This is the test of whether she is a prophet. This is a pass/fail test. If she doesn't agree with Scripture, she is to be rejection, which rejection would include *all* of her work.



Both she and Scripture taught the same thing. Examiner closely the claim of being a prophet (or, in EGW's case, of being divinely inspired, since she didn't use the title "prophet" to describe her work), and come to a conclusion one way or another if the person is inspired. If the answer is yes, then the writings are accept; it not, they are rejected.

There is no such thing as a person being divinely inspired some of the time, like for this article, but not that one, or is (s)he says, "I was shown," but not is (s)he doesn't say the magic words.



Her claiming to write under inspiration from God is sufficient for the argument. I believe she wrote infallibility pertain to God alone. Yes, here's an example:





Here are some typical statements of hers:









You've seen what she claimed from what I quoted above.

Do you think inspiration worked differently for her than for the Bible writers? I think, if I recall correctly, you wrote previously that you don't see inspiration as working differently, but that she was more prone to errors because of living in a time and culture further removed from previously written Scripture than other Scripture authors were. Am I correctly representing your view here?



I accept her statements to be as inspired as Scripture. I have often made the point that all she says needs to be taken into account when discussing a subject. I'm sure you've read me saying that.

I think the thing to do is to try to understand the big picture, the "core" of the writer. That makes it less likely to incorrectly understand the writer's intent.

In relation to our present discussion, Ellen White makes certain statements in regards to God's character and how God works. This makes it often possible for me to anticipate what she'll say on a given subject before finding the quote. I know, based on things she's written elsewhere, if she speaks on the subject she'll say X; so it's just a question if she said anything about that particular subject.



Yes I have. I've also repeated it here.

Section 2 of 3SM has many chapters on inspiration, and Chapter 7 speaks directly to this subject.



That would be fine, if you wanted to open such a thread. By the way, I opened a thread based on a statement you wrote, regarding God loving some people more than others, if you wish to comment.



This was her understanding, as you can verify in the 3SM chapters.



This was not her understanding.



Which would be the same in regards to other inspired writers, correct?



I'm not going to have time to address everything. I'm responding to things as I have time. This is why I asked you for direction. If you'd prefer that I continue responding to 133009 before looking at these more recent posts, I'll be happy to do so.



The person in vision records what was seen in vision. The understanding of what that means develops over time, which can be seen in her writings. In Early Writings, she writes out visions, with "I was shown," etc. In later writings, she writes things based on the same vision, but using different words ("I was shown" is left out, for example). But it's still the same vision being described (although she may have had additional visions in the mean time).

The "Desire of Ages" is a good example of this. What she wrote on the life of Christ was developed from earlier writings from many different sources, including "Early Writings," "The Spirit of Prophecy," "Spiritual Gifts," magazine articles, and so forth. These were compiled together in the book, "The Desire of Ages," and sometimes changed or added to (in terms of working and explanations).

So if she writes she saw this occur, or that occur, it could be completely accurate, with her words appearing to convey a thought different to that expressed elsewhere. For example, if she wrote she say such and such destroyed, then that's what she saw, and this is accurate, but there's no way to tell what the mechanism was, in terms of God's having caused the thing to occur or having permitted it to occur. Also, we recall that God often presents Himself in Scripture as doing that which He permits. There's no reason to assume that He wouldn't similarly present Himself to Ellen White.

So how do we know what's going on? By looking at the big picture, but considering the principles involved. For example, when she writes:



this provides information as to how God runs His government, and gives clues as to what's happening.

I'll have to get the rest of this later.

This doesn't look to address my question, which is, "You think Christ works to save some, because of their actions, but others He leaves to be lost?"

I believe God is working to save all, without exception.



This doesn't seem responsive either.

Here's what I wrote in context:



When you wrote, "So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action," the implication is that Christ would not have been patient had He not had ample reason. Given Simon's hypocrisy, in actual fact, Christ had reason not to be patient. But Christ is patient, as such is His character.

