's offering is not really all or nothing but the recognition that if our faith is in our understanding of the Seventh day Sabbath observance as our special mission (to preach the third or three angel's message) the position would be in error and faith based on error is not terribly useful. Ellen White is not even able to refute the brother but threatens to, as we continue to read that letter we see she never deals with the issue only criticizes the spirit of those involved. Which by the way is usually a truism when any two or more people get together and argue strongly held views religious or otherwise.

Alden Thompson's conclusion to the illustration of history is:

“Let's be clear: whatever we do with conditional prophecy or end-time events does not move a pin from those landmarks, the ones reflected in our name Seventh-day Adventists.”

That would not be the conclusion I would draw from the illustration from Adventist history of this event. But then I don't see the brother as giving an all or nothing position either. He seems quite rational and deserved a bit more rational response then he received. I might accept the conclusion that from our history we accept certain pillars as unmovable because we ignore any reasons to move them. Which strangely enough seems to be Thompson's case, as he continues:

“I hope the long preamble makes it clear that there is no point in going further unless the Adventist landmarks are in place. When they are secure, however, we can begin to nibble on “conditional prophecy” in bite-size chunks.”

He then covers some of the ideas of the “last days” as being a nebulous term that does not fit all that well with the New Testament and contemporary interpretations of Christians. That some see conditional prophecy as things that must be fulfilled in the last days such as the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem etc.

Next he points to the article The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy (I did an Internet search to give you a link to this article but being an important article it appears to not be anywhere on the Internet). Alden writes:

“All Adventists know about the Sunday law. But very few know how the Bible, the Great Disappointment, and Ellen White come together in this remarkable article that takes “conditional prophecy” seriously in exploring God's original plan for Israel.”

His next point is to direct our attention to Ellen White's own all or nothing statement:

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. Selected Messages Page 67 from MN 4 1883

Notice her position is either the Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped or God failed. No possibility for the messenger being presumptuous or making something up quite apart from anything God ever said or simply wrong interpretations. After all it had been nearly 2000 years since those New Testament last day prophecies. It does seem a little presumptuous in the 19th century to assume they are all talking about her century. This would be a good example of all or nothing thinking. But if one did believe that the promises and threatenings of God are conditional and you have to admit there is an implied “all” in that statement. In fact the implied “all” would make the statement fall in the category of a logical fallacy known as the false generalization (sweeping or hasty generalization). 
 
The whole possibility of the second coming becomes conditional and may never happen. What are the conditions, who knows? A conditional prophecy without the conditions stated somewhere is worthless. Now ancient Israel had loads of prophecies and from the start of the nation state there were conditions set for all the prophecies. (Read Deut. 28) Is it really logical to assume the same conditions for a ancient nation to modern people in so many different nations? If one accepts that all promises and threatenings of God are conditional and the conditions are not stated then whenever anyone makes a prediction that fails to come to pass they can say the conditions of God were not met and most likely after the fact they will name some conditions. In this way people like Harold Camping could continue setting dates for Christ's return and continue to create excuses for the prophetic failures. The so called prophet could never be shown to be wrong, if something comes true it will show them as a prophet if it does not it shows nothing except conditions were not met.


Alden Thompson continues by saying:
“It was the 1844 Disappointment that forced Adventists to come to grips with conditional prophecy—reluctantly.” Going on to say that Ellen White never published her statement about conditional prophecy while she lived, it was in the form of a letter defending herself from certain charges.  I would ask should the letter be taken as inspired or the statement as inspired? Did Adventists come to grips with 1844 as a conditional prophecy? Well no it was assumed that the date was correct but the event was wrong and 1844 became integral to the novel SDA only doctrine known as the Investigative Judgment. He then moves on to Jonah, a favorite of Adventists who want to assert all prophecies are conditional. You can read a response to that position in my article Ellen White's Food for worms, Is it Conditional.


