"What About the Testimonies"
by
A.
F. Ballenger
c.
1910
The following letter was received by the editor of The Gathering Call:
Dear Bro. Ballenger:
I notice from your writings that you do not regard the
publications of Mrs. E. G. White
as being equally inspired, and of the same divine authority, as the Bible. At the
same time I notice you manifest no bitterness against her work. If you are willing,
I, and others, would like to have you give, in the columns of The Gathering Call,
the reasons and facts which have led you to your present conclusions.
Your brother in search of the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.
|
This is a reasonable request and
will be answered in a candid and Christian spirit.
At the outset, the writer wishes to testify to his
belief that the writings of Sister White contain a great body of Scriptural, helpful
teaching. It is only when the claim is made that all she has published is inspired
by the Spirit of God, and must be accepted as the testimony of Jesus as a condition of
salvation, that the difficulty arises. If her writings were handed to one with the
statement that they contain a great help for the honest seeker after truth, and with the
Scripture admonition, "Despise not prophesyings, (Greek: prophecies), prove all
things, hold fast that which is good," they ought to be received by every real lover
of truth with appreciation and thankfulness. But when one is told that he must
accept her published writings as the testimony of Jesus then the situation becomes
serious.
Suppose there are errors in her writings, and one
should accept them all as the inspired testimony of Jesus; then one would be forced to
accept error as truth with no hope of being corrected. However, if the great
Protestant principle that the Bible and the Bible only be the standard of truth, and all
other writings must be subjected to the Scriptures as a final test, then there is a chance
of arriving at the truth and escaping the error. And the Holy Spirit is promised to
each individual to guide him in his search of the Scriptures that he may discover the
truth.
It is not in the heart of the writer to emphasize
these errors in Sister White's writings, but rather to emphasize the truth they contain.
And this tract is written to answer those who would like to know why the writer
cannot accept, as inspired, all the published writings of Sister White. This tract
is not intended for indiscriminate circulation, but only to be handed to those who desire
to know the writer's honest convictions on the subject, and the evidence in their support.
The writer was reared in the belief that the
writings of Sister White were equally inspired with "the Scriptures of truth,"
and that therefore there was perfect harmony between them. At the same time it was
held that the proof of their inspiration lay in the belief that their teaching harmonized
with the teaching of the Scriptures. It was not believed that a conflict would ever
arise between them, but in case it did, the teachings of the "testimonies" must
give way to the teachings of the Bible. For if the teachings of the Scriptures must
yield to the teachings of the "testimonies" then the "testimonies"
become the test in determining the inspiration of the Bible in which case the Bible would
lose its place as the court of last appeal, and the "testimonies" would become
the one final authority, in determining what is truth.
That there is a possibility that errors may appear
in the prophecies of those who prophesy, is evident from Paul's admonition recorded in 2
Thess. 5:19-21. (Emphatic Diaglott.)
Do not disregard prophecies (things prophesied, not
the exercise of the gift) but try all things. Hold fast the good.
In trying all things we must have something as the
standard with which to try them. Our readers will agree that "all things"
must be brought to "the law and the testimony" of the Bible "if they speak
not according to this word" there is no light in them. Isa. 8:20.
An
Error in Something
She
"Saw"
May 30, 1847, Eld. and Mrs. White published a pamphlet of 24 pages, entitled "A Word
to the Little Flock." On pages 18-20 there is printed a vision which Mrs. White
had at Topsham, Maine, April 7, 1847. In this published vision there appears the
following on page 19:
I saw that all that would 'not
receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,'
could not buy or sell. (Rev. 13:15-17.) I saw that the number (666) of the
Image Beast was made up; (Rev. 13:18) and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath,
and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's and not God's Sabbath.
In 1851 this vision was published by Brother and
Sister White in a work entitled The Christian Experience and Views of Mrs. E. G. White
(now the first part of Early Writings) under the heading, "Subsequent
Visions." But the paragraph containing the quotation about "the number
(666) of the image beast" was left out. If it had not been suppressed, it would
appear between paragraphs five and six of the chapter in Early Writings entitled,
"Subsequent Visions."
It will be noticed that this suppressed paragraph
twice uses the important expression "I saw." Then why was it suppressed?
