First of all, there was nothing, by Biblical definition “prophetic” about the 7-month correction that Samuel Snow made in regards to the reckoning of the 2300 days. It was out of scholarly observation and not from a revelation from God (as with Agabus (Acts 11:28, 21:20). According to such an indiscriminate application, anyone who makes a scholarly or exegetical correction is a prophet. Sure Snow’s clarification help to correct a prophetic event, but that does not, “reverse-engineeredly,” make him a prophet as the Bible defines it.

Secondly, unlike with Agabus, there is no substantively witnessing contemporary statement that stated that Samuel Snow was a prophet. If his peers had observed the Biblical manifestation of the prophetic gift in him then they would have affirmed this. Claiming that one is Elijah does not make him Elijah. One first has to be a Biblical prophet, before they can be “Elijah”.

It also is quite normative for Believers to ‘hear from God’ on various matters, however that does not defaultly translate into being a Biblical prophet. (Cf. Num 12:6). EGW fulfilled this as concretely as it Biblically should be when valid. Snow’s mere interpretational correctness is not a sign that one is a prophet.



I am not sure what you are answering/referring to here. So please be more specific. And if possible, do list at least the references of those quotes.



I think I can assume that we know all that is significant about Samuel Snow. And if there were the manifestation of signs for the prophetic gift, I am sure it would have been related especially given the felt urgency of that time.

That is all not a valid argument, circular at best. Given this reasoning, J.N. Andrews was a prophet since, EGW endorsed him and (to my knowledge) never opposed/contradicted him and his scholarly findings.

By the way, the SOP is not infallible/inerrant and in many ways, what has been written by EGW is limited to what wanted her and her generation of Adventist believers to know. So don’t be shocked if further Bible study reveals that EGW did not have the full and final light in many Biblical matters. They just were not “present truths” for her days. That is why she recommended to us the Bible as our final authority in matter of Doctrine and Faith.



I’ll be glad to see your evidence.



[/quote]

I do not see how you sequiturly make a leap from what I had actually said into a Michael and EGW vindication of God’s law. So while your ‘law vindication’ SOP quotes are interesting, I think they are not pertinent to the issue at hand.

You had said the our doctrines came from the Bible and not EGW. I however have pointed out two cases where our understanding stemmed directly from a vision of EGW, which led to the searching out of the Scriptures and indeed revealing that this had always been found in the Bible. However God used the prophetic gift to guide these early, and for the most part, scholarly lacking believers into what the Bible contained as a teaching. So that is the issue that you would need to disprove to maintain the claim that non of our teachings/understandings were started by a revelation to EGW. That is the common, defensive assumption in SDA circles, however the evidence in many cases speaks to the contrary.

I also think EGW would be quite uncomfortable with making her an, effectively, divine ‘co-’ anything. Jesus vindicated God’s law by bring out the Spiritual aspects of it, i.e., magnifying it and making it honourable (or “great and glorious” - NASB). (e.g., Matt 5; Isa 42:21).



I think that what Jesus did in regards to “vindicating” the law was sufficient. Only the giver of the Law can do this. Like Ezra of old, (Neh 8), EGW was merely used to guide, instruct and remind Christian believers who were coming out of the Prophetic, Church History “Babylonian Captivity” of the still binding claims of this already “vindicated” Law in this New Covenant context. So again, I substantively cannot see a justification for effectively putting EGW on the same level as Jesus Christ in this Law regard.



As the Bible repeatedly shows in many ages, not having the full and complete light on a matter, especially a prophetic one, does not indicate a contradiction of even error. Once again, the inspiration of EGW was a “thought” inspiration and not a “word for word” one, as that Biblically does not exist unless a prophet is verbatim quoting what God had said in a revelation. And just looking through the editorial evolution of many passages in the SOP, you will see that EGW repeatedly, even corrected herself in regards to earlier statements which she had made but later better, especially exegetically, understood. Contrary to “our enemies” the prophetic gift of EGW does not rise or fall with any such “incomplete knowledge” mistakes she has made, but rather if what she finally taught is in harmony with the overall and/or specific revelation of Scripture.

