GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | GCO PRESS PRICE LIST | GCO Ministry Officers 2010-02-09 06:02Z

The Loss of Transcendence, Pt. 2

Kevin D. Paulson reviews Graeme Bradford’s More Than A Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), and People Are Human (Look What They Did To Ellen White) (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 2006).

Presenter:   Kevin D. Paulson

Location:    Internet

Delivery:    2007-04-25 14:49Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-04-25 14:49Z

Type:        Book Review

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot2.php

A Call to Pick and Choose: The Subversion of Prophetic Authority

No challenge of Bradford’s is more dangerous than this one—a theology lethal not just to classic Adventism, but to the Christian faith itself.

Bradford has embraced an understanding of the biblical gift of prophecy which creates degrees not in inspiration, but in authority, making certain prophetic messages more decisive for the Christian conscience than others. The most significant aspects of Bradford’s understanding can be summarized in the following three points:

1. A prophet’s words have less authority than those of Christ, since He was divine and prophets are not (42).
2. The apostles of the New Testament are the true, authoritative successors to the Old Testament prophets (43).
3. The gift of prophecy as described in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11) operates on a lesser level of authority than both the apostles of the New Testament and the prophets of the Old Testament (44), and must therefore be subject to the other gifts of the Spirit, including the wisdom and discernment of fellow Christians (45).

Comparing Christ with human prophets, Bradford writes:

Prophets cannot perform at the level of Christ. He was always stating what was truth because He was God.… We must not put the prophet up alongside Christ. He knew everything because He was “God with us” (46).

Rather than citing inspired evidence for this claim, Bradford cites the statement of a scholar which assures us of the fallibility of prophets and their alleged captivity to the thought patterns of their environment (47).

But while Jesus was indeed divine, His own testimony makes it clear His personal divinity was not the source of His teachings. At one point He declared to His accusers, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself” (John 7:16, 17). Elsewhere He stated, “I can of Mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just: because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me” (John 5:30).

When confronted by the temptations of Satan, Jesus was Himself dependent on the authority and power of the written Word (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). This would make no sense if His authority were greater than that of the prophetic Word on account of His being God.

Interestingly, the apostle Peter referred to Christ as a prophet, in fulfillment of a prediction by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18:

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me: Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you.

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people (Acts 3:22, 23).

Notice carefully how Moses says this Prophet to come, identified by Peter as Christ, would be “of your brethren, like unto me” (verse 22). No evidence can be found, in this or other passages, that the teachings of Christ are free of error in a way that those of other prophets are not. The testimony of Scripture is clear that, as in His personal struggle with evil, the human Christ was as dependent on imparted wisdom and strength from His Father—and upon the written Word—as any other possessor of the prophetic gift.

Even more problematic for Bradford’s view in this regard is the fact that if inspired writers are as error-prone as he claims they are, how can we be sure the words of Christ as recorded in Scripture are in fact His true words? Jesus, after all, didn’t write anything—except in the sand (John 8:6, 8). We will see that in Bradford’s doctrine of inspiration, none can be sure where the divine element ends and the human takes over (48). And despite his effort to distinguish the authority of canonical from non-canonical prophets (49), we will also see that Bradford views both as less-than-fully reliable (50). If one accepts this premise, how then can any be sure if the inspired writers who recorded Jesus’ words did so correctly?

While one cannot dispute Bradford’s belief that the New Testament apostles are successors to the Old Testament (OT) prophets, the problem lies in the distinction he draws between the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles on the one hand, and the New Testament (NT) gift of prophecy on the other. Bradford introduces his theory with a contradiction that is nothing short of dramatic. First he favorably cites lengthy references from Christian scholars who claim that in the New Testament, all are called to share the prophetic spirit:

But there are also differences between NT prophecy and that of the OT and Judaism. In the OT and Judaism only a few were called to be prophets apart from the prophetic groups mentioned in the historical books of the OT.… Now some NT prophets are given prominence e.g. Agabus… Barnabas and Silas… the four daughters of Philip.… Fundamentally, however, prophecy is not restricted to a few men and women in primitive Christianity. Acc. to Ac. 2:4; 4:31 all are filled with the prophetic Spirit and acc. to Ac. 2:16ff. It is a specific mark of the age of fulfillment that the Spirit does not only lay hold of individuals but that all members of the eschatological community without distinction are called to prophesy” (51).

For most scholars early Christian prophecy, like Gaul under the Romans, is divided into three parts. There are said to be wandering Christian prophets, who travel from place to place, staying for different periods with Christian groups as they go.… There are said to be Christian prophets resident without congregations whose ministry does not normally extend beyond the congregations.… Finally, there are those Christians who, though they are not considered prophets in any regular or official sense, nonetheless occasionally prophesied.… The evidence here is the theological conception of the New Testament writers that in some sense, ‘all the Lord’s people are prophets’” (52).

Yet, despite his approving use of the above statements, Bradford declares in this very context:

Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:1 encourages all believers to “eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. At the same time he states that not all will have this gift (1 Corinthians 12:29) (53).

Likewise, he declares the following:

Paul does, however, rank the gift of prophecy over all the other gifts of grace. In 1 Corinthians 14:1 he admonishes them to desire spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. When he mentions the gifts he especially mentions prophecy after the apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). Evangelists, pastors, and teachers are always listed behind prophets. In Ephesians 2:28 the prophets are with the apostles listed as part of the foundation of the church (54).

But after implying in the above statement a certain transcendence of prophetic authority over the other gifts, Bradford later writes the following:

Not that the [prophetic] gift is without some doctrinal authority, however that authority which is to be used to protect the faithful from doctrinal error does not belong to the gift of prophecy alone but is also given to apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Ephesians 4:11-14) (55).

Bradford then quotes approvingly from evangelical scholar D.A. Carson, who offers the following alleged contrast between Old and New Testament prophets:

If a prophet speaking in the name of God was shown to be in error, the official sanction was death. But once a prophet is acknowledged as true, there is no trace of repeated checks on the content of his oracles. By contrast, New Testament prophets are to have their oracles carefully weighed (1 Corinthians 14:29; see also 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). The word diakrino suggests that the prophecy be evaluated, not simply accepted as totally true or totally false. The presupposition is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff. Moreover, there is no hint that excommunication is the threatened sanction if the prophet does not occasionally live up to the mark (56).

