Thank you, OpenMind for your thoughtful reply. You have brought up some good points to discuss.
OpenMind wrote: I am not familiar with Ellen White's works. Since Jesus himself stated that there would be no more prophets after himself, then I find it hard to consider Ellen White as a prophet.
No Prophets After Jesus?
I looked for the quote you mentioned where Jesus said there would be no more prophets after Him. Help me if I haven’t found the verse(s) you were talking about, but here are two verses you might be thinking of:
Matthew11:12, 13
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Luke 16:16
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
The term, “The Law and the Prophets is what the Jews called the Bible, in other words, the “Law and the Prophets means the Old Testament books from Genesis to Malachi. The Law and the Prophets were God’s primary message from God up until John’s day. Jesus’ words taken at face value don’t necessarily mean that there would be no more prophets after John or Jesus. I don’t think Jesus said He would be the last prophet, because we have Revelation, which is explicitly prophetic, and also some prophetic texts in the epistles.
The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament Church
The New Testament clearly says that the gift of prophecy will be present in the Church. Paul encouraged Christians to respect and even seek the gift of prophecy. Paul believed that some Christians prophesy- he had seen church members prophesy, and he approved of prophecy as being among the most desirable of spiritual gifts.
Romans 12:6
We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.
1 Corinthians 14:1-4
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
1 Corinthians 14:24
But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
Ellen White A Prophet?
Ellen White is a controversial figure because Adventists believe she had the gift of prophecy. Whether or not you believe that, another question is, does a gift of prophecy, or the fact that a person prophesies, make them a prophet? I might bake a cupcake, but that doesn’t make me a baker. I think that whether a person is prophet or not has to do with whether they have a prophetic ministry. One who prophesies on occasion is not a necessarily a prophet.
Infallibility is not the test of a prophet. John the Baptist was a prophet, yet when John was arrested and thrown into prison by Herod, he started to doubt that Jesus was really the Messiah.
Luke 7:20
When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'"
John the Baptist wasn’t infallible, yet Jesus said John the Baptist was a prophet and even more than a prophet.
Matthew 11:9,10
Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written: "'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'
Ellen White had a full-time prophetic ministry, and wrote dozens of books. She is the most widely published female author. She is not infallible, so her writings are not equal to Scripture. But in my opinion they contain the best interpretations of Scripture available anywhere, because they are guided by the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe she serves in the best sense the function of the New Testament prophetic gift- to help us understand the Bible (“Help means we still need to study it for ourselves. Sister White criticized people who merely got all their Bible instruction from reading her writings and were too lazy to study the Scriptures for themselves). She also had some visions that were specific to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, guiding our leaders in directions to take in our mission. Although Sister White had a prophetic mission, she did not have an office or position of power in the church, and they did not always listen to her. Adventists did not elect a replacement for her, because making prophets or giving prophetic gifts is God’s prerogative, not ours.
If you would like to become acquainted with Ellen White’s writings, her best book without question is “The Desire of Ages. It’s the story of Jesus’ life and ministry. Try this website, and you can read and text-search anything she wrote without having to shell out money for books yourself:
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/ ... id=default
There are also a multitude of anti-Ellen White websites which can be had for a google. If you want to hear the other side of the story, try
www.ellen-white.com
OpenMind wrote: I am aware that much is written concerning the bible which is nothing more than theory and a postulation of ideas. It is enough that I am expected to believe the bible without being able to verify the facts. To use the bible itself to authorise a conjectured meaning usually ends up with a tangle of concepts that confuse the issue further.
The exegesis of Scripture is a very big subject. There is a lot to it. I have textbooks on it, but I’m not a minister, and I don’t often have the time or discipline to use every tool of exegetical analysis. Everyone arrives at their own view regarding Scripture in their own way. The reason that Bible study ends up in confusion is because we all approach Scripture with our own pre-conceived notions. I do. You do. (I’m one of the very few who will admit this to you, but everyone who doesn’t admit that is either a liar, or not very self-aware). When we begin with a faulty premise, we prejudice our view of the Scripture, and we aren’t even aware that we’re doing it, because the faulty premise is our paradigm.
The paradigm I advocate is simply one of reading it with the desire to know and to do God’s will. I get the sense, Openmind, that you take this same view.
John 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
One major misuse of Scripture is when the question is whether “A or “B. Lets say a dozen verses in various places in the Bible say “A, and one is ambiguously worded and may mean “A or “B. A person who desperately wants to believe “B constructs a whole theology around the “A/B verse as if it explicitly said “B with the thunders and lightnings of heaven to confirm “B, and they harp on and on endlessly about their pet verse and ignore all the others. I think our paradigm, or the major theme of our theology should be in harmony with the tenor of Scripture- what most verses clearly say. Then we go from the known to the unknown to interpret the ambiguous or “minority report ones in light of what is known. Most people who object to the Bible, saying it is full of contradictions, would be surprised if they were open minded enough to study it with discipline, that the book is remarkably consistent for having been written by so many people over so long a period of time.
