Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

[Pythons]

Hi Gregory,

I didn’t bring those things up in an attempt to misrepresent what SDA’s believe ( or better said some SDA’s )…
…I brought them up because those statements align with the multiple statements made about the possibility of Christ’s failure & eternal extinction.
…This whole post is about claiming that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

You indicated that Ellen White “grew” in her understanding about the Trinity & that’s a fair observation…
…My point about this is simply that a real prophet doesn’t need theological training and understanding.
…To make a prophecy about something - it’s God doing the talking via the prophet.

Now, if at the same time Ellen claimed she was a prophet AND made what you consider yourself to be false teachings about the Trinity…
…What does that say about Ellen’s claim to not just a prophet but much more.
…In your view is the claim valid?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

I’m hoping you will look these quotes over and compare them with what I’ve been saying since we started the discussion…
…I don’t feel like I’ve misrepresented Ellen at all - nor do I believe that the average SDA would dispute the meaning I’ve given these quotes.
…I’m thinking the only thing going on here is that this information is withheld from the newbies & given to the more advanced levels of membership.

There was a time when it might be said that certain specific information was withheld from members. So, there is an element of truth in your comment here.

That time has long passed. This is both an Internet age and a time when historians, both traditional Adventists, those who are not and non-SDA historians are looking at all aspects of our denominational history and beliefs.

Further, new converts to the SDA Church are often given little information as to our historical background. In addition, new converts often have a limited exposure to her writings. Yes, they may know something about Steps to Christ, or The Desir of Ages. I will add an additional comment: Sometimes our new converts and given a limited exposure to our doctrinal beliefs. When we do this, we may fact potential consequences of doing so. The question that is foundational to this issue is: How much should be required of someone in order to become a member? Some Advents trend to the “more” side and others to the “less” side.

In any case, we live in an age where the denomination cannot control what is published. SDA members, theologians and critics are publishing large numbers of books and other materials on whatever subjects interest them. We are challenged from within ands well as from without. Any interested person/member can learn much if they want to obtain and read the material.

Let me list just a few, in an attempt to illustrate what I am saying:

Reinder Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes Toward Roman Catholicism: 1844 - 1965. Andrews University Press, 1994, 374 pages

Denis Fortin & Jerrry Moon, Editors, *The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, *. Review & Herald, 2013, 1465 pages.

Malcom Bull l& Keith Lockhart. Seeking A Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream, 2nd Edition. Indiana University Press, 2007, 498 pages.

One is a non-SDA author.

George R. Knight. Angry Saints: The frightening possibility of being Adventist without being Christian . Review & Herald, 1989, 158 Pages. NOTE: This book may also have the title: Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith.

I could continue a long list, but I will stop here. I would like to added a very recent book by Oxford University, but I can’t find my copy and therefore can not give you all of the information. Here is the information on that book:

Ellen Harmon White, American Prophet

Edited by Terrie Dopp Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers

Oxford University Press, USA

400 pages | 31 illus. | 235x156mm

978-0-19-937386-4 | Paperback | 29 May 2014

Also available as: Hardback | eBook

NOTE:Some of the authors/editors of the above book are either not SDA or not traditional SDA…

These books and much more are available but probably not read by many of our members.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

My point about this is simply that a real prophet doesn’t need theological training and understanding.
…To make a prophecy about something - it’s God doing the talking via the prophet.

Now, if at the same time Ellen claimed she was a prophet AND made what you consider yourself to be false teachings about the Trinity…
…What does that say about Ellen’s claim to not just a prophet but much more.
…In your view is the claim valid?

The foundational difference between you and I on this point lies in the understanding of what her role involved and what the role of a prophet actually is… If I had your understanding, I would be required to come to the same conclusion that you have come to.

Officially the SDA Church, and I, differ from you in our understanding as to her role and function, which I have attempted to explain.

 

[Pythons]

Gregory:

The foundational difference between you and I on this point lies in the understanding of what her role involved and what the role of a prophet actually is… If I had your understanding, I would be required to come to the same conclusion that you have come to.

