www.ellengwhitetruth.comwww.whiteestate.org

Ellen G. White's Counsel on the Use of Her Writings With Respect to the Bible

Note: Ellen G. White claimed her writings to be the lesser light to lead us to the Bible, the greater light. "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light." (Colporteur Evangelism, p. 37) When we fail in this objective and make the Spirit of Prophecy the final word, we do a great injustice to the church and Ellen G. White and rightfully deserve to be called a cult!

1. "But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms." (The Great Controversy, p. 595)2. "The words of the Bible, and the Bible alone, should be heard from the pulpit." (Prophets and Kings, p. 626)3. "...Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now." (Spaulding-Magan Collection, p. 174)4. H.M.J. Richards' Discussion with E.G. White [after she had dropped in on a service at the West Denver, Colorado, church when he was a young pastor]: "Now Sister White, there's something else that I'd like to find out. How should I use your writings in preaching?" She replied: "Here's the way to use them. First, ask God to give you your subject. When you have the subject chosen, then go to the Bible until you know for sure what the Bible really teaches on that point. After that, turn to the writings and see what you can find on the same subject and read that. It may cast light on it or guide you into other Scripture, or make some point clearer. When you go to the people, however, preach to them out of the Bible." (Story by H.M.J. Richards's son, H.M.S. Richards, repeated in Ministry Magazine, October, 1976, pp. 6-7)

Misusing Ellen G. White

When we use the Spirit of Prophecy to prove or defend a doctrine or truth, instead of the Word of God, we make the Spirit of Prophecy the yardstick of truth. This is misusing the writings of Ellen White. "The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word.... Let all prove the positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God." (Evangelism, p. 256)

When a truth is presented from the Bible and we refuse to accept it unless it can be proven from the Spirit of Prophecy, this makes Ellen G. White the ultimate authority. This is misusing the writings of Ellen White. "The Bible is our rule of faith and doctrine." (Gospel Workers, p. 249)

When the main thrust of our message and witnessing is from the Spirit of Prophecy instead of the Word

of God, we are substituting Ellen G. White for the Bible. This is misusing the writings of Ellen White. "Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be firmly founded upon the Word of God." (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 708)

What About Ellen White?

by Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.Copr. 2005

Readers ask why I generally do not cite Ellen G. White in the lessons. The primary reason is that the lessons posted on this web site are copied from the originals posted at GoBible.org. The GoBible web site follows the Adventist Adult Sabbath School lesson quarterly, but is aimed at Bible students from all denominations. My son/webmaster, Blake, and I believe that a large percentage of the GoBible readers are not Seventh-day Adventists.

Since the quarterly cites Ellen White extensively, those Adventists who read the quarterly and the lessons at GoBible.org or SabbathSchoolLessons.com already have the benefit of Ellen White’s insight. Citing her is not necessary for Adventists.

Those who are not Adventists may stop reading the lessons if they see regular citations to Ellen White. Thus, not citing her does no damage to Adventists and avoids problems with members of other churches.

The secondary reason for not citing Ellen White in these lessons involves a much more complex and important problem and discussion.

The Problem:

The secondary reason why the teaching outlines generally do not cite Ellen White reflects a concern about the misuse of her writings. Over the years I often been troubled when I visited Sabbath School classes in other Seventh-day Adventist churches. What I frequently found was that class members have their quarterlies open on their laps and their Bibles closed. When they respond to questions given by the teacher, most often they recite their own views or what they think they can recall from Ellen White. I believe the primary source for every Sabbath School question and every Sabbath School answer should be the Bible.

The Bible is not very long; about 1,100 pages. A number of popular contemporary novels are about the same length. It should not be “heavy lifting” for someone who wants to know about God to purchase a contemporary translation of the Bible, such as the New Living Translation, and read God’s word from cover to cover. (For young eyes, the NLT is only 730 pages long, for old eyes (large print) it is 1,406 pages long.)

According to the Ellen G. White Estate, Ellen White’s writings are contained in 50,000 pages of manuscript as reflected in her published books and articles. Since many Sabbath School students

do not seem particularly well versed in their Bible, my guess is that their effective knowledge of what Ellen White has written is close to nonexistent. After all, in contrast with the Bible, there are 49,000 more pages of her works to read!

Worse, it has been my experience that when Adventist students are in a Sabbath School class discussing the Bible lesson, if anyone “authoritatively” cites what Ellen White said on the subject, the discussion ends. After all, who is bold enough to dispute the prophet? Especially, many Adventists believe that Ellen White is “authoritative” (meaning “conclusive”) commentary on disputes over Bible interpretation.

Since many (most?) Adventists are not well acquainted with Ellen White’s writings, my belief is that the “authoritative” Ellen White citation which ends the class discussion most likely reflects what the speaker thinks - and is unlikely to be an accurate quote from Ellen White, much less an accurate distillation of all of her writings on the subject. Those of you who know what I’m talking about, ask yourself the last time that you heard someone quote Ellen White and actually give the name of the book in which the statement was supposed to have appeared? (To say nothing about a citation to chapter or page numbers!)

The terrible tragedy that results is that God’s authoritative word, the Bible, is not seriously studied and debated. Instead, the opinion of some self-important person, parading as the view of Ellen White, ends the discussion. This is an outrage and nothing other than a disaster for understanding the Word of God.