Two other scholars, giving their view of the New Testament gift of prophecy, are quoted by Bradford as saying:

Prophecy is not the equivalent of Scripture. Prophecy is a particular word for a particular congregation (or person) at a particular time through a particular person. Scripture is for all Christians in all places at all time (57).

This form of prophecy was not considered to be a message which brought the very words of God to the people. It was rather a timely word of instruction, encouragement or rebuke which brought the general thrust of God’s guidance to the church in each particular situation (58).

Neither Bradford nor the above authors seem to consider that statements like the above could marginalize much of the Bible itself. The epistles of Paul, after all, were written to specific congregations and individuals. So were most, if not all, of the Old Testament prophetic messages. The distinction drawn above between Scripture on the one hand, and prophecy directed to specific places or persons on the other, is never drawn by Scripture itself.

Other scholarly statements cited by Bradford convey the same notion—that the gift of prophecy found in the New Testament can include false as well as true elements, thus requiring the discernment and reflection of believers to distinguish the one from the other (59). One of the scholars cited declares that not only should the canonical Scriptures be used to measure the words of such prophets, but human tradition should be used as well:

The authentic is to be sifted from the inauthentic or spurious, in the light of the OT Scriptures, the gospel of Christ, the tradition of all the churches, and critical reflections (60).

Why do certain words of Jesus suddenly come to mind? “Thus have ye made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition.… But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:6, 9).

It is on the basis of these scholarly assumptions, as we will see, that Bradford considers himself justified in subjecting Ellen White’s prophetic utterances to the presumed wisdom and discernment of fellow believers, and to place her trustworthiness on a lesser level than that of Scripture (61). In his own words:

The message of 1 Corinthians 12 is that we must not let any one gift dominate and think that other gifts are not necessary. If we allow this to happen, we are out of harmony with clear New Testament teaching and we will never have a healthy body. There is a grave tendency in Adventism that while admiring the gift of one person, used mightily by God one hundred years ago, we may allow other gifts God has also given to His people to be eclipsed (62).

The dilemma faced by LaRondelle should not have been necessary with a true biblical understanding of Ellen White’s gift. And I ask again, could it be that Adventism has allowed one gift to overwhelm and suppress the many other gifts God has given to the rest of the body? (63).

Quite obviously, the above contradictions cry out for resolution. Either all Spirit-filled Christians share the prophetic gift, or they do not. Either the gift of prophecy stands ahead of (and by implication, above) such gifts as evangelism, pastoral ministry, and teaching, or it is on the same level, subject to the wisdom and discernment of those possessing other gifts, as well as the collective body of Christ. As Bradford himself states, Paul clearly settles this issue by declaring that all do not possess every spiritual gift, including prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:29, 30) (64). But Bradford, who places such statements alongside those of the scholars noted above (whom he cites with apparent approval), seems not to have settled the issue at all.

As noted earlier, we also see the grave extent to which uninspired scholarly opinion is pivotal in Bradford’s conclusions regarding this most foundational of Christian presuppositions—the question of who and what is our authority. In contrast to Bradford’s method, the Bible declares itself to be its own expositor. It is entirely—both Old and New Testament—inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:15, 16), consisting not at all of private interpretation or human motive, but is exclusively the product of the divine Spirit (2 Peter 1:20, 21). And what the Spirit inspires is to be understood by comparison with itself (1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Isaiah 28:9, 10). Scholarly opinion isn’t needed to explain the Bible to us. Jesus Himself declared:

I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (Matthew 11:25).

In his heavy use of scholarly exposition, much of it purely speculative, Bradford seems not to heed his own advice, offered in his misbegotten quest to reduce Ellen White’s authoritative role, but which in truth applies to his own slavish reliance on human scholarship:

Once you have any external authority telling you what the Bible means, you make that authority more powerful than the Bible itself (65).

Both Bradford and the scholars he quotes seem not to have considered the biblical evidence relevant to the issue at hand. Indeed, we observe how one of the scholars he cites, who claims all Christians are called to the prophetic gift, quotes two verses from the book of Acts as “proof” for this claim (66), verses which in fact say nothing of the kind. Acts 2:4 simply speaks of how all the believers were “filled with the Holy Ghost” on the day of Pentecost, and began to speak with foreign tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Acts 4:31, the other verse cited, says much the same thing. Neither verse claims that all will possess the gift of prophecy, at Pentecost or any other time.

The reference to Joel’s prophecy by Peter likewise fails to uphold this theory. All this prophecy states is that God’s Spirit will be poured out “on all flesh,” and that many will therefore prophesy as a result (Acts 2:9, 10; Joel 2:28). These passages do not state that all upon whom the Spirit is poured will prophesy, any more than the verse’s reference to “all flesh” means all human beings will receive the Spirit. Elsewhere the book of Acts makes it clear the only ones to receive the Holy Spirit are those obedient to God’s will (Acts 5:32). Again it becomes clear that all Scripture, all inspired evidence, must be considered before doctrinal conclusions are reached.

Bradford summarizes as follows his attempted contrast between the respective Old and New Testament gifts of prophecy:

It is a mistake to use the word ‘prophet’ in Old Testament times and equate their function with the word ‘prophet’ as it appears in the New Testament. It is true that certain functions of Christian prophets remind us of Old Testament prophets:

They do predict the future (Acts 11:28; 20:23).

They do declare divine judgments (Acts 13:11; 28:25-28).

They do use symbolic actions when prophesying (Acts 21:11).

They do exhort and encourage God’s people (Acts 15:32).

Yet to equate prophets in both testaments as being essentially the same is to miss the importance of Acts 2:17-21 which implies the gift of prophecy, since Pentecost, will become more widespread and diverse. The New Testament says that all God’s people are potentially prophets. Not all will exercise this gift, yet they are encouraged to seek it. Various individuals may be used as the Spirit selects them. They may be used once or many times, or may be used in a way which enables them to be called prophets. The real successors of the classical prophets of the Old Testament are the Apostles in that they were taught directly by Christ and were used of God to give us the sacred canon (67).