He finishes back with the Sabbath:


“Anywhere and everywhere Adventists can preach that the beast of Revelation 13 is coercive and deceptive. Anyone who coerces and deceives is in league with the beast. Today, however the great threat to our Sabbath is not coercive Sunday legislation, but secularization. Almost no one takes sacred time seriously anymore.”

So here at the end I grant my friends observation is probably correct. But all along the way I see numerous problems with the article's positions. But if this is the only way we can get Adventists to leave behind the 19^th century theology of Ellen White and realize that so far she has been wrong on most every prediction she made, I guess I will have to say Amen. Though I wish we could be more honest with ourselves. But I am not an all or nothing person so it is not either lie to ourselves about conditional prophecy and Ellen White or continue to accept Ellen White and teach the outdated prophecy scenarios, I think honesty demands more. There is a place for subtleness but even being subtle with incorrect facts is not really a winning formula.

In Depth, Ellen White as lesser light

For quite some time there has been the idea in the Adventist church that Ellen G. White is the lesser light meant to lead us to the greater light of the Bible. This view is largely based upon a heavily edited quote that certain compilers made when apparently trying to sell more Ellen White books. Wikipedia notes: “During her lifetime she wrote more than 5,000 periodical articles and 40 books. Today, including compilations from her 50,000 pages of manuscript, more than 100 titles are available in English.” That means that there have been 60 compilations compared to 40 original books.

Compilations give the editors a way to take what they consider to be important quotes from Ellen White's unpublished material and it also allows them to restate her original material possibly to carry a different sentiment then the original in context. With regard to the lesser light and greater light issue most Adventists will refer to the compilation rather then to Ellen White's original published article. In the 1953 compilation book entitled Colporteur Ministry, we read: http://egwwritings.org/

Sell Books That Give Light—The Lord has sent His people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. Oh, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {CM 125.2}

You can also find it in the other compilations Evangelism and Selected Messages. The White Estates new search engine lists the Evangelism (1946) quote as:

--The Greater and Lesser Lights—Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.—The Colporteur Evangelist, 37. (1902) {Ev 257.1}

What one notices when searching the Ellen White writings is that most of the references seemed to be only found in compilations. Looking through White Estate search engines for Colporteur Evangelist the book is displayed but it does not give a date. One website has a version as a PDF which indicates that the Colporteur Evangelist is a compilation, though PDF version is dated 1950. As it turns out the Coporteur Evangelsist is not from 1902 but selected from another compilation the Manual for Canvassers, (see here )

“Through the years, guidance in publishing and circulating our literature has been given through the pen of Ellen G. White. In these counsels the selling of our truth-filled books and papers is elevated to a work comparable to that of the gospel ministry. The seller of books is seen as a colporteur evangelist.”

“In 1902 A number of statements from the pen of Mrs. White relating to our colporteur ministry were assembled and published in Manual for Canvassers. Subsequent Ellen G. White counsels on our literature ministry led to an enlargement of this work, and in 1920 the much loved Colporteur Evangelist appeared. This little work has been published in many languages and has been widely circulated.”

Of all of these compilations: Colporteur Ministries , Evangelism, and the earlier Colporter Evangelist only Selected Messages Book 3 listed the actual reference to the published quote where Ellen White presumably sets herself as the lesser light (there are also a few lesser known compilations but they also do not list the source). If she intended to be thought of as the lesser light it is strange that other Adventist writers of her time did not refer to her as a lesser light.. It appears to be a product of the editors of the compilations an attempt to redirect possible critics of Ellen White by the compilations. All compilations are the work of the White Estate as per Ellen White's last will and testament.

The Ellen G. White® Estate, Incorporated, is an organization created by the last will and testament of Ellen G. White to act as her agent in the custody of her writings, handling her properties, "conducting the business thereof," "securing the printing of new translations," and the "printing of compilations from my manuscripts." Her will, dated Feb. 9, 1912

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903 (also published in some other Adventist periodicals within a year or two):

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.