The Solution:

There are a number of solutions to this problem. One solution is to simply avoid citing Ellen White - which is what the GoBible.org/SabbathSchoolLessons.com teaching outlines do for other reasons (as explained in the first paragraphs of this article). Another solution for Bible classes is to prohibit a citation to Ellen White unless the speaker can at least recite the book where the statement was supposedly found. (I have wondered if there should be a rule that the speaker citing Ellen White be required to bring the exact citation to Sabbath School the next Sabbath.)

The best solution, however, the solution that goes to the root of the problem, is a proper understanding of the relationship between the writings of Ellen White and the Bible. The 18th of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is this:

18. The Gift of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

A very important part of this belief is the statement that Ellen White “makes clear” that the Bible is the standard by which her teachings are to be tested. The Church’s first fundamental belief is this:

1. The Holy Scriptures: The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.

The lesson to be drawn from these two statements of fundamental belief is that Ellen White is to be tested by the Bible, and not the other way around. Accepting this makes it totally inappropriate to end a discussion of the Bible based on what someone says (or knows) that Ellen White wrote.

How Authoritative is Ellen White?

You may have noticed that Fundamental Belief 18 refers to Ellen White as an “authoritative source of truth.” Just how authoritative is she? On that subject there is a great deal of debate among Seventh-day Adventists. One definition of “authoritative” is “highly reliable.” That is not the same as “always right.” Was the intent of Fundamental Belief 18 to convey the idea that Ellen White is not always right?

If two Bible students are debating what a text of the Bible means, if Ellen White sides with one of the debaters, is that the end of the matter? Does she “authoritatively” resolve all disputable Bible issues? I do not believe that position is consistent with the text of Fundamental Belief 18, the Bible or with the facts about Ellen White’s writings.

There are a number of facts about Ellen White’s writings which are acknowledged by the Church, but not well known by the general membership - at least not before the advent of the Internet. One reason for this is because some very irresponsible claims about Ellen White’s authority have been published by Adventist thought leaders over the years. For example, I have often read in Adventist literature that the test of Old Testament prophets, contained in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, should be applied to Ellen White because she passes that test. Here is what Deuteronomy 18:20-22 says:

20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (NIV)

Do you see the logical flow of this text? God says that death is appropriate for any prophet who claims the authority of God for anything God has not commanded that prophet to say. How do we know when this has happened? The Bible says you have adequate proof for the death-penalty when what the prophet says does not come true or does not take place.

If this is the test that should be applied to Ellen White, this is a very harsh standard. Although Ellen White’s death almost a hundred years ago makes the “death penalty” issue moot, the “don’t be afraid” of that prophet remedy would still apply.

The question now is the same as then, how do we know if the messages written by Ellen White were “spoken by the Lord?” Should we use this harsh and terrible standard to judge her writings?

A particularly important aspect of this Old Testament prophet test is that it applies to the person, not individual messages. Once an Old Testament prophet even once fails the test, that person is never again to be considered to be a true prophet. (This, of course, would also be the practical result if the “prophet” were put to death!)

While Ellen White’s critics claim that she is a false prophet and never spoke the words of God, the reader may be surprised to find that material distributed by the official Ellen G. White Estate (“Estate”) admits that there are some serious problems.

A big issue among the critics of Ellen White is that she copied her writings from other sources. I do not think that anyone in the Church who is knowledgeable (and intellectually honest) on the topic, disputes the fact that Ellen White copied the writings of others.

About twenty years ago the Church commissioned a study on the extent to which Ellen White was “dependant” (a polite term for copying) on the writings of other authors. The commissioned study was done by Dr. Fred Veltman. His goal was to determine what percentage of the Desire of Ages, one of Ellen White’s most prominent books, was copied (dependant) to one degree or another from the writings of others.

The Veltman study is a little over 900 pages long. His conclusion was that 31% of the Desire of Ages "measured some degree of dependency" and 61% "registered independence." (p. 941. The rest represented the use of Scripture.)

The Veltman study is a very complex work. I have read only the 100 page “summary and conclusions.” Thus, I have done it an injustice by reciting its conclusions in one sentence. However, the Veltman study finds that a substantial percentage of the Desire of Ages came not from the mouth of God, but rather from the writings of other humans to one degree or another.

The Veltman study is available from the Church. It (or the 100 page summary) can be obtained from the Ellen G. White Estate (Ellen G. White Estate, Inc., Loma Linda Branch, Loma Linda University Library, Loma Linda, CA 92350) or on line at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists web site in the document archive section.

I have read that Dr. Fred Veltman should not be trusted because he had some liberal tendencies. As a lawyer, I consider that to be nonsense. One of the things I do for a living is to cross-examine experts. Bias is an important weapon of cross-examination. If the issue of Ellen White’s copying were put before a court, and Dr. Veltman were to testify on her behalf, I would have an easy time undercutting his testimony based on the fact that he is an Adventist, thus the study was

done by an Adventist who believed in Ellen White as a prophet, and the work was “bought and paid for by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

A study free from bias would have been done by a scholar who had nothing to do with Ellen White or the Church, and had no feelings about her one way or the other. If a Church commissioned study by a prominent Adventist scholar finds that 31% of the Desire of Ages is “dependant,” then according to the normal judicial standards of proof, that number is either exactly right or understated.

Not only is it clear that not all of Ellen White’s written words came from God, but, a reasonable reading of a publication of the Estate indicates that Ellen White does not pass the Deuteronomy 22 test. Recall that this test states in part: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”

The Ellen G. White Estate distributes a publication titled 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White (1981) which admits (p. 58) that EGW "misinterpreted" a vision about the "Shut Door." (She said God showed her the door of salvation was shut - and reproved in the name of God another "prophet" who said otherwise.)