One is amazed how Bradford cites such substantive similarities between Old and New Testament prophets, yet proceeds to cite nonexistent evidence for a distinction between the authority exercised by each. Neither Acts 2 nor any other New Testament passage gives to prophets in the New Testament age some lesser authority than in past ages. Whether the New Testament gift of prophecy is “more widespread and diverse,” as Bradford claims, is not the point. Nothing in this passage says it will wield any less authority than in previous times.

D.A. Carson’s statement, noted earlier, about New Testament prophets having their messages “weighed,” in contrast with false prophets in the Old Testament who were to be killed (68), as well as his claim that prophets falling short of faithfulness are not recorded in the New Testament as being removed from church fellowship (69), is pointless on both counts. Unlike Old Testament Israel, the New Testament church was not to be a theocracy, in which physical force would be used against wrongdoers by human agents under divine command (see Matthew 26:52; John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5). But this hardly means doctrinal error is viewed in the New Testament as any less dangerous. Indeed, Paul declared that those who taught “any other gospel” were to be “accursed” (Galatians 1:8), and declared of those who disobeyed his inspired instruction:

If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15).

One can only imagine that if the above course was to be pursued regarding ordinary believers, it would certainly be applied to one claiming the gift of prophecy.

Perhaps there is no record of anyone in Old Testament times testing the words of a prophet, as the New Testament commands (1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21). But this hardly proves such testing didn’t take place. (One thinks of those who discount the binding claims of the Sabbath in the New Testament age because Sabbath-breaking isn’t explicitly found in any New Testament list of sins. Never mind, of course, that Sabbath-breaking is likewise absent from the multiple descriptions of Israel’s apostasy from the conquest of Canaan until the time of the later prophets, and this despite the frequent lists of sins in both Psalms and Proverbs.) Indeed, the clearest of all measures for testing the validity of those claiming to speak for God is found in the Old Testament:

To the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20).

D.A. Carson’s claim, apparently endorsed by Bradford, that “any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff” (70), is utterly without biblical support. No instance of New Testament prophesying is cited as proof for this claim. (Paul’s conduct on his last journey to Jerusalem, cited by Bradford in this regard, we will consider in a moment.) Certainly no New Testament passage can be cited, nor does Bradford cite any, where a New Testament prophet ever contradicted the Old Testament Scriptures, the teachings of Christ, or the apostles, thus requiring the rejection—in part or whole—of a message delivered.

Since no Bible grounds whatsoever are produced by Bradford or his scholar-supporters for an authoritative difference between Old and New Testament prophets, one must look at the entire record of Bible prophecy to ascertain whether a prophet can legitimately speak for God while simultaneously teaching error. And no such examples of prophetic “mixed quality” can be found in the Bible record.

Ironically, as in his earlier book Prophets Are Human (71), Bradford cites the twin examples of Balaam and the prophet who cursed Jeroboam’s altar (72), along with Nathan’s divinely-corrected counsel to David on the building of the temple (73), as supposed evidence for prophetic limitations and fallibility. In fact, as was observed by the present writer in his review of Prophets Are Human (74), these cases demonstrate the very close divine superintendence over the prophetic gift, one which rapidly corrects misunderstanding of the divine message and quickly punishes disobedience to the divine will. Neither Balaam nor the prophet who rebuked Jeroboam ever spoke for God again after their recorded disobedience to God’s commands, and Nathan’s miscommunication of God’s will regarding the temple was corrected the very night after it was given (2 Samuel 7:4; 1 Chronicles 17:3).

Bradford’s notion that the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles are superior in authority to New Testament prophets because the former “were used of God to give us the sacred canon” (75), conveys the common but mistaken assumption that canonical prophets wield more authority over the faith community than do non-canonical prophets. But the Bible offers no support for this theory. No distinction can be found in Scripture between the authority of prophets later designated as canonical and the authority of prophets not destined to be thus designated. A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is canonical. Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is authoritative.

God does not have junior prophets. The testimonies of Deborah, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Huldah, and John the Baptist were no less authoritative in their application to God’s people than were those of Moses, Isaiah, Paul, or Peter. No biblical evidence exists that a non-canonical prophet can be disagreed with at times, while a canonical prophet can’t be. No such “hierarchy of prophets”—Bradford’s words (76)—can be found in Scripture. In fact, Jesus declared John the Baptist to be the greatest of the prophets (Matthew 11:9-11). Yet no book of the Bible bears his name.

The Bible even speaks of prophetic books written by certain non-canonical prophets, such as Nathan and Gad (1 Chronicles 29:29). This verse mentions these books alongside the “book of Samuel the seer,” obviously a book later to be included in the Old Testament canon, with no authoritative distinction drawn between books destined to be canonized and those not destined to be. One can hardly view Nathan and Gad as somehow less authoritative than those whose writings were canonized, especially when we note how God sent rebukes to King David—a canonical Bible writer—through the messages of these non-canonical prophets (2 Samuel 12:1-14; 24:11-14). No hint whatsoever can be found of some authoritative distinction between two sets of prophets.

Bradford and his scholar-supporters refer at some length to the story of Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem, and how the testimonies of Agabus and certain others failed to convince Paul to change his plans (Acts 21:4, 10-14) (77). Bradford correctly notes that Agabus, clearly identified as a prophet (verse 10), did not explicitly interpret his message as forbidding Paul to go to Jerusalem, the message merely warning him of what would happen if he went (78). The brethren at Tyre, by contrast, were more explicit in their warning, declaring to Paul “through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem” (verse 4). Indulging his penchant for speculation, Bradford states that while these brethren are not called prophets, “probably they are operating at the 1 Corinthians 14 level,” thereby implying that in fact they did possess the New Testament prophetic gift, which according to Bradford isn’t always reliable (79).