My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts into this work, and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying that God will prepare hearts to receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show by a consistent course that you are true Christians. Walk and work in the light of heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just, shining more and more unto the perfect day.

We can see from the quote in context that Ellen White is claiming that she did not originate these books but that she is presenting the God given instruction she received. Further it is God who declares that these books should be scattered throughout the world. The instruction is attributed to God as is the instruction to scatter the books, it is not instruction she received from the Bible. It is instruction she received during her lifetime from God Himself, according to her own writing.

But in the contemporary Adventist world which is careful to try and not appear to be a cult they have thought to redact the quote into the idea that Ellen White is a lesser light meant to lead us to the scriptures. As the following quote from Tim Poirier was used in the article Ellen G. White and Sola Scriptura Merlin D. Burt in dialog with the Presbyterian Church USA (Seventh-day Adventist Church and Presbyterian Church USA Conversation Office of the General Assembly PC (USA) Louisville, KY August 23, 2007)

Ellen White used analogy to describe the relationship of her writings to scripture. She wrote that “little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.”20 The “greater light-lesser light” comparison suggested that “just as the moon derives its light from the sun and reflects only what that source emits, so her messages are seen as deriving their authority from scripture, serving only to mirror the principles presented therein.”21 (21 Poirier, “Contemporary Prophecy,” 16)

To get to that point however you have to forget about the rest of the context of the quote. In context the greater light...the source of light would be God, Ellen White would be reflecting the light she received from God thus her writing become a lesser light, the greater light being God. For example she wrote:

Christ makes no apology when he declares, "I am the Light of the world." He was, in life and teaching, the gospel, the foundation of all pure doctrine. Just as the sun compares with the lesser lights in the heavens, so did Christ, the source of all light, compare with the teachers of his day. He was before them all; and shining with the brightness of the sun, he diffused his penetrating, gladdening rays throughout the world. (Youth Instructor.1897-09-16.004)

Anyone that receives light from God and then processes it through their speaking or writing would then be a reflector of the light of God. That is the obvious implications of the quote in context but what of the idea that her writings derive their authority from scripture and therefore are meant to point us back to scripture?

We don't have to go very far to test that idea we can do it directly from the material we saw in the Review and Herald quote. So let us ask the question where in the scriptures do we find God telling us to scatter the writings of Ellen White throughout the world? Of course we don't so what about scattering the writings of any Prophet to the world? Again the answer is no. Paul passed his writings on and some of the other New Testament writers likely distributed their letters to several places. But again that was not some instruction of God recorded someone in the New Testament. One could say that scattering the books is simply spreading the gospel therefore scattering the books of Ellen White or anyone else who talks about God or claims their writings lead people to God should have their books scattered throughout the world. I would like my writings to be scattered throughout the world also, but I can't say that is what the Bible tells me to do or that it is what the Lord has declared.

A second test we could use is found in the King James quote Ellen White uses from Isaiah:

Isaiah 28:8-13 NIV:

All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule ⁿ; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there-- so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.

This verse in context is not a description of how to study the Bible or any of the component parts of the Bible. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary states:

9-10 As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made their response. The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.

Many commentators have been puzzled by v. 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol -impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.

See an article on the myth of precept upon precept line upon line

We can grant that Ellen White held to a Christian tradition with her use of the precept by precept quote but it is something that has been taken out of context and given a meaning that is not really true for how to study anything let alone the Bible. In fact if one does that they can simply take from here or there a precept or a line and add it to another line or precept. Context or meaning would just be obstacles we overcome with a bit of editing here and there.

