What Is Inspiration & Was Ellen G. White Inspired? Biblical Canon Scholar Weighs In

Without question one of the most important issues we Sabbath Day Adventist need to understand is the relationship of Ellen White’s writings to the Bible so many Adventists miss that boat and there’s a major campaign against 7eventh day adventism and Ellen White and one of the charges is that we raise Ellen White to the level of the Bible and that’s one of the areas I specialize in is responding to the critics or criticisms of Ellen White so I want to address the topic of Ellen White and the Bible tonight you’ll notice there uh you’ll see the Bible

Right here and the writings of Ellen White it’s important to understand that her writings chronologically chronologically come after the Bible so I want to talk about that issue but first let’s look at a key passage Revelation 1217 this is a key text for Adventist a key text in the Bible if you read the book of Revelation it comes to a climax a shindo and Apex and the center of it is chapters 12 13 and 14 and chapter 12 is an amazing chapter in in the Bible in the Book of Revelation it it gives the cosmic sweep sweep of church history with the crucifixion of Christ and the

War in heaven and they overcame the devil and his angels through the blood of Jesus and it comes to the persecution of God’s Church down Through the Ages all the way to the end of time and Revelation 12:17 reads and the dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed which keep the Commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ so here we have the characteristics of God’s people at the end of time now you know what the dragon represents what Satan and the woman represents the church and the remnant represents the last part

That’s the meaning of the term the last part a sewing term the last piece The Remnant God’s people at the end of time and they are characterized two ways two characteristics they keep the Commandments of God and they have the testimony of Jesus Christ and if you look at the context of the passage in chapter 11 John sees the temple of God open he sees the Ark of the Covenant in heaven that provides the parameters for interpreting the rest of it so when he mentions the Commandments of God here he’s not just talking about as some say the New Testament commandments of Jesus

It certainly includes that but he’s specifically talking about what is in the Ark of the Covenant which is none other than the decalogue the ten commandments so when he says these people keep the Commandments of God he’s talking about the Ten Commandments but what is interesting as the Commandments of God are in a parallel form with the testimony of Jesus Christ now that phrase testimony of Jesus Christ is the second characteristic of God God’s people it says they have that testimony they have the testimony of Jesus Christ now this phrase testimony of Jesus Christ is

Important to John he refers to it several more times in the book what exactly is it well if you just look at the phrase by itself in the original Greek New Testament the testimony of Jesus it could be interpreted two ways a testimony about Jesus or a testimony coming from Jesus if it’s a testimony about Jesus then it could be then a testimony that every person of the remnant has Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so let me tell you my testimony about Jesus but it could also be interpreted a testimony coming from Jesus if it’s interpreted that way it’s a prophetic

Message from Jesus a self-revelation of Jesus which way do we interpret it you look at the phrase in its context and in the immediate context the testimony of Jesus Christ is in a parallel connection or parallel relationship with the Commandments of God it’s very clear that the Commandments come from God don’t they they originate from God he spoke the 10 commandments and since it’s in a parallel form then the testimony of Jesus must be interpreted as a testimony issuing forth from Jesus coming from Jesus therefore we can see right in its immediate context that God God’s people

Are those who keep the Commandments of God and they possess a prophetic word from Jesus a self Revelation from Jesus a prophetic message from Jesus now some say well that if it’s that if that is the case then the testimony coming from Jesus is what’s found in the gospels Jesus word in the gospels the gospels contain the teaching of Jesus that came from Jesus and certainly it would include that wouldn’t it but the way John uses this phrase later on provides greater Clarity and make and greater Clarity I should say he makes it abundantly and explicitly clear that

This testimony is more than just what Jesus said in the Gospels it is something he says prophetically at the end of time it’s a special self-revelation of Jesus to this Remnant living at the end of Earth’s history well good evening thank you for being here and an especially warm welcome if this is your first time with us Adventist or otherwise so what we heard there was from a part of a lecture that SDA religion Professor Dr Jud Lake gave a couple years back that was titled uh Ellen White’s Legacy as a prophet Dr lake is no stranger to this platform I

Am a former student of his and he has responded to some of the criticisms that I’ve raised albeit in my opinion insufficient ly but we got to hear the integral role that Ellen White plays within adventism despite a lot of the Neo Adventist crowd trying to downplay her distance themselves from her Etc what Dr Lake explained is the larger role that she plays in the Adventist edifice she’s supposed to help identify the SDA Church as God’s special last day people The Remnant that the rest of us are supposed to come join if we want to be prepared for the second coming AKA if

Want to be saved put in another way Dr Lake explained how the SDA Church teaches that Ellen White was an inspired prophet of God and Revelation 12:17 is supposed to help prove such Jesus is allegedly speaking through her writings in a special and unique way identifying the Seventh Day Adventist movement as God’s end times people possessing this special testimony from Jesus this prophetic word but if this is falsified then the ripple effect of that or at least one of them is that they’re not the remnant and that collapses and we don’t actually need to come join them

Our souls are not in danger but rather according to scripture Mark and avoid this sect and seek to reach Adventists with the truth now in his book Ellen White Under Fire identifying the mistakes of her critics Dr Lake writes the following quote the nature of inspiration is a major underlying issue in the debate on Ellen White all detractors and supporters of her prophetic Ministry either knowingly or unknowingly presuppose a view of inspiration if that view is too rigid or too loose then chances are strong that those who hold that view will misunderstand undermine or even discard

Ellen White’s writings the same is true of the Bible an incorrect view of how inspiration worked in the prophets can beog the biblical message close quote so this is a common starting point that one is going to run into regarding defenses of Ellen White’s authenticity as an inspired Prophet the claim being that if you understand inspiration properly you’ll be able to see that Ellen White was indeed a legitimate Prophet it’s only if you have a what Dr Lake calls a real rigid understanding of inspiration that you’ll come to a conclusion that Ellen White doesn’t fit

The bill so we are going to discuss the subject of inspiration tonight examining some statements in Dr Lake’s book and then we will test Ellen White and see if she fits the bill for what lake and the SDA Church Claim about her and thankfully I have the perfect guest to help us out who is Step Boyce Steven Boyce has been here before but Dr Boyce is the founder of the facts podcast which primarily focuses on the church fathers the apocryphal works the Canon and text of scripture and scriptural exag Jesus he holds a PhD in the area of Canon and text from Louis and a Baptist

Theological Seminary and his main study was on the Gnostic texts and the canonical gospel his dissertation covered textual analysis of codex H which included the early patristic writings that contained readings from the septuagenarian Anglican apologist he has also pastored in two churches and helped three Church plants across the United States but quickly before we bring him in as well one last housekeeping thing I want to remind you all that if you like what we’re doing here and you want to partner with us you can do so at answering adventism

Docomo our mission is to equip as many Christians as possible to reach as many seventh day Adventists as possible with the true Christ and his gospel and it is through the support of our partners that we are able to do that so A major major thank you to all of our partners and YouTube members with that said Dr Boyce thank you for being here brother what did you think of that intro clip and the handling of Revelation 12:17 oh man uh so so many thoughts on Revelation 12 as as a whole because he jumped into verse 17 which is the very end of the vision the vision begins in

Chapter 11 and there’s so much that has to be established in this apocalyptic Vision before we even get to that he wrongly identified the woman number one uh number two his application of the testimony of Christ by spending so much time on the Gena of noun because you have the ASU there at the end if I’m not mistaken Nea Sue is genitive so it’s a it’s a term of possession of Christ from Christ and he made a big deal about that which sounded really Technical and cool but it really doesn’t change anything in how it’s translated of Christ is sufficient the word testimony is a term

Uh that most of the time in the Book of Revelation is used and can be related to where we get the word martyr a person who’s a witness a testifier it’s it’s where we get the word martyr from um so how did John use that word all the way before uh he used it there in chapter 12 see these are things that I jumped on immediately and said okay there’s a lot of faulty exog Jesus already happening in chapter 12 here because he’s not practicing how the word testimony is used all throughout because Jesus actually used the word out of his own mouth to the churches in uh Asia Minor

Earlier in the book and he talks about their testimony their their martyrdoms he does use it in multiple ways and then how he understood the woman in the passage is quite fascinating very very off from early interpretations of the Book of Revelation so I I think that when you start your premise with a presupposed interpretation that doesn’t do the diligent work of actually breaking it down uh he would find that his view of the woman there is in a very very small minority on being the church because he said it’s the church when most would interpret the woman to be