But the fact is, as Bradford himself acknowledges, that the Tyrian believers are not described as prophets by the biblical record, which places the Holy Spirit’s impressions upon them in a different category than those endowed by the prophetic gift. Without the direct supernatural discernment available to a prophet, the Spirit’s impressions can in fact be misinterpreted, as seems to have happened in this case. Ellen White describes this encounter between Paul and the believers at Tyre as follows:

The Holy Spirit had revealed to these brethren something of the dangers which awaited Paul at Jerusalem, and they endeavored to dissuade him from his purpose. But the same Spirit which had warned him of afflictions, bonds, and imprisonment, still urged him forward, a willing captive (80).

Notice Ellen White says the Spirit had shown these brethren “something” of what awaited Paul, which they mistakenly took as forbidding Paul to continue his journey. Since the Bible doesn’t call these brethren prophets, such a misunderstanding on their part gives no support to Bradford’s claims regarding the fallibility of the New Testament gift of prophecy. What is clear from this encounter is that while the Spirit had warned these brethren, and Agabus also, of what would befall the apostle upon reaching Jerusalem, the Spirit wasn’t telling Paul not to go. Paul was merely being prepared by these testimonies for the trials through which he would pass.

Unfortunately, Bradford focuses on irrelevant technicalities in seeking to prove the fallibility of Agabus’ testimony, and by implication that of others possessing the prophetic gift described in the New Testament. He states that while Agabus predicted that the Jews would bind Paul and deliver him to the Gentiles, in reality the Gentiles would rescue Paul from the Jews (81). But Agabus’ prophecy did not state that the Jews would hand Paul over voluntarily, only that they would take him captive and deliver him to the Gentiles (Acts 21:11). (The Romans did not, after all, set Paul free once the Jews handed him over, which they certainly had the right to do.) The fact that the Jews’ delivering him to the Gentiles was at the latter’s command is in no way disallowed by Agabus’ words. Bradford indulges in raw speculation when he writes:

It does not work out exactly as Agabus stated. Perhaps Agabus had a revelation of trouble ahead. Maybe he did a little filling in himself (82).

Such talk is quite unwarranted. The bottom line of Agabus’ prophecy is that Paul would be taken prisoner by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles. Whether this handing over would be willing or coerced on the Jews’ part is completely beside the point.

While Bradford professedly exalts the authority of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles, even they do not escape his efforts to reduce the authority of inspired writings. His description of alleged discrepancies in the Bible begins benignly enough, recounting such questions as whether one angel or two appeared at the tomb of Christ following His resurrection (Matthew 28:5; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:12), or whether one demoniac or two were healed on the shore of Galilee (Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27; Matthew 8:28) (83). This is easy enough to settle—wherever there are two, there is always one!

One is likewise baffled by such statements as the following: “There is no single passage in the Bible telling us all we wish to know about the gift of prophecy” (84). But is there any single passage in the Bible that tells us all we wish to know about anything? It is the biblical consensus, both Old and New Testaments (2 Timothy 3:16), which provides the content of every Bible doctrine and the belief system held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. No one Bible verse teaches everything we need to know about the triune Godhead, the incarnation, the gospel, the Sabbath, the state of man in death, the heavenly sanctuary, racial and social justice, sexual morality, health and dress standards, or any issue imaginable. Only by considering all inspired evidence on every subject can we be sure of our faith and safe from deception.

Equally uncomplicated is the answer to the following question by Bradford:

Was it true that the gospel had been proclaimed to every creature under heaven as Paul claimed in Colossians 1:23? If that was so, why was he still planning to go to Spain? (85)

Where does the Bible say the gospel hadn’t yet been preached in Spain? Paul simply says, in Romans 15:24, 28, that he was planning to go there. He doesn’t say the gospel hadn’t yet been delivered there.

But soon Bradford ventures into even more treacherous waters, asking such strange questions as the following:

When reading John’s gospel, where do the words of John finish and the words of Jesus take over? For example, did Jesus or John say the famous words of John 3:16? (86).

Perhaps I’ve missed something, but it seems the Bible is quite clear about this. According to John’s account, Jesus spoke these words to Nicodemus during their nighttime interview (John 3:1-21). The disciple John isn’t mentioned as anywhere nearby! One must truly ask what the point is in raising such a question, except on account of more ambiguous speculation by another of the scholars in whom Bradford reposes such great trust (87). Such open-ended doubting on Bradford’s part renders meaningless his earlier statement about Christ being more trustworthy than prophets (88). If we don’t know when Christ’s words end and those of the fallible human witness begin, who is to say who said what?

Across the page, it gets worse:

Remember, all Scripture is inspired, but not all scripture carries the same redemptive value. If we lost the genealogies of the Bible, would we miss them as much as the Sermon on the Mount? (89).

We had better let the Bible speak for itself:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

Nowhere does the Bible permit itself to be divided into portions of greater or lesser saving value. Such talk becomes exceedingly perilous, as it places human wisdom, perception, cultural preferences, and experience in judgment over the sacred record.

Bradford goes on to quote Bernard Ramm, a prominent evangelical theologian, who writes at one point, “Whatever in Scripture is in direct reference to natural things is most likely in terms of the prevailing cultural concepts” (90). Does Ramm, or Bradford by implication, include the Genesis creation story in the above statement? One is interested that later in More Than a Prophet, Bradford defends the relevance of Adventism as an answer to “atheistic evolution” (91). Theistic evolution, curiously, is not mentioned as problematic for Bradford’s revisionist view of Adventist “relevance.”

Bradford and the scholars he cites raise so many questions, indulge so much speculation, regarding prophets and how they do their work, that the likelihood is greatly reduced that any who follow their logic will ever again tremble at the word of the Lord (Ezra 10:3; Isaiah 66:5). With no biblical authority, and nothing but frail human reason to back his claims, Bradford writes:

For those of us who have never received a revelation from God, it is difficult to understand what is taking place. What we do know is that there are three stages to the prophetic process:

The revelation

The interpretation

The application

Regarding the revelation, we would expect that there would be no mistakes because God never offers anything imperfect or faulty. However, it is possible that mistakes could be made at stages 2 and 3—in the interpretation and application (92).

Then another scholar is quoted, raising a blizzard of questions:

A recognition of this fallibility raises several questions. How can personal prejudices and errors be distinguished from the divine word? How far were the prophet’s natural faculties overruled or held in abeyance? On the other hand to what extent were they heightened, sensitized, or strengthened in order to receive and understand the word revealed? Finally, and just as important, how competent am I to understand what he or she said?” (93).