The 101 Questions booklet was put together by Robert W. Olson, who was formerly in charge of the Estate. Bob Olson is a very smart and sincere Christian. He was and is a strong supporter of the Church and Ellen White. (I have had the wonderful opportunity to talk with Bob within the last few years about some of these issues.) He certainly is no critic of Ellen White. Yet, his 101 Questions booklet is quite candid.

In addition, you can find on the Internet Robert Olson’s The Shut Door Documents . This includes the statements of Ellen White about the “Shut Door.”

For those of you wondering why a prophet would care about doors being open or shut, let me explain. Ellen White was among a group of Christians (called “Millerites”) who believed the Bible-derived teaching of William Miller that Jesus’ Second Coming would be in 1844. Jesus did not come in 1844 or at anytime within the next 100 years. Undisputedly, William Miller was wrong.

At the time however, the disappointed group of believers decided that perhaps Jesus had just left heaven at the appointed day in 1844, and that He was making His journey to earth with the heavenly host. Since no one knows the distance between heaven and earth, and because Daniel 10:2-12 suggests that it might be a three-week journey for a single traveler who runs into problems (see, Daniel 10:12-13), it was reasonable to believe that God might have a little “travel time” in the Second Coming.

Do you remember Jesus’ parable of the Ten Virgins found in Matthew 25:1-13? It is a parable about Jesus’ Second Coming where He is compared to a bridegroom who is delayed coming to his wedding. The “midnight cry” (Matthew 25:6) goes out when the tardy bridegroom comes. The virgins who are waiting and prepared enter into the wedding feast with the bridegroom,

while the unprepared virgins go to buy more oil for their lamps. After the prepared virgins enter into the building where the wedding banquet is being held, “the door was shut” (Matthew 25:10). The story goes on to indicate that the unprepared virgins were never able to enter through that shut door. Thus, Jesus warns believers who want to enter into eternal life that they should always be prepared for Jesus’ Second Coming.

The believers in the 1844 return date found this parable to be very important. At some time the door to salvation would “shut,” and all who were “outside” would be forever lost. Since they believed that Jesus was traveling from heaven to earth, they determined that during the “travel time,” it was unnecessary and even useless to try to convert others to Christianity because the time for salvation had passed. (See, Revelation 22:11). As in the parable of the ten virgins, the “door” to salvation had “shut.”

If all of these assumptions were correct, this makes perfect logical sense. The problem is that none of these assumptions were correct - as we now know beyond any doubt. Jesus had not left heaven for earth. Jesus and the heavenly host were not traveling to earth for the Second Coming. Therefore, the door to salvation could not be shut based on those assumptions.

If you read Bob Olson’s 101 Questions and his compilation of what Ellen White wrote in the Shut Door Documents, I believe the conclusion is inescapable that she wrote and spoke in support of the door being “shut.” She conveyed this as the word of God, and she was wrong. As I mentioned above, Bob Olson writes in his 101 Questions booklet (p. 58) that Ellen White declared the door was “shut” because she “misinterpreted” the vision. Whatever the source of the error, the bottom line is that she was wrong, and she presented the wrong information as coming from God. It is hard for me to imagine a court or jury would come to a different conclusion based on these documents written by Ellen White’s supporters, not her critics.

After reading through all of Bob Olson’s compiled documents on the Internet about what Ellen White wrote on the “shut door” through about 1849 (a five year period), I agree with him that what she meant by the term “shut door” changed over these years. However, if you carefully read the collected statements on the web site, Ellen White (at best) seems to be ultimately saying that those who rejected the 1844 message faced the “shut door.”

If I had been alive during those times, I believe that I would have accepted Miller’s argument about Jesus coming in 1844. Even now I think the Biblical evidence he argued is quite good. But, I would have been incontrovertibly wrong. Christians who lived during that time period and rejected William Miller’s message were incontrovertibly right. Jesus did not come then. If these Christians were right, and Ellen White (along with all of the other Millerites) was wrong, how can she be correct in saying that the door to salvation “shut” on those Christians who had it right? Simple logic bars me from that conclusion. This means that whatever the evolving definition over the five years of those who faced the “shut door,” Ellen White was wrong. If you believe that the Deuteronomy 22 test should apply to Ellen White, then Ellen White has a serious problem in the prophet department. Recall that this test states in part: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”

As I have written above, Robert Olson’s job was to promote Ellen White. He is no enemy of hers. He is just setting out what she has written. I invite you to read these documents to come up with your own conclusion as to whether Ellen White was wrong about the “shut door” and whether she was presenting this as God’s word.

If, after studying these documents, you reach the conclusion that Ellen White was in error in portraying God’s will, I see only two logical choices: Ellen White is either discarded as a prophet, or the Adventist writers who argued that the Deuteronomy 22 test should apply to her are wrong.

I think the writers are wrong.

Wayne Grudem has written a very interesting book entitled The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway Books 1988) (“Gift of Prophecy”). Grudem’s book powerfully argues that there are substantial differences between “Old Testament” and “New Testament” prophets. The prediction in Joel 2:28-29 that the gift of prophecy will be widespread among believers in the last days is a description of “New Testament” prophets. Indeed, the following verses in Joel (Joel 2:30-31) describe events which Adventists have traditionally keyed to last day events.

