Here's a quote of hers:



What a great quote! I've been saying this for a long time now. I didn't know there was an EGW quote to say it!

In regards to your question, all one needs to do to know that she evolved in her thinking is to read her works and, as she advises, use some common sense!

Without going into details at this time, suffice it to say that I have done some extensive work (as in job-related) with Ellen White's writings. In doing this, I have many times run across statements which I did not know existed. It's been fun to learn new things about her.

Scott, in your above quote, I see you as missing the mark slightly. What you have said is partly correct, and partly incorrect. Mrs. White explains much regarding the changes that were made in her writings from time to time, such as with the Great Controversy. These changes were not necessarily due to her perspective having changed, but were frequently due to the fact that the book was being republished with a view to a different audience.

The Great Controversy was first published for the edification of the church. Later editions removed certain portions to make it more acceptable for door-to-door colporteur work among non-members. It is simultaneously true, however, that at times Mrs. White took advantage of the opportunity to correct things which had been clarified in her mind from the time of the original publication.

Sorry to not include them already, but I will try to find some quotes to demonstrate this. (It's often difficult, in view of such a broad database of publications, to remember where I've seen something, or what key words I might recall it by...but I will try.)

Meanwhile, Scott, I quite agree with your statements regarding "thought inspiration" in Ellen White's writings. I do wonder, however, how you feel Paul is any different? Personally, I can make a strong case to say that Paul's words are over-analyzed in today's theological circles, when Paul himself was not focused so much on the words as upon the thoughts...e.g. the word "law."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here are some of the quotes. These are not the best ones that I remember reading, but they are sufficient to show why some of the later publications were "softened," especially the last two quotes. My apologies in advance for those last two being in caps--that's just copy/pasted from the original, and it means those are the words of the publishers, and not of Mrs. White herself.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Scott, it would be helpful if you included inspired quotes to back up your assertions. Otherwise, I have no idea if you are telling the truth. Since the “wages of sin is death”, how can we say, We owe sin ... (anything)? Sin owes sinners, not the other way around, right?


Mercy and justice are in tension. They are not synonymous. I like how she explains it in the following quotes:


I like how she explains the difference between mercy and justice in the context of Jesus’ life and death – both of which were required by law for God to earn the legal right to offer penitent sinners mercy, pardon, and salvation. Jesus had to die because law and justice demand death for sin. Otherwise, sinners would have to die for their own sins. In reality, the human race would have ended with the immediate death of Adam and Eve if Jesus had not volunteered to be the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”


The law cannot pardon; it can only condemn. Nor can the law save us. God, of course, is not like the law in these ways.


Your questions assume God is violent and that He threatens sinners. Neither assumption is true; therefore, your questions cannot be answered. God has never been violent, nor has He ever threatened anyone.


Satan did not invent sin or death. Neither one were possible until after God created FMAs. True, Satan was the first FMA to sin, but he did not invent it. If sin kills sinners, why hasn’t it killed Satan yet? Why doesn’t it kill us the moment we sin? Why did God have to bar access to the tree of life if sin kills sinners?

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner. The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}


Your analogy overlooks an important aspect of the picture. It pertains only to the first death. Can a doctor resurrect sinners and judge them, and then punish them in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness? Can sin do it?

What about when she quotes holy angels in vision? Is there any evidence to support the idea angels compromised to meet her where she was, that what they told her in vision reflects her tainted theological views at the time? For example:

EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

Said the angel, "Satan is the root, his children are the branches. They are now consumed root and branch. They have died an everlasting death. They are never to have a resurrection, and God will have a clean universe." I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified. {EW 295.1}


Are you suggesting we cannot take God at His word? Do you aagree with the following insight:

GC V.4
The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14. {GC v.4}

And, do you agree with these insights:

GC VI.1
Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony. {GC vi.1}


Where does your description of Jesus come from? Did God write it Himself? Did He dictate it? Or, was it written by men? If so, how can you trust it any more than the OT? Can it be that the entire Bible, in spite of its inspired discrepancies, is the infallible word of God? Shouldn't we build it up, encourage confidence in it?