Either two to three things number one a restored and glorified Israel uh producing the child or some would go on to say that it even represents a twofold in that it is Israel but specifically the woman being Mary and we could possibly get into that uh I think anybody that reads that would think Mary or the third possibility that the terminology that is used here goes back to a Genesis 3 prediction the seed of the woman so this vision is supposed to make us go back to Genesis 3 it’s supposed to take us even in Genesis uh 34 all the way into 40 where Joseph and

And dreams and visions and then the 12 stars look at the description around there this is stuff that you see in Genesis and exodus language even Isaiah refers to Israel as the woman uh or or Lamentations Jeremiah refers to the city of Zion as the woman um you have the seed of the woman you have the uh the the building of that through the prophet so there’s a lot there that most Scholars would land on as the interpretation because in his interpretation of the word church it’s he’s saying that the church produced Jesus ultimately if the woman is the church the church produced Jesus

When that’s not the case Jesus said I will build my church the church was produced by Jesus not the other way around so it’s already built on a faulty ex Jesus just in Revelation 12 and I can go on I could do a whole lecture on Revelation 12 by itself and how to interpret it back in chapter 11 but I don’t think that’s the point of the program well no but that that’s good I I think that that’s important um sort of backdrop information especially for the audience because as you heard a lot of this sort of foundational um framework for these claims about her divinely

Inspired status are rooted in and he even mentioned it this is a very important verse he said for Seventh Avenue and so this is exactly why because this is one of their primary places that they’re going to point to to begin trying to lay the biblical framework or or Baseline for the legitimacy of Ellen White so to break the ice I want to do a little bit of groundwork for both you as well as the audience and then I’m gonna have my first question for you sure so I’ve shown this before I don’t know how many times but let the record bear out that in the sth Adventist Church’s

Statement of confidence in the writings of white they write in part that her writings are divinely inspired and correcting of inaccurate interpretations of scripture the same thing was taught for example in the 1976 Sabbath School quarterly where they write quote how advantaged the Seventh Adventist Church is to have a modern inspired interpreter of both the Old and New Testaments surely there is every logical reason to give the inspired interpretation top priority in arriving at our understanding of the word today close close quote so very clearly my point

With this is they claim that LG white was indeed inspired but like I read in the opening from Dr Lake what do they mean by inspired he writes quote in contrast to the community and encounter models which place inspiration in either a community or a non-cognitive relational encounter the thought model places inspiration in the biblical writer’s thoughts the spirit of God works by directing the writer to the thoughts or concepts and allowing the writer’s own distinctive personality to come into play in the choice of words and expressions in thus emphasizing the

Biblical writer’s freedom to express the Divine thoughts inum words this model departs from the verbal plenary and dictation models since the time when Ellen White’s 1886 manuscript on inspiration was published in the selected messages book one the thought model of inspiration has become mo more influential in the Adventist Church close quote he also posits the standard SDA position that there are not degrees of inspiration which is to say her writings are inspired no differently than the Bible and then Ellen White herself saying the Holy Spirit authored both her

Writings and the Bible which is why Dr Lake shouldn’t be surprised when people point out that the SDA church and Ellen White herself put her writings on par with the Bible so the point is when the SDA Church says Ellen White was inspired they are claiming that she had inspired thoughts the Holy Spirit directed her thoughts and she used her own words to try and best convey those thoughts from God and this is supposed to be what happened to the biblical writers as well so Stephen what does it mean that the Bible is inspired and are we able to deduce the correct model of inspiration

From the scriptures themselves yeah I think the scripture has a lot to say about itself more than we have opinions of because it ultimately is not a hidden agenda within scripture as as far as how it reveals its Essence uh when we look at the word inspired most people uh think biblically of second Timothy where it says that all scripture is given by theonas God breathed that’s what it means um there are ancient debates about what those two terms theas so God and then Nas breathe or or breath in of itself when God issues it out of his mouth uh we we even

See in say example Peter’s writings Peter talks about how men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit and and then there was going to be special remembrance I mean we see this even in John 14 when Jesus says that he is going to leave and that he is sending another comforter the paraclet and when the paraclet comes he will guide them into all truth but then he tells them that when that Spirit comes to them they’re going to be given Supernatural remembrance of things that he said because they’re humans they’re gonna they’re going to forget so when Jesus himself was telling the apostles

You’re going to receive the spirit of God who’s going to bring back remembrance of things that I said things that I did and you’re going to tell others that was not just mere thought this is the mistake that was made in the interpretation that inspiration is based merely on some sort of thought or or an idea of inspiration is interpretational or subjective to somebody’s perspective that’s not the way the scripture teaches it Jesus was entrusting his teachings his words to his Apostles that the holy Spirit would bring back those words to their remembrance and this is what we we

Even see lay out later on in the scriptures in the New Testament as it develops with the apostles writing they’re going back they’re thinking on what Jesus said they’re thinking on the interpretation of those things and they’re they’re laying it out and saying that the Holy Spirit moved them to do it I mean even when you go to the Old Testament for example like in Jeremiah n Jesus said or God said to him I have put my words in your mouth I put my words in your mouth so the proclamation that Jeremiah gave about the Babylonian captivity coming the

Repentance of sin all of those things were God’s mind the things that God wanted to say and used a human agent to do so so that that person personality educational background we don’t believe in this perspective of inspiration where where the writers become you know in a trans or something like that they’re sitting there and you know doing mushrooms or something and that they’re just flowing out the words of God no no there’s an intentionality behind it that God has moved them by his Spirit to produce with the hand of men the very words on the heart of God and so when

God told Jeremiah I have put my words in your mouth he is literally speaking as the Oracle of God he is the mouthpiece of God at that point so the writers of scriptures and those who proclaimed the very truths of God are speaking the exact words in their personality in their background in their voice structure uh in their language the way that God would have said it to that original audience or wrote it to that original audience so that they are reflecting the very words that God had so when we go through scripture and you don’t have to go even further than the

Psalms and even in the Proverbs you know these are the words the words that I give to you the Commandments that I give to you they’re not Concepts they are exact words they’re verbal words um and they were spoken at times they were written at times they were spoken then written and we even see the the dynamic of this say like in the book of Jeremiah since I mentioned him earlier God gave a proclamation he wanted King zayah and others to know I’m giving you a last chance if you ignore my words I’m going to actually bring the Babylonians in you’re going to become enslaved to them

And he’s going to destroy and steal everything they’re going to take everything from you well I mean when you get the false prophets in and you look at the advisors to the king they chop up the letter that was given well what does God do oh no I only spoke once I can’t reproduce this no he brings Jeremiah back and he gives him not only the same words again that were produced in the first letter but additional Clauses of judgment for rejecting and doing what that did the first weather letter so God reproduced and inspired uh Jeremiah to be able to

Produce something exactly the same way twice without being able to copy another copy because God is the one who’s behind it but it is still a human agent who is fully within his mind his emotions his feelings we see this in scripture the personality of The Writers come into play one of the most amazing things if you go in the original languages you say look at the book of uh Galatians for example you start looking at the verbs that Paul uses and and the tense that he is in using those verbs he’s animated he’s mad he’s upset he’s confused you can feel the emotion of the writer in

The book of Galatians but you can also feel the love and adoration that he has in other writings like his writing to First Timothy uh or second Timothy and treating him like a son you can see the love or even in the small little letter of phiman that I’ve had to translate multiple times in comparison to the Pastoral Epistles and its syntax when you look at their Lang with the language of Paul there you can sense an endearing and and a a quiet Soul who is just thinking deeply about somebody and who is fully embracing a relationship Galatians it’s it’s fireworks I mean

He’s he’s angry he’s mad the personality and even the emotion of the writer is still in the text but they are moved in step with God in his emotion and his feeling so that there’s this community between God and man who are not one or the other scripture is not all God and no man it is not just man and no God it is God and man in harmony where the Holy Spirit promised by John 14 gives those who he authorized authority over these texts authority over these churches to be moved to do things that in their natural Instinct would not but the spirit still uses their instinctive uh

Attitude and emotions and disposition to write exactly what God would say to them and that is what we see through the scripture we have no Pro I mean I love how how Paul tells the Corinthians like this isn’t a commandment for me this is a commandment for the Lord what is he doing he’s saying I’m speaking for God that’s what Paul is saying I’m not this isn’t my opinion I’m telling you what God is telling you and when he’s writing First Corinthians he believes he is speaking on behalf of God uh Peter believed that when Paul wrote letters they were speaking on behalf of God and

Equal to other scriptures like Torah uh when he quotes scripture and when he talks about how those are in the church corrupting scripture he speaks at the very end of second Peter chapter 3 how they how they manipulate and how they have tainted scripture and all the writings of Paul and he puts scripture and the writings of Paul in the same category of equal Clauses described by the word scripture saying that these scriptures and Paul’s scriptures are all scripture and they’re all from God and they’re equal because he believed that God moved Paul to write the very words