Before this question is answered let the reader
carefully examine the paragraph, and it will be seen that it contains three errors which
Eld. and Mrs. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination came to see were errors as
early as August, 1851, when the testimony was published without this paragraph. The
three errors are as follows:
Error No. 1: The number 666 is not the number of
the "image beast," but the number of the beast. Rev. 13:17,18; 15:2.
Error No. 2: The "image beast" was not
"made up" in 1847.
Error No. 3: The "image beast" was not
made up of 666 backslidden Protestant churches as this statement implies.
To understand this statement it must be remembered
that in 1847 the denomination was teaching that the "beast" was the Roman
Church, and the image of the beast was "made up" of 666 backslidden Protestant
churches. Any one wishing to verify the truth of this statement, let him write to
Eld. J. N. Loughborough whose address can be found in the SDA Year Book.
Inasmuch as they were then looking for the coming
of the Lord in "a few months" (Early Writings, p. 57), they must find an
image of the beast already "made up," and could not wait for the United States
to form an image by the union of church and state, which their later teaching called for.
A feeble and unworthy effort has been made to save
Sister White from this mistake by stating that the "(666)" was inserted in the
testimony by Eld. Bates who first published this testimony. But this effort falls
flat when the fact is known that Eld. and Mrs. White published the testimony in A Word
to the Little Flock with this number in it. If it ought not to be there why did
they not omit that number? And if it ought not to have been placed there, then will
some one tell us what is "the number of the Image Beast" which number was
"made up" in 1847?
And furthermore will some one tell us why this
whole paragraph, twice prefaced with the vital words "I saw" was suppressed when
the vision was republished by Eld. and Mrs. White in 1851?
The present view of the image of the beast, taught
by the SDA Denomination and endorsed by Mrs. E. G. White, is found on page 445 of The
Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, edition of 1911, and reads as follows:
When the leading churches of the
United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall
influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then
Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy...
Thus it is seen that the
image of the beast which Mrs. White "saw" was "made up" as early as
1847, and so stated in the suppressed paragraph, was not yet made up in 1911, according to
the paragraph last quoted.
In view of the facts it is plain why this
paragraph was suppressed. If it had been retained it would have been evident to all,
in view of Mrs. White's present teaching, that sometimes even when she says "I
saw" she has testified that which is not true.
Now let not the reader swing like a pendulum to
the other extreme and conclude that all is false because of this error. "Prove
all things; hold fast to that which is good."
Mrs. White Changes
Her Teaching
The reader is next cited to the teaching of Mrs. White regarding the second angel's
message of Rev. 14:8, which reads as follows:
And another, a second angel,
followed saying, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great, which hath made all the nations to
drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Revised Version.
From the beginning of Mrs. White's teaching until
1911, a period of more than 55 years, she has persistently taught that Babylon the Great
of the second message [second angel's message] referred to the moral fall of the
Protestant churches which rejected the announcement that Christ was coming to destroy the
wicked and cleanse the earth by fire, Oct. 22, 1844. Among her first printed
writings appears the following published in Early Writings, under the chapter
heading, "The Sins of Babylon."
I saw that since the second
angel's message proclaimed the fall of the churches they have been growing more and more
corrupt.
During all these years the
Protestant churches opposed this application of the prophecy and cited the testimony of
the early reformers in proof that Babylon the Great applied to the Roman church, and her
"fall" was an announcement of her everlasting destruction.
This was met by Mrs. White in the following
statement found, until 1911, on page 33 of The Great Controversy Between Christ and
Satan:
The message of Revelation 14,
announcing the fall of Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and
have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the judgment, it must
be given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the Roman church, for that church
has been in a fallen condition for many centuries.
Before calling attention to the radical change
which Mrs. White made in this statement in the edition of 1911, let the reader examine the
scripture evidence on the disputed point.
"Babylon the Great" is mentioned by this
name in chapters fourteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of Revelation, but explained
only in the seventeenth, where she is declared to be "that great city which reigneth
over the kings of the earth." Rev. 17:5, 18.
Mrs. White has always taught that Babylon the
Great of this seventeenth chapter is a symbol of Rome. On page 382 of Great
Controversy she declares that this Babylon the Great "is Rome," "the
haughty see of Rome."