Officially the SDA Church, and I, differ from you in our understanding as to her role and function, which I have attempted to explain.

I don’t understand? Could you point us to an example of a Prophet in the Bible…
…That exhibited the rubrics Ellen White did - that would probably go a long way to explaining.
…What you mean by “Prophet”.

I was under the assumption that SDA’s viewed Ellen White as a “prophet”…
…As in the common understanding one familiar with the Bible would have.
…You’re saying THIS isn’t necessarily the case?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Now we are beginning to communicate and understand each other!
Part 1

The common perception in the world at large of a prophet, is that of one who tells people what is gong to happen in the future. Jean Dixon, is a well known example of some years back–forgive me for my age.

This was NOT the role that Ellen White filled. I am not saying that she never did this. I can find examples where she did such and you know her writings well enough that you probably can find the same. When people came to her and asked about the future she turned them away.

So, what about the examples that I mentioned in which did do that? John H. Kellogg is one example. As you may know he eventually went off the wall into what has been described as Pantheism. Scholars today have some debate as to the extent that he actually went into pantheism. But, for our purposes, let us say that he went into that major error. Ellen White sent him warnings as to his future. In working with the leadership of our developing denomination she did advise and warn denominational leaders in regard to changes that they needed to make in their lives.

Yes, she had something to say about events associated with the 2nd Advent.
So, you can find exceptions to my general statement. But, my statement holds, I will suggest. Ellen White did not fill the role in predicting the future that is commonly ascribed to “prophets” today.

In the area of religious activities, prophets are commonly thought to consist of canonical people who wrote the books included in the Bible. Their writings are believed to be authoritative for Christians. (I am not getting into the differences among Protestants.)

Ellen White did not fill that role. Her writings are not canonical. Her writings are not an addition to the canon of the Bible. Her writings are not equal to the Bible. The Bible is the standard by which her writing are to be judged.

Yes, SDAs believe that it has a role to play in proclaiming God’s Biblical message to the world in the times in which we live today. That belief does not deny that God is using other people and denominations today. Ellen White was a special gift to us as a developing denomination that God used to give us administrative guidance as to how we developed as a denomination. The majority of her ministry to us was in that direction. When she said that God wanted us to build a hospital in Loma Linda, we did. In the areas of clinical health care, education, and publishing, we would not be what we are today if it were not for her ministry. A foundational meaning of the word “prophet,” from the Biblical sense is of one who speaks forth God’s message. In this role, which I have called administrative, Ellen White fulfilled the role of a prophet. She spoke forth God’s message to us.

O.K. Let us look more are her role in doctrine. My understanding of the Catholic faith is that it has teachings. These may be subject to change. E.G. when the Pope allowed certain married priests from another group to become Roman Catholic priests, while married and the Eastern Rite Catholics who have some married priests. As I understand it, the RC Church has teachings that are generally held, but not required to be accepted for membership. As a hospital chaplain, I used to read Saint Anthoney’s Messenger. It usually had an “Ask A Priest” section. On occasion that priest would tell someone that a specific teaching was generally accepted, but not required in order to remain a good Catholic.

In the SDA Church, we have a similar situation. We actually have very few beliefs that are considered to be so foundational that they are required for membership. Even those in their application may allow considerable individual choice as to how to apply. One example of this is our thinking on the Sabbath. That is a foundational belief. It is, generally, required for membership. But, it is the individuals choice as to the details. While that doctrine has had some boundaries in the past, in the present those boundaries have some times been loosened. E.G. Individuals define what is included in necessary work needed to be done on the Sabbath.

NOTE: Our doctrine of the Sabbath is a positive one and NOT a negative one against Sunday. In my more than 38 years as a Federal chaplain, I have preached and conducted worship service more times on Sunday morning than I have on Saturday morning. This have been with the official support of the SDA Church on the highest levels–the General Conference.

