Thomas, how would anyone arrive at new truth if everyone believes the same thing about the context of a passage?

M: Thomas, as the texts I posted earlier demonstrate, Paul strung together short excerpts from the OT to establish and prove his point. He did not quote the entire passage. In the examples I quoted above, he used one sentence and partial sentences to arrive at conclusions not inherent in the context. Personally, I have no problem with him or anyone else employing the Bible in this fashion (so long as their conclusions are biblically sound).

T: I have learned that in hebrew schoolarship, where everyone knew the Torah by heart, everyone educated knew the Torah plus the prophets by heart, and the schoolars knew the Torah plus the prophets plus the commentary by heart, quoting one sentence or even one phrase was a common technique for "tagging" the whole context of the quoted phrase into your own argument. Thus, what you would write is a short reference, but what your audience hears is a two page insertion referencing a particular passage of scripture. Maybe a prophecy by Isaiah or a psalm by David or a law of Moses. Besides, prooftexting is entierly infeasible when your audience knows the correct context of the passage you atempt to misuse. Prooftexting is entierly reliant upon it ignorance of your audience as to what the text is really talking about. (As hearing someone wrench a word you are well familiar with to a purpose which is alien to it makes you uncomfortable and suspicious of the motives and intent of the speaker.)

M: Thomas, how would anyone arrive at new truth if everyone believes the same thing about the context of a passage?

M: Thomas, how would anyone arrive at new truth if everyone believes the same thing about the context of a passage?

In other words, if everyone agrees on this and that passage, this and that doctrine, how would anyone arrive at new truth? Wouldn't it render the Bible a done deal and make discovering new truth impossible? That is, if we've discovered everything there is to know about truth and doctrine and salvation what more can we hope to learn? The Bible would be a kind of dead end.

Is it possible for a person to have the gift of prophesy without this being public knowledge?

Tom, I agree that current prophets (if any) or future prophets would have to build upon what God revealed through Sripture and Ellen White. They certainly could not contradict what He revealed through them or her. And, I believe the difference between teachers who repeat what previous prophets wrote and modern-day prophets has to do with the content of their message. To classify as a modern-day prophet, it stands to reason, in my mind, that they must receive something new from God through dreams and/or visions.

Thomas, there are many examples of Ellen White writing things that were not revealed to her by God which may or may not be inspired. However, whenever she wrote what God specifically revealed to her in dream or vision it is most definitely inspired and authoritative. I realize you personally do not believe this, but the SDA church certainly does.

MM, here is what I hear you saying,
You are saying that although Paul may not have actually said Christ paid for the sins of the world on the cross, you feel Paul agrees with it and if Paul agrees with it, that is the same thing as saying it.