The Ellen White Writings and Sola Scriptura
Victor Christensen
Editor’s Note:
The paper that follows thoughtfully addresses an issue that troubles many Seventh-day Adventists: “How are we to regard the writings of Ellen G. White?” As such, it tackles a thorny problem. As the author notes, he does regard her as a prophet. Prophets are generally regarded as persons who receive communication from God. Should the writings of a modern prophet be considered equal to the writings we know as scripture? For further consideration, refer to 1 Corinthians 14:29.
Introduction
Who Wrote What?
Marian Davis and The Desire of Ages
Ellen White and Doctrinal Inerrancy
Ellen White’s Interpretation of the Law in Galatians
The Role of Visions in Ellen White’s Writings
The Pioneers and Sola Scriptura
Ted Noel
* * *
Author’s Note:
I believe Ellen White was a prophet. That means she was someone chosen by God to convey His will to the people. Whoever speaks for God is always someone to be listened to. Ellen White claimed that in vision she was often transport back into history and saw biblical events transpiring before her eyes as if she was an eyewitness in real time. She claimed the future was opened to her and that final events preceding the return of Christ, both in the church and in the world, were revealed to her in detail. In terms of these visionary experiences I believe that everything that she claimed was revealed to her by paranormal means was and will be exactly as she tells it. While the contents of her visions were often incorporated into her writings I do not believe that simply anything that she wrote constitutes an “inspired” documentation. Ellen White identified the Bible alone as the inspired Word of God. That is my position.
Introduction
From the time of John the Revelator to now many thousands have received revelations from heaven through dreams and visions and have prophesied and given testimony under the power of the Spirit. Although at times the gift of prophecy has not been prominent yet the spirit of prophecy has never been entirely removed from the church. Also, between the close of the biblical canon and the present there is 2000 years of history. Out of all those many thousands who received divine revelations in different generations, and in all of that 2000 years of history, there is no evidence of anyone who received the witness of the Spirit being permanently elevated above their human condition so that they continuously produced multiple inerrant interpretations of the Bible, or authored documents equally as inspired as the Bible. Put succinctly, in spite of thousands of authentic manifestations of the spirit of prophecy covering 2000 years the Bible remains the only document that can be called in unqualified terms the “inspired” Word of God. This principle called sola scriptura is the foundation of all Christian teaching.
It is against the many thousands of manifestations of the spirit of prophecy covering many generations that the claims by some Seventh-day Adventists must be tested. There are some who claim that the general writings of Ellen White represent an “inspired” and “inerrant” interpretation of biblical teachings. However, if the spirit of prophecy could be manifested many thousands of times for 2000 years within the Christian Church without producing inerrant writings possessing a biblical authority why should it be so different in the case of the writings of Ellen White? The following statements claiming biblical inspiration and inerrancy for Ellen White’s writings are samples of an entrenched conviction held by many within the Seventh-day Adventist Church and represent a departure from biblical teaching.
Modern SDA Statements
Her (Ellen White’s) abundant literary production includes tens of thousands of Biblical texts, coupled often with detailed expositions. Careful study has shown that her writings are consistent, accurate, and in full agreement with the Scriptures. (Seventh-day Adventist Believe … A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, Review and Herald Publishing Association 1988, pp. 224,225)
We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the other. (Ministry, October 1981)
There is hope for every remnant believer today who sometimes feels confused at all the differing views taken by different scholars and commentaries. We have that was given for the purpose of settling the disagreements among the uninspired commentaries. What do you do when the scholars disagree? Do you have to become a better scholar than the best in order to settle the disagreement in your own mind? No, let me repeat. God has given to our church an inspired commentary to settle the disagreements among the uninspired commentaries. And we can still be thankful for that today. (Morris Venden, The Pillars, p. 30.)
“The Bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant.” (Sabbath School-Quarterly; Feb. 11, 1978 Teacher’s Edition, p. 112)
Shall we accept the view that a Seventh-day Adventist theologian is more dependable than a Seventh-day Adventist prophet? I highly respect many of our Seventh-day Adventist theologians. I have sat at their feet and been taught by them. I admire and respect them highly. I would like to remind you, however, that you can search the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single text marking out theologians as having the gift of the Holy Sprit. The Scriptures indicate however, that prophets have a gift of the Holy Spirit. Ellen white had that gift and she was canonical insofar as doctrinal interpretation is concerned. (Letter from D. A. Delafield trustee of the EGW Estate, to P. C. Drewer, June 24, 1981)
Early SDA Statements
It will come as a surprise to many to learn that both Ellen White and the pioneers rejected the above interpretation of her writings. Ellen White explained her perception of her regular writings in the following terms. “The Bible itself relates how, through the Holy Spirit, men received warning, reproof, counsel, and instruction, in matters in no way relating to the giving of the Scriptures.” Ellen White did two things. She refused permission for her writings to be employed as an inspired or inerrant commentary on the Bible. Also, she gave the instruction: “don’t you give a rap any more what ‘Sister White said’” and demanded that the Bible be the one and only doctrinal authority. (E. White. Great Controversy, p.10)
Many from among our own people are writing to me, asking with earnest determination the privilege of using my writings to give force to certain subjects that they wish to present to the people in such a way as to leave a deep impression upon them. It is true that there is a reason why some of their matters should be presented; but I would not venture to give my approval in using the Testimonies in this way, or to sanction the placing of matter which is good in itself in the way which they propose. (Ellen White to Brother Littlejohn, Aug. 3, 1894)
Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don’t you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what “Sister White said”– “Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing.” But say, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what he says, (E. White. Spalding and Magan Collection, page 167, paragraph 2)
In public labor do not make prominent, and quote that which Sister White has written, as authority to sustain your positions. To do this will not increase faith in the testimonies. Bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God. (E. White. Letter 11, 1894.)