But the Bible has two strikes against it in the opinions of many people. One, it describes miracles. A person who is “scientifically-minded and skeptical, and who has never experienced the supernatural will reject that, or attempt to reduce the miracle accounts to myths and fables. Two, the Bible delineates a system of morality, and describes which behaviors and lifestyles God approves of, and those which He does not. People whose personal morality doesn’t agree with the morality of the Bible, or who live in ways proscribed by the Bible, will either reject the Bible wholesale, or invent interpretations of it that agree with their preferences.
Even if you use all the proper tools, and you have no “scientific or moral attitudes that compromise your objectivity in understanding the Bible, you are really only halfway there. The Holy Spirit reveals to us the deep things of God, and makes Scripture understandable. He only reveals to us certain truths when we have reached the state of surrender where we are willing to obey whatever is revealed. It is because 1, we don’t use all the tools, 2, we start with faulty prejudices, and 3, we aren’t willing to obey what God reveals to us, that the Bible is not made clear to us. God is a very willing communicator. The communication breakdown is entirely our fault.
John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
OpenMind wrote: Matt.22:30, for instance, refers specifically to men and does imply that angels do not marry. But there is no qualification given here that angels are the sons of God.
You’re right. I’m not aware of any verse of Scripture that clearly calls angels “sons of God. A search with my Bible software shows only six times in the whole Bible that the expression “sons of God is used, and it’s always referring to men- specifically believers. That’s another reason why Genesis 6:2 probably refers to believers and not to angels. That’s one of the simplest study tools open to duffers like me with a computer. Do a search and see how a certain word or phrase is used throughout Scripture and it helps you understand what it means. I use QuickVerse versions 4 and 6. You're also right about using different translations. I sometimes look up the Greek or Hebrew word and see how it appears in other verses to see what it means.
OpenMind wrote: By all accounts and purposes, God created man from the dust of the ground. To be God's son, I would expect him to have been the product of His seed.
The genealogy in Luke that ends in Luke 3:38 calls Adam the son of God. But what you’re saying is spiritually true. Through faith in Jesus we become sons of God and heirs of the promise. It’s sonship through adoption.
Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus
John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
I think, and this is only my reasoning, not written in the Bible, but if God made Adam, and Adam came to believe in a Savior, and so Adam became a “son of God, It seems logical to me that angels, whom God made, though of different stuff, and who believe in God’s son and serve His purposes, may equally be entitled to be called “sons of God.
OpenMind wrote: Regarding Ex.4:22, if Israel is God's firstborn, where does that leave those that were lived before him.
Here’s my opinion: I think it’s all spiritual symbolism. In ancient Jewish tradition firstborn is the one who inherits all the best stuff from his father. God loves us all so much that He wants to give every one of us the best He has, so I believe He spiritually and symbolically calls all believers collectively His “firstborn. Israel is not merely Jacob, or Jesus. It is not merely a country in the Middle East. I believe that Spiritual Israel is the body of believers. We have a spiritual connection with Jesus, who really is God’s firstborn, because God views us as if we were Jesus, as if we lived the perfect life He lived. He is our righteousness, and died the death we deserve so we could gain the eternal life His perfect life deserves. The topic of “who is Israel is a very complicated and controversial issue in Christianity, that has profound theological, prophetic and political ramifications. Nobody has a view on it that can be proven conclusively by Scripture, and most people’s positions on it, including mine, take long-winded arguments that can’t change anyone’s mind who disagrees. There’s one of our pre-conceptions. One day we’ll all know for sure.
OpenMind wrote: Again, Deut.14:1 stands in direct conflict with the creation of Adam. This would appear to me to be a rhetorical statement, or, Israel was not a direct descendant of Adam. But, according to Genesis, Israel is a descendant of Adam. Therefoe, I must conclude that Deut.14:1 is rhetorical.
Deuteronomy 14:1,2
You are the children of the LORD your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, 2 for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.
Solidarity
I think I agree with you, Openmind. I think all statements about us being sons or children of God are symbolic and spiritual- though I’m not sure what you mean by “rhetorical. The son/daughter/children motif is part of Middle Eastern thinking. It’s very foreign to our western way of thinking, but I believe it’s a feature in the Bible. In the way the ancient Jews thought, a person was present in the life of their ancestor. For example, in ancient Hebrew thinking, when Adam did what he did, we were there and participated in a vicarious way. I’ve heard this principle called “solidarity, in other words, we have a spiritual solidarity to our ancestors. There are two New Testament arguments that come to mind that employ the principle of solidarity to illustrate gospel truth. One is found in Hebrews:
Hebrews 6:19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,
Heb 6:20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Heb 7:1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,
Heb 7:2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."
Heb 7:3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.
Heb 7:4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!
Heb 7:5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people--that is, their brothers--even though their brothers are descended from Abraham.
