This is one of those areas where we have hood winked ourselves and become narrow gauged by eschatological obsession.

The gift of prophecy, if valuable, is applicable at all times, for all people. (‘SOP’ is a euphemism for the writings of one identity, rather than, the Spirit that leads us into the future, or an orientation toward the future, or some other natural meaning.)

If one looks at the role of OT prophets, they were the leaders of the time who had an informed view of present reality, knew the character of God and His way of dealing with people, and served as God’s messengers. Although they are often cast as doom-ists, their task was foresight laden, spelling out the natural consequence of wicked and short sighted living. They called for a return to covenant, they saw hope where others saw despair.

They were analysts who broke down problems while able to see the whole, historians who applied past experience and futurists able to see the future latent in the present. Random voyeurism played little part in their repertoire.

The gift of prophecy is evident in the profoundness of many thought leaders. Maybe ‘Foresight’ would be a more useful descriptor, although I don’t expect to see the title ‘Prophet’ foremost in anybodies CV soon.

When the Ellen White endorsed an idea, it became the Word of God. If one were to read the entire collection one would have to deny any divine source. The contradictions are too numerous and to off the wall. Of course, come counsel was common sense but one has to pick and choose. Most were self serving and few were original.

In her last years, the large part were Willy White, the tattle tale, and then came Arthur White, the Inforcer. When rational peoople moved forward on rational proposals ratonal results were obtained. Frankly she had more failurres than successes. The biggest error was the exclusiveness of her brand of Christianity. Christ gave us an open shop and she closed it down into a cultic form.

By Christ alone, By Scripture alone, By Faith alone. By uncommon Common Sense alome. Tom

Thank God for the successes. Tom

The debate goes on... and no doubt it always will
BUT we need resolution.
What is clear to the rational, the researchers and the thinkers is that the Prophet, and the Enforcer often got it wrong. As we have ever since.
When will the organised church be big enough, strong enough, and true enough to admit that?
On that day we will drop our cultic tag, and join the community of Grace, as a fully fledged member. Over to you, Jan.

E.G.W. best works were superb Reader's Digest versions of the prior works of others. Her original thoughts were heavily rewritten by superb dedicted rewrite specialists. There are major gaps in Great Controversy on the early formation of the Church She essentially begins with the Waldenses after most of Christian theology had been formed.

I read E.G.W. not to find fault, not to find error, but to get a few of the pearls she was able to pull out of the heavy tomes of others. Belts or suspenders are my choice not hers or even God's. On modesty, gluttony, study, and sobriety we have a consensus. Tom Oh yes, we agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and Coming King.

Prophet not in a million years.

It is sad when the context of the authors text is hijacked by the EGW bashers for the umpteenth time because Loren brings up good points.

Just how common is prophecy? What generalizations are we going to see this topic through?

Victor says, "If one looks at the role of OT prophets, they were the leaders of the time who had an informed view of present reality, knew the character of God and His way of dealing with people, and served as God’s messengers."

Which OT prophets are we talking about?
Nathan? Elijah or those in 2 Peter 2.
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

This is a large part of the question raised. Are the general horoscope type public statements prophecy's or are they a vehicle to give stature to the proclaimer? God told me this, the holy spirit told me that? Who can argue with that? Is that their point? You dont speak to God like I do so you cant say anything?

Isnt that why the bible spent time on identifying true prophets and why historically people have been reluctant to call anyone a prophet?

Are whoever writes the lastest global warming book prophets to the liberal environmentalists? They quote them like scripture often times irreguardless of the authors expertise or personal bents.

I predict the American Colonies will declare Independence from Britain on July 4, 1776.

Happy July 4, 2008 fellow Americans! Sorry ‘bout that Britain. ;~)

“May” God bless America and your Country also… fellow bloggers.

pat

We, as a church, believe in the "gift of prophecy". For me that means the continuation of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the body of believers. Jesus' promise was the he would not leave us orphans but would abide with us to the end. The early church looked for and expected guidance from the Spirit.

When the spirit came upon the prophets of old, they spoke out against the conditions that led people away from a covenant relationship with God. Change your minds and hearts and return to God was their message. And their message was relevant and timely for their day. Some of their messages were timeless and had continued relevance and were preserved as treasured writings.

Some today fail to see that it was the Spirit continued guidance that led out in the development of the Christian church's creeds. As the church fathers wrestled with the concept of the deity of Christ and how to best express it, the Holy Spirit was present to give inspiration. The choice and selection of which books to retain in the cannon was also evidence of the Holy Spirit's activity in the church.

