Hi again Green, It poses many serious problem to uphold the Estate claim that Ellen is a prophet, and brings her to the test of proving whether she is a true prophet or a false prophet which is misleading, pointless and wrong. It does not honor her, nor the pioneer's work, nor God. Because she will fail the test. I don't think she's an apostle either, just because she had visions and dreams. I agree she did a lot of good work and she was very committed and the Lord was able to use her. There's alot of other individual that established good work but it does not make them an apostle like it really was meant in the time of Paul. James White was more the one to establish the SDA Church than EGW, however he needed her gift as well as others. However, do we give James the title of an Apostle?

As you know from your 7000years prophecy study, there's little time left. We are in a crusial time that we need to understand the history of our church and see if we were given the truth or taken for a ride in lies because of inside motives from un-submitted sinful leaders.

Did our church have motives to sway the people into deception? This is the real question that we need to look into. Did they paint a picture of Ellen White and use it for other reason than the work of our Lord? That's what's vital to know, if we want the Lord's work to go forward. And the only way to find out is to look at the history.

Do you want to see the truth? Do you want to be a true Protestant? Do you want to proclaim the real 3AM given by God to our Pioneers? I don't doubt one second that your answer is Yes. But we need to pray and not be so gullible and seriously ask question about our Leaders and history to see if we are in sink with our Lord today.

Without looking at the SDA history, it is far more probable that it is a YES that the Leaders were unfaithfull than a no. For we have Biblical history(also we could look at the world history, what does it say about the propensity of human nature) to show us how the Israelite rebelled, how many times? Many many many times after much grace and mercy. God destroy them many times, and yet the generation afterward, still did not learn from the precious lessons and rebelled even worst than their fathers.

The commission was given to the gentiles, did they also rebell (guilty of the Laodicean sin)? Yes. Then God needed to give truth to the protestants, and they form a new Church, did they rebell, Yes. Then it went on and on all through history. How come today you think that the SDA Church is not capable of doing such a thing? How come you think that the SDA Church is not guilty of the Laodicean condition and needing of nothing?

Did we have a problem in 1888? Do you think the real truth about 1888 was given to us? How come many documents was recently published concerning the 1888? It prove that it was hidden. Why now was it made publick in a very un-edited and fasciminal format, with lame apology of the spelling errors? We cannot do quick search on them and in a state that are hard to read. Do you know what really happen in 1980? Do you know why millions of SDA left the Church around 1980? There's a problem Green, and as long we go along with the deception and the lies, we are as guilty as the ones that fashioned it.

BTW this post is original I'm sure you can detect it right?

Elle,

Nobody needs to assert that Ellen White was a prophet. I do not require the authority of the White Estate for this information. Reading her writings is sufficient evidence for me.

I am thoroughly convinced of her prophetic gift. And I do not see the problems you speak of. I do not see our Adventist pioneers in the same light as you have painted them here. Nor can I. If we speak against the Lord's anointed, we dare to do more than King David dared against his mortal enemy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green,
I agree with you that Ellen had the gift of prophecy, but is it the same as holding the office of a prophet?

According to the Pioneers writings, I think they never view Ellen as such. Maybe she is despite of what they say. Maybe she's not. Because there's much cover up, propaganda, that has been going on, how can we know? How do we know which EGW writings is original? Until our Leaders sets the records straight, we will never know. Our only assurance, is to make Scriptures our only authority. This week lessons is making that point and I'm glad for that.

I know, of course, what you are trying to say by "office of a prophet," but it sounds like too much semantics to me.

Let me be clear: to me, Ellen White was/is a prophet. To me, having the gift of prophecy can only be defined in one of two ways: 1) receiving words of prophecy as a gift from God, or 2) imparting those words of prophecy to others (re-gifting). Ellen did both.

Paul wrote:


This tells me that, in Paul's estimation, having the God-given gift of prophecy, and using it for the good of the church, is to be a prophet.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i agree wholeheartedly with gcs comments. reading egw writings and matching them with the bible is all the "proof" we need of whether they are legitimate.

relying on some "man" to confirm or deny anything seems a little bit like trusting in man, to me.

any other position is depriving ourselves of the reproofs and admonitions, not to mention the encouragement, God has for us!!

Green, I wasn't pulling semantics. The distinction between the spirit of prophecy and holding an office of Prophet is taught in College Bible Classes. It is like someone giving medical care to her children, however, it doesn not make her a Doctor. Even if she is gifted in given medical care.

I believe that Ellen had many many spiritual gifts including discernment, healing, teaching, etc..., I always viewed her as a prophet as what the Church has taught me. However, today, I'm questioning, did she hold the Office of a Prophet? How can I test that with the version of writings we have in our disposal.

