I don't think there's any doubt this is true.

Again, is it possible God revealed it to Ellen White through the spirit of prophecy, and that He didn't rely on previous views?

Actually Adventism is a oneness of Armininism and Calvinism, with aspects of both being changed by the oneness:

Plan Calivanism is sort of like someone driving a car bring you the the destination the driver decides to bring you to. Plan Armininism is we driving, Mrs. White has God driving us to where we decide.

C. S. Lewis' "A Horse and his boy" makes a great discription of Mrs. White's view. But read the chapter about Caiphas. Was Ciaphis following his will, or was he fulfilling God's plan for the universe? Yes!

God could have picked a Moses who was facing a more willing leader of Egypt.

Satan is pictured as someone who even in his rebellion against God can't help but find everything he does fulfilling God's plan.

We choose to be rebels or faithful but which ever plays our part in the Great Controversy.

No, because this would be God forcing the will which God does not do (and we wish God would do). Truth always grows and builds on what others have seen. Prophets are only to point it into the right direction when it could grow into a different direction.

Possible, but not in isolation. Adventist pioneers came from many backgrounds and faith traditions, and brought their unique understandings with them. As mentioned above, many of these were of the Methodist/CC (Armenian) camp.

One's interpretation of Scripture is based on one's world view. The pioneers interpreted Scripture according to how they saw the world. The world has changed. It's not what Scripture says so much as how we interpret Scripture that really has an effect.

Over time, as certain people protested this or that false doctrine advocated by the RCC, various followings and fellowships emerged (i.e. Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Wesleyans, etc). All of them based their conclusions on what they found in the Bible. Is it unfair to say our pioneers also based their conclusions on what they found in the Bible? Or, were they guilty of assuming certain doctrines were correct without confirming them through serious Bible study and prayer? Also, did Jesus assist our pioneers in their efforts to arrive at the truth? Did He raise up a "messenger" to help guide them and to confirm their findings?

It is always comical for me to hear in such a discussion of God, the Future and Free Will how people will try to identify with either the schools of Arminianism, Calvanism, Augustinian, or preachers like Luther, Spurgeon, etc. The real question rather is, along the lines of “Mountain Man’s” question earlier: “What do the Scriptures themselves actually, i.e., exegetically teach? The answer takes much work to conclusive ascertain as it virtually involves all of Scripture, however there are several key indicators that point to what the Biblical Truth of the Matter is.

I have done a study on this topic which is posted in this blog post. Included in the comments sections is a 50+ comment exchange with an SDA Pastort (Arthur Gibbs of NC) who reflects the general (Biblically/Exegetically deficient) state of comprehension of the Church on this matter, leading to a most significant void in the Church’s Theology. (Comments on this study can be made here).

This October 2010, “Arminianism and Adventism” Symposium by the Adventist Theological Society may be of, (at least, [in my view]), contributive background/informational benefit to this discussion. As mentioned above, it is a little too ‘“deferentially, and spuriously, “philosophical”’ vs. being directly, soundly exegetical for me!

Hi NJP,

I read 1/3 of your blog on this subject which I agree with your perspective of Isa 46:10 that God does declare from the beginning the end. This is His Sovereignty signature on all things which makes Him God and everything else a mere "creation" with no inherit power. God is all Powerful (El Shaddai).

In your second section of your blog entitled “limiting the Power of God”, I agree that God works all things and he uses “high scientific realities” by which many of us will define things we do not understand as a “miracles” undermining it as if He uses magic. He works through His Laws(which are all a reflection of His character) including in the physical reality and will not break His own Laws that He has establish at Creation. However your last paragraph is a popular belief which is unbiblical and contradictory in nature of your statement about Isa 46:10 where you are establishing His Sovereignty.

You said

On one hand you say God is Sovereign and on the other you say human’s choice supercedes God’s choices with his “free will” characteristic. Are you implying that God has no Sovereignty over our choices? Does God has Sovereigny over the choices of the animals? For sure He does for the inanimate objects for they have no freewill, right? All this is based because we have the ability of reason and whoever has no reasoning ability cannot choose their destiny. So if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying that human’s choices is above God’s choices in determining their present reality? Are you saying that God never imposes His will on human’s?

Hi Elle. Appreciate your thoughtful comments. That is an interesting point your bring up. I did not think my statement there could be perceived wrongly. I meant for it to say that God will, at times, ultimately, not violate our free will in order to accomplish His Will for something favoring. I do not see that it is too hard for Him to “summons” (Isa 46:11) an evil person to do a work of destruction. In fact, not much convincing is usually needed there. Thus this is limited to finding people to do His “Good will.” There are many Bible examples that can be cited where, when God even uses supernatural manifestation to get someone to do His will (e.g, Paul on the Road to Damascus), that person always has the choice to obey or not. (Getting King Cyrus to let Israel return to their land also needed such supernatural convincing which I understand, as stated on my blog, as mentioning Him by name ca. 60 years before that time). However, because of that greater amount of revelation to convince that person, that person is held at a much higher level of responsibility. (E.g. Moses who saw God in the burning bush vs. in Exod 4:24-26). So this proportional risk of judgement due to this lower threshold for such use of compelling evidence makes this a fair sovereign act.

Another example is God restoring Israel after the Babylonian Captivity Judgement. As He says in Ezek 36:22-38, He did this despite Israel’s unworthiness. However because Ezekiel, as a declared “Son of Man” had, typologically, earlier been made to bear the sins of Judah and Israel (Ezek 4:4-6), God was able to effectuate this restoration. The, anti-typical, similar thing occurred with Jesus and the redemption of the world, with no one being, of themselves, worthy of this salvation. (Rom 3:23).

So in summary, my point is that human choices can, and have, frustrate and delay God’s plans. (Prime example: His Chosen People Israel, repeatedly, as they were until the New Covenant, His only means through which to duly advance and establish the Plan of Redemption). Indeed as seen with Ancient Israel, He cannot work with a faithless people. However I believe that God will not, though He can, force someone to do His will. He can however make it even life threateningly clear that they should, as with Moses. Indeed He instead uses such compelling, also favoring, evidence to strongly convince that person to do this will (e.g,. Paul), however that has greater consequences if that person becomes ‘unfaithful to so great a revelation.’

In regards to Jer 31:18, 19, I exegetically see that the most accurate reading should be:
‘After I turned [active verb - Qal], my ‘mind was changed’ [passive verb - Niphal] and after that I was instructed... [passive verb - Niphal]...’ (cf. NASB).

This shows that the active “turning” action was first done, then their my was (passively) “changed” and then “instructed” by God.

I hope this clarifies my view. Again, good observation.