But since "Babylon the Great" of the
17th chapter is Rome, "Babylon the Great" of the 14th chapter is Rome, for both
are given the same name and are charged with the same sins.
Of Babylon the Great of the 14th chapter it is
written that "she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication." v. 8.
Of Babylon the Great of the 17th chapter it is
written that "the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her
fornication."
Since Babylon the Great of this 17th chapter is
Rome, and since it is declared that she has made the inhabitants of the earth drunk with
the wine of her fornication, there is no room for another different Babylon the Great to
make all nations drunk with the wine of her fornication. Manifestly there is but one
Babylon the great in the book of Revelation, and that one is "the mother of
harlots," "that great city which reigneth over the kings of the
earth." This Babylon the Great is the mother of harlots, but these harlots are never
called Babylon the Great. That name God applies alone to the mother of harlots.
The writer saw this plain Bible truth while in
England, and after a bitter struggle accepted it in the face of the positive statement of
Mrs. White, that
the message of Rev. 14, announcing
the fall of Babylon, must apply to the religious bodies that were once pure and have
become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the judgment, it must be
given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the Roman Church, for that
church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries.
Reader, do you condemn me
for accepting the true testimony of Jesus on this subject, in opposition to the testimony
of Mrs. White? Most of my SDA brethren would have done so prior to 1911, but not
since 1911, for in the new edition of Great Controversy of that date the author has
changed the quotation, so that as it now reads, Babylon the Great does refer to the
Roman Church. As changed, it reads, "it cannot refer to the Roman church
alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries." The
one word, "alone," has been added. Now the message [of the second angel]
can and does refer to the church of Rome, but not to it alone, whereas, for all the years
Mrs. White unqualifiedly declared, "It cannot refer to the Roman Church."
I am ashamed to say that there are a few who still
insist that the addition of the word "alone" makes no change in the
statement. If a man was on trial for his life, would a jury verdict which read
"not guilty" be the same as one reading "not guilty alone"? The
reader knows that the difference between the two is the difference between freedom and
death.
In harmony with this radical change the
denomination has made a complete change in its latest teaching on the second angel's
message. Babylon the Great is now declared to be Rome and her fall is proclaimed to
mean her doom as pictured by the millstone which the angel cast into the sea,
"saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon the Great city, be cast down, and be
found no more at all." Rev. 18:21 RV. See the Sabbath School Quarterly
for the third quarter of 1918 and "The Three Angels' Messages -- Extra No.
16" issued by the Review and Herald, Tacoma Park Station, Washington, DC.
If the reader would like to understand why the
message reads "is fallen," and why men are called out of Babylon after the
announcement that she "is fallen" (if it be a doom and not a moral
fall), let him read chapter 24 of the new pamphlet "Before Armageddon,"
where this matter is clearly explained.
From the foregoing facts it must be clear to the
fair-minded reader that the writings of Mrs. White cannot be accepted as equally inspired
with the scriptures of truth. At the same time the writer bears testimony to the
many priceless treasures of truth to be found in her writings.
"Quench not the Spirit. Do not
disregard prophecies; but examine all things. Hold fast the good." 1
Thess. 5:19-21. Emphatic Diaglott.
An
Historical Mistake
As a further proof that the writings of Sister White contain mistakes, the reader is cited
to Early Writings, chapter entitled, "The Resurrection of Christ,"
paragraph 10, which reads as follows:
Herod's heart had grown still
harder; and when he heard that Christ had risen, he was not much troubled. He took
the life of James; and when he saw that it pleased the Jews he took Peter also, intending
to put him to death. But God had a work for Peter to do, and sent his angel to
deliver him. Herod was visited with the judgments of God. While exalting
himself in the presence of a great multitude, he was smitten by the angel of the Lord and
died a most horrible death.
Here we have an innocent historical error.
Sister White was not a historian and supposed that the Herod who killed James was the same
Herod who took part in the trial of Christ. But he was not. It was Herod
Antipas who took part in the trial of Christ, and Herod Agrippa who put James to
death. Agrippa was nephew and brother-in-law to Antipas.
When the brethren discovered this mistake, instead
of honestly and frankly admitting that it is a mistake, an unworthy effort was made to
show that it was not a mistake. But why try to cover up an error so manifest?
