Upon first reading this post I must say that I sided with the author. This is due to my distaste for the fact that a number of Adventists today rely so heavily on the writings of Ellen White for Biblical interpretation, while themselves neglecting the study of Scripture. A reason God called Mrs. White was to address the fact that our brethren were not studying the Scriptures, and it now seems that a growing number of Adventists are sliding back into that category with their beliefs being backed up more by “Ellen White says” than “Thus saith the Lord.”
However, should my growing distaste for the misuse of Ellen White cause me to take such a strong stance against her role as a prophet? Are we rejecting her role as a prophet? I know I am not. The fact that she was a prophetess means that everything she wrote/said must be weighed with the Scriptures. After all, a prophet must be “infallible” in order to be considered a prophet, since the prophet’s role is to speak for God. Is this not a test for a true prophet? I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything wrong with her claiming infallibility, for the simple fact that she was lead by the Spirit and I myself compare everything with Scripture (including her writings) and have not found any contradictions yet. Infallibility becomes a problem when the person claiming it attempts to trump Biblical teachings (which was not Ellen White’s purpose). Previous Popes have used their so-called infallibility to do just that, thus elevating their traditions over the Bible. Show me one place where Ellen White has ever attempted to take authority over the Bible. We all know her famous quote from the Introduction to the Great Controversy where she claims that she is the “lesser light.” Her purpose for writing was to lead people back to the “greater light.” Her writings were elevated by some of our brethren, not by Ellen White herself. We must be careful then not to begin attacking her role as a prophet for our Church because of the views of some members who are neglecting prayerful Bible study. I am in no way associating myself with Catholicism by believing that Mrs. White was a true prophet of God.
I am posting this comment because at one point I found myself against Ellen White and her ministry. After some self-examination, I found that my stance was taken as a result of my strong distaste for the misuse of her writings. My stance has since then changed. I know that her writings are not essential for salvation, but at the same time they are inspired and are a blessing for me. I stick to her completed books and stay away from those compliations. When was the last time we picked up a Great Controversy? This is my point brethren: When used properly, Ellen White’s writings are a blessing. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
I want to thank Greg for posting this article. It has opened my eyes to what is going on in our Church. I never knew that there was such a thing as an Evangelical, Progressive, Historical, or Reformed Adventist. It’s sad really, because we need to be coming together as a church, but instead we are being further divided. Are we ever going to leave this place?
I must say that you have gone to great length to discredit E.G. White. However consider the many times she wrote that one should not placed her writings above the bible. Her writing is the lesser light to guide us to the greater light [the bible].
In my opinion her role is the opposite of your position on her. During the dark ages the biblical truths were so obscured by traditions of the church of Rome that God gave her the gift of leading a people back to the study of the bible.
I don’t know of any modern writer who has written so extensive on the need of studying and relying upon the bible as God’s Word as she did.
If she is not inspired after formally receiving just a third grade education, yet has written so extensively upon so many subjects, then she maybe the most gifted person in modern times.
You said a lot about the Adventist churches’ claims on her authority, but you said nothing on her contribution and influence upon millions of life. I was dying to read a comment of the millions who have come to know Jesus as their Savior by reading “Steps to Christ,” “The Desire of the Ages,” “Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing” and the Conflict of the Ages Series.
Think of the many who have improved their health by reading and following her counsels on health found in books as “The Ministry of Healing,” “Counsels on Health,” and “Counsels on Diet on foods.” To really appreciate the weight of her health message, reflect on what health education was in her day and how advance her teachings was.
What about her predictions such as the rise of modern spiritualism, the crack in the nebula of the constellation Orion which she say will be opening up into a space [by the way that opening is now a phenomenon watch intensely by astronomers today] her and her husband’s writing starting small but will grow until it goes around the world, and their fulfillment?
The fact that you go at length to discredit her even with your in-depth research of her writings or else you could not have quoted her so fluidly, does not prove that she was not inspired by God. I believe that this was the same spirit that the people had in the days of Noah to discredit him rather than taking the substance of his message and comparing it with the reveal will of God.
In fact as far as I see most of the prophets of the bible were rejected and call all sorts of names for what ever reason but it did not mean that God did not give them a message. Even Jesus was rejected, called a devil, but He was God in the flesh.
