in response to my point that Seventh-day Adventists are not obligated to believe everything that Ellen White, a "prophet"* who was one of the founders of the denomination in 19th century North America, believed. I went on to say that we should use the same principles of interpretation which we would use with any important text, including the Bible. One of these, I continued, is that we should focus on ideas that thread their way through the entire text rather than concepts that are put forward only very rarely. As I understand it, his point was that God spoke through Ellen White just as surely as God spoke through some people in Biblical times and therefore SDAs should treat her writings with the same respect.
I agree with him that God did not stop communicating with humans when what we call the New Testament was finally established as the Christian "Canon." According to the Bible itself, God sometimes communicated with those who were not among the "The Chosen People. " We see this in the story about the "Three Wise Men" who traveled from afar he traveled a long distance to honor the Baby Jesus. In addition to whatever else it means, this story conveys a very clear message. It is that Jesus the Christ was for all people and not only for Jews for or for those who would some day be Christians. If God can communicate with those who are not in the space-time as Biblical people, I do not know why God cannot communicate with those who are not in the time-space. So, yes, God could have communicated through Ellen White and many others as well as the Biblical writers and I believe that God did. In this sense, the Canon is not closed.
In none of these cases are we to believe things on the basis of sheer authority, whether it be Biblical or anything else. It is psychologically impossible for us to believe something which we actually do not believe just because some authority has told us that we must, even if that authority is God. Here's the same point put the other way around: It is psychologically possible to believe something only if we actually do. Could Some times we choose to act "as if" something is so even though we actually don't know for certain. Getting married "as if" it is the case that one's spouse will always be true is an example. Acting "as if" something is true is one meaning of the word "faith" But unless it is based on the best reading of all the available evidence, it is not faith but presumption. This why the Bible says that we should be open minded but not gullible, testing every claim and keeping only that which passes the examination.
Yet there is another sense in which the "Canon is closed." This that after centuries of exploring the issue we Christians decided that the Old and New Testaments, taken in their entirety pretty much as we now have them, with priority given to Jesus the Christ, constitute the most important measure, standard or criterion by which we determine whether religious claims are true. The literature in the library which we call the Bible is not the only place where we can hear the Word of God; however, it is the primary standard, or Canon, by which we determine whether we are actually hearing it. We can believe that in addition to the Biblical writers God spoke through Ellen White or any one else as long as the Bible is the primary criterion. We cross the line into dangerous territory if we make them a part of it.
When building fences it is important to position each new post in line with the direction of the first two until one wants to make a corner.. Placing the third post in line with the second, the fourth in line with the third, the fifth in line with the fourth and so on is to guarantee am embarrassimg and ineffective barrier. The only way to prevent this is always to return to the direction of the first two posts. Even the least traditional Christians claim that their views are the "truely Biblical ones" whenever they can!