Not Concepts the words of God the same way that Moses was conveying to the children of Israel the words of God or the prophets like Jeremiah the very words of God that he said I will put my words in your mouth we see no hint of this view of inspiration in the old or in the New Testament as it relates to the teaching of inspiration but the word inspiration itself is only used one time in the way that Paul uses it two Greek words put together the anas god breathed he moved words out of his mouth when you speak breath comes out of your mouth God moved words not Concepts words so the

Very word inspiration itself indicates to us God uttered words out of his mouth and that’s Hebrews 1:1 um many times in many ways here it is God spoke to the prophets Theos lasos God uttered words that’s exactly what that word means these are the concepts of scripture that we see in scripture about itself it is not simply conceptual or visual or ideas well we’re going to see in a little bit how they have now kind of built upon this model because they’ve recognized some of the s obviously since the 19th century to the present day that this presents and they’ve built upon

That but before we get there we saw how Lake mentioned a statement from Ellen White in the book selected messages now ironically folks this is a statement well this is the statement that he’s referring to and it’s a statement that was plagiarized and taken from Calvin stow’s book origin and history of the books of the Bible both the canonical and apocryphal where he wrote quote it is not the words of the Bible that were inspired it is not the thoughts of the Bible that were inspired it is the men who wrote the Bible that were inspired inspiration

Acts not on the man’s words not on the man’s thoughts but on the man himself so that he by his own spontaneity under the impulse of the Holy Ghost conceives certain thoughts and gives utterance to them in certain words both the words and the thoughts receiving the peculiar impress of the mind close quote so that was published in 1867 Ellen White’s manuscript that selected messages ended up citing from was written 19 years later in 1886 where she wrote quote it’s not the words of the Bible that are inspired but the men that were inspired inspiration acts not on

The man’s words or his Expressions but on the man himself who under the influence of the Holy Ghost is imbued with thoughts but the words and thoughts receive the impress of the individual mind close quote and this is only one of the many examples that she stole from the same book now the defense to these stolen words and ideas is this Lake gives the standard SDA rejoiner where he writes quote over the years the mechanical view of inspiration that persisted in the church talking about the Seventh Adventist Church was a ticking Time Bomb Herbert Douglas

Described the situation when it is not made clear for Generations that profits do change with personal growth that prophets do use other sources for bringing precision and force into their messages rigid Minds there’s that word again rigid rigid Minds experience a terrifying Awakening when the truth is brought forth Assurance built on Words and not the central message begins to collapse for in the years since 1982 the time bomb has exploded many church members have lost confidence in Ellen White’s prophetic gift because of the charge that she copied from other

Authors those with a mechanical view of inspir a have a hard time handling the idea of inspired authors using the writings of others to express their inspired thoughts but for those with a more holistic view of inspiration the issue of plagiarism is considered from other uh standpoints such as intent fair use quality of selectivity and ultimate originality of the author’s contribution close quote so Dr Boyce scholarship within the SDA Church claims that Ellen White’s plagiarism does not call into question her her uh writings being inspired because the biblical writers themselves

Engaged in the same practice that she did they took thoughts ideas and words from others when Penning the scriptures so why can’t Ellen White that’s basically the argument their thought model of inspiration allows for a person to take the thoughts ideas and words of another individual who wasn’t inspired use them as their own but slightly modify them and still rightly claimed that the plagiarist was divinely inspired so my question for you what would be the method for testing the inspiration of a writer or document and does plagiarism call into question Ellen

White being inspired well for one plagiarism in the ancient world is not considered plagiarism uh what we call plagiarism they didn’t have that concept uh people borrowed from each other all the time was very common it wasn’t it was actually flattery more than an insult today plagiarism isn’t I’m not promoting plagiarism by any stretch I’m saying we in the ancient world plagiarism was not seen the way that we look at it today we see it as stealing somebody else’s work somebody else in the ancient world would have seen more of that as flattery so

Let’s just go ahead and settle that from the beginning at the same time um in the ancient world there is a developmental thought again let’s take Revelation CH 12 because it’s been brought up by our friend here Revelation 12 you look at the vision of the woman with 12 Stars well that’s stolen from Genesis 37 uh well then she’s pregnant and in child pain well that that’s stolen from Genesis 3 and then you have the the vision of the Dragon oh that that’s stolen from Isaiah well then you have the devouring of that dragon the the dragon trying to Devour the child well that’s stolen from

Exodus that’s stolen from the Gospel of Luke you know we could do this all day the reality is is most of the time when the the biblical writers are alluding back to an already previous statement they’re watching how God has developed it in history which is exactly what John is doing in the apocalypse there in chapter 12 he is seeing the consummation of multiple prophecies in Israel’s history from Genesis 3 to Genesis 37 to Isaiah chapter 7 uh all the way into the New Testament covenants when we see uh the birth of Christ himself when we see the fall of Satan

Himself all of these things come into play and John is seeing the full end of this prophecy how it has developed and come to its final consummation that’s a plagiar and that’s stealing um that is quoting and I know they’re going to use examples they’re going to use examples like my with Isaiah hey quick thought did it ever occur to you there in the same timeline and that Isaiah had a school of the prophets and that he was trained in the school of the prophets and Prophets who are Disciples of another Prophet like Elisha to Elijah or like John the

Baptist and his disciples or Jesus and his disciples their job is to repeat the teachings of their teacher like hey there’s an idea um so when they use examples and they try to do this they try to get themselves out of this well well th this minor Prophet is quoting Isaiah over here well yeah because he’s in the discipleship program if you would of the school of the prophets and Isaiah had a school of the prophets we see it early in Isaiah so naturally you know what the students are supposed to be doing they are teaching their teachers teachings because that’s what Jesus

Taught his disciples to do that’s what John the Baptist’s disciples were teaching them them to do that is the very standard of ritical teaching and prophetic teaching Ministries in Israel and the ancient near East it’s a plagiarizing it’s actually professing what was taught to you and repeating it that’s why Daniel at the beginning of Daniel for example looks back at Jeremiah’s prophecy he is a plar he quotes and says he told us this is what happened nobody listen and look here this is the reality of it he is a disciple he is watching he’s learning

He’s a student of the prophets and he is gaining Insight from what they said and now they’re looking at it down the road going this has been brought to the end this is true what was said was true uh proved over and over again so the examples they use and pardon me they are just lame they are lame because it shows and reflects that they do not understand what it means to teach or to Proclaim or to write things that happen and things that were said in an ancient neare Eastern context T this is normal in our day and age it is not normal it is stealing that’s what it is here’s

Another thing about you asked about uh inspiration her you know Len versus say John or or Paul or Peter the difference is that these individuals are authorized personnels they are given what was needed to create theonas I mean let’s look at some examples and I and I gave you one in John 14 just a minute ago but it was explicit people that were called to this so in second Peter chapter 1 verses 20- 21 knowing first of all that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation well that debunks most of everything we just read so far up to this point it’s not based

On an interpretational inspiration prophecy wasn’t given by a private interpretation for no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man but men spoke keywords spoke from God there’s that genitive he was talking about in Revelation 12 spoke from God as they were carried Along by the Holy Spirit the question then is who gets carried Along by the Holy Spirit who is permitted well we know we know Hebrews 1:1 God spoke at many times and in many ways in the past to our fathers by the prophets the prophets were the mouthpiece of God we even see this in the book of

Zechariah in the Old Testament that God only reveals his secrets we see this in Amos we see this in Zechariah 1 God only reveals his Secrets or God only speaks through His prophets and this idea that it is the people that are Inspire not the words is ridiculous because there are code laws that protect the words more than the writer if you were to go to the end of the book Deuteronomy there’s a description of whoever adds to or takes away from what was written will be cursed well isn’t ironic that in the same book that was just butchered a few minutes ago in Revelation you go to the

Very end of the book of Revelation and you have these words in 20 22: 18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book if anyone adds to them God will add to him the plagues described in this book if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy God will take away his part in the tree of life and the holy city which are described in this book there are code law curses attached to the Torah into the end of the Canon that if you add not to the person to the the words of the book you are given plagues and curses for corrupting manipulating and

Twisting the words so yeah it’s the words because the code laws are protecting the words in the prophecies and God only authorized prophets to be his mouthpiece that’s how he spoke to the fathers in the past in these last days he has spoken to us by his son now to our knowledge and to our abilities we don’t know of any documents that Jesus wrote save maybe one letter Jesus sent to a a pagan King who was sick who needed healing that’s another story for another day whether or not it’s true or did happen um it is an intriguing one I did an entire episode