My position is that our historic foundational beliefs were developed in a series of five Sabbath Conferences (which included a Sabbath day.). Those doctrinal positions were determined by Bible study by those participating and not by any revelation from Ellen White. You may differ, but I will say that you are wrong and do not understand the historical background.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Part 2:

Yes, we do have teachings that were derived substantially from EGW, and may not be derived from the Bible. Many SDAs, in the U.S. are vegetarian. I do not claim that it can be proved from the Bible. In fact, I say that it cannot be so proved. I eat one of the forms of a vegetarian diet. A good SDA pastor friend of mine, who is well known in SDA Circles is not a vegetarian. Recently when we ate together, he ordered some lamb.

As a matter of fact, from the official position of the SDA Church, one can be a Seventh-day Adventist and not accept Ellen White as prophet. In honesty, probably many SDAs do not know that. We ask people to accept the idea that there is a Biblical listing of gifts (I Corinthians 12.). But, we officially do not require them to accept Ellen White as filling that role.

Here is a statement from EGW, that you are probably aware of:

Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ.

My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people. 1 SM page 36

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

I don’t understand? Could you point us to an example of a Prophet in the Bible…
…That exhibited the rubrics Ellen White did - that would probably go a long way to explaining.
…What you mean by “Prophet”.

No. We do not compare Ellen White to a Biblical Prophet.

 

[Pythons]

Gregory:

No. We do not compare Ellen White to a Biblical Prophet.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that!
…I’ve spoken to my fair share of SDA’s ( was a regular at CF )
…Is this the official denominations view - or is it your independent view as a member of the denomination?

Gregory:

So, what about the examples that I mentioned in which did do that? John H. Kellogg is one example. As you may know he eventually went off the wall into what has been described as Pantheism. Scholars today have some debate as to the extent that he actually went into pantheism. But, for our purposes, let us say that he went into that major error. Ellen White sent him warnings as to his future. In working with the leadership of our developing denomination she did advise and warn denominational leaders in regard to changes that they needed to make in their lives

I spent a lot of time compiling information about J.H. Kellogg…
…He founded the “Race Betterment Foundation” which eventually became Planned Parenthood.
…He also was the primary SDA Apologist the denomination used to repudiate the Trinity Doctrine.

Kellogg later on became to believe in the Trinity - he was ousted from the denomination because of that…
…He wasn’t a Pantheist - that much is certain.
…I’ve read “Living Temple”.

Again, this delves into the SDA Doctrine of “The Personality of God”…
…Which affirmed that God the Father, Michael & Lucifer the archangels.
…Had bodies of “flesh” with rectums, noses ( “all the parts and organs of a perfect man” ).

I’ve got a metric ton of information on this pulled directly from the SDA Church archives…
…So Kellogg probably wouldn’t be the best example to use to aid in demonstration of your point.

Yes, I’m aware of Ellen’s quote: “My work includes much more than this name signifies”…
…This statement sounds eerily similar to:

Luke 7,26
But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Compared with:

Ellen White
“God has set me as a reprover of His people; and just so surely as He has laid upon me the heavy burden, He will make those to whom this message is given responsible for the manner in which they treat it. God will not be trifled with, and those who despise His work will receive according to their deeds.” (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 679)

In other-words if you despise Ellen White’s teachings you have despised God…
…That’s what I’m getting out of this.
…Do you have a different interpretation?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

From: Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, 1988, Page 227.

The Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible. The writings of Ellen White are not a substitute for Scripture. They cannot be placed on the same level. The Holy Scriptures stand alone, the unique standard by which her and all other writings must be judged and to which they must be subject.

1. The Bible the supreme standard. Seventh-day Adventists fully support the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, the Bible as its own interpreter and the Bible alone as the basis of all doctrines. The founders of the church developed fundamental beliefs through study of the Bible; they did not receive these doctrines through the visions of Ellen White. Her major role during the development of their doctrines was to guide in the understanding of the Bible and to confirm conclusions reached through Bible study.21

Ellen White herself believed and taught that the Bible was the ultimate norm for the church. In her first book, published in 1851, she said, "I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged."22 She never changed this view. Many years later she wrote, "In His Word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience."23 In l909, during her last address to a general session of the church, she opened the Bible, held it up before the congregation, and said, "‘Brethren and sisters, I commend to you this Book.’"24