By the way I do not follow your “flashlight to find the sun” = “no contradiction between SOP and Bible” association. Please clarify.

Thus far, factually speaking, in the non-sequitur, non pertinent and tangential answers that are being posted by you, “cephalopod”, thus far, I can see that: “cephalopds can change color faster than a chameleon. They can also change texture and body shape, and, and if those camouflage techniques don't work, they can still "disappear" in a cloud of ink, which they use as a smoke-screen or decoy. ... they have three hearts that pump blue blood...” and how they inspire legends and stories throughout history and are thought to be the most intelligent of invertebrates.” and how some can squeeze through the tiniest of cracks.”

Anyway, hope you will prove me wrong on this initial substantive observation.

For some examples of this see: e.g., Alden Thompson, Inspiration, (Review and Herald Publishing, 1991) pp. 290-295ff

I have gone by my nickname(s) since I can remember, only my wife uses my 'legal' name and usually it means she has a 'task' for me....

NJK, I'm ok with your understanding on Snow, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it and perhaps I should not have mentioned it.



God IS infallible and God's Holy Spirit came upon Sister White so that she that she was able to CLEARLY define truth from error.



Many people brought forth what they believed the Bible to teach & of course they used 'the Bible' so that isn't the issue at all from what I can tell. The whole issue was interpretation of the Bible so yes, our doctrines came from the Bible and it was ONLY certain interpretations of writ that the SOP defined as "truth". Sister White was very clear that she wasn't a Bible expert - she in fact described herself as a dullard where this is concerned. Our Prophet tells us in our own language exactly how our faith was established and that was the Bible interpreted through Ellen White who while only a human spoke directly for God.

As far as Sister White having the final say I can assure you in her was no error simply because the identical Spirit ( God's own holy Spirit )that inspired the writers of the Bible was the very same Spirit who inspired Sister White. Sure, I would agree that some things the Church is dealing with now she didn't directly address but I choose to error on the side of caution.

There is no darkness in the area of the Personality of God nor in the Sanctuary or Sabbath and these three things are indeed the most bright of lights.



No problem.



it's on page 7 should you care to pull it up for yourself.



"And he will think to change times and laws" - since when did that slip from prophetic area?



The Sanctuary existed in heaven LONG prior to the earthly one. Sister White was very clear and blunt in that the Personality of God means everything to the Adventist people. God has a "body" and when Sister White speaks of the "personality of God" she is saying ( exactly like the Pioneers ) that the Father has a nose, eyes, ears fingers and all the other body parts - the Sanctuary proves it without any doubt.

See the Review and Herald October 8, 1903 and read the article which directly follows Sister White's "GO FORWARD", it's called "The personality of God" as it relates to the 2300 days and the Sanctuary. God's law was defiled and God sent His Son to vindicate His holy Law - this is the very litmus test of the true Sanctuary truth - I'm in actual shock you asked what you did. To spark your interest.



What follows in that article is the very truth confirmed by Sister White as to the Personality of God, right down to the ears, nose and fingernails of God. The Sanctuary truth can not be understood without a proper understanding of the personality of God and this most certainly includes why God sent His Son and the reason is as simple as it is clear - to vindicate God's Holy Law.



They come from Bible ONLY after truth is separated from error ( unless ones just gets lucky ) I've already quoted Sister White where she says exactly how the Adventist Faith was established - it does not get much more simple then that.



Prophets in the Bible call people back from their errors and rebuke them for not following established teachings while Ellen was the human foundation of the actual establishment of the Adventist faith - No wonder she herself said she was MUCH MORE THAN A PROPHET - Indeed, she was.



Did Ellen not say she continues to vindicate that which God vindicates?



I'm not saying that what Jesus did wasn't sufficient for it was. I'm saying that God used Ellen to Vindicate His holy law by the words God put in Ellen's mouth. Sister's White's words are eternal in the same way the words of the Bible are eternal. It's the same Author in both.


What I mean by that is that Sister White does not contradict the Bible any more then the Bible contradicts the Bible. Ellen White was simply a sock puppet only the hand controlling it was God. God could have selected anyone to pour His holy Spirit into - he selected a young girl who was by her own admission not very bright. God works this way.