Ellen White has several quotes on the importance and use of the Bible. Like most all other Christians she affirms it should be the standard for faith and practice. In fact she claims it is because people don't study their Bibles that they need her writings:

I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. Here, said I, the cases of nearly all are met. The sins they are to shun are pointed out. The counsel that they desire can be found here, given for other cases situated similarly to themselves. God has been pleased to give you line upon line and precept upon precept. But there are not many of you that really know what is contained in the Testimonies. You are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made God’s word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies, calling your attention to the words of inspiration which you had neglected to obey, and urging you to fashion your lives in accordance with its pure and elevated teachings. (Testimonies for the Church Volume 2 page 605)

If one thought that people were not studying their Bibles and the Bible was the central source for truth should not the emphasis have been upon the Bible rather then further testimonies? Do we really need Ellen White to mis-define the Bible for us or to add vast quantities of information that the Bible never mentions. Consider the picture on the Sabbath School Lesson Study guide for the first quarter of 2003, a painting of Adam and Eve offering a Sacrifice. Is that a story found in the Bible? Of course not, it is widely held by Christians however and as such one of the many additions that Ellen White writes about as if it was found in the Bible. Traditions added to the Bible by Ellen White are still only traditions, they don't become Bible truth...or they should not but as we all know for many Adventists once Ellen White said something it becomes as good as Bible truth.

Still we find a bit of a conflict within Ellen White herself when she talks about her writings. In a Manuscript Release published well after her death we read this quote:

How can the Lord bless those who manifest a spirit of “I don’t care,” a spirit which leads them to walk contrary to the light which the Lord has given them. But I do not ask you to take my words. Lay Sister White to one side. Do not quote my works again as long as you live until you can obey the Bible. When you make the Bible your food, your meat and your drink, when you make its principles the elements of your character, you will know better how to receive counsel from God. I exalt the precious word before you today. Do not repeat what I have said, saying, “Sister White said this,” and, “Sister White said that.” Find out what the Lord God of Israel says, and then do what He commands.—Ms 43, 1901, p. 10. (E. G. White talk in college library, April 1, 1901.) {5MR 141.1 Manuscript Releases Vol 5}

Or more acurately as the Spalding Magan collection states:

(Verbatim report of remarks by Mrs. E. G. White, at a meeting held in Battle Creek College library, April 1, at the General Conference of 1901.) {SpM 162.3}

Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what “Sister White said”—“Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says.

Christ says, “I do the works of my Father. The works that I saw him do, I do.” Now the works and the sentiments and the principles that we have seen, that God has manifest in dealing with one another, the the purchase of the blood of Christ - only think of it {SpM 167.2}

In one place she says that her “testimonies” were intended “because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies...”(1871) and much later saying don't quote Sister White until you can obey the Bible (1901). Of course there will be apologist who seek to reconcile the statements just as there are apologists for politicians who present conflicting ideas at different times. Then there is the question of what does it mean to obey the Bible? Is obeying the law the same as obeying the Bible and which law is required to be obeyed?

Notice the next line, it was a talk or sermon so it may or may not be another paragraph of thought or a continuation but she says; Christ says, “I do the works of my Father. The works that I saw him do, I do.” If you know your Bible you will realize that nowhere is that quote or idea found. The closest Bible verse is John 10:37 and it is not that similar When you read Ellen White you can't help but wonder is she leading you to the Bible or trying to lead you to her interpretation of the Bible. Her understanding being what she thinks God has instructed her somehow through her lifetime. Because honestly you don't get many of the things that Ellen White proclaims from the Bible. Read the first few chapters of the book Patriarchs and Prophets with your Bible and see how most of what she says is found nowhere in the Bible.

The final point is one that I have asked a few people, if Ellen White is meant to lead people to the Bible and people already agree that they should be getting their doctrine from the Bible why would they need Ellen White at all? If I choose not to accept Ellen White as a prophet but accept the Bible as God given inspiration why is it a problem to disagree with Ellen Whites writings or ideas? If I believe the Bible why do I need to believe her additions to the Bible? If her purpose was to lead to the Bible why would she need to be thought of as the Adventist fundamental belief 18 states: “As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction...” Because frankly Ellen White's writings don't really make it clear that “the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” After all she is not even claiming the books are from her but are from God. Was God so confused when inspiring the Genesis and Exodus stories that he could not tell us how God taught Adam and Eve how to make sacrifices and that the sacrifices were to be a symbol of the coming Messiah, let alone forget all about it on the more technical books that describe in details sacrifices and temple rituals and equipment? It does not seem likely, it seems more likely that God led people with ever increasing knowledge, a progressive process, which is much different from the regressive process which would have to exist if all these early Bible characters knew all the things that Ellen White says they knew.