The reader should study Grudem’s book to completely and properly understand his argument. Professor Grudem relies on texts like I Corinthians 14:29 (“Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said”(NIV)) and 1 Thessalonians 5:19 22 (“Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.”(NIV)). He concludes in his book that these texts mean that statements of “New Testament” prophets are tested and weighed by the listener against the writings of the Bible. The good is to be sorted out and retained, the not-so-good discarded. (Gift of Prophecy, pp. 74-114)

If Grudem is correct in his distinction between “Old Testament” and “New Testament” prophets, then clearly the Old Testament prophet test of Deuteronomy 22 would not apply to Ellen White. In no way would it diminish her gift as a New Testament prophet to be wrong once, twice or, for that matter, be confused on one specific issue over a five year period. Copying the writings of others and passing them off as her own (or worse, as God’s), while not laudatory, is hardly fatal to the gift. New Testament prophets are not expected to be perfect, nor are they expected to be right all the time. What is expected of them is that they believe they are sharing God’s views.

What is expected of us is to “test” the views of “New Testament” prophets against Scripture. Consider 1 John 4:1-3:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (NIV)

Did you catch this important point? The test for “New Testament” prophets is whether they acknowledge Jesus is God. Very clearly, Ellen White does that! 100% accuracy is no longer the test.

However Ellen White acquired the material she presented in the Desire of Ages, no intellectually honest Christian can doubt that she was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the final product. The Desire of Ages is a very strong affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus. Walter Martin, in his book The Kingdom of the Cults (Bethany House October 2003), states this about Ellen White:

After reading ... almost all of the writings of Ellen White, including her Testimonies, the writer believes White was truly a regenerate Christian woman who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and dedicated herself unstintingly to the task of bearing witness for Him as she felt led. Id. at 572.

Walter Martin has no bias in favor of Ellen White. Instead, his statement is simply an honest reaction to reading the writings of one who obviously “loved the Lord Jesus Christ and dedicated herself ... to bearing witness for Him.” That means she meets the 1 John 4:1-3 test for “New Testament” prophets.

Instead of the extreme position of the critics that Ellen White is a tool of Satan and she should be completely ignored, or the other extreme position that she is an inerrant “Old Testament” prophet, her gift as a New Testament prophet should be recognized for what it is and only for what it is.

This means her writings are to be tested by the Bible, the inerrant Word of God. Her writings are authoritative to the extent they are consistent with the Bible. This reasonable, Biblical, view of Ellen White brings us squarely back to the purpose of GoBible.org and SabbathSchoolLessons.com: to encourage the reading and discussion of God’s will as revealed in the Bible. Once the student has a proper understanding of the relationship between the authority of the Word of God and the authority of New Testament prophets, then Ellen White is a welcome addition (when properly cited) to studies and discussions intended to unravel the will of God.

One of the things I love about the Bible is that God does not “shade” the truth about His leaders. We are plainly told David is an adulterer, Abraham a liar, Moses a killer. None of the readers of this note can begin to fill the shoes of those great heroes of God. Those who would “shade” the truth about Ellen White to “protect” her should just stop. The truth is completely consistent with her office as a New Testament prophet. Fundamental Beliefs 1 & 18 can comfortably hold hands with both the unvarnished facts about Ellen White and the belief that she is one of God’s New Testament prophets.

Now that we have that resolved, let’s get back to our primary work: studying the Bible, God’s inerrant Word for His people!

If all else fails? Bash the Critics!

October 8, 2006

The SDA Church recently held an Ellen White "summit" and took full advantage of the opportunity to bash those investigating the claims of Ellen White. A video has been made of Professor Jud Lake's presentation (http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com). Elder Lake describes the investigators of Ellen White as "burned", "mad", "relentless", as if they have been driven to do what they are doing by the demons of Hell.

1.5 Million Leave SDA Church in Last 5 Years

Why have we seen such a rash of recent attacks against Ellen White investigators? Could it be corporate Church leaders are attempting to stem the bleeding? At the recent General Conference Session, Bert Haloviak reported some alarming statistics:

"...nearly 1.5 million left membership during the time period 2000 to 2005. 'The bottom line for this quinquennium is that for every 100 accessions, more than 35 others decided to leave,' he told delegates. 'That total is considerably more than the 24 subtracted for every 100 added as reported at our last session' in 2000. Despite a fast growth rate during the last five years, when considering the number of those leaving the church compared to how many joined, this is the 'lowest growth rate since the 1960 to 1964 period.'"(http://news.adventist.org/data/2005/06/1120249432/index.html.en)

New Corporate Church Strategy?

Is this "bash the critics" approach taken by an official spokesman for the SDA Church a new strategy instigated by the corporate heads of the Church to demonize the investigators of Ellen White? If so, it would not be a surprise. After all, the Church's own prophetess frequently demonized those opposing her, labeling them as "doomed, damned, and lost forever". Someone once told me that religious followers rarely rise above the ethics and morality of their leader. Perhaps this is proving itself out in today's Adventism.

Why are so many leaving?

Elder Lake alluded to the reason so many are leaving the SDA Church: Information. You see, the facts about Ellen White and SDA doctrines like the Investigative Judgment are now widely available on the Internet. It is a lot harder to pull the wool over the eyes of people when there is so much information available today on the Internet!

A Pack of Disgruntled Losers?

Elder Lake claimed that those leaving are "not-grounded", "confused", and "disgruntled". Are these labels Elder Lake has slapped on the back of those leaving the Church accurate? I have to admit, although I would not use the word "disgruntled", I would say there could sometimes be a little anger when one learns the truth about the SDA Church. I would describe it more as

"righteous indignation" at being lied to and deceived by those supposed to be the proponents of "truth". But no, I would not use the word "disgruntled". Tell me, were the shareholders of the now-defunct Enron corporation "disgruntled" to find out their corporate leaders deceived them? No, not disgruntled; rather, they were indignant, and rightfully so!