We call ourselves a prophetic people. And so we are. Just as the prophets of old were called to speak to God's people and their leaders, so our church was called to speak to the Christian church. We had a message to give that involved understanding the nature of inspiration, understanding the nature of man and understanding the character and nature of God's government.

By focusing on the limited predictive nature of prophecy we missed our calling. Prophets are God's spoke persons. They are not, as someone has said, sent to enable us to read tomorrow's newspaper today.

Donna

Bueatiful spin. Keep it up.
Tom

"It seems to me being prophetic should have some action to it: something you’re willing to stand for, to sacrifice for, and in that respect taking the time and effort to wash cups rather than to simply throw them away qualifies"

Sigh. One of the biggest problems with many Christians is they spend far too much time emoting, and no where near enough time thinking. The decision to use earthenware v. disposable cups is an occassion for accurate calculation, not emotion.

To use an earthenware cup, it must be bought. It's creation involved the movement and manipulation of material - all of which expended energy and emitted CO2 and other pollutants. It must be washed, which involves its collection, the movement of water, the heating of water, the use of detergents, and the disposal of waste water. All of which expends time, energy, and emits CO2 and other pollutants. If someone gets sick from it, due to hygienic issues, the treatment of that one illness may exceed in expense and energy and pollutants all the other issues above.

A similar calculation is involved with disposable cups.

Deciding which is the more damaging to the environment is a difficult calculation and is best addressed by science - it is not a matter for prophecy, and treating it as such is irrational.

/Bevin

A Prophet is one who conveys a message, by inference from a diety to man. The inference is that the message orginiated directly from the diety without passing through prior sources unless so explicitly stated. John the Revelator quotes his sources, both Christ and at times angels.

E.G. White either states or infers that her messages were straght from God or an Angel without mention of any intermediator, writer, or commentatory. To infer one and ignore the other has absolutely nothing to do with copywrite understandings of her day. Today, politic society calls that "spinning". The Old Testament calls that bearing false witness. Tom P.S. Even the Readers Digest gives primary source.

Donna,
So, what is the message "our church is to give the Christian church" with regard to 1) the nature of inspiration; 2) the nature of man; 3) the nature of God's government? It seems to me that the first message "our church" gave to Christian churches was 1) that they are apostate and without the special gift of prophesy (nature of inspiration being Ellen White); 2) that man can become perfect and without sin if he's to survive the second coming of Christ; 3) that God's government is made up exclusively perfect, sinless people. Now compare that with the Gospel message of Christ and it's obvious we have a problem.

Sirje

An impossible task! An so unnecessary. Tom

Adventists are not alone in the misuse of prophecy. Many Charismatic churches think they have prophets and prophetic messages. Often times however it is simply wishful thinking, what they believe is therefore a message from God. The ultimate in self fulling prophecies.

The Spirit of Prophecy is the Holy Spirit, God speaking through humans whether the human knows it or not, it is not a so called prophet and Adventism has to stop misusing the term Spirit of Prophecy. For more see the article:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/05/misuse-of-term-spirit-of-prophecy.ht...

No musing

The Bible is clear:
The Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. Period

Donna,

I, for one, don't believe you are spinning at all. God does not waste time raising up churches if He didn't feel they had something to contribute to the rest of His body of churches.

Hence,
"We had a message to give that involved understanding the nature of inspiration, understanding the nature of man and understanding the character and nature of God's government." is what I believe too. And I do agree with sirje (hey, this is a pattern!) that our church has failed in fufilling its potential to be an added asset to christiandom's theology. My personal hope is that we contribute a Great Controversy Theology of Atonement- which entails how the substitutionary sacrifice on the cross solves the problem of sin for all those who are in heaven as well as on earth. It encompasses the dominant Substitutionary Theory of Atonement and goes beyond it on sound scriptural basis.

As for the prophetic component: It addresses in a wholistic system the redemption of creation (which resonates with enviromentalists), the inclusive redemption of ALL God's children (not just the human race, but angels and unfallen beings), the universal government constitution- which is God's Law of Love, and resolves the tension between law and gospel. Like all models, it can never exhaust the cross but I believe our prophetic voice can make a needed and unique contribution in a wholistic systematic theories of atonement alongside our less unique but mutual support of righting social/enviromental injustices.

Well, that's my prophetic hope. And yes, it would be all based on scripture. As EGW demanded every doctrine to be.