In response to believers who considered her writings an addition to the Bible, she wrote, saying, "‘I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. . . . .You are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made God’s word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies, calling your attention to the words of inspiration which you had neglected to obey, and urging you to fashion your lives in accordance with its pure and elevated teachings.’"25

NOTE:

1. We have a more recent 28 Fundamental Beliefs published, but I could not locate it on the Internet, so, I quoted from the older version.
2. The above is an official explaination of our Official belief. It is not that actual belief statement which consists of 73 words. The entire explaination goes for 13 pages.
3. The actual statement of belief underwent minor revision last month. I do not have that wording.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

I spent a lot of time compiling information about J.H. Kellogg…
…He founded the “Race Betterment Foundation” which eventually became Planned Parenthood.
…He also was the primary SDA Apologist the denomination used to repudiate the Trinity Doctrine.

Kellogg later on became to believe in the Trinity - he was ousted from the denomination because of that…
…He wasn’t a Pantheist - that much is certain.
…I’ve read “Living Temple”.

1. Modern historians debate the extent to which J. H. Kellogg went into Pantheism, as I said. I will not argue that point with you.
2. I clearly do not consider J.H. Kellogg to be the primary apologist against the Trinity. I would consider others, such as U. Smith, to be such.
3. If you would say that there were complex factors involved in Kellogg leaving the denomination, I would agree. Those factors were more than just the issues involved with The Living Temple. However, I would disagree with your characterization of his changing view of the Trinity as a factor.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Ellen White
“God has set me as a reprover of His people; and just so surely as He has laid upon me the heavy burden, He will make those to whom this message is given responsible for the manner in which they treat it. God will not be trifled with, and those who despise His work will receive according to their deeds.” (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 679)

In other-words if you despise Ellen White’s teachings you have despised God…
…That’s what I’m getting out of this.
…Do you have a different interpretation?

You are taking her statement out of context. There is a very clear context. That context is not related to her teachings. It is related to the times when she reproved people As I have said earlier, in our developmental days she took denominational leadership to task, and others at times.

Also note that EGW reproved people with no special revelation from God. Just because she reproved a person that does not mean that she had a claimed revelation to back it up.

She said and wrote a lot with no claim of a specific revelation as the foundation for what she said.

As you well know, Ellen White used the works of other authors, often not SDA, in her writings. Some of what she said was not original to her. But, you know that.

 

[Pythons]

1. Modern historians debate the extent to which J. H. Kellogg went into Pantheism, as I said. I will not argue that point with you.

And there is good reason to debate it - Kellogg went on to accept the Trinity Doctrine…
…It was at that point he ran into trouble with the denomination - he challenged “the personality of God Doctrine”.
…And that was a HUGE no no within the SDA body at that time.

I will provide some material on that & Kellogg for you hopefully this coming weekend. …
…I’m thinking you will be shocked & blown away about the whole “God the Father has a rectum” thing.
…Most SDA’s I show this to have been.

Gregory:

1. I clearly do not consider J.H. Kellogg to be the primary apologist against the Trinity. I would consider others, such as U. Smith, to be such.

My money is on Kellogg - he was the big gun they called out in their papers to repudiate the doctrine…
…AND of course the doctrine of “the Personality of God” which they claimed Trinitarians couldn’t accept.

Gregory:

1. If you would say that there were complex factors involved in Kellogg leaving the denomination, I would agree. Those factors were more than just the issues involved with The Living Temple. However, I would disagree with your characterization of his changing view of the Trinity as a factor.

They didn’t appear to be complex, at least to me. Dr. Kellogg, after years of writing against the Trinity doctrine…
…Came to accept the teaching - as a natural consequence of that he had to give up on “the personality of God” doctrine.
…He would have affirmed only Christ, since the Incarnation had a body of flesh.
…And that God the Father never did have a rectum or other organs - this was Kellogg’s crime.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons, I have no desire to change your mind on that. Whether J. H. Kellogg was a Pantheist or not is not a part of SDA doctrine. His understanding of the Trinity is a subject for qualified historians, of which I assume that neither you nor I are, to discuss.