Departees Not Grounded?

Besides being "disgruntled", we are informed those leaving the Church are "not grounded." What does that mean? Are they leaving because they are not getting fully indoctrinated into SDA thinking? Okay, let's look at some of the so-called "ungrounded" ones...

Dr. Jerry Gladson - SDA theologian, professor and pastor serving at the central core of Adventist scholarship for many years.

Cherie Stark - A 6th-generation SDA, educated in SDA schools, all of her friends and family were SDA, married to an SDA, church board member, member of the church for 37 years.

Chaplain David DePinho - An ordained SDA Minister, educated in SDA schools

Skip Baker - Photographer for the Adventist Review

Teresa Beem - Former Director of Adventists for Life, educated in SDA schools

Elder Greg Taylor - Senior Pastor of an SDA Church, educated in SDA schools

Elder Clay Peck - SDA Pastor, educated in SDA schools

Colleen Tinker - Adventist school teacher, 3rd generation Adventist, educated in SDA schools.

Elder Dale Ratzlaff - SDA Pastor and School Teacher

Elder Bruce Weaver - SDA Minister, educated in SDA schools

Elder Mark Martin - SDA Pastor, educated in SDA schools

Dr. Kenneth D. Brantley - Long-time Adventist, President and CEO of the Brantley Broadcasting Network.

Elder Sydney Cleveland - 4th-generation Adventist, educated in SDA schools, SDA Pastor for 10 years

Robert Sanders - 37-year member, elder, Sabbath School teacher

Leaders in the Spanish-speaking Church - Dr. Antonio Lopez (medical doctor and clinic director in Montermorelos, Mexico), Dr. Ricardo Carrillo (dentist and 5th generation SDA), Dr. Hervy Alcorta (medical doctor), Elder Paulino Marquez (SDA pastor of 22 years), Elder Claudio Inglenton (pastor), Elder Abram Benitez (pastor), Elder Eddis Velasquez (pastor), Elder Rey Cantu (pastor).

A thousand more names could be listed. Look again at the "ungrounded". Pastors. Doctors. Lawyers. Professors. Administrators. Elders. Deacons. Sabbath-school teachers. Multi-generation Adventists. This group of people is about as "grounded" as you can get.

Confused and Duped Heretics?

They tell us that those leaving the Church are "confused". Sounds like a good strategy, doesn't it? You indoctrinate your followers that the "smart" ones stay in the Church, while the poor "confused" idiots leave the Church. I would not dare to speak for the others who have left, but perhaps I'm an idiot. After all, as Dr. Brinsmead once stated, "the word idiot comes from the Greek word idios which means a person who thinks for himself." I'm sorry, but I do not need corporate religious leaders to tell me what to think. I do not need 100,000 pages of Ellen White writings to tell me what the Bible says. God gave me a mind to think for myself. He gave me a Bible to know His will. If anyone wants to call me a "confused" idiot for this, then perhaps being an idiot is not such a bad thing!

Propaganda?

Propaganda is misinformation used by a totalitarian leader in order to control the minds of the people. The Nazi and Communist governments used propaganda. Cult leaders use propaganda. However, Jesus and His followers never used propaganda. They simply stated the truth in love.

Lately I've been hearing a lot of stuff that sounds like propaganda. For example, I'm hearing that I was angered by the writings of Ellen White, and I'm "rebelling" over the misuse of Ellen White's writings. Now that is pure fiction! If anyone loved Ellen White, I did. I didn't have to be at work in the morning until 8 am, but I set my alarm at 5 am so I could read her writings at least an hour every morning. On weekends I sometimes read them for five or six hours. I personally handed out thousands of her books door-to-door. I used to get together with my friends on Sabbath afternoon and we would study the "Spirit of Prophecy" for hours. I even started this web site to defend Ellen White. When I discovered the truth about Ellen White, I was not angry. I was appalled! Disappointment is not a strong enough word for it. For a long time I did not want to believe it. I did not want to change. But I was forced to change, nearly against my will. I was utterly convinced by the overwhelming weight of evidence.

When I was still a believer in Ellen White, I struggled trying to make sense of all the contradictory and confusing statements that Ellen White investigators were throwing at me. I wondered why the door of probation closed on the Christians who rejected William Miller's false time-setting in 1844. I tried in vain to explain why events she prophesied never came to pass. I performed my best mental gymnastics to explain her failures to others. But deep down inside, I felt uneasy. I studied even more to silence that small voice inside of my heart. I wanted to find convincing evidence that Ellen White was a prophet. But the more I studied the stronger the conviction grew that I had been leading people astray.

When I finally admitted the truth about Ellen White, I discovered a wonderful peace. I no longer felt compelled to come up with "reasons", "explanations", and "excuses" for her prophetic blunders and mind-bending contradictions. Instead, I could just let the facts speak for

themselves. Suddenly the confusion vanished like a mist in the morning sun! I realized my confusion was due to all the smoke-screens, misinformation, spinning, and mental gymnastics used by her defenders to prop her up as a prophet. Since that time I have experienced clarity of purpose that I had never before known.

Regardless of what they say about us, ellenwhiteexposed.com will continue to do what it has always done: Speak the truth in love.