I pointed out from the SOP that had Christ not been so tactful and gentle with Simon, Simon would have been lost. What I'm getting at is that your position seems to be had Simon uttered his thoughts out loud, then Simon would have been lost, because in this case Christ would not have been patient with him. I see no sense in this position, given the importance of a soul to Christ.



This doesn't look responsive either. My point was that mercy is not merited, that God is not merciful because we deserve it, but on the basis of His own character, which is merciful. It's true that God is merciful to whomever He choose to have mercy on, but God is not a respecter of persons, and He chooses to be merciful to anyone who sincerely desires mercy.

I'm reminded of the following:



If the reason why I'm reminded of this quote isn't clear, I'll explain why.



Which is anyone who doesn't refuse the drawing of God, as per the above quote.



No, Simon wasn't deserving of mercy. That's a contradiction in terms. Simon didn't even want mercy. He wasn't seeking it. He was just complaining in his heart against Christ. It was *Christ* who, by His love and the way He treated Simon, moved Simon to repent. Simon was in no way being deferential in his approach.



This explains the points I've been making. On the part of Christ, "compassion, tenderness, and mercy." On the part of Simon, a hard heart, lack of appreciation, coldness, etc. But he was moved to repentance by how Christ treated him.



"He" is Christ? Christ was to be rebuked?



There are three sentences after the emphatic no. Characterizing the above as "Just emphatically saying 'No'" is clearly off base.



If you wish texts to be considered, please cite what the texts way. Otherwise don't bother, as what's the point?



His friends deserted Him when He most needed them in Gethsemane. They wouldn't even stay awake to pray in His hour of greatest need.



What possible reason could you have for not citing the text of AA 601.2? Surely the "Bible works" excuse doesn't work here. I'm sure you don't have AA 601.2 memorized. You had to have had it front of you to know what it said. You looked for it, found it, and had it in front of you, but couldn't be bothered to copy/paste it?

How long did it take you to find this text? I'd guess at least a minute, probably several. Certainly a good portion of a minute, at least. How long would it take to copy/paste the text? 5 seconds?

It's really difficult to understand why you won't copy/paste these texts that are right in front of you.



Here's what I wrote:



You're disagreeing with this? Your point in the last few paragraphs is to demonstrate that what I wrote here is not the case?



I cited several examples of plain statements.



If you wish to have things considered, take the time to copy/paste them. And you should also explain why you think the text being referenced applies to the point you're making. Just quoting something like "AA 601.2" is pointless.



If you want someone to be aware of something, make that something clear by citing the text, as others do (all others, excepting you).



Paul was persecuting Christ. Christ saw someone who, if presented the Gospel, might respond to it, so He did so. Christ's behavior was not based on anything meritorious on Paul's part, as persecuting Christ does not constitute merit, but on the basis of His own gracious character.



That wouldn't have made Simon believe. It would have done the reverse, causing him not to believe. This is explained in the DA passage. It was because Christ did NOT speak explicitly, but in a way hidden to others, that Simon believed.



Simon did not warrant the discreet manner of the response, and even he was aware of that (see the DA passage). It was Christ's lovingkindness that led Christ to treat Simon as he did. It is entirely to Christ's credit, none belonging to Simon, that Christ treated him as he did.

And this is the case for all upon whom Christ extends mercy. It's always unwarranted, from the standpoint of the one receiving mercy. We deserve nothing but death. We don't deserve mercy. Not a one of us. Not Simon, not Saul, not anybody.



As I explained, I don't have unlimited time. I've asked for guidance on our part as to how I should prioritize my responses to you.

Tom: Though I can "debunkingly" respond your comments/arguments in both posts #133310 & #133319, I am seeing them as side issues for now. So, and also for the sake of my time, I'll forebear responding to them, at least for now and/or for quite a while. (Notwithstanding, succinctly said about EGW, there is substantive and inspired counsel to indeed test what she has written against the Bible. She of course did not aim to speak her own thoughts/opinions, but she did make, and even correct her own, mistakes. If what she had written only what the Holy Spirit was showing/telling her to write then that would not have happened. So she did base some views/comments on her various Biblical understanding at/up to that time.)*

I see that the “proof” of this discussion is in more directly pointedly pertinent issues than these. So do start by responding to the remaining part of #133009. (Same goes for Post #133185) I thought that my prior two bold reminders of this, actually clearly meant this!? Why don’t/won’t you bindingly see such statements that way??