As to surprising me with material on the subject, you are sounding to me like you have been reading the 2008 work of T. M. Hill from England. But, I could be wrong.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, I have no desire to change your mind on that. Whether J. H. Kellogg was a Pantheist or not is not a part of SDA doctrine. His understanding of the Trinity is a subject for qualified historians, of which I assume that neither you nor I are, to discuss.

As to surprising me with material on the subject, you are sounding to me like you have been reading the 2008 work of T. M. Hill from England. But, I could be wrong.

I’m not a historian, the work I’ve done to determine what was meant by terms unfamiliar to me within SDAism…
…Had me doing word & phrase searches on your archives - Spent a couple years doing that.
…I’ve read some of his website yes ( I had to google search the name before it pulled up his name associated with the site ).

Yes, I’ve read some of “THE PROPHET STILL SPEAKS” website…
…I had already figured out “Personality of God” doctrine long before however.
…I didn’t know he talked about the POG doctrine - does he???

Granted, that website does maintain that Ellen Was not a Trinitarian…
…But after spending the time I have in the archive site the SDA Church maintains.
…I can hardly blame the guy for saying what he does - it’s obvious.

One wouldn’t expect to find Catholic Literature ( papers ) where week after week the Editors of the paper…
…Repudiated The Real Presence, Sacrament of Confession, etc.
…One wouldn’t expect to see that, right?

I’m saying that one can indeed find repeated anti-Trinitarian & Father Flesh God statements in the SDA Archives…
…All the way through the time hack of Ellen White’s life & past it.
…That’s all I’m saying.

That & the things Ellen White has said that folks attribute to her defending the Trinity…
…Are nothing more than her saying what the anti-Trinitarians said in slightly different ways.
…That’s all I’m saying.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons, there is much that you say that I agree with. And you also make comments with which I disagree.

Seventh-day Adventists officially believe that in our humanity our Biblical/doctrinal understandings are limited. Therefore revelation is progressive as God continues to lead us both individually and as a corporate body. But, while it may be progressive, it is always founded upon what has been given in the past in the life and work of the incarnate Christ and upon what is contained in the Bible.

From the above perspective, I would agree that in the 100 years that have passed since the death of Ellen White the SDA church has a better understanding of the Trinity than it did in 1915. I would never say that Ellen White, in 1915, had a complete and total understanding of the Trinity. What I would say is that she had moved in her understanding of the Trinity from earlier views to a Trinitarian position.

I am here in this forum from the perspective of providing answers to questions as to what the SDA Church officially teaches. That is a complex issue. as I have stated before, the SDA denomination has what others might call a considerable spectrum of belief. On much of what I say, you can find people who would disagree and hold a different view. On some of the issues that you bring up, there is really no official belief. Our members differ and no one really cares.

As to whether or not J. H. Kellogg was a pantheist, the scholars debate that today and it is not considered important as to whether or not one is a members. I have strong disagreement with you as to what I understand to be your position as to why J. H. Kellogg was removed from membership in the denomination. But, so what? SDA membership is not determined by what one believes on that point.

In discussion on these issues, you and I are indebted to the historical records. But, you and I may disagree was to their meaning. In the discussion of whether or not J. H. Kellogg was a pantheist, we would both refer to The Living Temple. which he wrote. I could quote that classic passage from that book, which you well know, that lies at the basis of the thinking that he was a pantheist. Yet, we both know that there are reasons why scholars today debate the idea that he was a pantheist. I personally take very seriously those arguments. I have not made a final conclusion on that point. I think that there may (?) be a middle position as to what he actually was.

Where I would most differ with you is to what you say is the reason why he was kicked out of the denomination. That question is very complex. In my thinking, your position reflects a major lack of understanding as to a number of issues that were involved in this. In view of my respect for what you do know, I am more than a little surprised at this. But, I also suspect that this may not be the only areas in which you do not fully understand.

In any case, I am not here to debate you on issues of this nature. You may be correct, sometimes. My purpose, as I have said, to attempt to inform as to what the SDA denomination officially teaches. That includes informing as to the diversity that exists among our members.