Brother Anderson, Founder, ellenwhiteexposed.com

About AF Advertise

Contact

Register

Log in

o Forum Chapters Membership

o Spectrum Author Index Recent Posts Support

o Journal Archive Current Issue Free Issue

o Store Merchandise Subscribe

Blog

Columns

Reviews

Spirituality

Interviews

Sabbath School

Café Hispano

Escuela Sabática

Home › Blog › Ellen White: Paragon of Adventism

Ellen White: Paragon of Adventism

30 March 2008 | Raymond Thompson| 301 PrintEmail Tweet FB ShareThis

The rise of fundamentalism within our denomination is troubling. Extremes from both ends of the ideological spectrum are robbing contemporary Adventism of the ability to grow and expand as a denomination. Often these sincere Christians, in their piety and zeal, fundamentally misunderstand how to apply Scripture to practical living and disallow the ability for God to lead through revelation in this present age. This is rarely intentional on the part of those who could be classified as fundamentalists, but is inevitably the consequences of such a mindset. Because the fundamentalist mindset in Adventism is focused on “defending truth” and not “seeking truth” it is incompatible with the North American rise of intellectual Adventism. In their eagerness to bring Adventism back to the “traditional faith of the founders,” these Christians fail to realize that in so doing they are refusing to follow where God is leading. They have become trapped within an extreme form of Adventism and only know it to be “true.” In “Christian Service” Ellen White addressed those who fail to follow God’s light, be they conservative or liberal, when she wrote, “Accumulated light has shone upon God’s people, but many have neglected to follow the light, and for this reason they are in a state of great spiritual weakness.”

Last week some of my friends, themselves Theology and Religious Studies majors, were discussing the matter of Ellen White and her role in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The more moderate and conservative of our group, who are pursuing careers as theologians and pastors in the church, were quite dismissive of White’s writings. I was surprised that they could negate her role as a Messenger of the Lord and still consider themselves Adventists.

Try to imagine the scene. The liberal, avid reader of Borg, Armstrong, Spong, and Crossan, (proponent of “Process Theology,” and admirer of Theistic Evolution) was left to offer a defense of Ellen White. It was quite an interesting discussion that ensued between three Adventists attempting to reconcile Ellen White and Christianity.

While the following paragraphs are an attempt to summarize the conversation with my friends, while presenting my thoughts on Ellen White, it is by no means a comprehensive study on the subject. Nor is it a complete representation of the many conversations that developed from our questions regarding Ellen White.

One cannot begin to discuss Ellen G. White without addressing the fact that her writings and ministry, within Adventist Christianity, have often been greatly misunderstood. This is partly because of the element of fundamentalism present within Adventism. It is troubling that there are those within our denomination who would readily proof-text White’s writings to prove an argument as those who would quote the Holy Scriptures. This non-biblical literalism, when applied to the Scriptures, is just as detrimental to understanding biblical texts as it is when applied to the writings of Ellen White, or any author. Literalism must be regarded as yet another extremist child of fundamentalism. It extracts passages from their context and interprets them apart from their intended meaning. This is a form of intellectual hypocrisy, and is all too common among members within our denomination.

It is my belief that reading any passage with a specific predisposition will only serve to affirm that opinion, insofar as the individual reading the passage cannot conceive of any alternative interpretation or application of that text. This leads to misguided principles of study, biblical hermeneutics, interpretation, and application of literary passages. Theologians have often written that, “The Bible can be used to support or condemn anything if one is willing to set aside sound principles of hermeneutics, textual context, and interpretive application.” This is equally true of the writings of Ellen White. Adventists have, from the time of God’s revelation to our fledging denomination, been poor stewards of White’s writings. Our denomination has misunderstood the “greater picture” with respect to our denominational heritage and the larger history of Christianity.

One of Adventism’s major contributions to Christian thought (the idea of progressive revelation, called “Present Truth” by Adventists) is often neglected or simply misapplied by our fundamentalist members. Adventism dictates that it is, by its very nature and understanding of revelation, a progressive denomination, or at least, it should be theologically. Unfortunately, because Adventist administrators and theologians have aligned the denomination with Evangelical Christianity, extremist conservatism has greatly influenced the laity of the church. Due to the influences of fundamentalism, Adventism has remained theologically restrained and locked in an unhealthy, often ill-informed, dogmatic rendering of our Twenty-eight Fundamental Beliefs for some greater notion of “Traditional Adventism,” which is neither traditional nor Adventist. Ellen White no more inhibits our growth as Adventist Christians than John Wesley for Methodists, Martin Luther for Lutherans, or John Calvin for Calvinists.

The idea that Ellen White, in contrast to her contemporaries, was somehow a conservative (or as some would insist a “liberal”) is not supported by Adventist history. She held beliefs that were more progressive for her time and also beliefs that were conservative. As her understanding increased, so her beliefs grew and became more inclusive to reflect her personal growth. It is in the sense that Ellen White was able to adapt and grow throughout her life that she is considered “progressive” not because her views today represent what Progressive Adventists believe today. Fritz Guy writes, “Ellen White, for example, consistently used the words “conservative” and

“conservatism” with a distinctly negative connotation, referring to excessive caution, a lack of venturesomeness, and a concern for popular approval, in theological as well as practical contexts. Words she associated with “conservative” included “compromising,” “concession,” “narrow,” “old,” “please the people,” “policy men,” “satisfied,” “self-centered,” and “superficial(1).” Progressive Adventists need to rescue Ellen White from the fundamentalists within our denomination. She rightly embodies within our Adventist identity as “Progressive Christians,” not as part of an agenda of fundamentalism which has become pervasive throughout Adventism.