*In regards to Paul, I Theologically see and believe that God “elects” the relatively best candidates, as He sees fit, especially in firstfruit circumstances. It was thus that Jesus chose 11, from a larger group of “disciples”.

Also, I personally don’t require that you answer my posts right away. You can take a month or how ever long you require. That would allow you to respond to everything I post (and same thing for me.) If you entirely won’t answer a specific post then indicate so. Then I’ll know when your responses have ended.

Also, again, clicking the pertinent reply links would be most helpful, at least to me. Why don’t/won’t you do this?? Absolutely no reference is being generated/indicated by your current ‘latest thread post’ practice.

Then why did you write, "I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive."

Notice you wrote, "who you say caused fire to blaze out ..." Why did you write this?



We discussed this at length in the past. I have no desire to repeat the conversation. I've explained why in detail as well.



It's better to have a passage explained, with some point, then to quote a whole bunch of passages with no point explained.



She said both. She said, "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." You disagree with this last part, and cited many passages to establish this point. I'm asking you to cite whichever one you think makes the point most clearly (or 2 or 3 if you wish is fine), and explain what that point is.



Why are you asking this question? When you ask questions like this, which look to be unrelated to our conversation, please explain why you're asking them.

Also, please answer the questions put to you which are related to our conversation.

We spoke of this in detail in the past.



Actually neither says, "It was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive."



There are principles which disagree with the interpretation you're giving to the event.



GC 35-37 is a "private interpretation"?



The mechanism is not important. The principles are. if by killing them, you mean God's taking a direct action to cause them to die as opposed to permitting them to die, according to the principles of GC 35-37, and elsewhere, that would be important.



This seems backwards to me. It seems to me I've been forthcoming, but you haven't. I've said exactly what I believe happens, and trying to find out what you believe.

What I believe is simple. Sentient beings have free will and use that free will to act contrary to God's will.



This is typical. I asked you a question, but rather than answer it, you ask me 6 more.

Here's my question to you:



Please address the question before asking me six new questions, and, on top of that, state that *I'm* not being forthcoming.



Who's responsible for the evil in the world? Jesus? Or evil beings?

The way you phrase things sounds as if you believe God is responsible. I'm trying to give you every opportunity to correct this impression.



But it is sin. That's stated right in the context, in the sentence immediately preceding the one you are quoting. And the one before that as well, and before that, and before that. The whole paragraph is making the point you are denying.

It's amazing that you would take a phrase from a sentence and have it say the opposite of the intent of the author, divorcing it from its context, and what she had been communicating through great repetition. She could not have stated more clearly that the wicked die due to their own actions, as opposed to actions on the part of God, then what she stated. Yet you still interpret her to be saying the opposite.

It's similar to when she writes that all that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of her son, and you state that NOT all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.



Their character is the problem, as she states.



What?! I wrote pages and pages on this. For you to state I haven't addressed this is ridiculous. Please comment on what I've written.

We discussed this over a period of many months. How could you possibly have forgotten this?

If you want to bring this up again, please start a topic. I'd discuss it again if you want.

Don't say I haven't explained this, though. That's not fair.

She still has a character.



Really? You don't know your wife well enough to know she wouldn't burn people alive? And this is because she's a sinner? You're serious here?



Why do you think this? Please quote something I've written.

It seems to me you're doing a poor job reading what I'm writing. This is why I'm asking you to quote something. I'm sure what you're saying is not what I wrote.



Why do you think you know this? That is, what did I write to cause you to think you know this?



I responded to this.



Really? You think if Jesus permits an evil being to do something evil, that's His will? So if a child is abused, or killed, it's because that was Jesus' will?

You don't see a problem with this?

To answer your question, what, pray tell, is Jesus' will are things which are in harmony with His character, things expressing the principles of agape, the sorts of things Jesus taught and said and did while here in the flesh.



It's His will they do no evil at all.