God bless.

I appreciate your effort to substantively respond to all of my questions and objections to your claims, however I must be frank/truthful with you that you do not seems to be using proper exegesis (including topical and contextual exegesis among other elements). You also seem to be (defensively) working from a sort of creed which tries to just irrelevantly spin anything that comes to substantively challenge you view. Here are my replies, and until you demonstrate proper exegesis, I have to keep them succinct for the sake of my time.



From what I have read up on, Samuel Snow declared himself to be Elijah. His followers then enjoined him in that self-proclamation. Anyone can make such claims, especially before an anticipated Second Coming. However Samuel Snow does not substantively fulfill that prediction as He did not do the reform works of Elijah, i.e., “turning the hearts of descendants (post-“Babylonian” captivity Christians) to their forefathers (Apostolic Christians). (cf. this post). That would also involve reestablishing all of the Apostolic doctrines that were lost during the destructive rule of the little horn power.



This is a perfect example of you again not remaining on topic but veering off in a tangential, circular truism which does everything but address the actual issue at hand. What you have stated and quote about EGW is entirely true and I already both know and agree with this. My point was that, as shown in the two examples I have cited, many later points of Biblical understanding, i.e., later than this early sessions right after the disappointment, were used by God to directly place these advent believers on the path of truth even before they thought to study out the topic.



That view of yours is obviously based upon an incorrect understanding of inspiration. As shown in Thompson’s book, EGW understanding of even Theological truths clearly “evolved” and improved as she studied more into them and also as she later received other visions which mostly indirectly elucidated those matters. Nonetheless, the actual issue here is not “error” per se, but completeness/fullness of knowledge and understanding, and even “inspired” Bible authors had shortcomings (and again, not “errors”) in this regards, particularly, as with EGW, in regards to prophetic matters. It just was not a present truth for them to know and understanding these things.



Unfortunately this “erring on the side of caution” instead is taking the form of ‘building a camp arond EGW’ something which she did not at all endorse nor recommend. She instead recommend the study of the Bible, and in her day, not much in terms of profound exegesis was done with Bible study, which in itself caused many Biblical teaching to remain lacking vs. the fullness of truth that they actually contain.



Personality of God - I do not see any Bible or SOP emphasis on having a bodily understanding of God (cf. John 4:24). So you’ll need to post some more explicit references on this topic. From what I have copiously and explicitly seen, the Bible and SOP instead emphasize the Glory and Character of God.

Sanctuary - While the framework of the Sanctuary doctrine was made quite clear through the guidance of the SOP, much more can be learned by more deeply studying its services and the deliberate typological elements therein.

Sabbath - The SOP help to confirmingly establish the Sabbath Truth and its prophetic implication, however much more is invovled in the “full” Sabbath truth, which correspondingly also extends into its prophetic/eschatological understanding. (Cf. e.g, in this post and (prophetically i.e., the Mark of the Beast implication) also this one.)





Most succinctly said here due to resulting mootness: The EGW vision I stated was giving in November of 1846. This SOP statement was made 4 years after that revelation!





That Biblical reference refers to the work of the little horn, particularly against the Law of God and the Sabbath. I far as I know, I am quite certain that it was not a Catholic teaching that the 2300 would end in the spring of 1844, so how would Samuel Snow be correcting, even “prophetically” this non-teaching???





This response was just further irrelevant to the question and issue on the floor. So, quite seriously, if possible, please try again with something that is pertinently relevant.



I looked up that article and did not find what you are supposedly quoting here. Also search in the EGW writing for some of the key phrases in that “quote” returned nothing of the sort. (Since that “quote” contains a spelling error (i.e., “Dies” instead of “Does”, it is clear that, at the very least, you were not copying an pasting from an electronic EGW source.) So please provide the specific reference if it actually exists.



Once that “quote” has been confirmed those claims can then be verified. However the emphasis on ‘the body of God’ does not ring as Scriptural nor Biblical to me, and that includes the explicit teachings of EGW.