From that perspective, I welcome comments and questions.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons, perhaps some of our discussion has resulted from not considering a basic difference between the Catholic Church and the SDA Church.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand the Catholic Faith: When the Pope speaks he may speak Ex cathedra. But, ore often than not, he does not speak Ex-Cathedra. Regardless, whenever he speaks, he may be considered an authoritative voice of the Catholic church.

This differs from that of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The highest official in the SDA Church is the General Conference President. Certainly when he speaks, what he says should be considered. What he says indicates the direction that he may wish to go. We currently have a GC President who is quite willing to attempt to give direction to the SDA Church and reflects the conservative branch of our denomination.

But, in SDA policy, the GC President is not considered to be able to define SDA doctrine and Theology. He does not determine what is the official position of the denomination. SDA doctrine and Theology is only officially defined by a vote of the General Conference, I Session, which now occurs only every five (5) years.

That definition allows for only a very narrow statement of official SDA Belief. That statement could be confined to a short statement of some 28 beliefs, each about one paragraph long with a few slightly longer. Even that is confusing as that statement should not be considered to be the a statement of beliefs required for baptism and membership. Baptismal/membership requirements could be shortened to 13, or even less.

In working with people and from a practical standpoint, I define our official beliefs to include statements that have come from certain committiees and/or certain other publications. But, I am quick to say that such are not requirements of belief. Everything else I will simply say reflect the person beliefs of the person and they may or may not be widely held.

Is this helpful in understanding the SDA denomination and in understanding why our conversation has taken some of the turns that I has taken?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

I will suggest that there is another issue that has affected our discussion:

Ellen White was born in November of 1827. By the time the Millerite Movement was in swing in 1843, depending on the date you select, Ellen White was only a teen of 16 years. Her husband, James White was about seven (7) years older than her. Uriah
Smith, who was born in 1832, was younger than either of them. Yes, Joseph Bates was older than all that I have mentioned. He was born in 1792.

But, the fact remains that the SDA Church, which was formally organized as a denomination, in 1863, was largely begun by young people. The majority of those early people were not highly educated. Ellen White, herself, had a 3rd grade education. Uriah Smith had a High School education.

The point that I am making is: The early leaders of what became the SDA Church were young and often somewhat unschooled. It would be wrong to expect from them the level of sophistication that a denomination would have that claimed its birth more than 1800 years earlier. Further, it would be wrong to expect that those early leaders used theological terms in the same precise meanings that we use them today. This is why there is debate over whether or not Kellogg was pantheistic. Not because he was uneducated, but due to the people who believed him to be pantheistic. This is why there is debate today over whether certain early leaders were Arian or Semi-Arian. Regardless of whether you say X as Arian, or Semi-Arian, both would be wrong. My point is that we really need to look closely at those early people to see how they were using some words and what those words meant to them. We cannot just assume that they meant the same to them as we might ascribe the them today.

By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary is a historical dictionary, It may be able to tell you the meaning of a word in 1600 1850, or whatever. This may be of help in understanding word meanings by society at specific times.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, perhaps some of our discussion has resulted from not considering a basic difference between the Catholic Church and the SDA Church.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand the Catholic Faith: When the Pope speaks he may speak Ex cathedra. But, ore often than not, he does not speak Ex-Cathedra. Regardless, whenever he speaks, he may be considered an authoritative voice of the Catholic church.

There is no question when the Pope speaks “from the Chair” on Matters of Faith & Morals…
…Perhaps you are on to something here - what is said or how does a SDA know.
…When Ellen White is speaking Ex Cathedra?

Gregory:

This differs from that of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The highest official in the SDA Church is the General Conference President. Certainly when he speaks, what he says should be considered. What he says indicates the direction that he may wish to go. We currently have a GC President who is quite willing to attempt to give direction to the SDA Church and reflects the conservative branch of our denomination.

All Protestant systems work that way - they each, essentially, have their own “Pope”.

