A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:37 pm Post subject: Ellen G. White - How to Test a Prophet
Eugene,
I was raised to understand that the "Bible" was the final answer, and not man (or woman) to give guidance to the church.
I have some E. G. White books, and I understand she was a "prophet", but I would like to know where in the Bible does it tell you how to "test a prophet"?
So many people believe in the SDA message, but not Ellen G. White.
God Bless You,
Kim
P.S. We had a speaker come in to church this last sabbath (from the General Conference) and said they are in the process of opening a "Ellen G. White Reference Library) with more (unpublished) works of EGW. (from her estate). Its the 2nd floor of the Library in Keene, Texas.
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2003 12:34 am Post subject: Recognizing a true prophet is easy
Hi Kim,
You ask an interesting question. How do we "test a prophet"? The Bible makes a sincere determination look easy.
Think of the prophet Jonah and the message God gave him to cry out against the city of Nineveh: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"
Assyria was a great but evil empire—Israel's most dreaded enemy. Nineveh was the capital of Assyria. What did the people there know about authenticating genuine prophets from God? They had no prophetic checklist or divine handbook. Yet, the people of Nineveh could tell that Jonah was telling the truth. Their conviction was probably the sum of many little things. God's messenger seemed to be speaking words from God. The message was pertinent and just. Jonah could not benefit from delivering a message of disaster yet he being a foreigner in that city probably carried some risk. There may have been a mournful resignation about him that people could read. Perhaps Jonah's determination and courage was a sign. The story of Jonah makes me believe that recognizing God's prophets should be obvious.
Being able to test prophets accurately is a matter of the heart. There is a moral purpose to their messages that should be recognizable. Those who refuse to see the difference between good and evil will be blind to this. The story of King Ahab is a case in point:
Quote:
For three years there was no war between Aram and Israel. But in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah went down to see the king of Israel. The king of Israel had said to his officials, "Don't you know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us and yet we are doing nothing to retake it from the king of Aram?"
So he asked Jehoshaphat, "Will you go with me to fight against Ramoth Gilead?"
Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses." But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, "First seek the counsel of the LORD."
So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—about four hundred men—and asked them, "Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?"
"Go," they answered, "for the Lord will give it into the king's hand."
But Jehoshaphat asked, "Is there not a prophet of the LORD here whom we can inquire of?"
The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, "There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah." 1 Kings 22:1-8.
My favorite test in the Bible, for deciding between true and false prophets, is given in Jeremiah 23:16-18,21-22. (For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword … it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12). God's word remains a major test. Nothing has changed about false prophets since ancient times. The usual contrast between true and false prophets in Scripture is exceptionally vivid and clear:
Quote:
This is what the LORD Almighty says:
"Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you;
they fill you with false hopes.
They speak visions from their own minds,
not from the mouth of the LORD.
They keep saying to those who despise me,
'The LORD says: You will have peace.'
And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts
they say, 'No harm will come to you.'
But which of them has stood in the council of the LORD
to see or to hear his word?
Who has listened and heard his word?
I did not send these prophets,
yet they have run with their message;
I did not speak to them,
yet they have prophesied.
But if they had stood in my council,
they would have proclaimed my words to my people
and would have turned them from their evil ways
and from their evil deeds. Jeremiah 23:16-18,21-22.
Another test of a prophet is Isaiah 8:20. This familiar verse proves that agreement to prior revelation is absolutely essential.
Quote:
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Isaiah 8:20.
Ellen White believed that the decisive test of her prophetic ministry was as simple as black and white.
Quote:
God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. … There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. EGW, Testimonies for the Church Volume Four, page 229.
Jesus taught that knowing the difference between true and false prophets is comparable to knowing the difference between good and bad fruit.
Quote:
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matthew 7:15-20.
I would summarize all these Scriptures by saying that recognizing the difference between good and bad is crucial in distinguishing between true and false prophets. When the difference between good and evil is discerned, the true will be seen on the side of good, speaking on behalf of God whereas the false will found opposed to what's true and righteous and will be tearing down what God is building up.
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:30 am Post subject: Ellen G. White
Hi Eugene,
I'm so surprised your church, would not accept your truths, you seem so intelligent.
I'm in the process of reading up on EGW, and I know she did not "breathe" when she was in vision, and was all her life "sickly" until God spoke through her, and then she became "strong". (I can't find that information in her writings), that's just what I've always heard.
The statements from my family and friends is "Your believing in a person, not the Bible." How do you know EGW is a prophet? Hitler thought he was a God too. (I hear these things like that from people frequently).
I need to prove to them she was a "prophet", and she past the test of the Bible for a prophet. (I don't know where to look) Help!
Sometimes it's hard to prove to other people, what you believe!
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: Recognizing a true prophet is easy
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Ellen White believed that the decisive test of her prophetic ministry was as simple as black and white.
Quote:
God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. … There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. EGW, Testimonies for the Church Volume Four, page 229.
I don't think this view is realistic at all. Life is not black and white nor simplistic like this. There are such conundrums as good intentions producing bad counsel. Perfectly honest, sincere, godly folks can err, that's part of being human. Ellen's reasoning in the quote above removes the human factor from the equation, and that's just not possible in this world. Her logic dictates that the only possibilities are absolute perfection (right in everything without a single flaw) or absolute abomination. Human experience falls within a VAST range on the continuum between these two, and it's not always a black-and-white thing.
How is it that people can be comfortable allowing for the human factor when it comes to scripture -- understanding that scripture is not literal but inspired -- yet be so stubbornly unwilling to entertain similar possibilities when assessing the efforts of individual modern people to share what they consider the products of inspiration? Why should the "test" be any more literal than it is for the Bible, which is already accepted as something inspired, not literally dictated?