The real point here is all of EGW's writings were not tested to the Bible. There's lot of contradiction in her writings that won't hold the test which devides our people. It seem we have a choice to embrace two different EGW. It's not because of EGW wrong doing and lack of gifts. It is because of the White Estate and our Leaders has been using her and fabricating us a picture by tempering her writings. Until the record is set straight, what part of her writings to believe?

Tom Norris is an expert in this, mainly because he was allowed in the White Estate Library where hardly any were allowed before. Why, because he discovered some hidden documents in the basement of the GC while working in the GC and wrote an amazing document about 1888. Also because of God's hand in timing(recent new CEO of White Estate) he was allowed in the White Estate after. And there he found many many more hidden documents regarding the truth about 1888 and other writings regarding Ellen White later position which was never disclosed to us. He was allowed to study them because they could not argue his confrontation of the discovery and studies from the archives of the GC. After this incidence, of course the White Estate, release some 1888 hidden documents to the public in a poor format with a lame excuse. However, what about the rest? I say, that they should allow at least the scholars to study the White Estate archives. We have the right to know the truth.

Here is a link that encapsulate the whole. Tom Norris is at our disposal to answer any of our questions. He is not an Ellen White Basher, he's for reforming the Adventist Church and appealing to the leaders to set the records straight. As far as I know, Tom Norris is still a SDA and wasn't disfellowshipped. And Tom holds the same position as Luther, looking for a reformation in the Church.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2009/2/SDA-s-hiding.htm

Elle,

I have too much experience with the "Reformed Adventists" to do anything but shudder when I see you recommend them. They are by no means "passive" about their attacks against the church. It may just be that Tom Norris is more subtle than others of his association, but I would be ultra cautious about bringing forward any of his, or of that movement's, ideas.

Elle, when it comes right down to it, we each must make a faith choice. I have chosen to believe that there is a God who loves me, and died to save me from sin; that He has inspired messages for me in the Bible; and that He commissioned Ellen White to bring additional truth to us in these end times.

There are contradictions in the Bible. It is not error-free. Does this mean I reject it, and say those authors were not "prophets," and therefore, somehow less reliable or less to be depended upon? DECIDEDLY, NO! To do so would be to place myself on very shaky ground, and the devil would laugh at me all the way to judgment day.

I do not reject Ellen White for the few contradictions I have found in her writings. Yes, there are some things I have questioned. Ellen White says herself that God will never remove all cause for doubt. God allows us such tremendous freedom of choice, that He even permits room for doubt, so that if we do not wish to believe in Him, we are not forced to do so.

I, however, do so.

Trust me, Elle, if you measure the Bible with the same yardstick you are using on Mrs. White, it will also come up short. If you continue to harbor these thoughts, it will eventually lead to this realization. Are you prepared to reject the Bible? I sure hope not, and I doubt you would even think of doing such right now. Then consider well the end of this matter.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom Norris seems to be floundering out in lala land.

Here is a quote from your link above -



He has never done the basic work of reading GC to make some of the wild offbeat accusations all based on either Spectrum 40 years ago or AT - (a group that Goldstein continues to complain about even on the blog he has on AT). I also find it "instructive" that AT has a pro atheist darwinism blog running.

Tom needs to do a bit more work if he wants to be taken as a serious Bible student or as one who at least knows something about the details of the IJ as listed in the Great Controversy.

Even Desmond Ford ( whose disciple Norris apparently claims to be) in his 1980's interviews on the John Ankerberg show could not be coaxed into making the slanderous statements against Adventists that are so blantly promoted by Norris.

Here is a note from a Feb 2008 interview with Norris



in Christ,

Bob

Bob, You go ask these question to Tom himself, not me. Just because he's in real estate today, doesn't mean he wasn't in the GC or the White Estate Yesterday. Here is what he says about himself:


I think a good start is to check if it's true that he was in the GC and the White Estate Archives. Can you check that?

Interesting posts here that I will respond to later, but first I want to go to Wednesday's section, "The Authority of the Spoken Word" found at the following link:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/09a/less08nkjv.html#wed

It says that in "ancient times, when writing material was scarce and most people could not read, the spoken word was very important."

Christ spoke the Word, the disciples spoke the Word, Paul spoke the Word, others spoke the Word, Ellen White and those in her time spoke the Word, and the Word is still being spoken today in our time.

The spoken Word had great authority then and still has great authority today.

The authority of Ellen White, when conveying messages from God through visions and deams, was also authoritative. She may not have referred to herself as a prophet most likely on account of the reaction of the people to such a thing, but she did say she received visions and dreams from the Lord and was told to convey them to others, which in my mind amounts to the same thing, as far as messages being received from God and passed on to others by her goes.

The following took place as a result of her authoritative words:

The church leaders didn't heed her on everything, but they did in this instance and other instances.

I thought the "Keepers of the Flame" series did an excellent job on that pertaining to Ellen White. I recommend you all to watch and digest what is contained there.