This is pretty circular reasoning. "The Lord slew Saul" obviously says specifically something, as does "The Lord sent fiery serpents upon the Isarelites," and the other obvious, specific, examples which do not mean what they obviously specifically say. So what you're suggesting is simply not the case.



You're missing the whole point. In Scripture there are instances where it obviously specifically says something, but the obvious specific thing does not mean what it obviously specifically says. Sometime Scripture explains the meaning elsewhere. Sometimes the SOP explains it.

Someone who understands the principles involved, does not need the explanation else, because the principles are understood. The explanations elsewhere simply serve to back up what was already understood.

So, for example, the statement about those who received not the love of the truth being left to their own wrong ideas from the SOP, I knew to be the case before finding the statement. I knew she either said what she said, or didn't comment on it, because God does not cause people to believe lies; that's not His character.

The fact that you're wanting to find passages that state what is obviously specifically stated to not be the case is exactly the approach I've been arguing against for years.

Your approach is:

1.If the Scripture obviously specifically says something, then that must be the case

UNLESS

2.Either the Scripture or the SOP says it isn't somewhere else.

I've argued that this isn't a viable methodology of interpretation, which I think should be, to coin a word, "obvious."

I believe a better methodology is to look for the principles involved, and apply those principles when interpreting passages. That you think a certain passage should be interpreted a certain way (God burned people alive) is predicated on your believing God is a certain way (God burns people alive), or that His principles are a certain way (God's principles involve burning people alive).

I'm arguing that God's principles are a different way (It is contrary to God's principles to burn people alive), and that God is a certain way (e.g., God is not cruel; God is like Jesus Christ). Therefore, regardless of whether a specific given passage ("The Lord sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites") has some other explanation specifically stated by Scripture or the SOP, we can still know that the thing specifically and obvious stated did not happen in a certain way (e.g., God did not cause poisonous serpents to bite the Israelites).

It's more difficult to work this way, as you can't see what's written on the page when you do this. That means you have to open a second browser, or copy/paste what you wrote and repost it with the "Reply." But I'll try to do what you're asking. (This is quite a lot more work than copying/paste a Scripture or SOP reference, by the way).

(Sorry, I forgot to use the "Reply." This is in reply to a statement in post #133276.)



Why do you think this? God is not stingy when it comes to blessings.

A couple of statements come to mind.





Certainly the atonement is more than a basic life necessity. God provides this blessing to all, although many spurn it.

What I'm taking issue with is your statement that, "In essence Jesus orchestrated the outcome." Your logic seems to be this:

1.God (or Jesus) did not permit X from happening.
2.Therefore He, in essence, orchestrated X.

The GC 35-37 statements make perfectly clear that God did not orchestrate X.

Also, just a little thought, should make it clear that to permit something to occur is not to orchestrate it. For example, a child is permitted to cross a street by its parent, and a bicyclist hits it. By your logic, the parent orchestrated this event.

Where do you get the idea that permitting an event to occur is, in essence, orchestrating it?

Also, the GC 35-37 statements, which I numbered, speak contrary to the orchestrating idea.

I also don't understand why you are phrasing the questions the way you are. For example:



Where in the GC 35-37 passage do you see any idea that the destruction happened because Jesus deemed it right and necessary? Really, how could she have communicated the reverse of these ideas any more clearly than she did?

Let me ask the question this way. What do you think her intent was in GC 35-37 in writing that these things happened because God withdrew His protection, as opposed to by means of a direct decree on His part?

I don’t understand what your “difficulty” is here. I don’t see how you can reply to a post e.g,. 4 days before, by clicking on the latest post’s Reply link and not have two different posts opened. You do have to get the text of the post you are replying to from its original location, and either by copying the posted or after having clicked on its pertinent “Quote” link. Perhaps your replying process is different.



Actually, factually, No. If I have a copious amount of Bible/SOP texts, e.g., 10+, as I normatively, corroboratingly endeavor to do in my posts, it is much more time consuming and involved to explicitly post each of them, than to only click on that pertinent “Reply” link! Just trying to relocate, page by page, which post you were reply from was in itself time consuming.