PROGRESSIVE REVELATION

Dear Friends, fellow researchers & students of God's Holy word:

The Lord has impressed me to write about "Present Truth" and "Progressive Revelation." Let's try to define these terms by using a simple illustration such as day and night. If you look outside your window now and see that it is day time you can truthfully say "It is light outside. The sun is shining and it is day time." That would be "Present Truth." No one would argue with you for the facts of nature are evident. But later on that same day, when the sun goes down about 12 hours later, and darkness envelopes and covers the land you could no longer declare "It is light outside," because the day time has been succeeded by the darkness of night. The present truth now would be, "It is dark outside because the night has come." So, it is with all of life. Time and circumstance change things. You might call someone and ask about their health. "Oh, I am fine, fit as a fiddle." But one hour later they may be in a car wreck and end up in the hospital. So, the "present truth" changed in just one hour.

So it is with all of life and what we like to call "truth." The servant of the Lord has told us: "God intends that, even in this life, truth shall be ever unfolding to His people. There is only one way in which this knowledge can be obtained. We can attain to an understanding of God's word only through the illumination of that Spirit by which the word was given." 5T 703. We know that even the holy angels did not understand what was wrong with Lucifer until they saw him cause Jesus, God's dear son, to be put on trial and cruelly beaten and crucified. See DA 758, 759. "There are mysteries in the plan of redemption--the humiliation of the Son of God, that He might be found in fashion as a man, the wonderful love and condescension of the Father in yielding up His Son--that are to the heavenly angels subjects of continual amazement." 5 T 702. Yes, even the prophets and angels have been trying to look into all of this for centuries. I Pet 1:10-12.

"There is no excuse for anyone taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible." R & H 12-20-1892.

It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly sincere and professed believers in the Third Angels' messages of Rev 14 are continually quoting SOP quotes from Great Controversy and Patriarch's & Prophets which they believe prove once and for all time that EGW taught that "God Does Destroy." Or that God is not going to reconcile and save everyone because EGW stated in her earlier writings that all those who come up in the second resurrection are lost for all time and eternity. For some strange reason it has never occurred to them that EGW might have learned some things as she went along in her life. That she had the exact same understanding and belief about God and all of life when she was 73 years old as when she was 17. That she never grew or developed in her understanding on any topic. Do you think that Jesus learned anything from the time he was 12 until he was 30 or 33? Of course He did. "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." Heb 5:8. "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Lk 2:52.

On Oct 21, 1858 the following testimony was written to Stephen H. Haskell and his wife. "I saw that your views concerning swine's flesh would prove no injury if you have them to yourselves; but in your judgment and opinion you have made this question a test and your actions have plainly shown your faith in this matter. If God requires His people to abstain from swine's flesh, He will convict them on the matter. If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach His church their duty." 1T 207. About five years later EGW was given the health vision and began teaching against eating swine's flesh and all meat, etc. Elder Haskell asked Sr. White why she had forbidden him to continue preaching against the eating of pork when she was now preaching against it herself. She explained to him that every message has its perfect timing and in 1858 it was not yet time for the health reform message to be given. But when the right time came, the subject was given in a manner in which all the people heard it at the same time so that there would be unity, not confusion, discord, fault finding and the judging of others.

Now, in regard to what EGW believed in regard to whether or not God destroyed, there are some statements in which she either directly quoted scripture such as in Gen 6 where it says, "Behold I will destroy them from the earth." (MS 29, 1890). It is actually hard to find statements where she herself declared that God destroyed although there are a few, mainly in her early writings. But the statements where she categorically stated that "God does not destroy," are much more in abundance. Let me give you two for example: "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown." Great Controversy 36. "Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves." GC 37. And then in "Christ's Object Lessons, pg 84 we read: "God Destroys no man." In 5T 119, 120 it says, "God destroys no one." Pharaoh is given as an example of a king who caused his own destruction by resisting and rejecting the Divine counsel.

What about Moses? What about Samuel? What about Elijah? Did they believe God destroyed? What about John the Baptist?