On it but outside of that we don’t have any teachings of Jesus we we don’t have any teachings that he actually wrote Because we see Matthew 28 we see in Acts chapter 1 we see in the passage I referenced earlier John 14 that all scripture was going to be given out all of his Commandments all of his teachings all of his Works were going to be proclaimed by those he authorized in the past God authorized prophets in the last days God spoke through his son and he authorized them his Apostles to be the very people who Proclaim what they heard what they learned what they

Saw and they were the mouthpiece and this is exactly how the writer of Hebrews later understood this in chapter two he said how should we neglect so great a Salvation which began to be spoken by the Lord and those who heard them that had been revealed to us the writer of Hebrews is even imagining like it is them those apostles who heard the Lord who have proclaimed these teachings to us we see Jude learning back second Peter saying the the apostles warned you they they told you this what happened and it’s going to happen it saw it as predictive it saw them as authorities

Who are the authorities it’s not Ellen White Ellen White’s way too gone it had to be eyewitnesses of Jesus who are authorized by Jesus who were given special insight and privilege from the Holy Spirit John 14 that nobody alive today has and nobody since the year 100 has had the ability to do and only scripture that is on behalf of God as Peter said earlier in the verse that I read men spoke from God can only be from people who actually heard God and the only people that actually heard God were the prophets in the past and those who heard God In the Flesh himself the

Apostles who are authorized and special privileged with the spirit to bring back Supernatural in remembrance to teach and understand his words he left with them to share in the world so that disqualifies everybody today there is no inspiration today we can be inspired in the sense of built up or or given Insight or understanding and we start speaking from that that’s not the same thing as inspiration that we’re talking about the way the scripture speaks of itself lots of good meat there um a couple things that I just think about in this particular aspect of this

Discussion um one is also the apostles didn’t take from others and then copyright those things and make a modern day equivalent of millions of dollars um but then the second is it’s mildly ironic that we heard Lake mention in the opening clip Revelation 127 is supposed to help us identify the SDA church is God’s last day Remnant and the two reasons given they have a special testimony from Jesus in Ellen White’s writings but the second is because they keep the Ten Commandments um yet Ellen White a co-founder and their prophetess was stealing from others violating the

Sixth commandment and was then passing it off as coming from God violating the third command which is bearing God’s name falsely so just a little bit of irony there but something else I want us to look at in a letter defending her role as God’s messenger Ellen White claimed that her mind was never prejudiced by anyone else and if it was then she wasn’t fit for the work of being God’s messenger so this was in a letter that she wrote to someone that was inquiring about the SDA Church fitting the bill for their own definition of Babylon which they

Basically claim is doctrinal confusion and division it is Roman Catholicism and her daughters the Protestants um and part of what’s supposed to distinguish them from such is that they have the spirit of Prophecy this testimony of Jesus Jesus spe you know especially speaking through Ellen White’s writings exactly like we heard from Jud Lake well this statement is supposed to be divinely inspired so here’s a bit of a catch 22 here she borrowed thoughts words and ideas from others took them as her own claiming they were inspired by God yet at the same time she claimed her mind was never

Prejudiced by anyone because if it were she wasn’t actually an inspired messenger of God that issue aside Dr Lake presents a pretty standard defense you’re going to hear where the Bible is said to have been the result of the same practices Ellen White engaged in we’ve already touched on this a little bit but he’s going to go into it further here piggybacking off of what he said earlier quote the biblical writers borrowed from each other and even from some uninspired writings examples abound throughout the Bible Moses borrowed from the ancient NE

Eastern world in the structure of Deuteronomy and Micah bored from Isaiah The Scribe who compiled Second Kings also Drew from Isaiah in Ecclesiastes 12 99-10 Solomon states that he borrowed Proverbs from Wise sages and Incorporated them into his book Proverbs close quote then he ends this chapter a few pages later where he notes that it is a well-known fact that Ellen White used other writers um writings but that doesn’t negate her prophetic inspiration he says so this is probably the most common defense to the claim that Ellen White’s plagiarism disqualifies her from being a

Divinely inspired Prophet they’ll say the biblical writers did the same thing she’s just in line with them so if you attack her writings you need to be consistent and also attack the Bible Stephen what are your thoughts on this defense and again did the biblical writers take words thoughts and ideas from others claim they came from God and then copyright those writings and make a large sum of generational wealth off of them well no they actually put their lives at risk most of the time when they were doing that it didn’t give them money it gave them actually a Target um

Again I I answered this earlier quite in depth so I’ll just give quick summary of this like Micah to Isaiah they’re they’re they’re not borrowing from them they are instructed under their teachings now he uses other examples and one of the things that we have to keep in mind when we’re talking about inspiration is that we we’ve fault in false ways come to this conclusion oh all truth can be found in scripture and that’s the only place we go for truth no all truth is God’s truth um all things that are in our world have the Fingerprints of God in it

When you look at creation the heavens declare the glory of God the firmament shows his handywork day and Day atter speech not in tonight shows a knowledge there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard I mean you go through that and you see that the Fingerprints of God are everywhere which means he leaves evidence of truth of himself in history in science in archaeology um you you look at it in the world that he created he left evidence of himself everywhere and to think that Christians are the only ones that can find this or at the time the Jews are

The only ones that can discover this is faulty um yes Moses was trained in all the ways of the Egyptians Stephen said in Acts thinking back on Moses which means not everything he learned in Egypt was wrong he learned pattern he learned style he learned language uh he probably learned how to do uh elements of oratory and and even thinking about the afterlife and death of course he was in inuenced by all these things but not everything that he learned was fult there were true things in the false that’s why we find a lot of the biblical writers using books like the Assumption

Of Moses like in the book of Jude or first Enoch second Peter and Jude uh you do see books of Asher uh or J jasher excuse me and you do see other just non canonical books or influences coming into the New Testament you see Paul doing this he quotes uh philosophers he quotes poetry uh people from the island of Cree we see them using this why because what they came to realize is that all of these things that they learned in the universe is that God’s truth can be spoken by fools and by wise men and that even truth can be spoken from the mouth of babes and at

Times there’s something that said that may not be from a Christian or a Jew Jewish follower of Yahweh that receives or understands or or or finds wisdom or truth in the world it doesn’t mean that they have the trademark of Truth so by somebody looking back at that other person who is doing something or saying something true like Paul talking about um on the island of cre that the Christians are are are fat and and full of lies and all these things and he says this testimony is true so don’t be that right so Paul is acknowledging a truth that came out of a Pagan’s mouth and

Says and since that is true so what does that mean that means that they have the concept of superintendent that that when they are looking at the evidence whether it’s a scientific or a historical or or narrative or some sort of concept when the biblical writers are looking at other documents statements philosophers poets the holy spirit of God is giving them superintendence to know what is true and what is not true to include in their points or in their statements or in their narratives of scripture see that’s the difference inspiration is not

Creating only truth inspiration is giving specific truth that can come from anywhere else in the world where there’s a lot of untruths and nontruth and finding the real truth in the world and producing it under inspiration so that people have absolute truth and so when you look at scripture itself we say it is the word of Truth uh sanctify them through through your word for your word is truth Jesus prayed your word is truth God’s word is truth but God’s word is not just found from uh sitting in a room and writing it down sometimes it could be a person investigating the world

Investigating the universe investigating something that happened and says that part is true but it was the Holy Spirit that gave them the ability to know the difference between false and Truth Ellen White doesn’t have that Ellen White wasn’t promised that Ellen White wasn’t given that because Ellen White wasn’t with Jesus Ellen White was not an eyewitness Ellen White was not given Authority by Christ himself to testify of Truth and to Proclaim truth and we see this because even Jesus later in his high Priestly prayer praying for us down the road prays that we would be one as

He and the father are one but then he talks about the words that he gave to his disciples and those that believe their words that’s us that believe the testimony of the Apostles well whose words are the apostles words I thought they got them from Jesus they did where did Jesus get his words that which I speak is what the father has given to me oh so those are God’s words himself so God gave his words through Jesus Jesus gave his words to the apostles and we believe them because of that Jesus prayed intercessory for us because we chose to believe the words of the Apostles one

Problem with modern day prophets and inspired people none of them were under the authority of Jesus who were prayed for in that Garden to have his words and to have their words believed on by us the people so none of us can be that second category Jesus spoke to the apostles Theo Apostles gave us his words we believe their words as a result believing his if we are the third party we can’t be the second party and nobody in the third party is the second party and Ellen White is not in the second party because she and none of the other people and none of these and he and and