The Spirit of Prophecy IS the presence of Jesus in the church. He said he would never leave or forsake his people, but would be there to guide them into all truth. There was much he wanted to say during his earthly sojourn, but his disciples were not ready to hear. He inferred that in future generations, just as in the past, God's self revelation would be on going.

This concept, that the Bible is not univocal, that it is a progressive unfolding of truth, is a very difficult concept for many to grasp, almost more so than the idea that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. Abraham, coming from an idolatrous family, slowly grew in his understanding of God. Moses, who in the company of 70 elders, ate and drank with God was not the last word. The ecstatic utterances and frenzied dancing of the early prophets gave way to the more reasoned and literary work of later prophets.

The early church branched off into many variants, each with their own brand of truth, and the Holy Spirit, like a mother hen, struggled to keep each little chick of doctrine together under its wings. While the creeds finally defined orthodoxy the Spirit wept and the letter of the law became more important than the spirit and bodies were burned to save souls.

Every generation has experience the prophetic presence of the Spirit. Our own church was blessed in a special way with a firsthand visual aid of the prophetic gift. As much value there is in what Ellen White had to say, the demonstration of how she said it and the way in which she formed her writing is inestimable. She gave us a window on the way in which the prophets of old functioned. Had we not been so fearful of examining the methods in which she exercised her gift, we would have been in a better position to welcome the vast amount of current scholarship that has exploded in the past fifty years in the area of biblical studies.

To camp around Sinai was the temptation of the Israelite people and it wasn't until all the warriors had died off that they finally crossed over into the promise land. Today we have camped around thinking and formulations of our spiritual forbearers in the SDA faith long enough. We need to prophecy again and listen to what the Spirit is saying to the church today.

Victor Yes indeed--But how do you get from there to Ellen G. White? There in lies the problem. Certainly not through Dan 8:14. Or any part of Oct. 22, 1844. Are there Christians among the confused. Absolutely. Tom Period!

Arlyn, any three people can incorporate a church, publish a set of beliefs, and raise tax exempt funds. Did God raise up Waco Texas, Or Liberty, Virginia? Or PTL? and on and on?

Arlyn if you have a message, the United States of American gives you opportunity to tell it. If it is from God, it will not contradict itself.

A lot of well meaning people have raised up churches based upon error not revelation. Their salvation is not based upon their being theologically correct as long as Jesus Christ is their Lord and their Redeemer. They might even think two meals a day is a direct message from God. Or that a pin is o.k. but a necklace is sin. Or buying lunch on Saturday is sin. Or there will be a final generation of perfect little Jesus Christ's huddled in the woods awaiting the return of Jesus.
Tom.

Donna, your rendition of what happened at the Jordan before going into the Promised Land, isn't what the Bible says. Because the Jews that refused to be WARRIORS, they caused the Israelites to go back into the wilderness to die:

Numbers 32:5 If we have found favor in your eyes," they said, "let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan."
6 Moses said to the Gadites and Reubenites, "Shall your countrymen go to war while you sit here? 7 Why do you discourage the Israelites from going over into the land the LORD has given them? 8 This is what your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to look over the land. 9 After they went up to the Valley of Eshcol and viewed the land, they discouraged the Israelites from entering the land the LORD had given them. 10 The LORD's anger was aroused that day and he swore this oath: 11 'Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of the men twenty years old or more who came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob- 12 not one except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they followed the LORD wholeheartedly.' 13 The LORD's anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the desert forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone.

EGW is devotional at best. To claim her predictions were accurate is simply untrue. There are many sites on the internet that point out these errors. However, Desire of Ages is a wonderful devotional book.

Tom

I thought that 'period' or 'full stop' in the kings english should be sufficient. Whatever epithet is applied to the 'Red Books' one cannot append a biblical reference 2000 years on.
The short answer to your question: You don't.

As for being confused? Most of us make no imperial profession of clarity. At one level the gospel is incredibly simple, that is why those with child like faith inherit the kingdom. The speculative remainder we explore at our personal risk or pleasure, whichever the case may be.

On my 7th Birthday my Dad gave me Patriarchs and Prophets to read and lovingly told me I could have another, once I read it. I didn't dare finish! Some of us never got into the fetish, and were never obliged to be as angry as the eager beavers.

"Some today fail to see that it was the Spirit continued guidance that led out in the development of the Christian church's creeds. As the church fathers wrestled with the concept of the deity of Christ and how to best express it, the Holy Spirit was present to give inspiration. The choice and selection of which books to retain in the cannon was also evidence of the Holy Spirit's activity in the church."