One might just as easily question the scientific, physical process of how God could speak worlds into existence, form the infinitely complex human organism from the dust of the ground, transform Himself into a zygote, or how we might ascertain the physiological methods by which Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead. Bradford’s approach to Scripture, and to Ellen White, is one in which the inspired Word is captive to the limitations of culture, prejudice, superstition, and time. Transcendence is lost, and one is forced to rummage for God’s message amid the litter of human opinion. In Bradford’s words:

We can conclude that what God has revealed to the prophet they can speak with confidence. However there will be many situations where they will be merely giving their own opinion (94).

But no guidance is offered, certainly not from Inspiration, as to how to tell the difference. Bradford makes no effort to harmonize such pronouncements with such statements from Scripture as the following:

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:20, 21).

Bradford’s reduction of Ellen White’s authority notwithstanding, we can thank God for the following statement from her pen, regarding the transcendence of Holy Scripture:

In God’s word only do we behold the power that laid the foundations of the earth, and that stretched out the heavens. Here only do we find an authentic account of the origin of nations. Here only is given a history of our race unsullied by human pride or prejudice (95).

As he did in Prophets Are Human (96), Bradford again denigrates the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah in his effort to prove prophetic fallibility, declaring: “Day after day he stood at the entrance to the temple and plagued the life out of people with his doomsday predictions” (97). (Could Jehoiakim, Pashur, or Zedekiah have said it better?) Bradford, however, offers not a whisper of biblical evidence that God disapproved of Jeremiah’s methods. Repeatedly, in the book of Jeremiah, it is stated that “the word of the Lord” was being delivered by the prophet to Judah and Jerusalem (Jeremiah 2:1; 3:6; 7:1; 8:1; 10:1; 11:1; 24:1, 3-5; 26:1, 2; 27:1). On what biblical grounds does Bradford offer such disrespect to a prophet of the Most High? What do such sentiments accomplish, other than to offer aid and comfort to those who crave smooth preaching and resent the voice of godly rebuke?

Bradford likewise repeats the observations of his first book regarding the shortcomings of John the Baptist, using John’s private doubts about Jesus and misunderstanding of the Messiah’s kingdom as evidence of how wrong prophets can supposedly be (98). But as was stated in my review of Prophets Are Human (99), we must recognize the difference between private doubts and convictions on the one hand, and public instruction and counsel to the church on the other. Whatever errors or personal conflicts John believed or experienced, the Scripture does not record any reflection of these in his public prophetic instruction.

Even more dangerously, as in Prophets Are Human (100), Bradford again faults John for teaching the reform of the life as a condition of salvation (Luke 3:11-14), allegedly in contrast with “salvation by grace” (101). As we will note later in this review, the problem is not with the salvation theology of John the Baptist, but with the theology of Graeme Bradford. As was stated in my review of his first book (102), Jesus and Paul were just as clear as John in teaching that Spirit-empowered obedience is the condition of salvation (Matthew 19:16, 17, 26; Luke 10:25-28; Romans 2:6-10; 8:13; Hebrews 5:9). Our study of Bradford’s views will demonstrate that an unscriptural doctrine of salvation forms a key component of his effort to marginalize and reduce the authority of Ellen White’s prophetic gift.

Elsewhere Bradford raises familiar but fallacious issues in his effort to culturalize inspired writings:

There can be no doubt that God does meet people where they are in many of their cultural concepts. Think about the difficulty we have with Old Testament laws such as those that deal with slavery, the treatment of women, and blood vengeance (103).

For God to meet people in their cultural settings is one thing. Meeting them in their cultural concepts, by contrast, implies that the authority of the written Word is at least partially derived from the surrounding culture, thus necessitating later correction by a subsequent culture. Understandably, Bradford offers no evidence that the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, ever endorses slavery, the mistreatment of women, or blood vengeance. The fact that laws were divinely given to mitigate the cruelty of these practices in no way implies divine endorsement of the practices themselves.

Bradford raises similar doubts about the Bible by questioning “the brutality of the Israelites toward the Canaanites,” which he admits Israel did “at the command of God” (104). Similar comments are made about what are often called the “imprecatory psalms,” in which—Bradford says—“the psalmists ask God to do terrible things to their enemies” (105).

The raising of such open-ended questions, answered by a deeper study of the Word, serve only to reduce respect for, and destroy the transcendence of, the Sacred Writings. Israel’s exodus from Egypt and subsequent conquest of Canaan were attended by supernatural signs visible to the heathen as well as to God’s people (Exodus 7-14; Joshua 2:9-11; 5:1), and did not take place till the iniquity of the Canaanites was full (Genesis 15:16). The destruction of these peoples was to be a divine punishment, unmotivated by spoil or plunder (Joshua 6:18, 19; 1 Samuel 15:3, 14-19), inflicted only when the clear evidence that God was with Israel had been rejected, thus ending the probation of these peoples. Originally, of course, it was God’s plan for these nations to be subdued without warfare (Exodus 23:27-30), but as happened so often in Israel’s history, a plan other than God’s original one was used. But when one considers the supernatural displays and spiritual conditions which accompanied the dispossession of these peoples, it is clear these actions cannot be justly compared—as some have compared them—to the genocidal wars so common throughout history.

With the imprecatory psalms, human vengeance is not at work, but rather, the surrender of one’s enemies to the impartial vengeance of the divine. Bradford quotes the statement in Psalm 137:9, about the future punishment of Babylon, as evidence for the point he is making (106). But let us consider this verse, as well as the two preceding it:

Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones (Psalm 137:7-9).

Notice carefully that this passage doesn’t command anyone to go do these things. It simply says those who will in fact do them will prosper, thus bringing about Babylon’s utter destruction. Moreover, it is clear that God, not some human avenger, is being asked to remember the deeds of Israel’s enemies, and to execute justice upon them. This psalm is similar to another, where the wicked are abandoned not to human vengeance, but to the vengeance of God:

Break their teeth, O God, in their mouths; break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord. Let them melt away as waters which run continually; when He bendeth His bow to shoot His arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.… The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth (Psalm 58:6, 7, 10, 11).