Just my thoughts. I don't pretend to know anything.
I assumed that everyone would have recognized the unmistakable harmony between Ellen White's test for a prophet and the very next quote, which is Jesus' test for false prophets.
Interesting point, I guess I was thinking more of the thing itself than the results of the thing. That is "the work" as the efforts on the part of human beings as opposed to whatever fruit those efforts bear.
Even if you are speaking strictly of the results (fruits), however, you are still going to be dealing with a "mixed bag." What are you going to do, explain away any unwanted result as being the fault of something else -- "oh, that one was not sincere" or "oh, this one is just refusing to believe" or whatever? I don't like oversimplified self-exonerating explanations like that, they smack of denial and blameshifting to me.
I'd rather see an honest question (no matter how disturbing) than a dishonest answer (no matter how pacifying).
But that's just me. I don't claim to be perfect or to know everything. I only see with one person's eyes.
Interesting point, I guess I was thinking more of the thing itself than the results of the thing. That is "the work" as the efforts on the part of human beings as opposed to whatever fruit those efforts bear.
I don’t believe that I suggested results, impact or affect. I believe it’s clear that Jesus was emphasizing the quality of the fruit:
“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:33-37.
narscissa wrote:
Even if you are speaking strictly of the results (fruits), however, you are still going to be dealing with a "mixed bag." What are you going to do, explain away any unwanted result as being the fault of something else -- "oh, that one was not sincere" or "oh, this one is just refusing to believe" or whatever?
Again, I wasn’t speaking of the results but the quality of the work. I believe it’s the distinction between good and bad fruit that is the issue in Matthew 7:15-20 and Matthew 12:33-37.
Are you asserting that Jesus’ test for false prophets is meaningless or vague?
Deuteronomy 18:22 "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. "
meaning, if the prophet says garbage like Edgar Cayce saying California will break off into the ocean or something in the year 1999 or whatever, well guess what? it hasn't happened, so it's garbage.
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:22.
Hi johnl,
I believe that Deuteronomy 18:22 is a very interesting test for a prophet. How do you apply it? For instance, do you dare apply it to Jesus and call him a false prophet because Jesus predicted that the end of the world would take place in his generation? (Matthew 24:34). It seems clear that when Jesus used the expression, “this generation”, he always meant the generation of his contemporaries. Do you believe that the world did end in the first century? Perhaps you deny the plain sense of Scripture or have another theory. I assume that you believe that Jonah was a false prophet, because he predicted the destruction of Nineveh in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) and it didn't happen (Jonah 3:10). Or do you refuse to concern yourself with scrutinizing the Bible to the same degree that you judge others, because you believe that you are not to put the Lord your God to the test? (Matthew 4:7). What is your best defense for the obvious failure of Bible prophecy?
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:13 am Post subject: Testing the Prophets according to the Bible
There is definitely a way to test a prophet according to the Bible. The tests must be taken collectively (they must pass ALL the tests) not individually (because a false prophet can do "miracles" and try and deceive people... just like the false christs in the end time are going to do).
If you want to know how to test a prophet, as well as see the test applied to Ellen G. White, go to this website (it's FOR Ellen White, not against her).
God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. … There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. EGW, Testimonies for the Church Volume Four, page 229.
I don't think this demands robot like perfection from the prophet at all. But it does say the true prophet can't be lead by God's spirit in the morning, and at a whim by Satan's in the afternoon.
That doesn't mean no mistakes; even those who fear the Lord will stumble. However, to stumble is one thing, to actively and continually work against God is something else entirely. _________________ "...and the truth will set you free."
Related not to the main thrust, but the note at the end, the reference library is, as I understand, actually a reference library of works that EGW used in her own writings. Since some have charged her with plagarism, and since she freely admits in her own writings (intro to the gc, etc.) that God led her to sources that would express the things shown in vision in better words than she could put them, they figured that such a library would give insights into her writings.
One case in particular that people note is in her use of "sinful propensities," which term she apparently got from a contemporary writer. Reading his views helps us to better understand her definition. This of course has come to light primarily because of teachings on perfection, the nature of Christ etc.
It should be an interesting collection...but unless they aim to put it all online I am not sure who all it will really help. Some of those sources are hard to track down these days too. But they would be rather fascinating. Kind of like finding some of the books mentioned in the Bible that we no longer have access to.
----------
Honestly I wouldn't try to prove EGW to all of your family right away. There is little point in doing so. A better approach might be to cite that she herself calls herself a lesser light which points to the Bible. Then once they realize that the Bible is, and was even to her, the guiding revelation for our lives they might be open to the only test that will likely convince them--reading one of her books for themselves.
In historical case studies (the 1888 debate over the nature of the "schoolmaster law" in Galatians for instance) she did not approve of her writings being used to solve controversies, but pointed people to the Bible. Since much of what we do with her writings today is to battle over them it seems that we would do better to go back to the Bible and use her writings for what they were intended--not as a FINAL word, but an ENCOURAGING, sometimes reproving, inspired word.
Not only does it make it more reasonable to those around us (not the primary motivation), but it also means we are using her writings as she intended.
In the final analysis Eugene is not far off. EGW's writings are inspired because they have been used to greatly impact the church, speaking important messages to their lives from God. The things about the nature of her vision were given to convince those of her time, and might impress us too, but reading her is a far better way to test out whether she was inspired.
For instance, I recently found myself reading some of "reverend Moon's" writings because I was studying with a moonie who knew him from some time ago and was still very loyal to his teachings. It was apparent from only a cursory examination that his writings were completely distorting the Bible. EGW on the other hand reinforces, applies and calls to the Bible.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