Heb 7:6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
Heb 7:7 And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.
Heb 7:8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living.
Heb 7:9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,
Heb 7:10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.
Heb 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
To understand this point the author of Hebrews is making, you have to go back to this short and enigmatic account of Abraham’s encounter with the Priest-King, Melchizedek
Gennesis 14:18
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,
Gen 14:19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.
Gen 14:20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
Here is the point the author of Hebrews is making: Melchizedek is either Jesus or a type (pre-runner or symbol) of Jesus. When Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe, and when Melchizedek blessed Abraham, Abraham was acknowledging Melchizedek as the representative of God, as one greater and closer to God than Abraham was. The priests collect a tenth from the people, v. 7:5 and the greater blesses the lesser, v. 7:7. He says that “Levi was in the body of his ancestor (Abraham) In 6:20, Hebrews tells us that Jesus has become a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. So the writer of Hebrews is using the concept of solidarity to explain why the eternal Melchizedek priesthood, of which Jesus is the High Priest, is superior to the Levitical priesthood, because Levi (in Abraham through solidarity) paid tithes to Jesus (as Melchizedek). The Hebrews, who first read this epistle understood this perfectly, because they believed in the concept of solidarity.
Another example of solidarity is found in 1 Corinthians. Paul used solidarity symbolism when he wrote¦
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
In other words, through solidarity, all humankind were present in the loins of Adam when he committed the first sin. We all participated in it in some way. If this is too far-fetched for you, consider that all Adam and Eve did was simply to decide which of the commands God gave they would obey, and which they would disobey- to attribute to themselves the “knowledge of good and evil. (If you know anyone who has never done this, please tell me- I would very much like to meet that person!)
Paul goes on with the illustration:
1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
1 Cor 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
1 Cor 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
1 Cor 15:48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1 Cor 15:49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
Now, in John 6:38, Jesus identifies Himself as the One who came down from heaven. Therefore, this “second man from heaven in verse 47 is Jesus. The point of this is, in our unconverted state, we are sons of Adam. In Adam, through the principle of solidarity, we participated in the sin of deciding for ourselves which of God’s commandments to keep and which to break, based on our own preferences. But in Christ, through solidarity, it’s as if we are not children of Adam, but children of Christ instead. Then it’s as if we came from heaven and lived a life of perfect obedience to God’s law. Jesus’ history becomes our history. In God’s eyes, we participate in Jesus’ perfect, holy life. In another way, it means our sins are covered, because when Jesus died on the cross, and paid the penalty for sin, It’s as if we were there too, dying on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins- so no further penalty is required!
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
What I am saying is that the concept of solidarity means that the expression, “sons of God has much deeper meaning than is apparent if you only read a verse or two. That’s why we have to read the whole Bible and see all the inter-related parts to understand the little verses that apparently don’t make sense. (and it does help to hear sermons preached and read books written by people who know their stuff if you don’t have the time or opportunity to gain all that education yourself).
OpenMind wrote: What qualification is there that the daughters of men were Canaanites?
‘Aint none. It’s by process of elimination. We learned that angels don’t marry, and “sons of God in the Bible, most often refers to believers, therefore, the “sons of God in Genesis 6:3 were believers. Who does that leave to be the “daughters of men? Unbelievers. The unbelievers are not considered spiritually to be sons or daughters of God, if through receiving and believing we gain the right to become children of God, according to John 1:12. (You might argue that the author of Genesis had not read John 1:12 when he wrote verse 6:3, but I don’t worry about that because I believe both authors were inspired by the same Source)
Now, my statement that the “daughters of men were descendents of Cain was an assumption that I need to reconsider. That would assume that all the descendents of Seth all remained believers, and that all the descendents of Cain all remained unbelievers, and I have to admit that is an unwarranted assumption. (did I say Canaanites? I meant Cainites.). I stand corrected on that.
OpenMind wrote: Empirical evidence is what I mean. The bible itself provides no evidence per se. For this reason, I read the bible at face value. Where there is a conflict between statements, I leave the interpretation open. I have my own conjectures, but I wouldn't accept any conjecture without empirical proof.
I hope you appreciate what I mean when I say that I lay my faith in the bible and not in man's interpretation thereof. For that, I would require hard irrefutable evidence.
I admire your objectivity. I think you are very wise and very right to say we must lay our faith in the Bible and not in man’s interpretation thereof. But when we hear from other people concepts that may be ancient but are new to us, and if they seem to fit, and help us understand better, I think it’s good to accept them. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything. Hold on to the good.
When you say you would require hard irrefutable evidence to accept any man’s interpretation, I wonder if you are positive that you have not already accepted someone else’s teaching, that has, without your conscious knowledge, become part of your paradigm, and that is not supported by irrefutable evidence. I think that since we see “through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13:12 KJV), we all have preconceived notions about Scripture, whether we are aware or it or will admit it or not.