Look at the fine health and educational institutions own and operated by Adventists started and guided by the instructions the Lord gave to the church through E.G.White. If you look at the achievements and principles exhibit by Adventist youth who follow the counsels she gave them in “Messages to Young People,” “Education and A. Sanctified Life” you will see that they are second to none. What is the source behind this? They are instructed to study the bible and to make Christ the center of their life. My favorite statement in the book Education is, “True education is the restoration of the image of God in man.
I praise God for using an uneducated feeble seventh-teen year old at a time when his people were confused, shattered, brokenhearted and discouraged [although this was prophesied in Rev. 10] to bring guidance direction hope and faith to His people. From the shameful, disappointed group in 1844, Seventh-day Adventists life a descent, exemplary law-abiding life around the world.
Far from being a cult, we are respected in all circles around the world including the White House. We are called upon to direct and supply the needs of millions around the world in time of crisis while maintaining our daily relief of the world impoverished. Millions of people are accepting Jesus as their Savior following the command given by Jesus and the instructions of how to do it in the Spirit of Prophecy.
Very few churches if any study, know and depend upon the bible to prove their Faith as do Adventists, and this is a known fact. In fact we are called the people of the Word. The thing I like with the writings of E.G.White is the association of the modern sins, practices and customs and relation them to the bible.
It would be nice to note that Joel 2:28-31 and Peters interpretation of it shows that God promised to give His church the gift of prophecy down to the end of time. So what is so unbiblical of her having the gift of prophecy?
If I remember well Amos 3:7 says, “Surely the Lord will do nothing but reveals His secrets to His servants the prophets.” I believe that God has been doing many things in modern times and before calling out so blessed a people as the Adventists, He gave her the gift to lead us back to an understanding of the scriptures which was thwarted by the spiritual darkness of the dark ages.
Thanks but I think I’ll just stick with Scripture alone.
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. Hebrews 1:1-2
So I assume you would like to rewrite fundamental belief #18, which makes her words an “authoritative source of truth”?
I am not sure what is so offensive about this belief.
There are many authors who are “authoritative”. We could list many ... but instead only one was listed. But this still allows us to figure out which of her writings were “authoritative”.
I think we can agree that she is one source of some kind of authoritative words on some subjects. We may have to try hard to find it ... but I think we can do it.
The more and more I read from the words of James White, Willie White, Daniells, Prescott and even EGW, the more I realize that the pioneers had the proper view of the role and authority of Sister White’s writings for the church. The church itself placed her writings in a position of authority where they should not have been, of which EGW protested for them to use.
Two examples come to mind. The case of both G.I Butler and A.T. Jones wanting to place her writings as the sole interpreter and final word on scripture and doctrinal matters. She was vehement in refusing to allow her writings to be used this way and James White was quite clear on his and EGW’s stance on the role of interpretation and function the SOP was to play. Never did they believe (as A.T. Jones did) that the inspired writings were to be on par with scripture or to be the infallible and final interpreter of scripture.
Yes, I know some will point out to me EGW’s own words on the matter saying how important her writings were and woe to anyone who disregarded them, but I believe that context and applicability to certain areas, as well as EGW’s humanness and theological growth can be attributed to those few specific instances that make EGW seem like she is either placing her writings on par with scripture or contradicting herself (again, see theological growth).
First of all, welcome. About Ellen White, you said, “I think we can agree that she is one source of some kind of authoritative words on some subjects. We may have to try hard to find it ... but I think we can do it.”
Your comment presupposes that Ellen White’s prophetic authority must be supported by default. I suggest that we should be asking whether Ellen White bears the marks of a true prophet, because this is how she is used in the Adventist church and she claimed to be “more than a prophet”.
Some, including Guibox, have tried to soften Ellen White’s role, allowing them to pick and choose which parts of her teachings they would like to keep. But in doing this, they go against the grain of SDA Fundamental Belief #18, Ellen White’s own claims, and more importantly, the Bible’s injunction to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1-6).
Ellen White was not simply in the business of writing devotional material or dispensing theological advice. She claimed the authority of God to support every word that she wrote.