Notice again how it is God inflicting punishment here, and God’s people rejoicing in the eminently just, reluctant justice of a holy and loving God (see Isaiah 28:21; Ezekiel 18:23, 31, 32; 33:11). The statement about the righteous washing their feet in the blood of the wicked (Psalm 58:10), is similar to another which speaks of the wicked being “ashes under the soles” of the saints’ feet following the former’s destruction in the fires of hell (Malachi 4:3). The angels in heaven are depicted in the book of Revelation as praising God when the wicked are subjected to the seven last plagues (Revelation 16:5-7).

In other words, unrighteous and vengeful anger is not in focus here. Human vengeance is not in focus. Rather, this is God at work, and His righteous servants asking for Him to execute His impartial justice.

Bradford goes on to cite biblical cases of how ancient scientific misconceptions supposedly form the basis of certain Bible stories and passages. One example he cites is the statement in Psalm 121:6, which assures the faithful believer, “The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.” While Bradford admits the sun can harm us by day, he asks, “But how can the moon harm us by night?” (107). (It seems he’s forgotten which heavenly body controls the ocean tides!) But even if one allows for some poetic license here, one need not read ancient superstition into these words. They simply assure us of God’s protection in every circumstance.

Other examples Bradford cites include the Magi being led by a star to worship the Saviour (108), Jesus using spittle to heal certain individuals (Mark 7:32, 33; 8:22, 23; John 9:1-6), presumably in harmony with an ancient superstition (109), and such end-time passages involving stars falling to the earth (Matthew 24:29; Revelation 6:13) and the heavens disappearing like a rolled-up scroll (2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 6:14)—both of which, Bradford says, are scientifically impossible (110).

One is curious about his reference to our Lord in this regard, especially in light of his earlier statement that Christ was inerrant in His teachings in a way other prophets supposedly are not (111). Whatever the ancients may or may not have believed about the healing properties of spittle—proof for which beliefs, by the way, is not cited by Bradford—this can hardly be cited as a significant factor in Jesus’ healing ministry, especially when He is recorded as using this method only three times—out of the hundreds, likely thousands of miracles He performed. The star that guided the Magi to Bethlehem was certainly a familiar symbol, but it hardly implies any endorsement of astrology as a means of seeking knowledge! (Remember we are talking here about a partial indebtedness by Inspiration to cultural concepts, not the occasional use of culturally familiar symbols.) And we certainly can’t disallow the use of metaphor by biblical writers in such matters as stars falling to earth and the heavens being rolled up at the coming of Jesus. Such language no more means the Bible is captive to an ancient cosmology than the use by modern persons of phrases like “falling star” or “shooting star” imply the actual movement in such a manner of the heavenly bodies we today call stars.

Bradford attributes the gift of prophecy to the disciple Peter on account of his statement that Christ was the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), and Jesus’ response that His Father, not any human source, had revealed this to Peter (verse 17) (112). Bradford then hastens to remind us that soon thereafter, Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross, causing the Lord to declare to Peter, “Get thee behind Me Satan” (verse 23) (113). Bradford then states:

This passage should cause us to think carefully of how a person can be used of God to make prophetic statements and yet soon after the human element can take over and be way off course in their statements (114).

But nothing in this passage says anything about Peter receiving the gift of prophecy, at least at that point. Jesus only says God had revealed to Peter the truth that He, Christ, was the Son of God. The Bible doesn’t teach that a person is automatically granted the gift of prophecy merely because they are used by God to speak truth at a particular time. (Let us remember also that Peter and his fellow disciples recognized the Messiahship of Jesus because of His fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures (John 1:45), not only through direct supernatural revelation to themselves.) It is true that on certain occasions, even wicked and unconsecrated persons were momentarily used to deliver prophetic messages. Bradford notes such cases as King Saul and Caiaphas as examples in this regard (115). But it is clear from such incidents that the prophetic gift was given only temporarily and never—according to the sacred record—given again. By contrast, every evidence from Scripture indicates that those formally called by God to the prophetic office are called for life, and disqualify themselves only through unrepented-of disobedience, as in the case of Balaam and the unnamed prophet who confronted Jeroboam. And as is made plain by the case of Nathan’s counsel to David regarding the temple (2 Samuel 7:3, 4; 1 Chronicles 17:2, 3), God’s control over the utterances of those called to this office is tight, up close, and personal.

Bradford makes much of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 13 regarding the partial nature of human knowledge (verses 9, 10, 12), and applies this—as does Paul himself (verse 9)—to the prophetic gift (116). But the possession by a prophet of mere partial knowledge doesn’t mean the prophet’s testimonies to the church must inevitably contain some error. Seeing “through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12) is not the same as seeing incorrectly. (A driver may wear tinted glasses, but he’d better know the difference between red and green lights!) Bradford cites such examples as Peter wondering for a brief time about the meaning of his vision regarding the Gentiles (Acts 10:17) (117), and Daniel’s failure to understand the 2,300-day prophecy (Daniel 8:27) (118). But the powerful point in both these cases, devastating to Bradford’s argument, is that neither prophet 1s recorded as publicly delivering instruction under inspiration which taught any temporarily-held falsehood or misunderstanding, making necessary a future correction. The importance of this principle will be seen further on as we consider alleged contradictions in the counsel of Ellen White.

Bradford again acknowledges, unwittingly, the divine control of prophetic utterance in citing Jeremiah’s refusal to answer the false prophet Hananiah until the former received instruction from God (Jeremiah 28:10, 11) (119), and the refusal of Elisha (misstated as Elijah) to address the problems of the Shunamite woman because—in his words—“the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me” (2 Kings 4:27) (120). Here we see plain evidence that prophets do not give spiritual counsel unless God supernaturally directs them. In our discussion of Ellen White’s ministry we will note how the absence of divine instruction on certain issues, not—as Bradford claims—the absence of authority on her part to settle such issues, is what accounts for her refusal to address certain controversies while she did in fact address others.