All these other guys that we’re talking about here are not in that category of truth because they weren’t with Jesus they weren’t authorized by Jesus they weren’t promised the Holy Spirit the way that we were I’m not saying we don’t have the Holy Spirit I’m talking about the way that they had special remembrance of his M of his ministry because none of us were they T need like we need remembrance of a Ministry we were never a part of and never seen doubtful very doubtful again a lot of good meat there um something that I think is just interesting that I think about with this

Defense is um it’s kind of similar to the claims made by Skeptics of the Bible who will assert things you know like oh the story of Noah is actually plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh um those sorts of things except those folks say that to try and refute the biblical text SDA case they’re employing a similar thing only trying to use it to bolster Ellen White just an interesting observation yeah those are Mystic and I always say similar similar isn’t same just just say yeah so Dr Lake actually proposes a second theory I mentioned this earlier a second theory of

Inspiration that they call the whole person model it’s leges charged that this is now the predominant view in the Adventist mainstream though as the handbook of 7th Day Adventist theology notes the SDA Church doesn’t have an official position technically Dr Van bmlin writes quote in 1874 GI Butler then serving as general conference president proposed in a series of articles in the Advent review in Sabbath Herald a theory of degrees of inspiration this concept though for a short time enjoying some popularity did not find permanent acceptance among

Seventh day Adventists neither did the concept of verbal or mechanical inspiration while concepts of plenary and thought inspiration have been widely favored the church has never formulated a precise doctrine of inspiration nor of Revelation through more than 100 years however Adventists have reiterated and elaborated the convictions held by their Pioneers in various statements of fundamental beliefs close quote so really the official position is what the Pioneers believed because it has to be a theory that can account for Ellen White being legitimate or they lose their

Unique identity as the remnant which is why thought inspiration is where they land and any sort of theory that doesn’t allow for plagiarism and errors is seen as being too rigid however like I said there is a second model that modern SDA scholarship has come up with speaking about this model DR Lake writes quote because of the problems associated with the thought model of inspiration after carefully studying scripture and Ellen White’s writings several Adventist theologians have discovered a broader view of inspiration several terms have been used

To describe it entire inspiration comprehensive inspiration historical cognitive inspiration the biblical model and whole person inspiration the term proposed here this model of inspiration goes a step further than the thought model recognizing that while the uh that while the words of scripture weren’t the primary focus of the process of inspiration it did reach the words of the biblical writers however not in the same sense taught in the verbal plenary or dictation models Norman Gully who is an SDA Theologian who has since passed described this model of inspiration this

Way the prophet’s freedom to write was the same as their freedom to speak the messages God was guiding them in the writing process as he guided them in the speaking process process the prophets were filled with the god breathing power of the Holy Spirit and wrote or spoke Faithfully all that God communicated to them but the prophets were not in a trance operating like a fact or dictation machine they were not speaking in tongues or uttering incomprehensible incomprehensible gibberish they were participating in the process of inspiration the mind of each Prophet was

Fully in operation as the Holy Spirit gave them freedom to write or to speak the cognitive linguistic logical powers of the prophets were under inspiration from the spirit of as God worked through their free use of these Powers the spirit guided the prophets to express truths in the best language logic Aesthetics and words the prophet could muster close quote he then again the end of the chapter he ends it by stating quote the model that best explains the variety of the modes of inspiration we find in the Bible is the whole person model it accounts for the inspired writers using

The best words they could muster to express the Divine Concepts even when these words came from sources that were not divinely inspired of the six models discussed in this chapter therefore the whole person model best sets forth the phenomenon of inspiration as found in the Bible close quote so modern Adventist Scholars by reading the Bible and studying Ellen White’s writing I didn’t know if you I don’t know if you know this Stephen but they discovered a new model of inspiration a sort of modified thought inspired view that they’ve come up with where they say the

Words are kind of inspired but not really the words of scripture weren’t God’s focus it was still the thoughts and the concept that’s the focus but in some vague sense inspiration still reached the words of the biblical writers but he cited SDA Theologian Norman Gully who used the term God breathed from 2 Timothy 3 to claim that the prophets were filled with God breathing power and wrote Faithfully what God communicated to them in the best words they could muster so you’ve mentioned second Timothy 3 already but can you go in a little bit more on is

This a proper use of how they’re uh appealing to God breathed here is that a valid use of that phrase in scripture Well it can’t be because in the very beginning of that verse it says says every scripture is God breathed well the word scripture is the word thean or the is the word um when you’re going into theas of the scripture it’s gra gra means writing so the theas the god breathed scriptures each one or every single scripture is God breathed it’s not talking about about the person anymore is it it’s talking about the writing um one of the things that I

Continually get confused by uh when they created this model of inspiration is where are you getting this from in the texts where are you getting this from in the Old Testament or even the New Testament for that matter they’re trying to use second Timothy 3 but second Timothy 3 Works actually against them not for them and the reason I can say that is because I’m actually going to pull the text up every scripture every writing the graph the written words are God breathed and profitable for teaching reprove correction and training in righteousness

So these teachings that have been given and I think particularly Paul’s probably in that point referring to a lot of the Old Testament texts no doubt he said he was raised in them and trained uh in those so it is the written text themselves notice he didn’t mention anything about the writers no we do see the writers are important I I’ve already mention that I mentioned that in second Peter 1 I mentioned that with Jeremiah but remember what he said to Jeremiah I have put my words in your mouth that’s what I’ve done I’ve I’ve given you my words another concept of this I mean

When you look at Paul and I was actually going to point this out earlier in 1 Corinthians 2 verse 13 he says these words and we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Holy Spirit interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual but again this in we impart this in words not taught by wisdom it’s the words that are given to them by the Holy Spirit to teach to instruct to uh interpret so now you have Divine interpreters of scripture not just those who can teach it this is the important of bishoping this is the important that

We believe there was a gifting that was passed on through the hands of the Apostles uh to be able to do this which is what Paul’s actually talking about second Timothy 3:16 when he’s talking to a young Bishop that he left in Ephesus right before he dies and he’s giving him instructions he’s telling them that what you’ve learned from me you teach to Faithful Men the gift that was given to you by the laying on of my hands and the elders this is Paul’s relationship with Timothy that he is a successor of the ministry of authority and that they are entrusted he says

Guard the deposit what is the deposit the words it’s the teachings it’s the instructions that’s what they were given Ellen White and any of these other people are not in that succession line This Is Why I’m an Anglican this is why I’m a sympathizer to Rome and the Orthodox because we are in our Bishop descendants of the Apostles Authority we are still under that Apostolic Authority they have left that Authority they are sectarian from that Authority they have rejected the apostolic Authority in Bishop prick that is instituted by the apostles passed down to people like

Timothy and Titus and others that we see there other disciples like Clement who’s mentioned in Philippians became a successor in Rome this is why it is important for us to look at the scripture and what were those successors in trusted with not a person although they were very much elevating the apostles and their Authority but their teachings they left behind in the churches well where do we find those teachings in the text the scriptures that Paul said all or each scripture each graph each writing is theonas so just the phrase every scripture every

Writing is theonas disproves their Theory yeah and we heard him mention in the opening clip how he says they have this charge they have to for have had to formulate a defense for which is this claim that they elevate Ellen White to the level of scripture and he didn’t get into what some of those are but it’s like we’re we’re kind of seeing how that works you ask the question where are they getting this from in the text um and there’s kind of this notion at least that I’ve gathered from my discussions with them and reading their papers and books and those sorts of things is well

No one really knows for certain what the correct understanding is so it’s kind of just open for theories and sort of any Theory can sort of be proposed and they obviously this is how they elevate her is they and demote the Bible is they’ve come up with a theory of inspiration that fits for her she’s the Baseline and then scripture is demoted by way of saying well however it works for her is how it must have been for the apostles as well so it’s a demotion of the Apostles which in turn elevates her essentially so um just a little bit of a catch uh 22

For them heresy but go ahead yes but in light of their whole person theory of inspiration Lake also speaks about how this as well as the thought model both of these models allow for errors in the text but that shouldn’t cause one to worry he says he cites SDA Theologian Fernando Canal where he writes quote on the foregoing basis we can affirm the total reliability of scripture within the parameters of the normal human limitations of the thought and the linguistic process since the whole Bible is revealed and inspired within the level of human thought and language it