The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed. (E. White. Selected Messages Vol. 1, p. 416)
The attitude of the pioneers towards the writings of Ellen White was vastly different to that held by many conservative Adventist today. For at least the first forty years of Adventist history anyone claiming that her writings represented an “inspired commentary” on the Bible would have received a strong rebuke from Ellen White herself and from those who were closely associated with her. James White provides a sample of the pioneers thinking and defines the early Adventists relationship toward Ellen White’s general writings. The pioneers distinguished between the divine revelation contained in her testimonies sent to individuals offering personal instruction and her books written for public consumption. In a direct reference to her biblical interpretations presented in her general writings James White wrote,
Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. (James White, Review & Herald, October 3, 1854)
There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors make the view of Mrs. White a Test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. What has the Review to do with Mrs. W.’s views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been, “The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty. (James White, Review and Herald, Oct.16, 1855)
It should be here understood that all these views as held by the body of Sabbath-keepers, were brought out from the Scriptures before Mrs. W. had any view in regard to them. These sentiments are founded upon the Scriptures as their only basis. (James White, Review and Herald, Oct. 16 1855)
Now we shall go right along believing and teaching the word of the Lord. This is our business. And if we choose to believe Mrs. W.’s views which harmonize with the Word, this is our business, and nobody else’s. But if we should leave the word, and look for a rule of faith and duty by some new revelation, then it would be the business of the Church to silence me as a religious teacher. (James White, Gifts of the Gospel Church, p.14)
The following statement by James White presents the position of historic Adventism and aligns the church with Protestant principles. In 1871 James White, with Ellen White’s approval, wrote,
They (SDA’s) believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. They believe that the spirit of prophecy has rested upon Mrs white, and that she is called to do a special work at this time, among this people. They do not, however, make belief in this work a test of fellowship. (Review and Herald, June 13, 1871)
F M Wilcox stated the same position,
As we consider the subject of spiritual gifts and their manifestation in the church, the question naturally arises, Should faith in this doctrine be made a test of fellowship? … [C]andidates for church membership should be made acquainted with the divine ministry to which she was called, and the influence of her writings and labours through the years. Opportunity should be afforded them to read the published books. When this instruction has been given candidates, but little question will ever be raised as to faith in the doctrine of spiritual gifts being made a test of church fellowship. (Ellen G White Biography, Vol.2, Arthur White pp.491, 492)
George Butler stated in 1883 in a Review and Herald supplement (August 14) that “many among us who do not believe the visions are in our churches, and are not disfellowshiped.” The pioneers argued for the acceptance of Ellen White’s visions on moral ground, but they refused to legislate a compulsory acceptance. (For Ellen White’s position on the visions and church membership see Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 328.)
All of the pioneers’, including Ellen White, would have repudiated the following statement.
We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the other. (Ministry, October 1981)
The Issue
The claim Ellen White’s writings are of “equal quality” to the Bible in terms of inspiration is unrepresentative of the historic Adventism because “equal quality” implies an equal authority. The pioneers would have rejected the Ministry statement as a repudiation of the principle of the Bible-Only.
Paul Althaus wrote,
If some other authority would explain the Scripture, then it would also validate it. Thereby, however, Scripture would lose its character as the final authority. (The Theology of Martin Luther, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1963, p.76)
If there were such a thing as an inspired commentary on the Bible the Bible could only be interpreted in a way that agreed with the commentary and so the commentary would actually have more authority than the Bible. We need to understand that an inspired commentary is something very different to an inspired Bible. With the Bible “only” persons of good conscience can disagree about what the Bible means, but with an inspired commentary no disagreement would be possible. The absolute authority of an inspired commentary would eliminate any right to personal interpretation and conscientious dissent and give Ellen White the same authority over Scripture claimed by the Pope.
How would an inspired commentary of the Scriptures operate? In his encyclical Humani Generis Pope Pius XII explains the matter. “When the Roman Pontiff carefully pronounces on some subject which has hitherto been controverted, it must be clear to everyone that … this subject can no longer be regarded as a matter of free debate”. An inspired commentary would eliminate the right to any personal interpretation of the Bible in areas where the “commentary” had already expressed an opinion.
Robert Olsen describes what actually happens when Ellen White is made inerrant: “To give an individual interpretive control over the Bible would, in effect, elevate that person above the Bible.” God has never given His people an inspired commentary on the Bible for this reason: The author of an inspired commentary would acquire a status equal to papal infallibility. Those who teach Ellen White’s writings represent “an inspired and authoritative commentary on the Bible”, and are “inerrant”, are practicing a form of popery without knowing it. Ellen White received visions from God, but it cannot be said that her biblical interpretations are inspired. (Robert Olson, One Hundred and One Questions p.41)
We are told Ellen White wrote around 25 million words. If her writings were inspired in the same sense as the Bible there would be 25 million words of inspired commentary. That would give us an inspired commentary the equivalent in size to 40 Bibles telling us what one Bible means.