If you claim she is a lesser light, you can't possibly mean a lesser light to the Bible with all the additions and explanations she adds to the Bible, it simply makes no sense, at least if you hold her as a continuing and authoritative source of truth. It might be conceivable as a lesser light if one held her as a commentator fallible and subject to errors of interpretation and over emphasis on traditions, but that is not how Adventism treats Ellen White at all. After all what other commentator claims that their writings are from God?

All Christians are prophets

This is how our lesson study guide begins for the week of Feb. 15 2009:

Memory Text: “Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21, NKJV).

All through the Bible, a theme recurs: God talks to people through His prophets, and the people either accept or reject what’s being said. Of course, by rejecting the words of the prophets, they’re not rejecting the prophets; they’re rejecting the One who sent them.

It’s a very serious thing, then, to claim to speak in the name of God. If you claim it, and are, then you are a mouthpiece for the Creator of the universe, no small responsibility. People have been delegated authority to speak for the boss of the company, or the president or prime minister—but to speak for the Lord? That’s heavy. Unfortunately, much of biblical history is a story of God speaking through His prophets and of people rejecting what was said. How careful we need be not to make the same mistake today.

What strikes me about this is how they have taken the New Testament statement on prophets and applied it to Old Testament prophets. I think that perhaps they are right and also wrong. Right in that the text used is applicable to everyone. Read the text :

(1 Th 5:16-22 NIV) Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.

God communicates with His followers but they have to test what they think God reveals to themselves and others. It is common sense isn’t it? Wrong however in assuming the ultimate authority of prophets. The lesson goes on to say that Moses was God’s spokesman as if God was speaking to Aaron and Pharaoh. This is very similar to the New Testament where Paul says:

(2 Cor 5:20 NIV) We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

The prophets are God’s ambassadors; Christ’s followers are God’s ambassadors. We are just as much prophets as Moses and Elijah, but of course we don’t live under a Theocracy where a prophet acts as a ruler who sets up kings and declares what to do in a battle with an enemy nation. Time and circumstances change and we simply cannot carry forward into our time the things of thousands of years ago.

So let’s say a prophet receives a message from God, does it have to be new and original to him or can God give multiple times the same message to prophets. Well that is pretty easily answered because the Old Testament is filled with prophecy which are basically the same thing that Moses first gave. Repent and follow God or trouble will follow. So prophecy does not have to be novel. Can a prophecy be derived from something previously said by God? Again I think the Old Testament has frequently shown to have prophets using what other prophets have said and applying the message to their times.

So far we have seen prophets to be simply followers of God, the messages are pretty straight forward in that they usually relate to obedience to some command or other that God through some other prophet had given. For the most part dealing with the nation of Israel with the later prophets dealing a lot more with ideas such as justice and mercy, yet they were still centered upon the nation. So it was not too hard to test these prophets; as they were pretty consistent in telling people to return to God in one way or another. If as in Jeremiah you have a prophet going about saying how well you all are doing and how pleased God is with you, you probably don’t have a real prophet, probably not someone who really is a follower of God. Now back to Paul:

(1 Cor 14:29-33 NIV) Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

The spirit of the prophets appears to be what the intent of the prophet is. That is he/she is in control of the things he/she does and says. What is there motivation is probably as important as what they said. John says:

(1 John 4:1 NIV) Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

So not everyone who claims to be a prophet is one and not everyone who claims to be a follower of God is a follower of God. We have to test not only what they say but their motivation. So clearly the idea of the authority of a prophet is becoming pretty dicey. We can’t simply trust them we have to test them carefully. We are no longer dealing with a nation and what happens to a nation but to people living out in multitudes of nations. The common factor is that they are followers of God not because they are part of a chosen nation for some specific purpose.