This was already responded to, notwithstanding, again, you still need to respond to the November 1846 vision which established the Sabbath = Seal of God = Third Angel’s Message major understanding and well as the 1849 vision which led to the Sanctuary (and not 10 Virgin Parable) Shut Door teaching.



Not the full story here. Prophets in the Bible are also responsible for all prophecies which most apply to our day and they also established many doctrinal teaching. E.g., Paul’s writings.

Also the “Adventist Faith” is actually (more than less) most of what the Apostolic Church believed and taught. So in reality it was EGW who did the work of ‘calling people back from their (mostly Catholic) errors to the faith thought by the inspired writers and prophets of the Bible.’ In fact, contrary to what you have comparatively claimed, Jesus clearly said to EGW that: “in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. . . . My Spirit and My power shall be with you.” {UL 160.5}

I am seriously beginning to worry that you have ascribed to some sort of EGW cult where she is greater than the Bible writers?!

EGW said, though early in her experience, that she did not consider herself a prophet, but rather a messenger. (UL 160) Where exactly do you read that ‘EGW said of herself that she was “much more than a prophet”??



Never read that claim... you tell me (i.e., specific quote)!



Such “Verbal Inspiration” vs. Thought inspiration (except in direct revelations and vision e.g., “I was shown...”) statements, is not a Biblical teaching. You really need to read Alden Thompson’s book. As well as Hebert Douglass: Messenger of the Lord. They both deal with this pivotal issue.)

Also “vindicate” is the improper Theological expression here. As I stated Christ did this “vindication of God/His Law. EGW merely reminded people of the Biblical teachings in regards to its binding claim for Christians, indeed all in the light of Christ’s magnification, glorification and “vindication”.



Since EGW is, relatively speaking, copiously, provedly not infallible, nor inerrant, her words are only “eternal” as they harmonize with the ever brightening light of God word.

Also many of the prophetic understanding given to and by EGW had a literal, present truth application for her day/era and mostly only have a spiritual/symbolic application in our day. Many examples can be cited here and these are the fodder of those who oppose and reject her writings and inspiration. Only Biblically understanding this prophetic fact can avoid such a wholesale dismissal pitfall. Conversely, obliviously/stubbornly ignoring them does nothing positive to the cause of Biblical truth.



Incomplete understanding, which repeatedly occurs in the Bible, is not a contradiction. That is the same for such cases in the 70 years of SOP Theological, Doctrinal, Prophetic and Counselling evolution.



Completely Unbiblical and easily disproven by how EGW produced her works.



He certainly did. However she still had to do much reading and research in producing her works. Interestingly enough, as shown in this post, much, if not most of what EGW seems to extra-biblically stated can be ascertained through proper and indepth Biblical Exegesis. So God mostly used the SOP as a fast track to help early SDA arrive at these truths and understandings.

I'm guilty of what you say NJK, I'm working off a creed ( if it could be called that ) & my creed says what has happened to the "remnant church"? Evolution being taught within our schools, "Formation" classes being offered & nearly every Landmark that made the Advent faith what it is has been erased.

Irrelevantly spin anything that challenges my view??? I'm not sure I get that, I thought I met the questions you asked me head-on. Perhaps I missed something?

The Sam Snow issue I've already come full circle on - I feel Mr. Snow was a prophet while you don't. I don't have any "proof" he was a prophet that's just what I said ( along with me saying I shouldn't have mentioned anything about Mr Snow ). Aside from that what do you want me to say?



You did say that the SOP is "not INFALLABLE/INERRANT in many ways"". In what cases was the SOP in error? That's why I posted the quotes I did that showed how our doctrines were established.

A bunch of people came together to sort out Doctrines and several people each have a different interpretation of the Bible with all appearing to be valid. The power of God swells inside of Sister White until she is forces to determine truth from error and THAT is how our Doctrines were established. I believe 100% of that with everything she said.

SOP = God's holy Spirit speaking through Ellen and while a sock puppet might seem crude to you and others the fact remains that the cloth is not the thing that makes mistakes in a sock puppet show - it's the hand inside of the sock puppet and I'm not prepared to say God made a mess of His sock puppet.