Does not represent Divine Perfection yet its words reliably disclose God’s thoughts and will to you and will to us this view of inspiration this whole person model explains why certain discrepancies and the lack of absolute Precision in matters of detail that we find in the phenomena of scripture do not affect trustworthy communication of revealed contents Ellen White herself reflected on the discrepancies in the Bible when she remarked all the mistakes will not cause trouble to One Soul or cause any feet to stumble that would not manufacture difficulties from the

Plainest revealed truth close quote so Stephen my question for you is scripture inherent or does it contain lots of mistakes and errors and if it is inherent how can we determine such well the scripture says a lot about itself uh like in Psalm 19:7 the law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul the testimony of the Lord is sure making the wise simple Proverbs 30:5 every word of God proves true he is a shield to those who take refuge in him I quoted earlier in John 17:17 sanctify them through Truth for your word is truth now there is a lot of sub

Categories that work under this what we believe to be divinely inspired and absolutely true is what was originally given in the autographs we don’t have the autographs we have copies of the autographs we have representations of the C those copies of the autographs in ancient translations like the septu for the Old Testament so there’s a lot of subcategories in there like what what are we saying is inspired infallible and inherent are are we are we looking at one single English translation are we looking at one single Greek text are we looking at one single Hebrew text are we

Looking at one uh text for the pida are we looking at one text uh for the old Latin no I I don’t think there’s a singular text that we can look at and say everything in it is perfect um so I just want to clarify that from the beginning but I do believe that God’s perfect word has been preserved in the body of manuscripts whether you’re talking the old or new testament uh I think the due diligence is on our part to find discover and to uh do our work to demonstrate what would have been represented in those sections of disagreement the original text but as it

Sits as it sits the very words of God themselves are true uh its prophecies are true its predictions are true I was just recently listening to my co-host do a he he delivered the homy in Luke’s gospel on Jesus’s sermon known as the oliv it discourse and it was part of the Le lexal reading for that Sunday and he demonstrated how Jesus in the prediction uh Wars rumors of wars Nation Rise Against Nation pestilence and all these things he demonstrated historically from Josephus and from eus and other historians where events that Jesus predicted happened

Happened exactly how they said why because the word of God is true Jesus is a faithful and true teacher and he was a faithful and true Prophet so when we get into these discussions I’d like to know where they believe that the Bible is actually wrong um and maybe it’s not the Bible That’s wrong it’s maybe their understanding of the Bible is wrong uh but what examples what passages are they saying or Inc correct because when Daniel looked back at Jeremiah’s prophecies he didn’t go well he got most of it right at least uh no he said wow you know this is exactly what was said

Jesus speaking about the law and the prophets he said not a jot or tit not a jot or tit will pass until all is fulfilled he believed that the words of the teachings of scripture would be fulfilled to the very small punctual sections that that he was going to bring a completion not not destroy the law of the prophets but to fulfill them in order to fulfill them they have to be true so he believed that the law and the prophets spoke truth and that he was going to bring the consummated fulfillment of those things so this works against the theology that we see

In scripture as it sees itself as a book of perfection and narcy it’s divinely inspired and if it can be wrong then God can be wrong because if they’re his words then he is either fallible or infallible um and we believe when God spoke he spoke truth again there’s a lot of subcategories to that as we get into the manuscript disc discussion but as it sits the word of God is true and I don’t see any examples that they’ve given in any of this that are worth paying attention to to say differently yeah maybe we could have a textual uh critical discussion sometime

I know that that might bore a lot of people in our audience because it’s not necessarily the most glamorous topic but it is one of personal interest for me um and I think you you did it it well there that um normatively speaking when we’re talking about inherency we’re talking about the autographa the the the original manuscripts and uh that oftentimes produces a whole snowball of questions that people may end up having so maybe we can do a uh a stream on that sometime in the future but um they will never accept inherency because Ellen White’s writings

Are full of Errors so everything has to be understood in light of the bar that she sets any standard that eliminates her or disqualifies her will be said to be too rigid they love using that word as we’ve seen numerous times they use it as a pive in the context of this discussion but to close us out now I want to test Ellen White’s alleged inspiration against scripture so here’s my central proposition this is my syllogism if you will is that if two things are divinely revealed as well as divinely inspired So Divine Revelation not confusing Revelation with

Inspiration but if two things are divinely revealed as well as divinely inspired then the two things cannot contradict each other as late claimed in the opening clip they assert that Ellen White gives further Revelation from God that is non-canonical and this Revelation came after the closing of the biblical Canon which means that if a piece of alleged Divine Revel given to Ellen White contradicts scripture a previous divine revelation then that would call into question her divinely inspired status and she would simultaneously fail the biblical test of

A prophet so the first test little bit of a lead up here but I want to make sure you get the point and that it’s clear as well for the audience before I ask my question earlier I showed how she claimed that the Holy Spirit authored both her writings and the Bible if if this is correct then there shouldn’t be anything in her writings that contradicts scripture she herself even recognized such in Patriarchs and Prophets where she claimed that whatever contradicts God’s word we can be sure proceeds from Satan so let’s test this in spiritual gifts volume 3 she

Wrote quote the Lord first established the system of sacrificial offerings with Adam after his fall which he taught to his descendants this system was corrupted Before the Flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God and engaged in the building of the Tower of Babel they sacrificed to gods of their own making instead of the god of Heaven close quote so she contradicts the Bible which clearly shows that the Tower of Babel was built After the flood not before it yet in Patriarchs and Prophets The Same Book she said whatever contradicts

God’s word we may be sure uh proceeds from Satan she also had this to say about the tower the Tower of Babel quote the Dwellers on the plane of Shar disbelieved God’s covenant that he would not again bring a flood upon the Earth many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the flood to the operation of natural causes others believed in a Supreme Being and that it was he who had destroyed the anti- deluvian world and their hearts like that of Cain rose up in Rebellion against him one object before them in the erection of the Tower was to secure

Their own safety in case of another Deluge by carrying the structure to a much greater height than was reached By the Waters of the flood they thought to place themselves beyond all possibility of danger and as they would be able to ascend to the region of the clouds they hoped to ascertain the cause of the flood the whole undertaking was designed to exalt still further the pride of its projectors and to turn the minds of future Generations away from God and leave them into idolatry close quote so here she claims the Tower of Babel was built After the flood in fear of a

Second one to try and Ascend to the heavens and ascertain why the first flood actually happened and just so people understand she claimed what is contained in Patriarchs and Prophets not just Patriarchs and Prophets but what’s contained in Patriarchs and Prophets is allegedly barricaded by a thus saith the Lord and are truths that were traced upon her heart and mind no different then the decalog was traced onto Stone by the Finger of God so Dr Boyce what we read from her is supposed to be inspired Revelation from God and she claimed to be shown by God that the world leading

Up to the flood was corrupted by those who had separated themselves from the true followers of God and engaged in building the Tower of Babel only one major problem again the Tower of Babel was built After the flood in Genesis 11 does a contradiction like this disqualify someone’s writings from being divinely inspired yeah because she’s if she was writing it um I I cannot help but to compare this view that she has of herself and others of her to what’s considered in Roman Catholicism ex cathedra uh I I don’t know how familiar uh your audiences with the term ex

Cathedra ex cathedra is when the the from the chair it’s when the pope speaks there’s times when the pope speaks and he’s in ER he can be an error and there’s been a lot of Errors coming from the sea of Peter at times but then there’s certain circumstances where he is speaking as the Vicor of God the Vicor of Christ and he is speaking truth that is infallible I find it ironic the reason I bring this up is that these Church groups these movements like the 7-Day Advent have have tried to slam Rome and I think you and I uh correct me if I’m wrong here miles I’m

Pretty sure last time we talked on this didn’t we have a discussion about uh their abhorrence for Roman influence and the change over the years and stuff that there’s this natural combative towards Rome yeah we talked about uh restorationism versus Reformation right yeah that that was that was us yeah I I I thought that was you I was pretty sure what’s interesting is that they have their own setup of ex cathedr uh while they uphor Roman practice and Roman Authority they have actually instituted a replica so you talk about stealing um and copying they

Have set up their own papacy with this person they have set up their own ex cathedra uh the difference is it was Peter in Matthew 16 where it was stated did on this rock I will build my church and he was referring to Peter there and the gates of Hades will not Prevail and you will be given the keys to the kingdom and that what you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven what you loose on Earth will be loose in heaven so we have in Divine scripture definitely the Sea of Peter having the authority of binding and loosening we also see later in John 20 gives all of his Apostles the

Power to forgive sin on Earth and what is Forgiven Earth will be forgiven in heaven whatever is not forgiven on Earth will not be forgiven in heaven that’s power that’s Authority that was not given to anybody but the apostles but the Sea of Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom to do the power of binding and loosening and it is interesting that these teachers that these proclamations from the Seven Day Advent going back to Ellen White have rejected and and and absolutely um criticize on a major level these groups like the Roman Catholics for their Corruptions and