Adventists have misused the ministry of Ellen White, and her writings, to attack and redefine the very ethos of Adventism: Progressive Revelation. Throughout the entirety of Scripture, there is a portrayal of a loving, Almighty Creator who earnestly seeks to be understood by a rebellious people and to re-establish His governance in the hearts of mankind. Scripture also recounts the history of a rebellious people that earnestly seeks to understand their Almighty Creator through His divine loving nature, and to reconcile themselves by trusting His governance. The beauty of the Scriptures, indeed the very holiness that renders it to be the Word of God, comes precisely from this narrative, not some fundamentalist notion of “word inspiration.” What a testament it truly is that the God who is willing to risk being misunderstood is truly a God of Divine Love who desires that we might ultimately understand him better (2). Ellen White encourages our earnest study of Scriptures and community dialogue when she wrote that, “Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God’s Word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion (3).” Ellen White understood that God wants to dialogue with people. She knew that more than wanting a dogmatic faith, God desires a people willing to grow and expand in understanding.

In her ministry to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ellen White attempts to give witness to a God who desires for people to understand Him better. A God who is willing to work within our humanity and a God that understands our shortcomings, yet is still able to use us for His purpose of salvation. Truly, this is a God that exhibits a capacity for ultimate love. We, as Adventists, must understand the historic role of prophets within this framework of God’s character to truly appreciate Ellen White within our denomination. There are three primary traits concerning prophets that affect their mission.

1. Prophets are human.

This suggests that Ellen White, rather than a source of ultimate truth, is fallible and must be afforded the ability to have her own human free will apart from the will of God. It is true that prophets often commit themselves and their lives in service to God and His purpose for their life, but it is equally true that God allows us to make mistakes along the way. He even allows us to “be human.” That is precisely why He is a God of Divine Love—being both Just and Merciful always.

2. Prophets are contemporary.

This means that Ellen White, rather than an inerrant source of reference for all time, should be understood within the time-period in which she is writing. The issues she addresses are mostly relevant to Adventist Christians in the nineteenth-century, not those in the twenty-first century.

This does not suggest that her writings are no longer relevant to Adventists. Rather, this means that we can no longer read her writings “out-of-context” and apply the words she addressed to Adventists in nineteenth-century America to the twenty-first-century global Adventist Community. It requires us to understand the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church through the study of our history as a denomination and interpret how that heritage impacts us today. By understanding Ellen White’s writings within their original context, one is better able to apply these biblical principles to situations which she may not have addressed directly.

3. Prophets are God’s means of communication.

Ellen White, rather than a prophet for all of Christianity, should be properly understood within her role in Adventism. God chose to begin a dialogue with the believers of a movement that would become known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Lord of the Universe beckons us, “Come let us reason together.” (4) As a movement, Adventism has had a profound experience with God, one that affects our basic identity as Adventist Christians. Our history as a church has become so tightly interwoven with the ministry of Ellen White that to separate one from the other is to completely destroy the very fabric of Adventism. God used Ellen White as a messenger, a prophet for the early Adventist denomination, to offer guidance and direction to our movement. He began the conversation with Ellen White, but it is imperative that all Adventist Christians endeavor to continue that dialogue.

With these three primary traits, Adventists can come to appreciate the ministry of Ellen White by more fully understanding her limitations as a prophet, contemporaneous role within the Adventist movement, and God’s continued dialogue with Adventist Christianity. Prophets are not infallible nor are prophets theologians. Ellen White is fallible. And while she is factually inaccurate on many issues that she addresses, she remains sound and reliable in the application of biblical principles. Ellen White was not a theologian. She does not define Adventist theology. If she does, then our denomination has no claim to Christianity, but is more rightfully defined as a cult. It is interesting to note that although Ellen White was not a theologian, she brought our denomination theologically closer to Christian orthodoxy(5). This is yet another great testament to her conviction to serve God and how God used her within our midst. She offered words of inspiration to Adventists, for all of us to always be thinking about and investigating their faith, writing, “Allow no one to be brains for you; allow no one to do your thinking, your investigating, and your praying(6).” Some examples of Ellen White bringing Adventists to a more orthodox Christianity can be observed within her thoughts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, understanding of the Atonement, her concept of the New Birth, and issues surrounding the Close of Probation or “Shut Door” theory.

The “Great Controversy” vision, received in March 1858, that developed into the five-volume “Conflict of the Ages” series, offers a case in point of Adventism’s concept of progressive revelation and how Ellen White “changed” or evolved in understanding as time and knowledge progressed. Julius Nam writes, “White may have seen a comprehensive vision on the great controversy in 1858, but as time passes, her understanding of this vision grows and expands—aided by growing spiritual wisdom, deeper understanding of Scripture, input from others around her, reading others’ works and incorporating them in her own writings, and probably some

significant, signature experiences such as the 1888 General Conference session. Her view of God shifts dramatically from a stern, impassive judge to a loving, longsuffering parent(7).”

Three “Threads of Truth,” woven throughout Scripture, are the History of Redemption, the Great Controversy theme, and the Principle of Divine Love. Ellen White’s writings have helped to illuminate and expound upon these truths. Without Ellen White, our denomination’s understandings of these three themes, (“Threads of Truth,”) within the Bible would be greatly diminished. While she was indeed no theologian, her “theology,” if one might call it that, compliments that of Scripture. She wrote of Adventists and our mission, “You are not to shut yourselves up to yourselves, and be content because you have been blessed with knowledge of the truth. Who brought the truth to you? Who showed the light of the Word of God to you? God has not given you His light to be placed under a bushel(8).” I wonder how we allow some in our denomination to place God’s progressive revelation under a bushel?

