Thomas, if you were to claim that your epistles are inspired would you expect anyone to believe you?

Mike

Even I would doubt such a claim..

Are you comparing a theoretical epistle written by me with the gospel of Luke or the apostolic letters of Paul?

Honestly, we would likely have much less argument about this if you would just take the passage Daryl quoted to start this last round in this thread at face value. To insist at the same time the (infalliable?) inspiration of Ellen and that she didnt know what she was writing in this quote is one of those mysteries you refered to in other threads.

TV: Are you comparing a theoretical epistle written by me with the gospel of Luke or the apostolic letters of Paul?

MM: Just because someone says their epistle is inspired does that make it so?

I find nothing wrong with this quote.

GC 595
But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,-- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support. {GC88 595.1}

It is good that we are in agreement on something.
The issue is that you seem to want to add to this, it appears you wish Ellen would here have written:

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible [and my books], and the Bible [and my books] only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms."

She did not write the additions in the brackets and that is my entire case in this thread.

Quote:

---

MM: Just because someone says their epistle is inspired does that make it so?

---

Just wondering, where are you going with this question? I never claimed inspiration for anyone outside of the authors of the bible cannon did I?

/Thomas

TV: She did not write the additions in the brackets and that is my entire case in this thread.

MM: True. But she did write that Jesus shared biblical truths with her that if rejected will result in the loss of salvation. Do you agree with her?

TV: I never claimed inspiration for anyone outside of the authors of the bible cannon did I?

MM: No. But my point is - just because Luke and Paul, according to the quotes you posted earlier, claim that their epistles are inspired doesn't make it so, does it?

Well, there are biblical truths that leads to loss of salvaiton if rejected, and no doubt they are found in Ellens books, so yes, I agree with that. If on the other hand you(she?) is saying that a person must read these things in her writings or lose salvation, then I do not agree with it. The point about biblical truth is that it is first and formost found in the bible, its primary source. Other authors share their thoughts on them and reading these sermons/teaching may often be helpfull, but never mandatory.

Maybe not by themselves. But we also have the unified witness of 2000 years of christendom in favour of their inspiration. It has seemed good to the Spirit and to the church to canonise these gospels/letters.

/Thomas

So, using this logic, when will it seem good to the church to canonize the SOP? Or, is the SOP no more inspired than you or me commenting on Bible truth?

Im aware of the limmits of the canonisation argument. But if the closeness of the authors to Jesus (NT) isnt convincing, its the secound best I could think of.

Individual SDAs (such as, I believe, yourself) have already canonised Ellens writings, the denomination less so since it still upholds the bible as "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.". If the church is to ever canonize them I dont know, though it doesnt look very likel at the moment.
Im still not comfortable with comparing any of the mentioned sources with myself, and Im neither sure about you. All teaching on these matters must be compared with the bible and only that which stands the test is to be keept. What is keept doesnt become equal with the bible in authority, it is just found to be good teaching that may be used to preach the gospel.
I would say the secound option if "you or me" was changed to for instance "J Wesley".
Why this difference? First that the comment should have passed the test of scripture, secound that while there is one Spirit behind all expressions of inspiration, not all are called to be teachers and a teacher would be more fit to teach than people gifted in other areas.

-Here defineing "church" as the body of all believers, the full extent and number only known in heaven.

/Thomas

Thomas, is there anything in the SOP that you believe is unbiblical? anything that leads you to believe she is less inspired than Peter, Paul, or John?