Missteps and wrong authorities yet they’re actually attached to Peter because they’re actually in Peter’s church now whether you’re not you agree with that is irrelevant my point is to show the comparison here that Ellen White has within 7-Day adventism set up an institution no different than the institution they claim to hate I actually have a couple of comparisons I’d love to share and actually put these down if you look at the contradictions between them but there are similarities but here’s where the contradictions come in ex cathedra again ex cathedra is the

Authority comes from the pope who’s from the chair successor of Peter exercising Christ’s teaching through the magisterium that’s a whole another ball game now Ellen White on the other hand the authority comes directly from God through vision um bypassing any hierarchical church succession uh Divine councel uh Universal councel none of that just direct direct communication which even the apostles themselves and their successors didn’t always have functionally how about infallibility ex Cathedral believes in absolute infallibility when teaching on faith and

Morals under specific conditions now there are times um now you tell me if I’m wrong about this uh it seemed like there’s some contradictory in the Seventh Day Adventist where she would deny personal infallibility but others would claim it for her now you tell me if I’m wrong you’ve been studying this longer than me are there not times where there seems to be some contradictory on who like you know her infallibility absolutely um now I could show you obviously um numerous statements from the organization so official Source documentation that outright states that she was infallible

You’re going to get a lot of seventh though that say no no no we don’t claim she’s infallible and then you just basically have to ask them where did she essentially air and they don’t typically want to go down that path some will um the Tower of Babel is actually one that a lot of them are actually willing to recognize but um yes I’m not aware of anywhere that Ellen White herself verbatim stated that she was infallible though I can show you plenty a plethora of statements from the organization itself giving her such a status like we essentially saw in the statement of

Confidence even though they don’t use that term and would they say that she received that infallibility from these prophetic Visions uh where would they say that infallibility came from directly that’s an interesting question um more than likely they’re going to say and Lake actually talks about this a little bit in his book um it’s going to essentially be I would guess don’t hold me to this but my my guess would be that they would say something along the lines of it comes by way of the fact that it it’s attached to Revelation so on that on that horizontal level of revelation

Um it is coming by way of the source through which the Revelation is coming so so because all of this stuff again in that statement of confidence they don’t delineate like a lot of Adventists do where they try and do this sort of like well it’s only her conflict of the ages series it’s just those books no that’s not what the statement of confidence in her writing says the statement of confidence in her writings is talking about the whole gamut of writings not this hierarchy where C C writings have more Authority than other ones no they claim like they

Said there’s no degrees of inspiration and they don’t believe essentially that like certain books of hers are more inspired than another Etc no it’s it’s the whole lot of stuff and would they say and I’m asking questions out loud because I I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page and the same anwers I just want the audience to to see the similarities I’m going to build here would they say uh that her teachings have the power to dictate things that should and should not happen with consequences or no consequences within the 7-Day Adventist Church oh of course

I mean she has a whole uh large volume set of books titled testimonies for the church which is for the Seventh Adventist Church with all sorts of warnings if you don’t listen and all this sort of stuff which is explicit hers is contextually to the Seven Day Adventist doesn’t speak outside of it as much as within it okay uh how about structure um supported by Congregational Church structure uh her Authority came through direct inspiration not through any kind of hierarchy or or any kind of uh Divine counsil but my point that I’m bringing to all this is that if you look at

Everything that you just said all of that is a replica of the Roman Catholic church with the Sea of Peter with papacy with ex cathedra and with binding and loosening and bringing in in and getting rid of things and putting law in place canon law in place the difference is the difference is is that the Roman Catholic church has a 2,000 year old system that can be traced to Peter and that its successors do make mistakes just like Peter Peter made mistakes all the time he had to be rebuked to the face by Paul um after being given that proclamation in Matthew

16 Jesus said get behind me Satan I mean like I mean so you know Peter made mistakes he was fallible but there were times where words like flesh and blood didn’t reveal this to you but my Father which is in heaven did so there are times where he’s fallible and infallible but the difference is is that the institution of the Roman Catholic Church actually has grounds for their claim they actually have historical evidence they have ecumenical council they have direct canon law they have fulfilled proclamations of popes on the other hand she just came out of thin

Air no lineage no Divine counsel no connectivity to the apostles no connectivity to their churches no connectivity to their writings and and it is a self self exalted papacy is what it is whether they want to believe that or not they have done exactly what Rome does that they hate the difference is they did it disconnected from anything Apostolic Rome is actually doing it while they sit in the Vatican with Peter’s bones in their tomb Paul’s bones in one of their Cathedral the apostles bones and all them still there they have records they have evidence they have

Bodies and they have reason and location to stand behind their claims I’m not here to defend Roman Catholicism I’m Anglican all I’m saying is the two systems the two systems are identical one has historical roots with evidence archaeological historically written and oral and the other one came out of thin air out of the middle of nowhere where this nobody connected to no one is all of a sudden given all these Divine Inspirations and they have simply created a new Roman Catholic institution with no stability no historicity that’s all it is whether

They want to believe that or not they’ve created their own ex Cathedral yeah um one thing I will correct just because I know Adventist will latch on to it and that’ll become the whole focus of all things um they’re not congregational um they they claim to hold a presbyterian form of church governance um I’m going to not open up that can of worms being a presbyterian um but spoiler alert no um they’re they’re not um but exactly like you said it’s just and that’s we kind of talked about that the last time you’re were here that’s one of the big differences

Between restoration and Reformation let me clarify when I say congregational in the sense of like the authority is over the congregation like that these Canon laws are for the congregation just like the church is expected when they they come into communion with uh either the Anglican Church I mean you’re affirming things you’re affirming the 39 articles you’re affirming like you’re coming under the authority of the bishop prick it’s so different I mean they they have authority figures too and the congregation has to be led by those laws or or or whatever they call them they

May not call them canon law whatever testimonies or whatever you said they were they have to put themselves under something so the congregation is led by some sort of authority to me it’s no different they just set up a a mini mini roome that’s all they did yeah except they’ve actually gone one step further because they’re a little bit more bold in my opinion in this area than than Rome has been um the the papal seat has only spoken ex cathedra uh two times I believe two or three times right in all of history whereas essentially Ellen White’s uh entire volume of works is ex

Cathedr you’re talking millions of words she claimed to have over 2,000 Visions these are all divinely inspired divinely inspired she’s the last human being to supposedly talk face to face with Jesus and what she thought to ask him when she saw him was does your father have a form like you do and the Adventist Jesus told Ellen White that God the father has a physical body like we do we could go ahead yeah just just to clarify I think we two times universally ex Cathedral has been exercise since the first Vatican Council was in 1870 that was for the Immaculate Conception of

Mary and the bodily assumption bily assumption yeah so but yeah it’s not like it was every time the pope got up and said something it was ex Cathedral or something right and it went through a magisterium too it wasn’t just his final Proclamation was that of ex cathedra but it was not just him sitting in a like you said here it was actually a order of Cardinals and Bishops who had discussed researched defined talked prayed meditated repeated debated then there was a proclamation of X cathedra um that that ended with the Pope’s Proclamation but it wasn’t him

Independent either um whereas in her case I don’t see any evidence where she was working with a councel working with a governing body uh the way that we see Rome do it so again hers is private Revelation with private interpretation which is the opposite of what Peter said was given that no prophecy was given from private interpretation to me it’s a major contradictory major contradict yeah and just again to to set the record um we’re not Roman Catholic apologists um that anytime I mention anytime I mention Rome you know I get lambasted by Adventist of I’m a Jesuit

And I’m it’s like folks you need to represent people accurately you just because you represent somebody accurately doesn’t mean you’re now an apologist for them I’m just an apologist for representing people accurately and so that that’s we’re just comparing yeah the point is we’re comparing like you hate the system but you actually have mimicked it um and you’ve Mimi it mimicked it without any substantial history you’ve mimicked it without any lineage they have more reason to whether you like him or not they have more reason to have the belief that they’ve done this and they have

These athor authoritative powers and they have because they’re they’re in the sea of Peter they’re at the very Vatican itself they have the body of Peter they have the body of Paul they have like they have the relics they have the icons they have the inscriptions they have Paul’s chains that he was chained in his prison cell with they have all of these things so if there is a church that has the right to actually claim to be speaking that authoritatively they have all the evidence and reason for for that argument a woman out of nowhere connected to no one with no spiritual