This point is clarified further when Bradford speaks of the prophet Samuel “not having the right idea of who was to be the next king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:6-13)” (121). Again we see, contrary to Bradford’s view, how closely heaven guards the inspired counsel and divinely-directed actions of prophets. While Samuel certainly had the momentary, mistaken thought that Jesse’s eldest son was the Lord’s anointed (verse 6), God quickly corrected Samuel (verse 7), then proceeded to give him explicit guidance regarding each of Jesse’s other sons (verses 8-13). Bradford might have a case for prophetic error under divine inspiration had Samuel mistakenly anointed the wrong man, proclaimed him to be God’s chosen, then gone back (perhaps even after the new king’s coronation), acknowledged he was wrong, then declared who God’s real choice was. But obviously, that didn’t happen.

At another point, Bradford uses the apostle Paul’s initial counsel to the ship captain on his way to Rome as evidence that prophets at times give their own opinion, only to have God correct them later (122). Because Paul earlier expressed his fear that loss of life would result if the ship left Crete (Acts 27:10), only to later assure the sailors during the storm that God’s angel had promised none would be lost (verses 22-24), Bradford writes:

It would seem that the statement of disaster was Paul giving his opinion in view of the circumstances under which they were going to sail. He was talking without having received a revelation. Later, when God spoke to him, the revelation gave an entirely different message (123).

Bradford then comments, as we noted earlier:

We can conclude that what God has revealed to the prophet they can speak with confidence. However there will be many situations where they will be merely giving their own opinion (124).

The implication, as we observed before, is that none can be sure when a prophet is speaking for God or giving his or her own judgment, opinion, prejudice, or preconception. But Paul is very clear, in his statement to the ship’s officers, that he was giving his own opinion when he first warned of possible danger:

And [Paul] said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives (Acts 27:10).

Notice how Paul says, “I perceive.” He isn’t giving inspired counsel, to the church or others, nor does he claim God showed him that disaster would result if the ship put out to sea. (Though, of course, his misgivings were certainly vindicated by the events that followed.) When in fact God’s angel does give him counsel, he makes it clear to the sailors it is God who is speaking (verses 22-24). As in his counsel to the Corinthians regarding celibacy, where he clearly indicates his own judgment is being shared (1 Corinthians 7:40), and that he has “no commandment of the Lord” in the matter thus addressed (verse 25), Paul was clear to the ship’s officers and sailors in Acts 27 that his initial counsel was based on his own perception (verse 10). When later God did speak to him, Paul made it clear Who was talking (verse 23).

In short, inspired writers are not unclear when God is and is not giving them instruction. Nor are their hearers left in the dark as to how to distinguish the prophet’s opinion from the word of the Lord. Ellen White was certainly clear on this point when she declared:

In these letters which I write, in these testimonies which I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the previous rays of light shining from the throne (125).

Bradford seems to have embraced a popular evangelical theory that the gift of prophecy, as exercised by the apostles, ceased when the Scriptures were completed. He declares, “With the close of the Apostolic age, the prophetic gift as exercised by the apostles ended” (126). He quotes as authority for this claim, not any verse of Scripture, but rather, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, with its declaration as to the presumed “disappearance of the prophetic office” at the close of the New Testament (127). The Bible, however, does not support this view. Paul declares, regarding the gifts of the Spirit:

Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:6, 7).

In other words, all the gifts of the Spirit are stated to function till the return of Christ. The phrase “testimony of Christ” is especially significant, since in the book of Revelation this phrase specifically refers to the prophetic office (Revelation 19:10; 22:9), and declares the presence of this office as identifying the church of the last days (Revelation 12:17). While Bradford seeks to distinguish the gift of prophecy as manifested by the apostles with the gifts that began at Pentecost—claiming that while the former ended with the close of Scripture (128), the latter will continue till Jesus’ coming (129)—we have seen already that Scripture makes no such distinction.

At one point Bradford quotes an Adventist scholar who declares, concerning Ellen White: “Never once did she suggest that her mission was part of the canonical ‘testimony of Jesus’ mentioned six times in the book of Revelation (1:2, 9; 6:9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4)” (130). For starters, the very phrase “canonical ‘testimony of Jesus’” is at best confusing and at worst an outright theological fabrication. Certainly nowhere in Scripture, where the phrase “testimony of Jesus” is used, is it restricted to those writings which the church would later call “canonical.” Secondly, if the above author intended “canonical” to mean doctrinally authoritative, and to thus exclude Ellen White’s ministry from such a role, we have already seen from Scripture that all prophets bear the word of the eternal God to the believing community. If the word canonical is meant to mean the authoritative, transcendent word of God (as distinct from the specific books the church would later include in the biblical corpus), it can rightfully be applied to all possessors of the prophetic gift.

Thirdly, it makes no difference whether or not Ellen White identified her own ministry as a fulfillment of the testimony of Jesus described in Revelation. (The New Testament apostles never identified their own writings as “scriptures,” but did refer to the writings of their colleagues in this way; see 2 Peter 3:16.) The only issues that matter to the church on this point are: (1) whether in fact possession of the “testimony of Jesus” refers to possession of the gift of prophecy, and (2) whether Ellen White’s claim to possess the prophetic gift is genuine. If the answer to both of the above questions is affirmative, Ellen White’s prophetic ministry is a fulfillment of Revelation 12:17, whether or not she specifically says so.

The concept of a closed Bible canon, which Ellen White supports (131), is an issue separate from that of prophetic authority. (A recent biography of Mormon founder Joseph Smith observes how Ellen White, in contrast with Smith, did not give her writings equality with Scripture (132).) Ellen White declared her writings the lesser light in contrast to the greater light of Scripture (133), not because of any lesser authority held by her writings over the conscience, but because, in her words: “Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given” (134). Ellen White’s writings originate nothing in the way of doctrinal or moral truth. They merely amplify, clarify, and simplify the precepts and principles found in Scripture. But as we have seen already, the Bible gives no evidence that non-canonical prophets exert any less authority over the faith and duty of believers than those prophets whose writings were later canonized. Whether in the establishment or the clarification of truth, the prophetic voice speaks with the same divine, transcendent authority.