3SM 306
There are men who think they have made wonderful discoveries in science. They quote the opinions of learned men as though they considered them infallible and teach the deductions of science as truths that cannot be controverted. And the Word of God, which is given as a lamp to the feet of the world-weary traveler, is judged by this standard, and pronounced wanting. {3SM 306.2}

SR 368
Some who professed to be zealous believers in the message rejected the Word of God as the one infallible guide, and, claiming to be led by the Spirit, gave themselves up to the control of their own feelings, impressions, and imaginations. There were some who manifested a blind and bigoted zeal, denouncing all who would not sanction their course. Their fanatical ideas and exercises met with no sympathy from the great body of Adventists; yet they served to bring reproach upon the cause of truth. {SR 368.1}

UL 37
We need a more firm reliance upon a "Thus saith the Lord." If we have this, we shall not trust to feeling, and be ruled by feeling. God asks us to rest in His love. It is our privilege to know the Word of God as a sure and tried guide, an infallible assurance. Let us work on the faith side of the question. Let us believe and trust, and talk faith and hope and courage. Let the praise of God be in our hearts and on our lips oftener than it is. "Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me" (Ps. 50:23). Keep the mind stayed upon God, and know the love of Christ as the Word of God reveals it. This Word is life. Talk of Christ; call others to behold Him as your Redeemer. {UL 37.4}

4T 312
Said Christ: "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me." The Bible is an unerring guide. It demands perfect purity in word, in thought, and in action. Only virtuous and spotless characters will be permitted to enter the presence of a pure and holy God. The word of God, if studied and obeyed, would lead the children of men, as the Israelites were led by a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. The Bible is God's will expressed to man. It is the only perfect standard of character, and marks out the duty of man in every circumstance of life. There are many responsibilities resting upon us in this life, a neglect of which will not only cause suffering to ourselves, but others will sustain loss in consequence. {4T 312.2}

Tom, you seem to be implying that although she doesn't admit to having a harsh view of God's character earlier in her writings, it is obvious as one compares her earlier works with her more recent works. But doesn't this rely on opinion rather than inspiration? So, it would mean more to me to hear it from her. Where does she say such a thing?

You asked, "Where does she admit to growing and changing her thinking?"

I was responding to this question when I said:





No! I quoted her in saying we should use common sense. So inspiration agrees!



I quoted it right above my what I said! In fact, it's in the part you quoted that I'm responding to.

Ellen White was a teenager when she started her prophetic ministry, and quite an elderly lady when she end it. Do you know anybody whose thinking did not change in the course of 70 years? Indeed, wouldn't it be very sad it if it didn't?

Tom, I addressed these questions to Scott. They were asked in a specific context, which had to with Sister White evolving from a harsh view of God to a kinder, gentler view. I would like to know from either you or Scott where she admits to such a thing. Did she ever admit that she grew in such a way.

That is, did she ever say, Earlier in my ministry I wrote stuff that reflected a harsh view of God, but I was young and ill informed, nowadays my views are more accurate, they represent the truth about God, about His love and mercy and compassion. I no longer believe He directly or personally punishes or destroys impenitent sinners. Instead, I have come to realize and believe He reluctantly withdraws His loving protection and either commands holy angels to allow man and nature to unleash their pent up power, or He gives evil angels permission to manipulate man and nature to cause destruction proportionate to the sinfulness of the person or people who have resisted and rejected His loving entreaties and protection.

Hi GC,

Why mention just Paul? Couldn't we also say the same thing about John, James, or Peter? Or is it Paul that disagrees with your interpretation of "law" therefore you choose to pit him against James rather than find them in agreement?

I see the Bible writers of the OT as dynamically different than those writing the NT simply because of Pentecost. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit made the Apostles understand how Jesus was the fulfillment of the whole Jewish economy. Their writings are not to be added to the OT writings, but are an exegesis of the OT. In other words the NT is an explanation of the OT, not an addition to it.

If I want to know what the OT meant I need to go to the source, the NT, to see. This is where God revealed it! To go back to the OT to discover "new doctrine" over and above the writings of the NT is reject the apostolic authority in which the church of Christ is built. This is and has been the reason there is so much division in the NT church and especially in rogue Adventist circles. If we could all agree on what the Apostles taught, the gospel of Jesus, there would be no schism in the church. Denominationalism is the sin of the church that stands in direct disobedience of Jesus' command to love one another and that we are to be one in Him exactly like He is One with the Father.

Where do you get the authority to disagree with Paul's interpretation of the OT? It isn't from God!

scott

Hi MM,

That is exactly right! Sin owes sinners death. We sin, we die! The debt we owe to God is gratitude for salvation. Even those who reject His salvation owe praise to Him! And, MM, if you haven’t noticed, I don’t play the “inspired quote” game. I have the right to think for myself and put things in my own words. I’m not a parrot believing that the parrot that knows the most quotes is right. To be a Rabbi one had to memorize the entire five books of Moses by the age of 12 and the entire OT by the age of 30. The ones who crucified Jesus knew their “inspired quote(s)” much better than you and I. What they failed to do was to internalize them and understand them and to put them in their own words.

scott