Few people comprehend what they are claiming when they say that Ellen White’s writings are as inspired as the Bible. We are told: “The material that she wrote fills more than 80 books, 200 tracts and pamphlets, and 4,600 periodical articles. Sermons, diaries, special testimonies, and letters comprise another 60,000 pages of manuscript material.”1 Let the mind picture that massive literary output being placed alongside of one Bible. Moses writings contain fewer than 157,000 words; Paul’s writings contain just over 43,000 words. Assuming the claim that Ellen White wrote 25,000,000 words is correct her literary output was around 150 times greater than Moses and over 620 times greater than Paul. In the context of these statistics the Ministry claim that the “inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings” are of “equal quality” takes on the appearance of an aberrant and absurd idea. (Seventh-day Adventist Believe … A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988, p.226)
In Acts 10:30-33 Cornelius received a vision in the same manner Ellen White received her visions, but that did not give him an infallible understanding of truth or make him an inspired writer. The experience of Cornelius shows that when a person receives a vision they are subjected to a temporary supernatural conditioning that ends when the vision ends. Ellen White identifies the inspiration that the biblical writers received as a temporary phenomenon, which means that an “inspired” person is not continuously inspired. “Though some of these men wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, yet when not under its direct influence they sometimes erred.” (Ellen G. White, Sketches from the Life of Paul, p. 214)
Receiving visions is apart of what inspiration means but it does not require inspiration to write out a vision or to write a book. A person who believed the flat earth theory could receive visions from God. It is not necessary to believe Ellen White’s writings are inerrant it is only necessary to accept her visions. Nathan was a prophet, but the advice he gave to David in 1 Chronicles 17:2 was uninspired personal opinion. If Nathan could mix personal opinion with revealed truth in his ministry why not Ellen White?
Who Wrote What?
It is true that some of her assistants, albeit under her direction, created entire chapters in a limited number of her books and employed their own words to round out her ideas. For example the majority of chapter 23 in Great Controversy was composed by Ellen White’s secretaries out of material copied from other writers (such as Uriah Smith). W C White pointed to this practice when he stated that Ellen sometimes wrote “a partial description of historical events” and “her copyist preparing the manuscript for the printer” filled out the details themselves. In pages 409-422 of Great Controversy there are some twenty-six paragraphs quoted directly from pages 113-128 and 197-211 of The Sanctuary and its Cleansing written by Uriah Smith in 1877. “There is more of Smith in this chapter than Ellen White. Both books are on my desk, so I am referring to first hand evidence.” (W C White letter to W W Eastman, Nov. 4, 1912)
The following extracts from the July 30 and August 1 records of the 1919 Bible Conference1 (they are not in their original sequence) make it plain Ellen White was not the exclusive author of Great Controversy. (See http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/parallel.html))
B L House: My real difficulty is just here: Sister White did not write either the old edition [of Great Controversy] or the revised, as I understand it.
A G Daniells: What do you mean by saying that she did not write either edition?
B L House: As I understand it, Elder J N Anderson prepared those historical quotations for the old edition, and Brother Robinson, Crisler, Professor Prescott and others furnished the quotations for the new additions. Did she write the historical quotations in there?
A G Daniells: No.
W W Prescott: When I talked to W C White … he told me frankly that when they got out “Great Controversy” if they did not find anything on certain chapters to make the historical connections, they took other books, like “Daniel and Revelation,” and used portions of them; and sometimes her secretaries, and sometimes herself, would prepare a chapter that would fill the gap. (1919 Bible Conference Minutes Concerning Ellen G. White (August 1, 1919)
W. W. Prescott: You are touching exactly the experience through which I went, personally, because you all know that I contributed something toward the revision of “Great Controversy.” I furnished considerable material bearing upon that question.
A. G. Daniells: By request.
W. W. Prescott: Yes, I was asked to do it, and at first I said, “No, I will not do it. I know what it means.” But I was urged into it. When I had gone over it with W. C. White, then I said, “Here is my difficulty. I have gone over this and suggested changes that ought to be made in order to correct statements. These changes have been accepted. My personal difficulty will be to retain faith on those things that I cannot deal with on that basis. But I did not throw up the spirit of prophecy, and have not yet; but I have had to adjust my view of things
A G Daniells: In Australia I saw “Desire of Ages” being made up, and I saw the rewriting of chapters, some of them written over and over and over again, (by Marian Davis) I saw that, and when I talked to Sister Davis about it, I tell you I had to square up this thing and begin to settle things about the spirit of prophecy.
As Daniells points out, using material drawn from Ellen White and other sources Marian Davis created sections of Desire of Ages herself. It is no criticism to state the facts. Marian Davis did her own original research and incorporated her findings into parts of Desire of Ages. It is also a fact that she took a correspondence course on biblical chronology at a Sydney Bible College and used the information that she acquired to supply the historical sequences for Desire of Ages. She also inserted into Desire of Ages some biblical exegesis on the deity of Christ she had requested W.W. Prescott to supply to her.
In the final analysis no one can deny Ellen White bears final responsibility for Desire of Ages. It can genuinely be identified as her book so far as its ideas and structure is concerned. However, it is also true that under modern conditions Davis’ personal input would identify her as a co-author.