In short, the function of Scripture is to establish truth. The function of the writings of Ellen White is to clarify and confirm it. Different function. Same authority.

By contrast, Bradford’s view of the gift of prophecy—both in the Old and New Testaments—represents a fundamental subversion of prophetic authority. Prophets in all ages, though especially in the Christian age, are depicted by him as error-prone, mixing their own biases, judgments, and opinions with messages given them by God. Applying this principle to Ellen White, Bradford insists that Adventists must “exercise the gift of discernment” in weighing her instruction (135). Then he declares, quite boldly:

Many will see this as providing a biblical basis for what is happening already. For many years now it has been recognized that the church cannot follow all her counsel (136).

Bradford therefore summons his church to pick and choose—subjecting the prophetic word, in the words of a scholar cited earlier, not only to the words of Scripture (an essential exercise), but also to “the traditions of all the churches, and critical reflections” (137). Since, as we have seen, Bradford extends his “fallibility” principle to the Bible writers themselves, such an approach eliminates any hope of an objective standard by which to measure sin and righteousness. The concept of sin as the transgression of God’s eternal law (1 John 3:4), the law’s disclosure of our sinful ways and consequent need of Christ (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:24), is lost. And with it the core of Christianity itself.

The prophetic voice, with its call to repentance and reformation on the basis of God’s transcendent Word, is submerged by Bradford’s doctrine in the babble of perception and counter-perception, varying degrees of alleged “discernment,” and the subtle but persistent cry of the heart for self-fulfillment. Jezebel, Pashur, Herodias, and those in every age who have found prophetic guidance unsettling to their eclectic, self-accommodating spirituality, can at last rest in peace.

Again we cite Paul’s statement to the Thessalonians, which offers no hint of any mixture of human opinion with the divine word in the messages delivered to the church:

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

And to those inclined to pick and choose in her writings which are of God and which are of human origin, the modern prophet offers these solemn warnings:

I have my work to do, to meet the misconceptions of those who suppose themselves able to say what is testimony from God and what is human production. If those who have done this work continue in this course, satanic agencies will choose for them.

Those who have helped souls to feel at liberty to specify what is of God in the Testimonies and what are the uninspired words of Sister White, will find that they were helping the devil in his work of deception (138).

Yet now, when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God (139). GCO

Endnotes

42. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 47, 48.
43. Ibid., pp. 65-75.
44. Ibid., pp. 67-84.
45. Ibid., pp. 69-84, 107, 215-217, 244, 245; People Are Human, pp. 149, 156.
46. Ibid., pp. 47, 48.
47. G.B. Caird, The Truth of the Gospel (London: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 59, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 48.
48. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 46, 47, 52, 112.
49. Ibid., pp. 65-84.
50. Ibid., pp. 46, 47, 52, 54.
51. Gerhard Friedrich, “Prophets,” A Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmanns, 1968), p. 849, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 48.
52. Chris Forbes, “Straight From God,” On Being, April 1991, p. 13, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 74, 75.
53. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 69, 70.
54. Ibid., p. 70.
55. Ibid., p. 77.
56. D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit—A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Homebush West, N.S.W, Australia: Lancer Books, 1988), pp. 94-95, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 77, 78.
57. Michael Green, To Corinth With Love (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1982), p. 75, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 244.
58. John Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time. The Message of First and Second Thessalonians (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1991), p. 128, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 245.
59. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 78-84.
60. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2000), pp. 1140, Quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 79.
61. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 99, 215, 216; People Are Human, p. 149.
62. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 107.
63. ________, People Are Human, p. 156.
64. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 69, 70.
65. Ibid., p. 206; People Are Human, p. 134.
66. Gerhard Friedrich, “Prophets,” A Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmanns, 1968), p. 849, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 48.
67. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 75.
68. D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit—A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Homebush West, N.S.W, Australia: Lancer Books, 1988), pp. 94, 95, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 77, 78.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Bradford, Prophets Are Human (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Co, 2004), p. 72.
72. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 53.
73. Ibid., p. 51, 52, 128.
74. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
    www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
75. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 75.
76. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 84.
77. Ibid., pp. 81, 82.
78. Ibid., p. 82.
79. Ibid.
80. Ellen G. White, Sketches from the Life of Paul, p. 203.
81. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 82.
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid., pp. 39, 40.
84. Ibid., p. 45.
85. Ibid., p. 43.
86. Ibid., p. 40.
87. Everett F. Harrison, “The Phenomenon of Scripture,” Revelation and the Bible (Carl F.H. Henry, ed.) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), p. 247, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 239, 240.
88. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 47, 48.
89. Ibid., p. 41.
90. Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1954), p. 53, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 43.
91. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 223.
92. Ibid., p. 46.
93. James L. Hayward, ed. Creationism Reconsidered (Roseville, CA: Association of Adventist Forums, 2000). Article by Frederick Harder, “Prophets: Infallible or Authoritative?” p. 226, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 46, 47.
94. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 52.
95. White, Messages to Young People, p. 263.
96. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 73.
97. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 54.
98. Ibid., p. 50, 128.
99. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
    www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
100. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 67.
101. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 50.
102. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
103. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 49.
104. Ibid., p. 25.
105. Ibid.
106. Ibid., p. 238.
107. Ibid., pp. 48, 49.
108. Ibid., p. 49.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid., p. 50.
111. Ibid., pp. 47, 48.
112. Ibid., p. 47.
113. Ibid.
114. Ibid.
115. Ibid., pp. 65, 66, 71.
116. Ibid., p. 48.
117. Ibid., pp. 50, 51.
118. Ibid., p. 51.
119. Ibid.
120. Ibid.
121. Ibid., p. 52.
122. Ibid.
123. Ibid.
124. Ibid.
125. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67.
126. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 85.
127. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 10 (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1925), pp. 383, 384, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 87.
128. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 85.
129. Ibid., p. 88.
130. Ibid., pp. 217, 218.
131. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 663.
132. Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), p. 128.
133. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30.
134. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
135. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 215, 216.
136. Ibid., p. 215.
137. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2000), pp. 1140, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 79.
138. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 70.
139. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 64.

© 2007 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. Kevin has also since 2002 served as the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.