Martin Luther wrote:

But why does he say: “We have a sure prophetic Word”? Answer: I believe indeed that henceforth we shall not have prophets like those the Jews had in times past in the Old Testament. But a prophet must really be one who preaches about Jesus Christ. Therefore although many prophets in the Old Testament foretold future things, they really came, and were sent by God, to proclaim the Christ. Now those who believe in Christ are all prophets; for they have the real and chief qualification prophets should have, even though they do not all have the gift of foretelling the future. For just as through faith we are brothers of the Lord Christ, kings, and priests, so we are also all prophets through Christ. For we can all state what pertains to salvation, God's glory, and a Christian life. In addition, we can also talk about future events insofar as it is necessary for us to know about them. For example, we can say that the Last Day will come and that we will rise from the dead. Furthermore, we understand all Scripture. Paul also speaks about this in 1 Cor. 14:31: “For you can all prophesy one by one.”⁴ [Martin Luther, (1999, c1967). Vol. 30: Luther's works, vol. 30 : The Catholic Epistles (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (vol. 30, page 164). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.]

So we being good protestants can agree with Luther here, the importance of a prophet is to be declaring Jesus Christ. What about this predicting stuff. Were the Old Testament prophets particularly good at it? No, they did not even predict the coming of the Messiah so anyone could really notice it. There are scores of unfulfilled predictive prophecies in the Old Testament. So we say they are conditional prophecies designed to lure the nation into following God which of course as all the other prophets reiterated the nation did not follow God. So we end up with prophecies that did not come to pass and it is highly likely that God knew they would never come to pass. We see this in the New Testament where the Apostles clearly thought and taught the soon return of Christ. No doubt for the purpose of making the expectation of something better in life more immediate. Because saying that in 2000-4000 years Jesus would return would put a heavy damper on the idea of spreading the gospel. Of course one of the techniques people use to attempt to shore up the Old Testament unfulfilled prophecies is to move the fulfillment to some time yet in the future.

All in all with predictive prophecy which can be conditional or can be transferred way beyond what it originally appeared to suggest there is very little one can do to test it. We end up with saying here is a prediction that did not come true thus they are not a prophet, we can do that with a modern authoritative prophet such as Ellen White but it can be done with Isaiah or Ezekiel also. But we have to do it with the Old Testament Prophets because we are still reasonably instructed that we have to test all prophets. Just because something is in the Bible does not make it true, does not make it the express instructions of God or a correct understanding of God.

Adventists I think are currently at the crossroads in understanding both how to interpret the Bible and how do deal with the prophecies of God. We made the fundamentalist mistake of making Ellen White an authoritative Old Testament prophet of the nineteenth century. It has proven to be a disaster for our church; it keeps our church stuck in nineteenth century eschatology and a self importance based upon wrongly interpreting the Bible from Miller to the SDA formation. Maybe all we had to do was open our minds to what a prophet is they way Martin Luther describes it; someone who directs the attention of others to Jesus Christ because that is where the authority is not in the prophet.

Another SDA Prophet?

My last post dealt with how the Adventist church has removed any semblance of reason when they purport to analyze Ellen White as a prophet. It is rather telling that in the last weeks lesson they address the fulfillment of prophecy yet don’t give a single prophecy that Ellen White gave that was fulfilled and address a false prediction explained away by saying it was conditional and that God would have come if people did what they were supposed to do; in essence making the testing of a prophet meaningless. So what is the effect of the traditional Adventist teaching doing to traditional Adventists?

I just saw some discussion of a new prophet in the Adventist church someone named Ernie Knoll. He as a website entitled 4hispeople.com On the site is a commission of anonymous people who as an anonymous group sought to investigate whether Knoll was a prophet or not. Here are a few excerpts with a few comments I inserted in red:

With this document we want to share the united opinion of many who have studied and compared the dreams of Ernie Knoll against the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. However, a little background on who we are and the process is in order.