In response to the publication of The White Lie in which Walter Rea makes a failed attempt to show that Ellen White was a fraud a General Conference committee was set up to investigate Rea’s allegations. After 8 years research the committee concluded that the borrowings in Ellen White’s books were beyond anything most Adventist have ever imagined. A summary of the committee’s findings appeared in the October and December issue of Ministry magazine in 1990. The summary in part reads,
The content of Ellen White’s commentary on the life and ministry of Christ, The Desire of Ages, is for the most part derived rather than original. …this conclusion declares that one is not able to recognise in Ellen White’s writings on the life of Christ any general category of content or catalogue of ideas that is unique to her.
It has to be admitted in limited areas the copying by Ellen White’s secretaries was extensive. In the gathering of source material for Ellen White’s books mistakes were made and from today’s perspective some practices appear inexcusable. However, Willie White makes it plain that although appropriate credit to other authors was not given when it obviously should have been Ellen White did not engage in any deliberate act of deception. Willie writes,
Mrs. White made no effort to conceal the fact that she had copied from other writers’ statements that exactly suited her purpose. And in her handwritten manuscripts, most of the passages that she had copied word for word were enclosed in quotation marks. But there were also many passages that were paraphrased…. The question arose, how shall these passages be handled? Much time would be required to study each passage and mark it consistently. The printers were waiting for copy, and the public were waiting for the book. Then it was decided to leave out the quotation marks entirely. And in that way the book was printed.” (William C. White and Dores E. Robinson, Brief Statements Regarding the Writings of Ellen G. White (St. Helena, CA: Elmshaven Office, August 1933, p.16.)
In the last two years I have spent more than 1500 hours reviewing Internet material attacking Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventist teachings. On balance Ellen White survives criticism better than many of her critics might imagine. But the fact remains no defence of her use of the writings of others is entirely satisfactory. I don’t wish to add to that except to say that on the matter of Ellen White’s borrowings there are more questions than answers. There have been attempts to minimise the role played by Ellen White’s secretaries and copyist that borders of deliberate misrepresentation. An inerrant Ellen White is the Adventist version of an immaculate conception, but Ellen White does not require such a defence. Her books, however they were put together, possess a powerful spiritual potency. If we do no more than allow Ellen White to be human and to have made mistakes in her honest endeavours in preaching the gospel her own writings will offer a better defence of her than anything we can say or do.
Marian Davis and Desire of Ages
Referring to her involvement with Desire of Ages Marian Davis provides us with a clear indication of the extensive range of her personal input in the preparation of Ellen White’s books. She writes,
I see that neither in Brother Jones letter or yours have I stated definitely what I am doing on the manuscript or why. I have worked for a better opening to the chapters … The chapters of the old manuscript began too often with some notice of Jesus going here or there, until the book seemed like a diary. [A reference to EGW’s original draft] That has been corrected. Then I have tried to begin the chapters and paragraphs with short sentences, and indeed to simplify wherever possible, to drop out every needless word, and to make the work, as I have said, more compact and vigorous. (Letter, Marian Davis to W C White, April 11, 1897)
A letter by H C Lacey to L E Froom indicates that Marian Davis not only used Ellen White’s writings she had a free hand in making use of other sources also. The letter reads,
In this connection, of course you know that Sr. Marian Davis was entrusted with the preparation of “Desire of Ages” and that she gathered her material from every available source - from Sr. White’s books already in print, from unpublished manuscripts, from private letters, stenographical reports of her talks etc. - but perhaps you may not know that she (Sr. Davis) was greatly worried about finding material for the first chapter (and other chapters too for that matter) and I did what I could to help her; I have good reason to believe that she also appealed to Professor Prescott for simular aid, and got it too in far richer and more abundant measure than I could render. (H C Lacey letter to L E Froom Aug. 30, 1945)
In her role as an active contributor to Desire of Ages Marian Davis approached Prescott for help. This request led her to insert into Desire of Ages faulty exegesis that Prescott supplied. Lacey explains how,
At that time, Professor Prescott was tremendously interested in presenting Christ as the great “I Am” and in emphasising the eternity of His existence, using frequently the expression “The Eternal Son”. Also he connected the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, which of course was Christ the Second Person of the Godhead, with the fulfilment of Jesus in John 8:58, which we all agree to; but then linked it up with other “I ams” in that Gospel - 7 of them, such as “I am the Bread of life” “I am the Light of the world’ “I am the door of the Sheep” etc. all very rich in their spiritual teaching - but which seemed a little far fetched to me especially as the “I am” in all those latter cases is merely in the copula in the Greek, as well as in English. But he insisted on his interpretation. Sr. Marian Davis seem to fall for it, and lo and behold, when “Desire of Ages” came out, there appeared that identical teaching on pages 24 and 25, which, I think, can be looked for in vain in any of Sr. White’s published works prior to that time. (Ibid)
While there is a link between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 the interpretation of John 6:51, 10:11, and 14:6 in Desire of Ages pp.24, 25 is indefensible. W C White stated to G A Irwin, “none of Mother’s workers are authorised to add to the manuscripts by introducing thoughts of their own”. However, whatever the general rule was, possibly because of her special relationship with Ellen White, Marian Davis did manage to introduce Prescott’s faulty exegesis into Desire of Ages. Moreover, and this is crucial, Ellen White personally endorsed Prescott’s faulty exegesis. (Letter W C White to G A Erwin, May 7, 1900)
In his book, The Messenger of the Lord, Herbert Douglas claims; “Marian did none of the writing”. He appears to have based his assessment on a letter Ellen White wrote to G A Irwin; “The books are not Marian’s production, but my own, gathered from all my writings”. It is true that Ellen White’s books were essentially based on her writings, but Marian Davis was a long way from being a mere copyist. (Herbert Douglas The Messenger of the Lord, Pacific Press, 1998 pp.116-117)
Marian Davis took whole paragraphs from Ellen White’s writings and reduced them to a few sentences. She took a few sentences from Ellen White, added non-Ellen White material on the life of Christ, and created whole paragraphs. This is more than copying. According to Daniels, she rewrote Ellen White’s original material “over and over and over again”. There is a lot of Marian Davis in Desire of Ages.