Because if it be admitted that Mrs. White has made a mistake, even in a matter of history,
her writings are not all inspired.
And since the "testimony of Jesus" which
the remnant saints have, has been misinterpreted to be, not the testimony of Jesus found
in the Bible, which it really is, but the writings of Sister White, it was feared to admit
she made mistakes lest they lose the testimony of Jesus, and consequently the claim of
being the remnant.
It was therefore decided that this historical
mistake must not be allowed to be a mistake. It must be shown some way that her
statement is true. But how can it be shown that the Herod that killed James was the
Herod before whom Christ was tried, when he was not? It was finally decided to claim
that Sister White was not writing about individual Herods but about the "Herodian
Dynasty." And a note to this effect was placed at the bottom of the page.
It reads in part as follows:
It was Herod Antipas who took part
in the trial of Christ, and Herod Agrippa I who put James to death. Agrippa was
nephew and brother-in-law of Antipas. Through intrigue he secured the throne of
Antipas for himself, and on coming to power pursued the same course toward the Christians
that Antipas had followed. In the Herodian dynasty there were six persons who bore
the name of Herod. It thus served in a measure as a general title, the individual
being designated by other names, as Antipas, Philip, Agrippa, etc. So we might say,
Czar Nicholas, Czar Alexander, etc. In the present instance this use of the term
becomes more natural and appropriate inasmuch as Agrippa, when he put James to death,
occupied the throne of Antipas, who, a little before (11 years) had been concerned in the
trial of Christ; and he manifested the same character. It was the same Herodian
spirit, only in another personality.
From all this we are asked to believe that Sister
White was not referring to any individual Herod, but to the "Herodian Dynasty"
or "Herodian spirit."
Now if she is talking about the "Herodian
dynasty" and not about any individual, her statement should be true when we insert
the term "Herodian dynasty" in the place of "Herod" and "he"
where they appear in the paragraph. When this is done we have the following.
The Herodian dynasty's heart had brown harder; and
when the Herodian dynasty heard that Christ was risen, the Herodian dynasty was not much
troubled. The Herodian dynasty took the life of James; and when the Herodian dynasty saw
that it pleased the Jews, the Herodian dynasty took Peter also, intending to put him to
death. But God had a work for Peter to do and sent his angel to deliver him.
The Herodian dynasty was visited with the judgments of God. While exalting itself in
the presence of a great multitude the Herodian dynasty was smitten by the angel of the
Lord and died a most horrible death.
Truth can only be sustained by truth; and error
can only be maintained by error. Since Sister White's original statement is an
error, every effort to make it to be the truth can but produce more error. And what
was originally only an innocent historical mistake, by the efforts of the brethren to make
it appear to be truth, has been magnified into a ridiculous error. The writer must
not close without bearing testimony to the fact that there are ministers in the SDA church
who reject this stupid effort to explain Sister White's mistake. Far better allow it
to stand unexplained than to attempt to explain it with such a manifest subterfuge.
Another
Error
After the disappointment, Oct. 22, 1844, the Adventists still looked for the immediate
coming of Christ. But as the years came and went, it was felt that there ought to be
some explanation of the delay.
Associated with Bro. and Sister White in those
early days was Eld. Joseph Bates, a man of strong convictions and great energy.
Sister White had great confidence in Bro. Bates, and some of her earliest visions were
sent to him and were first published by him.
It was Eld. Bates who first hit upon an
explanation of the Lord's delay. He preached, and afterward published, that the
seven sprinklings of the blood on and before the mercy seat, by the high priest on the
great atonement day, represented seven years that Christ as high priest would be
engaged in making the atonement at the mercy seat in the true tabernacle. This view
was published in 1850 in a tract entitled The Typical and Anti-Typical Sanctuary,
and reads as follows:
The seven spots of blood on the
Golden Altar and before the mercy seat, I fully believe, represent the duration of the
judicial proceedings on the living saints in the Most Holy, all of which time they will be
in their affliction, even seven years; God, by his voice will deliver them, 'for it
is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul' (Lev. 17:11). Then the number seven
will finish the day of atonement (not redemption). The last six months of this
time, I understand, Jesus will be gathering in the harvest with His sickle, on the white
cloud.