That is an interesting and speculative belief. Whether the Holy Spirit was involved is based on faith.

Historically, the concept of the deity of Christ and the church creeds were not static (does the Holy Spirit change positions?). Constantine intermittently accepted Athanasius' positions several times during the argumentative phase before final adoption of these finally agreed upon creeds. It is always the more powerful of any group, churches are no exception, who makes the final decisions; and such was the cases in church decisions. Attributing all these to the Holy Spirit would allow anything to have been adopted, and then give the HS the credit.

It was humans who both wrote the NT canon, gave final approval for the selection of writings, as well as the church decisions. Because Adventists choose to agree with some of them while excluding others also indicates that there was human involvement and decisions made within the SDA church as well.

Give credit where credit is due and not a miraculous entity.

Victor

No Scripture is of any private interpretation, nor is any Scripture proprietary in its application. SDA's protest, the RCC use of "Thou art Peter, upon this Rock I will build my church".

Rev 19: 10 is generic pure and simple. To make it walk on all fours doesn't prove E.G.White is a latter day saint or prophet. So who is angry? Certainly not I. I simply disregard proprietary use of key text Scriptures.

If Ellen White fits your framework of a prophet, be my guest.
She doesn't fit mine, although, I too have all the the Conflict of the Ages Series and read them regularly--not for loop holes but for context. Just as I read the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, including E.G.White's abstracts.

She offers an interesting point of view of Methodism and a unique, albeit a proprietary eschatology. There is no need for anger, except when some exuberant soul starts assigned heaven or hell to someone or some subset--That is God's domain alone! Tom

Ellen White is a good read and at times very instructive--her writings have been used both for good and for ill. Most recently for ill.

By the way, if you have kept apace with recent threads in this web-site the preponderance of the discussion is contrary to the counsel of Ellen G. White. One would almost assume a "White Out". Tom

Tom

I fully understand that many in Adventism make proprietory use of SOP to mean EGW. I meerly point out that I recognise this as a misnomer, and prefer not to affirm misuse of the shorthand.

I am not among the 'White out' brigade. You suggest that she offers a Readers Digest approach, for many this is useful. In the world of wild ideas, as among our founders, a touch of common sense is constructive.

Over my life time which is a good few less than yours admittedly, I have observed that those most fundamentalist about EGW end up the most disillusioned. I recall for example, a Union President in a Week of Prayer with a pack of quotation cards so thick, King to Joker in all four suites. Months later he had a spiritual breakdown and threw the baby out with the bath water. I have never based my belief on her writing, but have found uplift from time to time.

I believe that EGW had the prophetic gift, that she testified of Jesus. I also recognise prophetic gifting in the work of many other people and their writing, I recognise the testimony of Jesus in many other sources. (Not that I am an arbiter). I also recognise the founding place that this uneducated, vulnerable person had in Adventist faith.

Since I don't believe in the infallibility of this or any other source, I am happy to cut some slack and allow her and the Adventist Church the luxury of growth in understanding over the last 150 years. Even Dentists have learnt a thing or two over that period.

Where some of my doctrinaire friends are unreasonable is to adopt the position that everything that EGW said or wrote constitutes Prophetic quality. I do not go along with the EGW Trust penchant for assembling everything she said on a topic into a book. This may be useful for the lazy researcher, but it proliferates 'right hand/left hand of the message' brigade to go around thumping people with their prejudice.

It is also clear that much of what was written was a group effort sometimes dependant on other sources. Where I have voice, I encourage that this be acknowledged in the preface of such materials, without success to date.

I do read what she has to say on many issues, I also read what many other writers have to say, many of whom I find inspiring. Even if I owned every work attributed to EGW, it would represent less than 2% of my library.

This site probably does attract the 'White-lite' fraternity with heavy contributions from the anti's and the occassional kamikaze raid from 'chapter and verse' vigilantes. I enjoy encounter with them all and am relaxed, after all why else would we engage in dialogue.

Victor

Thank you for your extended explanation. I would agree in that the Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts the canon they have the SOP--but not exclusively as many would imply.

I think the bottom-line, is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the God Who Was Man, the One Who created us and redeemed us is the critical issue of salvation. To those who would add to that salvational act as well as to those who would substract from that salvational act--there is no light in them. Tom

Elaine,

You are absolutely right. Whether or not we perceive the Holy Spirit's involvement in the church is a matter of faith. Since most on this site do operate from that perspective, I was speaking to them.