[quote author="Ellen White"]
“I am now looking over my diaries and copies of letters written for several years back. . . . I have the most precious matter to reproduce and place before the people in testimony form. While I am able to do this work, the people must have things to revive past history, that they may see that there is one straight chain of truth, without one heretical sentence, in that which I have written. This, I am instructed, is to be a living letter to all in regard to my faith.” -Letter 329a, 1905. {3SM 52.2}
In these letters which I write, in the testimonies 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 precious rays of light shining from the throne.... {1SM 27.2}
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.-- Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905.) {CW 32.2}
There is just no way to soften these claims. Whatever George Knight, Graeme Bradford, or Guibox have to say on the matter, Ellen White says her words are a “straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence” and “precious rays of light” directly from God and she says that no amount of biblical evidence can contradict her authority. These are breathtaking claims, and they cannot be dismissed as easily as Guibox and others would prefer. Before sifting through her work to find what we’d like to believe or not, we must ask ourselves whether we are embarking on a mission to save a picture of Ellen White that we can tolerate. If this is the case, we are biased from the beginning and our ability to be objective about her claims is already lost.
We cannot pick and choose what we like about Ellen White without weighing her claims in the light of Scripture. The Bible is very clear: “...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1 ESV). “...when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken...” (Deuteronomy 18:22 ESV) “Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord.’ Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them.” (Jeremiah 23:31-32 ESV).
Ellen White used “thus saith the Lord” to give a wholesale blessing for her teachings and her followers were forbidden from contradicting her on the basis that they were disagreeing with Almighty God. She did not restrict any part of her writings from God’s authoritative endorsement. She plagiariazed and lied throughout her life to support her prophetic status. She obscured the gospel and imposed an “investigative judgment” on believers that contradicts God’s Word. She called herself “more than a prophet”, and to treat her in any other way today is to willfully neglect what she said about herself and to ignore what the Bible says about testing those who make the claim.
“Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another.” (Jeremiah 23:30 ESV) If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that this verse implicates Ellen White and it must give us pause when attempting to justify her so-called gift.
I understand that you consider the pioneers view of Ellen’s prophetic authority as being the standards according to which we should judge Ellen’s claims of prophetic authority. Very well, I would use James White own words which, according to Walter Martin, are decisive for establishing the case of Ellen White’s authority.
In 1985 Walter Martin and William Johnson were guests of John Ankerberg Show in which they had an animated discussion, especially about Ellen White’s authority in the SDA church. Walter Martin wanted to know if Ellen White is regarded as the infallible authority of the church, and he used the doctrine of investigative judgment as proof that the SDA church sustains the infallible authority of Ellen White, since in the recent debate with Des Ford, the church sacked Ford because he argued that Mrs. White was wrong on the investigative judgment. Walter Martin pressed Johnson to admit that Ellen White was wrong at this point, and asked him what kind of proof he would accept in order to classify Ellen White as a false prophet.
On Google Videos you can watch the entire show, in 5 parts. You can find the files at this link In part 4, Walter Martin quoted James White’s words:
Does unbelief suggest that what she writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, What time has she had to learn all these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman, if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God?
...
If Mrs. W. has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, she has in thousands of cases, and God has not shown her these things which she has written in these personal testimonies.
...
And if they are not to be found in print, and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. W. find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral
addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thoughts. And, certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one James white, Life Sketches, Early Life, Christian Experience and Extensive Labors of Elder James White, and His Wife, Mrs. Ellen G. White (Battle Creek, Steam Press. 1880) pp. 328-329
After quoting James White, Walter Martin turned to William Johnson and said:
“Now, that’s a clear cut, honest, forthright statement. The author is Mrs. White’s husband, James White, who says “If she borrow from Jess one, she borrowed from everybody else, who can trust her as a Christian woman if she says it came from God, and it came from other sources?” You have already admitted that it came from other sources, Graybill has proved it came from other sources, Rea has proved it came from other sources, everything James White says necessary to disprove his wife’s authority had now been demonstrated.... And I’ll be interested to see what evidence you would you accept, personally, as a Christian, that would tell you that Mrs. White was a false prophet?”
That was Walter Martin, who considered Ellen White a Christian woman, but not a prophet. Even James White agreed with him: “If Mrs. W. has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case [...]God has not shown her these things.”