Again:
As soon as the day of atonement is
ended, seven angels come out of the temple with the seven last plagues (vs. 5, 6).
This is the duration of the third angel's message in Rev. 14:9-13. The Typical
and Anti-Typical Sanctuary, pp. 10-13, 15. The full title of the tract is, An
Explanation of the Typical and Anti-Typical Sanctuary, with Chart, by Joseph Bates, New
Bedford (Mass.), Press of Benjamin Lindsay, 1850.
The writer copied this from
the tract, which is carefully preserved.
According to this teaching, Christ would be seven
years making atonement, and six months of this time gathering the saints. And since
they taught that He began to make atonement Oct. 22, 1844, the seven years would end Oct.
22, 1851. "This is the duration of the third angel's message." And
this will explain some statements by Mrs. White in Early Writings that have been
mysterious.
On page 58 of Early Writings, chapter
entitled "Duty in View of the Time of Trouble," we read this:
Some are looking too far off for
the coming of the Lord. Time has continued a few years longer than they expected,
therefore they think it may continue a few years more, and in this way their minds are
being led from present truth, out after the world... I saw that the time for Jesus
to be in the most holy place was almost finished, and that time cannot last but a very
little longer.
This vision was given in
1850, not long before the expiration of the seven years which would end in Oct.,
1851. At this time the Lord, according to the teaching, had been engaged in making
the atonement in the most holy place about six years. "Time had continued a few
years longer than they had expected [six], therefore they think it may continue a few
years more." This is declared to be a mistake. "I saw that the time
for Jesus to be in the most holy place was almost finished, and that time cannot
last but a very little longer."
In view of the then published teaching that time
would end on Oct. 22, 1851, this statement is made plain.
But the time for Christ to be in the most holy
place was not "nearly finished" but only begun, according to her and the
denomination's teaching, which is that Christ has been making atonement in the most holy
place ever since 1844, and is still engaged in that work, a period of nearly 75 years.
And now I appeal to the honesty and candor of the
reader. Must I believe, in the face of this evident mistake, that Sister White was
inspired by the "Spirit of Truth" to say in 1850, "I saw that the
time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished, and that time cannot last
but a very little longer"? Are you willing to condemn me, now and in the
judgment day, as a dangerous deceiver because I cannot believe that statement is inspired
by the Spirit of God?
On page 64 of Early Writings,
chapter entitled "The Mark of the Beast," we find these words at the beginning
of the first paragraph:
In a view given June 27, 1850, my
accompanying angel said, "Time is almost finished."
Then, in the middle of the last paragraph, we read
these words:
Some of us have had time to get
the truth, and to advance step by step, and every step we have taken has given us strength
to take the next. But now time is almost finished, and what we have been years
learning, they will have to learn in a few months.
According to the tract
published in 1850, not years but months only remained before the coming of Christ
at the end of the seven years, or Oct. 22, 1851. And this explains why, in June,
1850, the new members must "learn in a few months what others had been years
learning."
The editors of the Gathering Call do not
have it in their hearts to condemn those who made these mistakes. Had we been living
at that time and connected with that movement, we would most likely have believed these
errors, like the rest. But that which is so inexpressibly sad and serious, is that,
in the face of these plain undeniable mistakes in Sister White's writings, it should still
be insisted that these writings are equally inspired with the Bible, and that the one who
does not accept this claim is committing the sin of rebellion like that of Korah, Dathan
and Abiram; a sin so terrible as to justify his brethren in casting him out as unclean,
and God in condemning him to the lake of fire at last.
On the other hand, for us to profess to believe
and teach that the writings of Sister are inspired equally with the Bible, in the face of
these manifest mistakes, would be a violation of conscientious convictions which would
bring eternal ruin to our souls. We must, therefore, endure the condemnation of our
brethren and await the decision of the Judge of all the earth. "We shall know
each other better when the mists have cleared away."
One
More Mistake
In 1864 Sister White published a small book dealing with creation, the fall, the flood,
etc., entitled Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3.
On page 75 of this work, paragraph 3, there
appears this astonishing statement:
Every species of animal which God
had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create,
which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood,
there have been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in almost countless
varieties of species of animal, and certain races of men.
In 1870 the matter of this little volume was
republished, somewhat enlarged, under the title, The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1.