In past times of national crises, prophetic voices arose to call people to warfare or repentance. Their messages were oral in most cases and later written down by their disciples. In some cases these messages continued to resonate with later generations who preserved the written records, altering the names and places to fit current needs.

The understanding of inspiration that I would suggest is that the Spirit inspired the prophets to speak, their disciples to write, successive generations to preserve, the scribes to record, redact and copy, later groups to translate and the community to value and find relevance, encouragement and hope from these messages. Inspiration works at each and every stage of this process, even with the reader or hearer of the Word.

The notion that God ceased speaking when the cannon closed is not one that our SDA church officially espouses. That being the case, we must acknowledge the activity of the Holy Spirit with God's people in all ages, leading, guiding, correcting and comforting. With this understanding, I see the Holy Spirit's hand in the formation of the creeds and the selection of the sacred cannon. Both activities imperfect and subject to the whim of political and ecclesiastical influences because, as you so eloquently point out from time to time, it was also a fully human enterprise!

The written Word, as the Word Incarnate, is fully human, fully divine for peoples of faith. When the written word is seen as totally a product from above and not the product of the skill, talent and wisdom of human writers the messages can be misused and misunderstood. The writers of the written word spoke in their time frames, within their cultural milieu and within their cosmological understandings.

The Scriptures are a fantastic collections of great literature and, for peoples of faith, Holy. I have difficulty agreeing with Loren Seibold that the prophetic voice is a relic of the past. In times of crises and need God's voice will still be hears. "Your sons and daughters will prophecy and your old men shall dream, dreams."

RDS,

I was sorely tempted upon reading your quote from Numbers to say, "you err, not knowing the scriptures." but rather than use Jesus' words, I stay with Paul Harvey.

The rest of the story is this. God took his people out of Egypt with his strong hand having every intent to deliver them to the Promised Land without their ever lifting a single weapon of warfare. His promise was to go ahead of them and drive out the inhabitants little by little so that they could enjoy a land flowing with milk and honey. Warfare, killing and bloodshed was not to be the modis operandi for his people.

In the wilderness of Paran, at Kadish, upon hearing that the land ahead contained giants, the Israelites grew fearful and wanted to return to Egypt. When their cowardice and lack of trust was called in to question, they changed their minds and quickly buckled on their armor, took up their weapons ready to fight as recorded in Numbers. They fought and were slaughtered. God then gave them 40 years to reconsider their actions.

THEN (40 years later) WHEN ALL THE WARRIORS HAD DIED OFF (Deut 2:16)they were ready to cross over.

Donna

Of course you are consistent with the over all plan of salvation. Christ said, He would send the Comforter and He did. The Holy Spirit works through the canon and through His servants, and to each heart. However, that is not the context of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They lay claim to a special proprietary hold on the revelations of the Holy Spirit to a special group of "Latter Day Saints" ie an end-time generation through E.G. White. To speak of the Spirit of Prophecy in the SDA vernacuar is to speak of the writings and sayings of E.G. White as the explicit Voice of God. That claim does not hold to any serious analysis at any level. That does not mean that she did not make some every useful observations in faith and in lifestyle. She is neither the rudder nor the keel of the Ark of Safety. Tom

Tom,

I said that the Spirit was present - I didn't say that the church always listened!

I personally believe that the Holy Spirit was active in Dallas in 1980. (and in Rome in 1960-65) The final wording of the Dallas statement was a careful compromise that almost all could accept and interpret at their will and avoided for the time being a real split in the church.

And it is to enlarge the concept of the spirit of prophecy that I strive. It has been narrowly used and understood. Failure move forward in 1919, 1970 and to educate SDA's at large on our "official" position regarding inspiration has been our shame.

Donna

I believe the Holy Spirit was active in Nero's Court also.
Too bad he didn't heed.

I agree that the enlarged view of the spirit of prophecy is correct not the proprietary statement found in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Note how SDA theologians avoid any approach to the third rail. They would rather debate Hitchens etc. Tom

Was the Holy Spirt inspiring the GC when they refused to grant women the same ministerial positions as men?

Wasn't that purely a decision based on the cultural mores of most of the world at that time?
Or, do most SDA members believe the Holy Spirit has always been working when such positions are adopted, as well as when positions are changed?
As George Knight so eloquently explains in his history of Adventism, none of the pioneers would agree with the 28 Fundamentals that the church now espouses.