Lineage is the most unlikely person that can speak with this kind of authority because it is so disconnected from Biblical Authority it’s so disconnected from the life of Jesus the apostles their successors and that is a major major flaw in the system from the beginning and even if they want to try and demotor down to like a reformer which I’ve I’ve heard some of them do it’s like well well no because again this is the difference between reformation and restoration yes these restorationists are just you’re not even connected to the church at all I

Understand some of the complaints that you know my Roman cathol friends Orthodox friends Etc have about protestantism Etc but one thing you can’t argue is there’s a a vast difference between people that are Roman clerics who are seeking to then bring about change within something they’re actually affiliated with versus a bunch of anti-trinitarian anti-gospel Heretics with no connection to the church in history just up and rising up and saying well God gave us a word through this woman that were supposed to restore his church and we’re his last day people and Revelation 12 proves it

It’s it’s a a very different the reformers like Luther still had Bishops he brought he was a succession priest I mean he’s he was under orders of Peter as a priest he was a monk uh he worked as a monk under Divine orders of the Sea of Peter he brought and converted uh Bishops that became a part of the Lutheran tradition Even Calvin at the end of his life in Geneva was corresponding back and forth with anglicans remember a lot of anglicans went to Geneva for Refuge uh when Mary went nuts in England uh and so when you when you look at that he was

Ready to start opening the discussion of bringing the bishop prick back into Geneva why because he saw the historical necessity to be connected to the authority of those who are attached to the hands- on head and the pouring of oil and the praying over and the gifting of bishops from the apostles to their successors so even the reformers were willing to act I think I I’m convinced based on the end of Calvin’s life if he lived another five years he’d have brought the Bishop Rick back into Geneva uh Luther already had it uh and so the the anglicans had it so again the the

They’re in another category they can lik themselves or liking her another reformer so far removed from the church from where they were uh Luther saw Rome as the true church he just saw as a good church that was going bad he didn’t see it as a fa he believed that that was the Sea of Peter it just hence it needed reforming not removing yep one final example here so Stephen adventism has an entire set of doctrines around food that they call their health message essentially the idea that one must be a vegetarian in order to be fit for heaven they claimed that Adam and

Eden was a vegetarian and since Heaven is a Return to Eden they conclude that you need to get prepared for that now or you won’t be fit to exist there this of course was supported by Ellen White she had a Health Vision and her handling of the Bible where um she would read various texts in light of that presupposition so one such example of this the the presupposition of the health message being true and this Vision being from God Etc one such example is the story of Daniel and his friends in Daniel 1 so commenting on Daniel 1 she writes quote Daniel purposed in his heart that he

Would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat nor with the wine which he drank therefore he requested of the prince of the Unix that he might not defile himself daniel8 this request was not preferred in a defiant Spirit but was solicited as a great favor Daniel and his companions were courteous kind respectful possessing the grace of meekness and modesty and now as Daniel and his fellows were brought to the T test they placed themselves fully on the side of righteousness and Truth they did not move capriciously but intelligently they decided that as flesh

Meat had not composed their diet in the past neither should it come into their diet in the future and as the use of wine had been prohibited to all those who should engage in the service of God they determined that they would not partake of it close quote this is to say that Daniel was allegedly a vegetarian flesh meat of any kind had never composed his diet in the past present or future she said not just unclean Meats Adventist but all meats and this is supposed to be a divinely inspired statement from God the Holy Spirit except Daniel as a faithful Jew

Would have partaken of the Passover Lamb as was as was commanded in Exodus 12 3-8 furthermore Daniel 10 clearly tells us that Daniel was fast from meat and wine at one point in his life well to fast from something by definition would mean that you have to have partaken of the thing that you’re voluntarily abstaining from for a season otherwise you wouldn’t be fasting from it and the avenus biblical Research Institute even recognized such where in an article titled Daniel 103 was Daniel a vegetarian anel Rodriguez who’s the former director of the Bri wrote that in

This particular setting Daniel fasted for meat but when he was in charge of his own diet he followed the levitical regulations which included clean Meats Daniel 10:3 which is a tacit admission that no Daniel was not a vegetarian so Ellen White contradicts the biblical text again yet both her claim and the Bible are supposed to be Revelation from God and equally as inspired if we take issue with this the charges that were being too rigid and were holding Ellen White on too high of a standard what is your take on this contradiction and does it call into question Ellen

White being inspired yeah uh for a couple reasons one um the word meat there is the word path bag in Hebrew and it is not simply rendered meat it it simply means portion of food or dainty I mean it could it could have multiple and the reason I think that it could be reasonable to reject it to Simply mean actual flesh I I mean it could apply to that that’s not the direct interpretation of it but if we actually go to the septu agent for example uh when we look at the translation of it I was actually going to pull it up I think it’s trapid it is yes trapid is the word

Here which is often used to refer to a table in fact the term is used for a counter or a place where Brokers met for loans or to give interest or or some sort of money they would come to the table and they would receive a benefit uh of a loan and so when you look at the septu aent Translating that section they actually just translated the king’s table it wasn’t it seemed like the text could indicate that meat was there because they ate certain kinds of herbs but I don’t think it was just the meat that was rejected and obviously that wasn’t the point because it was

Also wine and everybody wanted to focus on the meat here but he also refused the King’s Wine uh God gave his people the most Bountiful Vineyards to enjoy the wine in fact uh Proverbs Ecclesiastes talk about drink your wine with joy uh God is given this to you he’s delighted in you drink your wine with joy so obviously it wasn’t the wine that was the problem um it wasn’t even the meat that was the problem I don’t even think it was about the meat I think it was the meal portions that the King was giving meat was probably a section of that meal but it would have been other items with

It it’s the fact that the king had a defiling meal in front of them that was probably filled with uncleanliness and it was filled with all the dainties of being in a kingdom and they did not want to feel like they were a part of a pagan Kingdom they wanted to live and have a diet like Exiles because that’s who they were they were Exiles they wanted to feel like Exiles and and the King was trying to acclimate them into the culture and acclimate them into uh because this is what would happen you take the wise and the handsome young people and you

Brainwash them that’s what you do that’s how you control them that’s how you change their culture and adapt it into yours and they’re refusing not a single item on the menu they’re refusing the whole thing they refuse to pray to the gods we see later in Daniel 3 they refuse to bow to uh people who proclaimed themselves as gods they refuse all the dainties of the Kingdom that would impact them to become acclimated to this culture rather than to feel like the exile that they really were that’s the point of the text even the Hebrew word itself is is hardly even

Talking about meat in itself so about dainties or portions and the sepian obviously understood the Hebrew word to be that because they translated it as table and that would indicate an entirety of a meal put in front of you so I I think this is ridiculous argument so you’re telling me that the point of Daniel 1 is not to teach us that God desires for us to have a vegetarian lifestyle that’s exactly what I’m saying brother thank you so much for being here let people know where they can find more of your content before we shut things down I have your channel your YouTube

Channel linked uh down below but if you have any other link that you want me to post there as well just get that to me uh offline yeah yeah so uh we’re fairly new on YouTube just started YouTube this year um most everything that we put out prior to this year the last two years before is on your major platforms for podcast Spotify Apple podbean Google podcast there’s seven of them out there a lot of people listen on different platforms uh I’m pretty sure apple and uh Spotify are the biggest ones so you can find us on there it’s facts fcts it’s an acronym that was mentioned um

The logo is going let’s see if I can get in the camera it’s going to look something like that it’s got the Jerusalem cross on it um and stands for Father’s apoc Canon text and scripture that’s what it’ll look like uh when you look it up on your favorite platform uh so yeah we’re definitely bigger on the podcast side but we’re trying to get the YouTube side going this year it’s our first year I think we started back in March uh we actually took over a channel for apolog Ministry that that uh didn’t work through uh we have a Board of Trustees I’m actually meeting with them

In a few weeks uh to go over the new plan for 2025 and uh you can find me on social media Twitter uh hardly ever use Instagram uh Facebook and uh you know I do a lot of different work for different Ministries I’m on a lot of different channels you can just put my name in YouTube and you’ll find me on a plethora of channels uh doing discussions like this so uh be sure to check any of that out and uh like And subscribe us on the channels that we do show and um if you want I can send you a link for the Spotify and apple to add in there as well so people that like to listen on

The podcast side can follow along that way as well that would be excellent and may God continue to grow your guys’ efforts you are doing uh excellent work man I really appreciate uh not just your time but the work that you’re putting in in the areas that you are so may God continue to give increase there I’m grateful as well for you the viewer thank you for being here as always um May Christ richly bless you in the grace and peace won by him and his vicarious death on the cross for Sinners until next time God bless