Do you think Jesus made any "mistakes" in his teaching? The exact same keeping power that filled Christ is what enabled Sister White to define truth from error and anything Sister White wrote was for our edification - the information itself was directly from the throne of God.



Is the above speaking about people who believe everything the SOP says or is it talking about people who think in some things the SOP didn't have the full light?



If the following was your point;



After October 1844 past God shew Sister White in December of 1844 that the people who always rejected the True Midnight Cry and Shut door ( along with the Adventist who had given up the message for good ) were LOST.

Ellen's husband James describes what had happened to Ellen and how she almost lost her salvation over this issue.



October 22, 1844 Ellen along with everyone else was waiting for Jesus to come. By December 1844 Ellen. along with the believers in Portland Maine had given up the midnight cry and shut door. It's was God shewing Sister White the grave error she had fallen into by "giving up the shut door".

William Miller said the following on November 18,1844





Now, here is Sister White herself speaking of this time frame and her part in it.



Sister White was afraid to tell Joseph Turner that God had confirmed everyone who had never accepted as well as everyone who had initially accepted then rejected ( and continued to reject ) the shut door was lost PERIOD. She thought Turner was of the same mind set SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN prior to God shewing her in holy vision. It turned out that Joe still believed everyone was lost who rejected the Midnight cry.

Again, here is the SOP in 1848.



So, the vision you mentioned in November 1846 IS THE SAME TRUTH reflected in RH 1850 - the door was SHUT, the third angels message was already delivered and the little flock was only WAITING for the Lord. Is this what you were asking me about or did I not understand your question?



Look, the whole point of the Sanctuary message was that Michael was sent to try to vidicate God's holy Law. I've already provided you with the SOP on this in several ways and if the SOP says Michael came to attempt to vindicate God's holy Law and then also says that she was also sent to vidicate God's holy Law what seriously do you think that means other then what I said it did?

Sister White was very clear and took great pains to make sure everyone understood that Michael could have FAILED, he could have sinned and could have fallen and had he fallen the wrath of God would have been exercised against Michael. The end result IF that would have happened would be that God's holy Law would NOT have been vindicated - this has everything to do with the Sanctuary and God's "Personality".



6th paragraph, 3rd sentence NJK.



Have you ever tried to copy and paste something from the Archives? The software does the best it can but there will be many spelling errors. My apologies for that.

If that isn't enough I can produce literal VOLUMES of documents from the Pioneers which say that is exactly what the whole body of Adventism believed and I can link them directly with SOP. Like I said I'm shocked the church has sunk to the level it has compared to where it "was"! Why do you think Sister White was so concerned with how we were to accept the Personality of God? Do you believe she intended another belief then what was promulgated over and over again?



Do you accept the quote as a valid quote? I will let you verify it and then perhaps we could start a new thread in the proper area and discuss what the Pioneers as well as Ellen White understood the "Personality" of God to mean and why it meant everything to SDA's as a people - we could discuss in what way this affects ones understanding of the Atonement and the Sanctuary as we read the Pioneers statements which were indeed confirmed by our Prophet.



Paul was NOT a prophet. List a prophet who "established doctrines" then rebuked people for falling away from them.



We certainly don't see eye to eye on that at all. God revealed through Sister White secrets NO ONE had ever imagined.



Familiar with that one which is why Ellen was MUCH MORE then just a Prophet.



I wouldn't go so far as to say that of myself but am happy to share the truth with you that Sister White's writings ARE Scripture in the same context that the Old and New Testament is Scripture. Most who fail to realize how the Canon was forumlated are in terror when they hear that however once one understands what Scripture is ( and isn't ) the reality is that Ellen White was a Biblical writer as much as Paul was.



Right here and in MANY other places.






Here ya go.



Sister White more than anyone said over and over again that Michael came to try and vindicate God's holy Law - that's exactly why he came.

Last year I put together a neat packet of information and went out to do some witnessing at local churches on Sunday ( always best to catch people on their way in ). I identified myself as Seventh-day Adventist and with a smile distributed these packets to dozens of people as they walked into their Church. At least three of the pastors of those churches actually came out ( someone gave them my material ) and spoke kindly with me, invited me to their Church service and Bible study group and didn't say anything negative about my material.