Herbert Douglas says, “Current evaluation of Mrs. White’s literary sources in Desire of Ages suggests that at least twenty three works were consulted”. (Ibid p.453) The fact is they were more than consulted. Marian Davis personally incorporated some of this source material directly into draft manuscripts.
The truth is diminished if we limit Marian Davis’ role to that of a mere copyist and if we deny that any copying took place. It needs to be pointed out, however, whatever the nature or the extent of Marian Davis’ contribution Ellen White remained in complete control of the entire process involve in the preparing of her books. In 1902 she wrote: “I read over all that is copied, to see that everything is as it should be. I read all the book manuscript before it is sent to the printer.” (Selected Messages, Vol. 3. p.90)
Ellen White and Doctrinal Inerrancy
In a letter to C H Jones W C White asked that draft copies of Great Controversy being prepared for the printer be scrutinised to see if they contain any commentary that might be in conflict with the Bible. He would hardly have made such a request if he thought Ellen White’s writings represented an “inspired commentary”. Willie clearly discerned the possibility of mistakes and called for their correction.
Please have Elders A T Jones and E J Waggoner give careful criticism to the corrections and to the whole matter. If they detect passages that are still obscure, or anything that is apparently contradictory, or conflicting with the Scripture, there may be time to communicate with us before any of the new addition is printed. (W C Letter to C H Jones, May 18, 1887)
W C White’s letter referring to statements in Great Controversy that may contain commentary “conflicting with the Scripture” shows that he did not believe in “inspired” or in “inerrant” writings. For at least two years after she received her first vision Ellen White believed Sunday was the biblical Sabbath. This clearly shows that if she continued to observe what she later called “the papal Sabbath” for two after she had received her first vision there can be no connection between her visions and biblical inerrancy. Ellen White, the Sunday-keeping prophet, constitutes the ultimate denial of inerrancy.
The Adventist leaders who attended the 1919 Bible Conference all believed that Ellen White was a prophet, but none of them believe that she was doctrinally inerrant. Men who believed her visions were from God were just as convinced her biblical exegesis sometimes contained mistaken personal opinion.
C L Taylor “I would like to ask you to discuss for us the exegetical value of the Testimonies. May we accept the explanations of Scripture that she gives? Are those dependable?”
A G Daniells “I have always felt that they were. It may be in some very critical matters there may be some difficulties”.
In 1910 W A Colcord an associate editor of the Review and Herald wrote a letter in which he expressed concern that Ellen White’s secretaries had placed erroneous interpretations of Scripture into her writings.
Neither do I think that the comment on Matt.24:20, found on page 630 of “Desire of Ages” correctly represents the thought of the text. What is said there is true, but I am confident that it is not a correct exposition of the text. We pretty well know how some of these things have found their way into her writings. Her helpers have ransacked our leading works to get hold of what they thought were the best expositions of Scripture, and woven these things remodelled into the text. (Letter from W A Colcord to L A Smith, July 20, 1910, GC Archives)
It is her visions that define Ellen White as a prophet, not her writings. If her visions were from God the she is still a prophet no matter how or by whom her books were put together. The spiritual dynamics that made Ellen White a prophet did not eliminate her misconceptions of truth, some of which ended up in her writings. It would be a mistake to reject Ellen White as a prophet because we suddenly discover that she was only human after all. Evidence of faulty exegesis does not cancel out her visions.
An article that appeared in the Ministry stated, “”We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of the Scriptures”. The Ministry article contains the disclaimer that “the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White” cannot be regarded as “functioning on a canonical level identical with Scripture”. The reason given is that the authority of Ellen White’s writings is not universal but is “applicable and authoritative [only] to Seventh-day Adventist”. What this means is only Seventh-day Adventists, and no one else, are in subjection to “the authority of the writings of Ellen White”. If this where true, the principle of sola scriptura would operates for those outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but not for those within it. (Ministry August 1982 p.21)
The proposal contained in the Ministry article is insulting to Adventists. It does not uphold the principle of sola scriptura in any way at all. The proposition that the principle of sola scriptura applies to anyone outside of the Adventist church, but not to those within in it, is false and requires a public repudiation.
The argument that the “the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is [no] different from that of the Scriptures” puts her writings on the same level of authority as the Bible. It establishes two equal sources of inspiration in the church. Exactly how are we to practice the principle of sola scriptura if we give an identical obedience to the writings of Ellen White that we give to the Bible?
Ellen White’s personally chosen assistants did not believe that her writings were inerrant. On December 27 1907 C.C. Crisler wrote to Prescott and requested his assistance in preparing Prophets and Kings for publication. In particular he asked Prescott to weed out any error he might find in Ellen White’s draft copy.