"And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him (Moses), and sought to kill him." Ex. 4:24. Moses actually believed this was the true Lord who was trying to kill him as he did not know the difference between the true Lord Jesus and the false, impostor lord Satan who was trying to kill him. And then in Exodus 5:3 Moses tells Pharaoh that if they are not allowed to go out into the desert three days' journey and make a sacrifice unto the Hebrew God he will "fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword." And do you know that Moses never changed his mind on this point for in his farewell speech to Israel he said, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Deut 32:39. This not only contradicts what Jesus taught and lived but also Hosea 11:8, 9 and Mal 3:6. Here again you have progressive revelation because Hosea and Malachi (400 BC) lived about 1000 years after Moses (1450 BC). And we know that Jesus never hurt or killed anyone, but "went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed and afflicted of the devil." Acts 10:38. Read I Samuel 15:1-3 and you will know that the prophet Samuel believed God kills. Same with Elijah, who took a sword and killed the 450 bi-sexual priests of Baal, who were the personal priests of Jezebel. No wonder she was so ticked off that she put out a death decree on Elijah's head causing Elijah to head for the hills. But surely John the Baptist believed that God does not destroy. I don't think so. Why else would he send a message to Jesus asking if he was really the Messiah? Matt 11:3, Luke 7:20. And Christ's own disciples asked permission to destroy the Samaritans, Luke 9:51-56. At the time of His death on the cross only the good thief believed Jesus was the Messiah and asked that he might have a part in His kingdom, indicating that he believed Jesus would rise from the dead. So, what about Paul and the New Testament writers? Paul testifies that it is sin that destroys, not God. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom 6:23. Paul also believed God would reconcile all of His creatures back to Himself. Phil 2:5-11; Eph 1:9-12; Eph. 3:9-11; I Cor 3:10-15. And Peter agrees with this. 2 Peter 3:9 as does John in Rev 5:12; Rev 15:1-4. In fact, the words "not willing that any should perish in the original Greek should actually read, "God does not intend that any be lost or perish." In Rev 21:25 John saw that the gates are never closed because the invitation is to all who are thirsty and hungry to come and drink of the water of life and to eat of the Tree of life. The Lord declares in Rev. that He would make all things new. Look also at Psalm 22:27. "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee." Ezek 16 & 47 also indicate all will be restored which is what Peter preached in Acts 3:21, the Restitution or restoration of all things. "If any man's work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." I Cor 3:14, 15.

Paul is a good example of progressive revelation. Look at I Thess 4:16, 17 where he includes himself as being translated at Christ's second advent... "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." But in his second letter to the church at Thessalonica he explains that the day of Christ's return will not take place until the falling away happens, 2 Thess 2:2, 3. And in 2 Tim 4:6 Paul declares that he now realizes that he will soon die. "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." 2 Tim 4:6, 7.

None of the prophets ever claimed to be infallible. Not even one. Isaiah declared that he was "undone" and a "man of unclean lips,..." Isa 6:5. And we know that David and Solomon were not infallible even though they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the Psalms and Proverbs. In 2 Sam 7:3 we read that Nathan the prophet told David that it was the Lord's will for David to build the temple. But that very night the Lord told Nathan to go back and tell David that it was not His will that he build a house or temple for him that his seed after him would build it. There are other examples but that is sufficient for now.

So, what about EGW. Wasn't she infallible? No, she never claimed it but her followers have claimed it for her so as to set their own, private, interpretations of her writings in concrete in order to make themselves perfect and infallible. This is truly what is making her writings of "none effect." This was most unfortunate because it placed EGW and her writings on a pedestal which she fought against all her life. I believe Sr. White was a true prophet of God and I quote from her writings all the time. I do not believe she lied or was deceitful as her critics claim. Did she copy? Yes, she did copy many passages from other writers which she believed that she had a right to do. In the 19th century it was a common practice. I quote from one author who defends EGW's borrowing and copying. He quotes a judge who dealt with copyrights. His question was: "One of our early authors (EGW) published many books before her death in 1915, most of which were published before 1909. She has been accused by critics of having committed plagiarism because she either quoted or paraphrased considerable amounts from many authors in these books and usually did not give credit by name to the authors whose works she used. Now, you are the judge. In your opinion would her practice have been a violation of copyright laws?" Answer: "No, before 1909 there was virtually no law against it. Even after 1909 an injunction would have had to be sought showing that financial loss had been sustained by the author." The White Truth, pg 33. 1981, John J. Robertson. The author of this work read the introduction to the 1888 "Great Controversy" to the judge and here is the judge's reply. "That was adequate for that day....the very fact that nobody made any claims (nor have to this day) against her is evidence that there was no case. Nobody apparently felt they were being hurt." Ibid, 33. One of the authors EGW copied much from was D'Aubigne's "History of the Reformation." On Dec. 26, 1882 EGW wrote a recommendation for this volume from which she had copied so much. So it is that plagiarism charges fall flat in the light of such facts. Her books and those she quoted from so freely were on sale side by side on the same counter in the Review Office. Beloved, do you know that John the Revelator has been accused of borrowing? Here is a good explanation which explains why EGW borrowed. "Christ did not disdain the repetition of old and familiar truths in prophecies if they would serve His purpose to inculcate ideas. He was the originator of all the ancient gems of truth. Through the work of the enemy these truths had been displaced. They had been disconnected from their true position, and placed in the framework of error. Christ's work was to readjust and establish the precious gems in the frame work of truth...Christ rescued them from the rubbish of error, gave them a new, vital force, and commanded them to shine as precious jewels, and stand fast forever." Manuscript 25, 1890. When Jesus quoted from past authors, such as Moses, "He broke up their accustomed train of thought as little as possible. Nevertheless a new and transforming economy of truth must be woven into their experience. He, therefore, aroused their minds by presenting truth through the agency of their familiar associations." Ibid. Why did she copy, especially in her earlier years? Her son, Wm C. White explained: "In her early experience when she was sorely distressed over the difficulty of putting into human language the revelations of truths that had been imparted to her, she was reminded of the fact that all wisdom and knowledge comes from God and she was assured that god would bestow grace and guidance. She was told that in the reading of religious books and journals, she would find precious gems of truth expressed in acceptable language, and that she would be given help from heaven to recognize these and to separate them from the rubbish of error with which she would sometimes find them associated." Aug 1933, St Helena, Cal. Elmshaven Office. Adventist Review, June 4, 1981.