Greg, you also forget the NT injunction to ‘test the prophets and hold fast to what is good, discarding what is not’. This was a biblical injunction, not to determine false prophets, but to test even the words of NT prophets. The role of the prophet in the NT was different from that in the OT. They served different purposes. They were judged in different ways. Nobody would have thought to question the authority or advice of Isaiah or Jeremiah, but the NT was different. The role of the NT prophet was to ‘edify the body of Christ’ through advice, counsel and admonishment.
Also, there is a difference in being wrong or mistaken and being heretical. EGW could say such things and yet know she could have been (and was wrong) on many matters. Why do you think so? Was she being a hypocrite? If she were her testimony or record would not have stood demoninationally wide for as long as it did. The problem is making her infallible. To take her statements as you say is to say that EGW MUST be infallible. This is false and not the way a prophet was to be judged according to Paul.
Gabriel,
Your quotes from James White are incredibly ambiguous and seem to be a cut and paste from multiple contexts. What was Johnson’s reply to Martin? And from Martin’s own lips he would not say that EGW was a false prophet according to the biblical definition.
Guibox, have you read the quote I posted above? Ellen White specifically forbade anyone from contradicting any of her teachings, claiming that to do so would be to contradict God Himself. By making this claim, she contradicts Paul’s teaching on the gift of prophecy for the apostolic church and places herself firmly on the plane of the Old Testament prophets. Who can claim that their words are “without one heretical sentence” and then expect to have their ideas dissected apart to find out which parts are true? This is a contradiction in logic and it defies the explicit teaching of the Bible to test those who claim to have the prophetic gift.
What’s more, Guibox, Ellen White is guilty of inserting herself into biblical history in the place of Jesus Christ. You know that Hebrews 1:1-2 identifies Jesus as the culmination of all the Old Testament prophecies and makes his word the final authority by which God has spoken. But Ellen White adapts this language to herself and displaces Jesus in the process: “In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them BY THE TESTIMONIES OF HIS SPIRIT.” {4T 147.4}
Ellen White’s claims for God’s authority are not simply “mistakes” in judgment that we can wink an eye at and dismiss without seriously considering the implications.
Guibox, you offer up the “proof” of Ellen White’s enduring teachings as evidence that she had a gift from God. We could easily apply the same logic to Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), Joseph Smith (Mormons), or Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses) in a similar way. The teachings of these self-styled messengers of God has stood as long as Ellen White’s teaching, and in the case of Smith, even longer. The Mormon church is the fastest growing sect in the world. Who can argue with this “success”? Guibox, by your logic, Smith’s teachings are authenticated by their longevity, but your logic defeats itself.
Your quotes from James White are incredibly ambiguous and seem to be a cut and paste from multiple contexts. What was Johnson’s reply to Martin? And from Martin’s own lips he would not say that EGW was a false prophet according to the biblical definition.
My suggestion is to watch the presentations. Johnson said after some attempts of evading the question that he would be convinced by contradictions with the Scripture. But Johnson’s answer is not relevant to the point in question.
“Incredibly ambiguous?” “Pasted from different contexts?” here is the entire quotation, and I provided the source at the bottom of the quotation, if somebody has doubts regarding the source, feel free to check for yourself,
3. Does unbelief suggest that what she writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, What time has she had to learn all these facts? And who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman, if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God? And where is the person of superior natural and acquired abilities who could listen to the description of one, two, or three thousand cases, all differing, and then write them out without getting them confused, laying the whole work liable to a thousand contradictions? If Mrs. W. has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, she has in thousands of cases, and God has not shown her these things which she has written in these personal testimonies.
4. In her published works there are many things set forth which cannot be found in other books, and yet they are so clear and beautiful that the unprejudiced mind grasps them at once as truth. A doctor of divinity once heard Mrs. W. speak upon her favorite theme, God in Nature. She dwelt largely upon the life and teachings of Christ. This Christian gentleman was instructed and highly edified; and at the close of the discourse, in private conversation, addressed her in these words: “Sister White, while you were speaking, I have been asking myself the question, Why is it that none of us have thought of these precious things which you have brought out this morning?”