I give the packets out a few SDA Churches and before Sabbath School even starts I'm getting freaked out on! Even the priests at the Catholic churches I witnessed to were actually kind to me and didn't crumple up the documents I paid for out of my own pocket.

I'm not the only one that has notices some terrible things going on within our "main body" - people are getting more and more embarassed about Sister White and specicially about the Personality of God.

The cover of my packet in bold said Christ could have fallen and lost his Salvation!

Anyway people can make fun of me all they want but I will go down swinging!

cephalopod, though my time is limited, I will reply to your comments as thoroughly as possible, though I’ll get right to the point.



By “creed”, which SDAs speak against, I meant a set of previously formed belief that does not even allow the Bible itself to challenge or correct it.



I think that was is academically thought in SDA College, though in certain areas wrong, does not actually become the teaching of the Church. As far as I know, Evolution is being taught only in LaSierra (if it actually still is, following the GC 2010 resolutions affirming Theistic Creation). I’ve heard of “Formation” but I’m not familiar with it. I do not think however that it has become a general teaching/belief of the Church. Overgeneralizing here won’t help. These teachings are indeed evil, but they are not official Church teachings.



Perhaps “peripherally or tangentially” spinning would be more specific here, for, as also done in these replies, you do not always address the pointed issues at hand, but take off into other ones that are only remotely related.



You are fully entitled to believe what you want about Samuel Snow. For me to accept someone as a prophet of God, I first need to see the many Biblical validations of this Spiritual Gifts as well as the clear substantive fulfillments for an “Eschatological Elijah” claim.



Did you read the Alden Thompson reference I gave earlier?? Several examples are cited there. I also have many others of not necessarily “errors” but ‘incomplete understanding statements’. As time as been prolonged since EGW days, some of the things she said, like postponed OT, literal Israel prophecies, have shifted to a spiritual and less literal fulfillment.

Also, try this one, EGW believed that God knew the Future perfectly, as God allowed her and her peers to believe so, however her “fall of man” vision in EW 149-153 (1882) (cf. written in ExV54 46ff (1854) & 1SP 44ff (1870)), however in the vision great hesitancy, “perplexity”, “trouble/doubt” and “pleading” are said to have transpired between God the Father and Jesus when the plan of redemption was to be accepted. Also this plan seemed to have been drawn up only after Adam had sinned. (See in this blog post for more). Many other examples, especially from eschatological applications of the Bible’s prophecies can be also cited. The reason for this is that those were not “present truths” for the EGW generation of SDA’s but became so after time had to be prolonged due to their failure in finishing the work.



Not all SDA Doctrines, just certain ones. And this only occurred in cases where there was an “impasse” in properly understanding what the Bible was really teaching. As I said before, this was only done to fast track the study of these teaching for a group of young adults who had no formal Biblical education if any advanced education at all.



You obviously want to believe in verbal inspiration. I once again recommend that you study out the topic, particularly as it is established with Bible prophets. The prophet was always free to relate what God had revealed or impressed to them in their own words. And as in the case of EGW she at times had to study up on a topic to best present the general thought/idea she had recieved.



I do not think that Jesus made mistakes in his teaching, but as with EGW, Matt 10:23 shows that an incomplete understanding at that point led him to have an expressed expectation that would not be fulfilled. I.e., when Jesus started his ministry, he fully believed that all would be restored with that generation of Jews. Through my Biblical Theological understanding of God and the Future, I also believe that God the Father allow him to believe so as this was indeed a possible development. However the opposite, i.e., Christ’s rejection by the Jews, was the planned probability. (I believe that Jesus came to fully understand that that generation of Jews would not pass this test around the time of the transfiguration (cf. Matt 16:21ff). As the statement in Matt 16:28 may have been an inaccurate/incomplete understanding of what was to take place in the transfiguration, if that was announced in advance to Him. It may also have been God’s way of providing an applicable fulfillement of what Jesus had expressed some 6 days before in Matt 16:28.