Gregory:

But, in SDA policy, the GC President is not considered to be able to define SDA doctrine and Theology. He does not determine what is the official position of the denomination. SDA doctrine and Theology is only officially defined by a vote of the General Conference, I Session, which now occurs only every five (5) years.

What about the quote from Ellen that I shared with you earlier?
…She clearly said the power of God would come into her.
…& SHE was clearly able to determine truth from error.
…This was said in the context of “what was to be believed / taught” as doctrine.

Was there a conference President or General Conference 1 Session at the time Ellen said that?

Gregory:

That definition allows for only a very narrow statement of official SDA Belief. That statement could be confined to a short statement of some 28 beliefs, each about one paragraph long with a few slightly longer. Even that is confusing as that statement should not be considered to be the a statement of beliefs required for baptism and membership. Baptismal/membership requirements could be shortened to 13, or even less.

In working with people and from a practical standpoint, I define our official beliefs to include statements that have come from certain committiees and/or certain other publications. But, I am quick to say that such are not requirements of belief. Everything else I will simply say reflect the person beliefs of the person and they may or may not be widely held.

Is this helpful in understanding the SDA denomination and in understanding why our conversation has taken some of the turns that I has taken?

This makes it difficult to work with - so far you’ve dropped a couple bombs on me…
…SDA’s don’t consider Ellen White to be a Prophet by the common understanding of Prophet?
…This would be like trying to nail jello on the wall - I don’t understand.
…I have a video of a high up SDA guy claiming Ellen was a Biblical type of prophet?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

There is no question when the Pope speaks “from the Chair” on Matters of Faith & Morals…
…Perhaps you are on to something here - what is said or how does a SDA know.
…When Ellen White is speaking Ex Cathedra?

A valid question. My response would be:

1. Anything that EGW said is to be judged by the Bible.
2. Each person is individually responsible directly to God.
3. Each person should judge what EGW said by their understanding of what the Bible teaches and as led by the Holy Spirit.
4. If there is a conflict, the person must accept what they believe to be Biblical until led otherwise…

This is based upon a general understanding of John 16:8 ff in which a) The HS is primarily responsible for ones spiritual development. b) The HS will develop an individualized plan of spiritual development that is best fitted for each individual. c) That plan of spiritual development may not follow the same order of steps for each person.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

This makes it difficult to work with - so far you’ve dropped a couple bombs on me…
…SDA’s don’t consider Ellen White to be a Prophet by the common understanding of Prophet?
…This would be like trying to nail jello on the wall - I don’t understand.
…I have a video of a high up SDA guy claiming Ellen was a Biblical type of prophet?

Exactly. I understand what you are saying. I agree with it.

It probably also is one reason why some have said that the SDA denomination of today is divided into five different groups as far as belief and life style is concerned.

I will give you an example that is a real one and it is current:

1. Evangelist X, whom you would recognize in a minute, is currently recognized by the SDA Church. He has both a televised and a congregational ministry.
2. He comes from a conservative block within the denomination.
3. He has been invited by a local congregation to travel to another state and to speak to the congregation.

4)The local ruling body of the SDA Church in that area has written to the congregation and asked them to withdraw the invitation to speak due to the fact that they consider this
person to be divisive at the present time.

NOTE: This has been well publicized on the Internet.

1. Under standard rules of behavior in a situation like this, the clergy person involved would immediately decline the invitation. In fact, under standard rules of behavior, it would never have reached this point as that clergyperson would have coordinated with the governing church body and would never have accepted the invitation.
2. Since this issue has reached this point and become very public, I can not tell you how it will be resolved.

This type of stuff is confusing for both the public at large and for our members.

I could give you other examples. In this day and age, they become quite public. Sometimes our denominational leaders do not understand this well. They do not understand that what they say may be made public, to include being twisted. They find themselves in situations where they look foolish.

Pythons, as you probably are aware of by now, I often do not give you the easy answers that you wish I could give you. I am simply attempting to tell it to you like it is, whatever it is. Frankly, the denomination does not control what I say. At the same time, any denominational official reading this would know that I am working very hard to be fair, honest and open in regard to your questions.