This remarkable statement is repeated and is found on page 78, paragraph 3.
In 1890 the matter of this volume was re-written
and enlarged and published under the title Patriarchs and Prophets. But to
the everlasting credit of the author, this astounding paragraph was cut out. If it
had hot been suppressed it would have appeared on page 107, paragraph 8. But another
paragraph was written and substituted for the objectionable one.
Now why was it cut out after having been published
as the testimony of Jesus from 1864 to 1890, a period of 26 years? For the simple
reason that it was discovered that it contained a fundamental error of the doctrine of
evolution. According to this statement different species of animals could amalgamate
and produce a new species, and species so widely separated as man and beast could and have
commingled and produced almost endless varieties of species of animals which are part
animal and part human, and "some races of men" which are a cross between man and
beast.
If the varieties of animals that are part human
are "most endless" it ought to be easy to name a score or more. And if
there are some races of men that are the result of the cohabiting of man and beast, what
races are they? And are they included in the plan of salvation? Shall we send
the gospel to them? The good news is proclaimed "to every nation, and kindred,
and tongue, and people" (Rev. 14:6); and a great multitude "of all nations, and
kindreds, and peoples, and tongues," are seen "before the throne, and before the
Lamb, clothed with white robes and palms in their hands." Rev. 7:9.
This suppressed paragraph contains a fundamental
error of evolution which all those who are loyal to the Bible record of creation,
repudiate and show by scientific evidence to be absolutely false.
The evolutionists themselves are compelled to
admit that it is a physical impossibility for the highest type of known animal to
amalgamate with the lowest type of man. And because of this defect in their theory,
they have been searching on the earth and in the grave, among fossils and bones for the
"missing link," but all in vain. They have hunted in vain to establish a
false theory which the paragraph under consideration declares to be true.
To sum up the situation; for nearly thirty years
Sister White published as the testimony of Jesus, this fatal error. But it was not
the testimony of Jesus but an error of the evolutionist, as all the leaders now admit, and
which the author finally admitted by suppressing it. But the error was never openly
repudiated, but only quietly suppressed. And there are today hundreds of these
little volumes in the homes of SDAs, which continue to present, as the testimony of Jesus,
this fundamental error.
But says some one, since the author has suppressed
the error and the denomination is earnestly combating it, why refer to it?
If I were a member of the Lutheran church and that
church claimed that all the religious writings of Luther were divinely inspired, and one
must accept that claim and interpret the Bible in harmony with his teaching, or be cast
out as an enemy of the truth, it would be necessary for me to show wherein his writings
were not divinely inspired, and in doing this I would be rendering valuable service to the
cause of Truth. Nor would I be fighting Luther or his work, but only the false claim
concerning his writings. I would still be a friend and admirer of his work.
In like manner when the claim is made that all
Sister White's writings are divinely inspired, and that he who will not accept that claim,
and interpret the Bible in harmony with her writings, must be condemned and cast out as an
enemy of truth, the only proper thing to do is to show that all her writings are not
divinely inspired. In doing this, one is not fighting Sister White or her writings,
but is only opposing a false claim and rendering a valuable service to the cause of truth.
And we are not enemies of Sister White and her
writings when we call attention to these errors any more than we would be enemies of
Martin Luther because we pointed out some of his errors.
We might cite other errors, but will not. We
wish we did not have to call attention to these. And the only reason for citing
these is that our honest brethren who feel we have missed the path of truth, may
understand our spirit and attitude toward the writings of Sister White.
We are glad to testify here that we find in Sister
White's writings a great body of good, spiritual, practical instruction; and we only say
we cannot believe all she has published is divinely inspired. If this view were
admitted we would never again refer to the errors they contain, but only rejoice in their
truth. We are only obeying the Bible admonition:
"Despise not prophesyings (Greek:
prophecies). Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." (1
Thess. 5:19-21)
----------------------
The reader is earnestly urged to
secure and study a tract by the same author entitled --
The Spirit of Prophecy
-- which clearly shows that
Rev. 12:17 and 9:10 has no reference to the prophesying of an individual in the last days,
but to the testimony of Jesus as recorded in the Bible. It shows the difference
between "the spirit of prophecy" and the gift of prophecy.
|