My belief in Jesus Christ, His teachings and Divinity does not rise and fall with such clear episode because I also “healthily” understand that Jesus, as an incarnate man was most prominent a prophet and also how the prophetic gift Biblically works, including in Jesus Earthly Life. And like the proper understanding of God and the Future, I have no doubt in all of what Jesus has said and prophesied because He and God have the All Mighty Power to make them happen just as they were said.



The specific fact of the matter is that “eternal truth” and “full light” are two separate things. An eternal truth can find a fulfillment in a different form that what was first expressed. E.g., When OT prophets spoke about the Glorious future of Israel, they meant ethnic Jews living in Palestine. However that was not the full truth as it later came to include only certain ethnic Jews and believing Gentiles who also accepted the Messiah. The “eternal truth” was that God would have a glorious Israel in the future, the “full light” (i.e., hidden truth) was that this would also include Gentiles from all over the world. God first needed to lay a solid foundation with Ethnic Israel.



Again getting back to the specific issue in the November of 1846 vision on the Seal of God. How could the Millerites/Early Adventist be preaching the truth on the Third Angel’s message when they did not believe in the 7th Day Sabbath until late 1846. Once they accepted that teaching, God then showed then how it applied in the Third Angel’s message and as Loughborough says, from that time on they began preaching that truth.

They may have believed that the third Angel message applied just after 1844, as cursorily and logically as 3 follows 2, but that also clearly was merely for it “patience of the saints” statement (Rev 14:12) and not for its Sabbath|Seal of God truth. They would understand this until the November 1846 vision.



It seems clear to me that the “shut door” view focusing on the “Midnight Cry” event did result in lost people straightly because they had refused to, in faith, advance in further light. They therefore “locked themselves out.” As with the foolish virgins, they no longer received light from God’s spirit by having chosen to remain outside of his advancing light.



I am not sure where you are getting this letter but I found a similar letter to Hasting dated March 24-30, 1849 which is recorded in 5MR 94.1-2 apparently in full, but does not contain much of what you have stated and emphasized here. And as stated there it spoke of the Shut Door view given in the March 24, 1849 vision which is recorded in EW 42-45. Clearly their this view that the Shut Door was in reference to the doors between the apartments in the sanctuary and not the “wedding hall door in the parable of the 10 virgin and the Midnight Cry. So it is in that sense that I see that this Shut Door view was distinct than their previous view/understanding and also revealed directly/first by God to EGW. So a vision here, as with the above Sabbath Light in the 3rd Angel’s Message, also served to established a key new teaching amongst these Early SDA.



Again your effort to link these various revelations lacks verified evidence as well as factual content. The Midnight Cry Shut Door, the Sabbath & Seal of God Message and the Sanctuary Doors Shut Door are three distinct teachings and not linked as you claim here.



I saw it from a more law-giving aspect where Jesus established the Spiritual meaning of God’s law through his binding teachings.



Obviously you also see a soteriological implication to this. How then does EGW fit in this. If she failed does that also affect our salvation since she, according to your understanding, was to vindicate God’s law??





Guess what I still have not seen it...

This is what RH October 8, 1903 paragraph 6 “Go Forward” article actually says:





Is the above a direct quote because I am also coming up blank on earches of some key phrases here?



What is the exact Program/Software, Physical Location (e.g., Andrews Estates, GC Estate, etc), and/or Website of this archive you are using. Either it contains many elsewhere unreleased documents or it is partially, if not completely bogus (not you, but those who have put it up). (That may explain the many spelling errors because copying and pasting does not result in the transposition or replacement of letters, but merely completely omitted ones.)



What primarily matters most to me is what the Bible actually teaches, so producing a volume of quote from SDA Pioneers would not be authoritative to me, nor also (primarily) SOP quotes, [especially from your archive source].

It also seems clear to me that you are not taking into consideration that Jesus Christ/Michael was always part of the Godhead. So bodily references to “God” may all be specifically referring solely to Him. As John 4:24 says, the Father may only be spirit dwelling in unapproachable light. So the Son served to bodily represent the Godhead and execute functions that necessitate this bodily form. Have you considered that Biblical fact?