W. W. Prescott quoted EGW's son, W. C. White, as stating: "When I talked with W. C. White about it...he told me frankly that when they got out (published) Great Controversy (in 1888 and 1911), if they did not find in her writings anything on certain chapters to make the historical connections, they took other books,...and used portions of them..." What the critics do not admit is that EGW had the final say in what went into her books, before she died, not afterward. And she wrote the introduction to the book, so she obviously approved of whatever her son added into The Great Controversy to prepare and complete it for publication. What was added was in accordance and in agreement with what she had been shown in her visions. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the ultra conservative element putting her writings in concrete and exalting to the same status and equality as the bible, i.e. making them the final and infallible word of God. Scores of books have been published which are compilations of her voluminous writings over a 70 year period. If she were to come back and see how many of her statements and quotations are being used to form a final commentary on the Bible, especially on Daniel & Revelation, I am sure she would protest this very loudly, just as she did with the brethren who wanted to use her comments on Daniel 8 as the last, final and ultimate word.

EGW absolutely was against this herself. Let me prove this with just one quote regarding what happened when a "serious controversy arose over the interpretation of the 8th chapter of Daniel. "Some of the brethren...ranged themselves against what was called the new view, and they took her writings to uphold their position. She (EGW) wrote to those brethren and instructed them not to use her writings to settle that controversy." Now, beloved, just think about it. If she considered her writings to be the ultimate word on the bible and a final interpretation, especially of the book of Daniel, why would she tell the brethren not to use her comments? Doesn't that strike you as strange? I imagine the Lord impressed and even instructed her to say that to them and I think that shows her honesty and her insight into the fact that she was aware that more light would come in the future beyond even what she had written. So, if that be true in that one case could it not be true in other statements as well? No wonder she said that the light coming in the future would supersede that which was given in her day just as what Moses wrote in the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, was superseded and almost completely re-interpreted by Jesus and the apostles. For example, Jesus said, "You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matt 5:38. Was Jesus contradicting Moses? I think not. He was simply updating that old law to fit and blend more perfectly with the glorious light of the character of His Father which He was both living and teaching to the people of His day. And so it is today with the character of God message. The Lord is updating what has been written in both the Old and New Testaments as well as the SOP to correlate with the new light that is being given.

I am fully aware of all the anti-EGW books that have been published and their criticisms and accusations against the servant of the Lord. No doubt more will be published in the future. Since the accused has been dead since 1915 and is not able to defend herself some of the questions raised may never be answered. As I see it, there are two extremes re: the SOP. The first is from the far right conservative element who claim absolute and total infallibility for every word that EGW ever penned or ever spoke. This she absolutely denied herself stating many times that she was not infallible and that even the doctrines that had been held for so many years was not infallible, as we have already read. That would include her writings. She put nothing in concrete. The other extreme is to state that she was not inspired and that we should not believe anything she wrote. Both of these extremes are wrong. I have found a wonderful progression of truth in the writings of EGW. And I would like to share with you two quotes which I think sum up what I have been trying to explain regarding progressive revelation.

EGW QUOTES TO PROVE UR

"The gospel is to be presented, not as a lifeless theory, but as a living force to change the life. God desires that the receivers of His grace shall be witnesses to its power. Those whose course has been most offensive to Him He freely accepts; when they repent, He imparts to them His divine Spirit, places them in the highest positions of trust, and sends them forth into the camp of the disloyal to proclaim His boundless mercy. He would have His servants bear testimony to the fact that through His grace men may possess Christlikeness of character, and may rejoice in the assurance of His great love. He would have us bear testimony to the fact that He cannot be satisfied until the human race are reclaimed and reinstated in their holy privileges as His sons and daughters." Desire of Ages, Page 826.



"These men (Moses & Elijah) , chosen above every angel around the throne, had come to commune with Jesus concerning the scenes of His suffering, and to comfort Him with the assurance of the sympathy of heaven. The hope of the world, the salvation of every human being, was the burden of their interview." Desire of Ages 425.



"All souls are mine, saith the Lord, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son." Ezek. 18:4.



EGW expands upon this idea or concept in the following statement..."Every human being; in body, soul, and spirit, is the property of God. Christ died to redeem all. Nothing can be more offensive to God than for men, through religious bigotry, to bring suffering upon those who are the purchase of the Saviour's blood." Desire of Ages 488.



"It is no part of Christ's mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by His spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love. He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan that the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." DA 487.