Does the Bible ever suggest that we test a prophet by the writings of Ellen White (Spirit of Prophecy being the euphemism for EGW’s writings)? Hardly but what this so called commission has done is to elevate EGW to the level of the Bible.

It was also decided as we studied to keep our findings to our self as to not promote a fore or against decision. As time went and additional dreams came we decided to broaden our group study. Invitations were sent out to 'select' individuals to participate in an in depth study of the dreams. The stipulation was set forth that the invited individual would remain anonymous along with the rest of the established group and that their name would never be shared.

Did you get that “never be shared” we have a truly forever and always anonymous select commission. Sounds promising doesn’t it?

As the group grew the group moved to an email discussion in a closed online forum. The men in this now large study group are made up of the following individuals. Active and retired pastors from the General Conference. Select leaders from different Unions. Active and retired pastors from select Seventh-Day Adventist churches. Active and retired teachers and professors from different academies, colleges and universities. Literature evangelists. Attorneys from private as well as firm based. Select ardent students of the Bible. It was this large group that we began an ardent and exhaustive study of the dreams of Brother Ernie Knoll.

Did you catch that part? “The men” only men are involved, and now it is a large group of ardent students of the Bible cowering in a group who is promised they will remain anonymous. You get the feeling right away that you can trust this group don’t you?

We set forth to either prove or disprove these messages. They were either from God or from Satan. It was decided early on that we would not rush forward with our findings. We have seen many others who have done this and we as a group will address these as well.

Either God or Satan, no other possibility, similar to claims by EGW that her writing are either inspired by God or Satan. She can’t fit any opinions in there, none of her own thoughts…well that is until people start looking at comments about amalgamation of man and beast and coal fired volcanoes etc. Anyway this group of anonymous people or person because how do we know there is really more than one person involved, is not going to rush their anonymous findings.

They begin the test by tracking down the person who was a former prostitute who life was changed. They tracked her down and witness some prophetic miracles and conclude:

At the end of the meeting Candace requested that the three pastors never disclose where she lives nor her real name. On behalf of the group that sent the three pastors a request was made that she not disclose the names of the three pastors.

Impressive the anonymous commission tracks her down and she requests to be anonymous and the three pastors who visit her remain anonymous. How convenient, but apparently very convincing to the commission of anonymous Adventist leaders both former and current.

They then deal with some critics of Knoll:

…Not long after this comment Brother Wohlberg states that 1^st John 4 1-3 is not a valid test. The entire study group had a problem with this comment from brother Wolhberg. Another item was the fact that he denies that Jesus came in the flesh as Adam after sin without the propensity to sin. This setup another red flag to the study group as to the validity of his thinking. When we studied in the April 12, 2008 dream titled Love and Rebuke, we quickly realized that this was addressing Steve Wolhberg and White Horse Media.

That verse is summed up:

(1 John 4:2 NIV) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

It can hardly be a valid test if anyone accepts that even the Devil can appear as an angel of light, funny also because Adventist history says the Pope is anti-Christ yet they all agree that Jesus came in the flesh. It might work as a test to winnow down the possible prophets if they did not Believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh but not much else. Then we see the thinking of the group because they can’t trust Wolhberg because he does not believe in their Post lapsarian view. So now we can see what kind of people make up this select group of ardent and anonymous students of the Bible. They then interpret a really vague dream as a prophecy of financial trouble to Steve Wolhberg’s ministry. As if there is not enough ministries out there in fear of loss of funds.

I will let those of you read the Great Commission Council findings (yes that is really what they call themselves) and you can see the type of strangeness that traditional Adventism can produce. By the way this all seems to be summed up in the need for Adventist to read the old book by Joe Crews "Creeping Compromise". Only now it is directly a message from God. I think that is one of the books my church has in the foyer. One of those books of the last generation perfectionists who are a bane to the Adventist church, the predecessor of Doug Batchelor.

Garbage in Garbage out!