In the preparation of this series [Prophets and Kings], we felt the need of counsel, and often wished that we could have the help of those who were familiar with the period of the Exile and the Restoration from Babylon . . . We greatly desire that you shall read the remaining articles, and eliminate any portions that you fear may do more harm than good. As you will note, some points have been safe-guarded, others have been omitted, and, in some instances positions have been taken… We realize very keenly our inability to see many points that should be closely scrutinized; and hence we feel the need of critical help.
If the Ministry’s claim that inspired writings have varying degrees of authority were true then the possibility exists that some books in the Bible could have more authority than others. The concept there are varying degrees of authority within writings equally inspired undermines the whole concept of inspiration. Once the concept of biblical inspiration is extended beyond Scripture to other writings the whole notion of inspiration is diminished and the concept of biblical authority is tainted. It is no disrespect to Ellen White to say that the claim that her writings are inspired is a heretical idea.
Ellen White’s Interpretation of Proverbs 8
In a number of instances it can be shown Ellen White’s interpretations are inaccurate, and cannot be accounted for by the claim she frequently interprets the Bible in a homiletical sense. One clear example of Ellen White’s faulty exegesis is her Arian interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31. Ellen White writes,
Through Solomon Christ declares, “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth … When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment, when He appointed the fountains of the earth: Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him, and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him. (Signs August 29 1900, see also RH 1906-04-05.007)
The Son of God declares concerning Himself, “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old, I was set up from everlasting. … When He appointed the foundations of the earth, then I was by Him, and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:22,30. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p.34)
The idea that “wisdom” in Proverbs can be identified with Christ in any sense is entirely indefensible. For over forty years the pioneers promoted the Arian teaching that Christ was a created being with a beginning. Initially Ellen White accepted this interpretation and endorsed the pioneers’ Arian interpretation of Proverbs 8. Eventually she accepted the trinity doctrine around the mid 1890’s and combined Proverbs 8:22-27 with Psalms 90:2 to prove the “pre-existence of Christ”. However, she never abandoned the pioneer’s faulty exegesis that in Proverbs 8 Christ was speaking of “Himself”. (See Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 1, pp. 17,18, also Selected Messages p. 248)
According to Proverbs 8 wisdom is the first thing God created. Solomon speaks of wisdom as something that is “brought forth”. In Psalms 90:2 to be “brought forth” is the descriptive language of creation; “Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the earth and world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God”.
If Christ was “brought forth” from a biblical perspective this implies He was created. The truth is, however, Christ is not speaking of “Himself” in Proverbs 8, and Ellen White’s interpretation in which she claims that He was, is erroneous. The references to “wisdom” in Proverbs are consistently presented in the feminine gender, such as: “Say to wisdom, ‘You are my sister’”. (Proverbs 7:4) Since the book of Proverbs consistently refers to wisdom as a feminine entity there is no possibility of a feministic wisdom being an analogous reference to Christ.
It should be noted that in the first 8 chapters of Proverbs there are twenty-seven references to “wisdom” that employ the feminine gender. If the references to wisdom in Proverbs did refer to Christ then He is being portrayed in His pre-existent condition as a feminine deity or a goddess. Accordingly, if Ellen White’s application of “wisdom” in Proverbs 8:22-31 is correct how do we explain Proverbs 8:1-3? “Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? On the heights along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; beside the gates leading into the city, at the entrances, she cries aloud:” Was the Lord Jesus ever a woman?
Proverbs 9:1-4 says: “Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn out its seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids, and she calls from the highest point of the city. ‘Let all who are simple come in here’” In her interpretation Ellen White took the Arian understanding of Proverbs 8 held by the pioneers and made it her own.
Solomon speaks of two women, a woman called wisdom and a woman called folly. In chapter 9 he writes: “The woman Folly is loud; she is undisciplined and without knowledge. She sits at the door of her house, calling out to those who pass by.” (9:13-15) Although both the attributes of wisdom and folly are personified and called women it is clear in real terms that no individual is being referred to and that Solomon is merely employing creative license. In Solomon’s writings “wisdom” is no more a person than “folly” and, therefore, cannot be a reference to Christ.
Ellen White’s Interpretation of the Law in Galatians
Up until 1888 Ellen White taught that the law in Galatians referred to “the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism”, meaning the ceremonial law. Sometime after 1888 she came to believe that the “schoolmaster” in Galatians 3 referred to both the moral and the ceremonial law in partial agreement with Waggoner’s interpretation that the schoolmaster was the moral law, which convict us of sin, and leads us to Christ. (Sketches From the Life of Paul p.190)
I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer; Both the ceremonial and the moral code of the ten commandments. (Selected Messages Vol.1 p.233)
As the sinner looks into the great looking glass, he sees himself just as he is, spotted, defiled, and condemned. … The law is but the schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. (Review and Herald, April 5, 1898)
The idea promoted by Waggoner, and accepted by Ellen White, that Galatians 3:24 is describing the convicting function of the moral law is based on a misunderstanding of Paul. In the context of Galatians 3:15-25 the term “law” means torah religion as prescribed in the teachings of Moses. Paul is saying that the Jewish religion functioned as a “schoolmaster” preparing the way for the coming of Christ. He is telling the Gentiles there is no requirement for them to become Jews in order to become Christians.
The central issue in Galatians is covered in Paul’s rebuke to Peter in Galatians 2:14: “How is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews.” The “schoolmaster” is identified in verse 10 as “the book of the law” in reference to the five books of Moses. The “schoolmaster” is the whole religion of Moses as a system of organised worship. Paul is saying that Judaism was a temporary bridge between Abraham and Christ. He is dealing with the irrelevance of the practice of Judaism for Christians. Paul chose the term “schoolmaster” because it aptly signified Judaism’s temporary function as a preparation for Christ.