This topic may also be a teaching that EGW did not fully understand, thus never expressed it as so in her writings. So her “Personality of God expression are likely solely in reference to God the Son. No slighting at all of God the Father is done in this distinction.



Frankly that borders on outright heresy! (The things you say and do to “safeguard” EGW at any costs, as if she needs or even demands this, are becoming to me mindbogglingly legendary). As the Bible states (e.g., Num 12:6) from the time that Jesus appeared to Paul and began to show him what he must do and teach in his name, Paul most fully became a prophet. Paul relates many prophetic visions (Acts 9:12; 16:9, 10; 18:9; 22:17, 18; 23:11; cf. 27:23, 24) and direct Divine (teachings) revelation (Gal 1:12; 2:2; Eph 3:3). The great, seemingly bodily vision, recorded in 2 Cor 12:1-4 may have been so glorious (probably just like EGW visions where she was taken to Heaven) that many, including EGW (see AA 469.1) believe that he chose to self-effacingly refer to himself in the third person (vss 5, 6). Indeed it was because of all of these prophetic revelations that he says he was given a thorn in the flesh (Cf. 2 Cor 12:7ff). So if anyone was a prophet in the Bible and NT is surely was Paul. In fact His overall work which established the NT Gentile Church which still exists today in over 2.1 Billion adherents, greatly surpasses the accomplishment resulting from the work of EGW, as of today. All this to say, not that it really matters actually, that I consider Paul to not only be Much more than a prophet as EGW but also a greater prophet as all that EGW taught is for the most part first stated in his writings.



Uhhh.... easy (when you want to see it): Paul (e.g., Gal 3:1-5ff).



I’ll like to see these “secrets” so do state them!




That is because like Moses, Elijah, Paul, John the Baptist, she also had other tasks to do which went beyond just receiving and relating vision of God. (E.g., Pioneering reformatory work amongst the Remnant Believers. So EGW was certainly not unique in this Biblical multi-faceted leadership office.





You previous statements and methodology in regards to the SOP clearly speak otherwise. EGW most explicitly never placed her writings on the same level as the ones in the Bible. She easily could have, but for some reason that she clearly understood she strongly cautioned against this. In her own words she is the Lesser Light while the Bible is the Greater Light. Both are indeed “Light (from God)” but as she clearly says, not either ‘one and the same’ nor on the same level. Her writings indeed point us back to the Bible to establish all our teachings and understandings.





Again this does not mean a “Super Prophet” or “Biblically Superior Prophet” as you seem to emphasize, but, as EGW straightly says here, merely a person who has more task to do than just received and relate divine revelation as it was also the case with many others in the Bible.



Granted that the phrase “vindicate that which God vindicates” appears in that statement and that it is indeed said elsewhere in the SOP that Jesus vindicated God’s Law. However it seems to me that you are using a mere surface word association to express a whole different and much deeper Spiritual understanding. It seems to me that EGW did not mean that she would also do what Jesus did when He authoritatively and soteriologically vindicated God’s Law but merely that she would uphold what God/Jesus had already/previously upheld. With your far-reaching understanding, anyone who similarly upholds God law through e.g., sermons, teachings, writings would also be doing a “vindication” on the same level as Jesus, while all that they, and EGW would be doing is restating/relating this prior vindication of Jesus. So I personally see that you are reading too much into what seems to be a mere word choice commonness and which does not have such a Theological Implication. The study of the SOP also requires exegesis controlled by the teachings of the Bible.

So in conclusion, I think our difference here stems from the unbiblical position you are religiously giving to the writings of EGW. Something that she strongly spoke against. I clearly am more “faithful” to her writings than you in this fundamentally crucial regards.

I know I am not trying to make fun of you but just chidingly encouraging you to be more factual and exegetically accurate in your claims and statements. As you can see in this blog post on David Gates, that is a most irking spiritual pet peeve of mind, particularly with SDAs who should know and do much better. So the key is to improve where that is factually necessary and not pridefully be stubbornly dismissive of all reproof and criticism. There will be no “going down” if you follow these (cf. Pro 16:18)