If commentators and theological writers generally had seen these gems of thought which strike the mind so forcibly, and had they been brought out in print, all the ministers in the land could have read them. These men gather thoughts from books, and as Mrs. W. has written and spoken a hundred things, as truthful as they are beautiful and harmonious, which cannot be found in the writings of others, they are new to the most intelligent readers and hearers. And if they are not to be found in print, and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. W. find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thoughts. And, certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them. The case is a clear one. It evidently requires a hundred time the credulity to believe that Mrs. W. has learned these things of others, and has palmed them off as visions from God, that [sic] it does to believe that the Spirit of God has revealed them to her. James White, Life Sketches, Early Life, Christian Experience and Extensive Labors of Elder James White, and His Wife, Mrs. Ellen G. White (Battle Creek, Steam Press. 1880) pp. 328-329
James White is using unambiguously Ellen White’s originality as a proof that Ellen White was inspired, and also made clear that if she’s not original, her inspiration is negated, and her credibility is lost. I agree with Walter Martin who said that this was a “clear, honest, and forthright statement of James White” Unwittingly, James White buried his wife’s authority using his own hands.
[quote author="guibox"]Also, there is a difference in being wrong or mistaken and being heretical. EGW could say such things and yet know she could have been (and was wrong) on many matters. Why do you think so? Was she being a hypocrite? If she were her testimony or record would not have stood demoninationally wide for as long as it did. The problem is making her infallible. To take her statements as you say is to say that EGW MUST be infallible. This is false and not the way a prophet was to be judged according to Paul.
guibox,
Your typo (intended or unintended) speaks volumes to what deception is all about. As Greg so rightly pointed out, there are many false prophets and religions in this world. Spiritual life-sucking deception will be here as long as there are people not willing to stand upon God’s Word. Christ warned us against being deceivied and ellen is just one in a long line of ‘last day’ deceivers.
Ellen White was not simply in the business of writing devotional material or dispensing theological advice. She claimed the authority of God to support every word that she wrote.
My point Greg is that what she claims and even what the loyalists claim ... is not what I read in strict reading of the Fundamental Belief #18 . I realize that many in the church have made her into MORE than what a strict reading of the Belief would render ... but lets look at what it says.
It says she is “an authority” . Big deal. There are MANY authorities on many subjects. I do not believe that this statement allows us to believe she is any more than a simple authority. Of which ... there could be many and there are many. They are just not all listed.
I am totally willing to believe that she could be “an” authority. But, I don’t claim she is any more of an authority than people like Jon Paulien, George Knight, Alden Thompsen or Graeme Bradford.
Each of the above authors can be considered an authority on something. We don’t claim they are an authority on ALL issues. And I would not claim that EGW was an authority on ALL issues. I will applly the test of what is right to EGW and to all the authors I listed.
The use of the word “authority” in Belief 18 seems like a purposely ambigious one. Seemingly substantial enough to keep the conservatives in the church happy. Vague enough for everyone else.
Some of us might prefer that the church’s approach to and use of EGW’s writings be more specific and spelled out, but to do so would probably disturb one or more of the church’s factions. So my guess is they’re trying to keep everyone on board, letting each see in the use of the word “authority” what we want to see.
The church’s #1 belief, about the Holy Scriptures, spells out the meaning of the word “authority” a little more specifically, in that the Bible is authoritative for doctrine--whatever that might mean as well, but consistent with 2 Timothy 3:16.
Financially speaking—wouldn’t the SDA church cease to exist if they didn’t have EGW ? They HAVE to defend her and hold her up as what they claim or else....don’t they ?
They claim SHE is the Spirit of Prophecy, right ? Churches are big business and the SDA church is no exception.
[quote author="DeeAnna Edens"]Financially speaking—wouldn’t the SDA church cease to exist if they didn’t have EGW ? They HAVE to defend her and hold her up as what they claim or else....don’t they ?
They claim SHE is the Spirit of Prophecy, right ? Churches are big business and the SDA church is no exception.
This seems a little overly-cynical to me. It implies that the church’s leadership, from the pastors on up to the headquarters don’t believe in what they are doing. I don’t think that’s right.
Certainly the church has various institutions associated with its mission and it wants to keep those going, but I don’t believe the motive is financial. No one’s getting rich in the SDA church.
I also think it’s quite natural for leadership to recognize the variety of experiences in Adventism, including how members relate to EGW, and try to bridge the gap between opposing viewpoints as much as is possible.
Most of the fundamental beliefs are worded with an eye towards the various theological controversies included in each and as such the beliefs are carefully worded and nuanced productions.