Paul’s primary argument is that Judaism had reached its use-by-date. “What then was the purpose of the law? It was added … until the Seed should come”. (v.19) The identification of Judaism as a schoolmaster was chosen because the role of a pedagogos was a temporary one. Paul’s readers knew that the custodial function of the pedagogos ultimately ends. Something that ends does not represent the “moral law”. Because the Decalogue has no temporary function it cannot be the schoolmaster.
Ellen White was misled by Waggoner’s misinterpretation of Galatians. The reason for that is possibly because Waggoner’s explanation of the pedagogos function of the moral law, as an idea, was entirely correct. It cannot be denied that the role Waggoner assigned to the moral law is part of the conversion process. But as true as his idea was, it was not what Paul was writing about. Ellen White’s treatment of the law in Galatians embraces a sound idea, the conviction of sin does lead to conversion, but Waggoner supplied her with the wrong exegesis. It is impossible for Ellen White’s endorsement of Waggoner’s interpretation of Galatians to be described as anything like an “inspired” interpretation.
The Role of Visions in Ellen White’s Writings
Ellen White wrote; “As the Spirit of God has opened my mind to the great truths of His word, and the scenes of the past and the future, I have been bidden to make known to others that which has thus been revealed”. She also stated; “Events in the history of the reformers have been presented before me”. These statements link Ellen White’s writings to her visionary experiences. Accordingly, if we take her claims seriously we must see her writings as more than ordinary and as a leading of the Spirit. (Great Controversy p.13, Letter 48, 1894)
Ellen White declared; “The Bible itself relates, how, through the Holy Spirit, men received warning, reproof, counsel and instruction, in matters in no way relating to the giving of the Scriptures.” Because Ellen White made a deliberate distinction between her writings and “the giving of the Scriptures” so should we. If she says that her writings are “in no way relating to the giving of the Scriptures” it is not our business to equate her writings with the Scriptures. (Great Controversy, p.10)
Arthur White claims that in response to her visions Ellen White wrote a “copious” manuscript about Huss and Jerome. The material needed reducing in order to be incorporated into Great Controversy, so; “Pressed hard with commitments for travel, Ellen White entrusted the task to Marian Davis”. (Arthur H White, Inspiration and the Ellen G White Writings. R&H 1978 p.21)
What did Marian Davis do with this “copious” amount of Ellen White’s commentary on Huss and Jerome? As her practice was she made it “more compact and vigorous”. This means Great Controversy pp. 97-119 is not an original writing by Ellen White but a reconstruction written by Marian Davis. There is no way a heavily edited version of Ellen White’s original draft can be described as an inspired writing.
At the 1919 Bible Conference on July 30 Daniells stated that “there are men who just hold me up as a doubter of the testimonies because I take the position that they are not verbally inspired, and that they have been worked up by the secretaries and put in proper grammatical shape”. According to Daniells James White took,
Sister White’s testimonies and helped to write them out and make them clear and grammatical and plain. … And he knew that the secretaries they employed took them and put them in a grammatical condition, transposing sentences, completed sentences, and used words that Sister White did not herself write in the original copy. (1919 Bible Conference August 1)
As to the use of other writings Willie White wrote,
Mrs. White made no effort to conceal the fact that she had copied from other writers, statements that exactly suited her purpose. And in her handwritten manuscripts, most of the passages that she had copied word for word, were enclosed in quotation marks. But there were also many passages that were paraphrased…. The question arose, How shall these passages be handled? Much time would be required to study each passage and mark it consistently. The printers were waiting for copy, and the public were waiting for the book. Then it was decided to leave out the quotation marks entirely. And in that way the book was printed.” (William C. White and Dores E. Robinson, Brief Statements Regarding the Writings of Ellen G. White (St. Helena, CA: Elmshaven Office, August 1933), p. 16.)
Summary and Conclusion
This document contends for one idea only. No authority approaching biblical authority exists outside of the Bible itself. The position taken in this paper is no different from that taken by James White. He believed that an inspired commentary would be a denial of sola scriptura. In 1854 he wrote,
Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. (Review and Herald, October 3, 1854)
There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors make the view of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship.-What has the Review to do with Mrs. W.’s views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. The Review for five years has not published one of them. Its motto has been, “The Bible and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty. (James White, Review and Herald, Oct.16, 1855)
According to Herbert Douglas Ellen White “never expected anyone to consider her the Bible’s infallible commentator or interpreter.” Not only did Ellen White not expect her writing to be regarded as inerrant she totally disapproved of them being employed as a final authority on matters of doctrine. To those who did seek to use them as a final authority she advised: “I would not venture to give my approval in using the Testimonies in this way”2 Ellen White’s refusal on this issue ought to settle the matter. (Messenger of the Lord, Pacific Press (1998) p.419, Ellen White to Brother Littlejohn, Aug. 3, 1894)
It should be clear the debate over whether Ellen White’s writings are inspired or not is more a debate over the Bible than a debate over the writings of Ellen White. In its pure form sola scriptura means the Bible plus nothing, as a principle it totally excludes the notion of an “inspired” and “inerrant” Ellen White.
The question is, do Seventh-day Adventists believe unconditionally in sola scriptura? If an outsider formed an opinion based on official statements and the claims of some Adventists they would have to conclude the answer is no. They would be entitled to ask whether Adventists are really Protestants. And if we pressed the claim that both “the Bible and the writings of Ellen White are inerrant” we would only have ourselves to blame when good people who believe in the Bible-Only reject the Adventist Church.
Ellen White defined her role in the following words,
Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. …. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people… My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing seeds of unbelief can comprehend. (Selected Messages, Vol.1, p. 36)
Ellen White was a prophet. A prophet is someone who speaks for God, and on numerous occasions Ellen White’s writings were the medium of divine revelation. Under the conditions of God’s covenant with the church there is a requirement to believe that at certain points in her writings God is speaking.
Ellen White was all to the Seventh-day Adventist Church that the prophet Nathan was to the kingdom of David. But as with Nathan, Ellen White was merely a medium of divine revelation. In herself she was an erring human who under most conditions saw everything, as humans do, through a glass darkly.
The Bible is the only binding authority on the gospel and matters of doctrine. But prophetic revelations that deal with practical matters essential in keeping institutionalised religion obedient to the will of God also have an authority we need to acknowledge. We do not defend biblical inspiration because we fully understand the ontological process that makes inspiration possible; we defend it only on account of the biblical testimony. Scripture testifies of itself that the Bible is inspired and our sole reason for believing in biblical inspiration is because the Bible teaches it. Do you wish to comment on the role of the change the Holy Spirit makes in lives? Many look to this as a proof of scripture. However, we ought not to reject the authority of non-canonical prophets just because they are not biblical prophets. There are distinct spheres of operation where the Bible only operates, and places where the non-canonical prophet cannot enter. But that is God’s ordering. It is not a matter that we can settle for ourselves on the basis of logic or reason.
The distinction between a biblical prophet and the non-canonical prophet is not a question of more authority for one and less for the other but a distinction between spheres of operation. Corporate religion must construct its beliefs and practices on the basis of the Bible only. Church membership in corporate religion can only be granted or refused on the basis of the Bible only. In the life of the church non-canonical prophets do not function as authorities they function as a witness. Their testimony has moral force but it does not have ecclesiastical authority. Whether a non-canonical prophet has one visions or thousands it makes no difference. A non-canonical prophet never has biblical authority. God does not grant it, and there is no basis for ecclesiastical authorities or enthusiasts to claim otherwise.
Neither the praise of her admirers nor the condemnation of her critics makes one atom of difference concerning the role of Ellen White in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her testimonies were and remain visible evidence that God is seeking to prepare a people for the return of Christ. Her vindication will come when the saints are raised in immortality and when the kingdom that is to come is made manifest. Then it will be that those who hate her and who have rejected the instruction that God gave through her will see the enormity of their mistake. Opposition to a prophet amounts to opposition to God. It was so in the case of every biblical prophet, and it is an irreducible truth concerning Ellen White. Her contribution was not immaculate doctrine but what it requires to live in the presence of a holy God.
The article was taken from web page http://www.bibleonly.org/SSRI/SSRI-1.htm
Translation of this post into Russian see at http://noelrt.com/?p=13
Перевод на русский язык см. здесь - Труды Элен Уайт и sola scriptura
* * *
Related materials -
Ellen
Ellen White and the Future of the Adventist Church
Graeme S. Bradford. More Than a Prophet
About the book
More than a Prophet was born out of the raging controversy over the credibility of Ellen White as an inspired writer. Books, videos, and thousands of websites are attempting to destroy the credibility of the gift of prophecy manifested in the ministry and writings of Ellen White.
To respond to the many attacks against Ellen White, Prof. Graeme Bradford spent twenty years of his life examining and digesting the writing of Ellen White in the light of the manifestation of the gift of prophecy in biblical prophets. By examining the human side of Bible prophets as revealed in scripture, Bradford shows that the problems they encountered, were not much different from the criticism brought against Ellen White.
This book defends the true nature of Ellen White’s ministry, by showing how her ministry was perceived by herself, her son Willie, and church leaders who worked closely with her. These leaders, including the General Conference President A. G. Daniells, expressed their fears at the 1919 Bible Conference, that the Church was heading in a wrong direction in its understanding and use of her ministry. Unfortunately, their worst fears were realized as cultural pressures influenced the church to promote an unrealistic understanding of her ministry. Fortunately, today Adventism has returned a full circle by coming back to a more biblical understanding of her gift. This intriguing story is revealed in this book.
This book has been long overdue and will do much to restore confidence in the validity of the gift of prophecy manifested in ministry of Ellen White - a woman who has left such a rich legacy not only for the SDA Church but for the world at large.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Graeme Bradford has served the Seventh-day Adventist church with distinction as a pastor, evangelist and professor in the theology department of Avondale College. He has conducted seminars in many parts of the world, helping thousands to better understand and experience biblical truths.
He has written numerous articles, prepared a Bible Course for Global Mission, and edited 3 magazines on Archeology and the Bible. Recently he authored two books entitled Prophets are Human and People are Human: Look at what they did to Ellen White! At the request of the South Pacific Division he is preparing a Revelation Seminar course together with Prof. Jon Paulien, the head of the Department of Religion from Loma Linda University.
- Full text of “lost” for 50 years reports of 1919 Bible Conference in General Conference of SDA church archives are available at http://www.adventistarchives.org/documents.asp?CatID=19 [-]