Personally, Ellen White’s life story, her mission, writings, preaching, and travels are all part and parcel of an inspiring Christian testimony centering on a woman after the very heart of God—a woman who struggles to lead a movement to an understanding that more closely reflects a loving Creator God who desires, above all else, a loving relationship between Him and His people. Her story is our story. She is the quintessential Adventist, our paragon. Her life demonstrates an understanding of progressive revelation. Her writing illustrates a woman who desired conversation and dialogue, not debate and consensus. She writes of God’s expectations, “Greater light shines upon us than shone upon our fathers. We cannot be accepted or honored of God in rendering the same service, or doing the same works, that our fathers did. In order to be accepted and blessed of God as they were, we must imitate their faithfulness and zeal—improve our light as they improved theirs, and do as they would have done had they lived in our day. We must walk in the light which shines upon us, otherwise that light will become darkness(9).” She reflects the ethos of Adventism to the Christian world—progression. Her life and work, ironically, do not match that of the fundamentalists who often quote her to belittle intellectualism, offend progressive thinking, and cry “Heresy!” to any new idea not explicitly advocated by their personal notion of “Traditional Adventism.”

Our Almighty Father began His conversation with the Adventist Movement through Ellen White. He has not stopped that conversation and requests further dialogue with all of us. We are to understand and appreciate, and in so doing, build upon the work of Ellen White and our early Adventist founders. WE are to reflect an Adventism of the twenty-first century: one that knows within its heart that “God is still speaking.”

In conclusion, in a post about Ellen White it would only be fitting and appropriate to allow her to "speak" for herself. Concerning Adventist’s understanding of Scripture and ideas, Ellen White wrote, “There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation(10).”

_______________1.“Theologically Thinking” by Friz Guy.2.“The God Who Risks Being Misunderstood” article in ‘Spectrum’ by Ray Roennfeldt.3.“Testimonies for the Church” vol. 4 by Ellen G. White.4.Isaiah 1:18.5.“Fundamentals of Christian Education” by Ellen G. White.6.“Change: The Adventist Constant” blog post on http://progressiveadventism.com/ by Julius Nam.7.“Ellen White: The Embodiment of Change” post on http://progressiveadventism.com/ by Julius Nam.8.‘Review & Herald’ article in August 14, 1888 by Ellen G. White.9.“Testimonies for the Church” vol. 1 by Ellen G. White.10.“Counsels to Writers & Editors” by Ellen G. White.

Adventist Media Response and Conversation

Adventist Media Response and Conversation

Saturday, July 02, 2011

More on Ellen White as Lesser Light

In March of 2011 I wrote an article entitled Ellen White as Lesser Light intentional

confusion? In the article I set forth the disturbing teaching that Ellen White saw her

writings as a lesser light meant to lead people to the greater light the Bible. I began

the article with an illustration from some Adventist material using the following

quote (see this link for the entire quote I used):

“Ellen White always made it clear that she was the lesser light leading to the

greater light of God’s Word. I can see in her writings that she was only seeking to

bring people to God and did not want to lift herself up above the Bible or call

attention to herself.”

I then pointed out my research that showed the quote used, was from a

compilation, that is it is a later redacted statement made by editors and not by the

original author. To my surprise in the Summer 2011 issue of Adventist Today there

is an article by J. David Newman entitled Is Ellen White Really a Lesser Light?

In this article he states in the fourth paragraph:

Ellen White herself called her writings a “lesser light” to lead people to the greater

light— the Bible.4 There is a growing trend in the Adventist denomination today to

make Ellen White the infallible interpreter of Scripture. See, for example, The

Remnant Study Bible, in which the words of Ellen White are interleaved with the

words of the Bible.5

4Ellen G. White, Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.

As you can see Newman also uses the compilation quote to make his case, he uses

the 1953 compilation Colporteur Ministry. I had actually thought perhaps Newman

would have read my blog since I did have an extended series of email conversations

with him last year. If he had read my article linked above he could have saved

himself some embarrassment, or at least knew where to point for the actual

published material that was originally used to make the compilation quote. Of

course once you do that you are forced to realize that it makes no sense to say that

all of those Ellen G. White books are meant to point a person back to the Bible.

However today I had an interesting experience at Sabbath School which further

points out the fiction that Ellen White intended her writings to lead people back to

the Bible. In the class a dear follower of Ellen White read some quotes from her

handy Ellen White book to show us that in the Cain and Abel story both brothers

had been instructed from their youth by Adam and Eve how to offer sacrifices to

God. That in fact, not only the method of sacrifices was described to them but also

the ultimate future fulfillment of the symbolism of the sacrifices, something which of

course the Genesis story says nothing about or any later writing of the Old

Testament explains the sacrificial system as prefiguring the coming Messiah.

But how could it be that Ellen White's purpose was to draw people back to the Bible

as the greater light when the vast quantity of her extra biblical information would

not be found in the Bible and if not found in the Bible it should not be used for faith

and practice?

Much later in his article, which covered far more then the lesser light question

Newman writes:

“How does this apply to Ellen G. White? We have seen that she makes it clear that

the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, that everything is to be judged by the

Bible, and that she is a lesser light to lead people to the greater light. Now a lesser

light cannot be equal to a greater light. And if Ellen White is to be tested by the

Bible, we cannot then turn around and make Ellen White the determiner of what

Scripture means.” page 17

In the practice of Adventism this is precisely what happens. It happens because she

is held to be a spiritual addition to the Bible. But in all honesty we can't go around

saying that someone is directing people back to the Bible by adding volumes of

information to the Bible stories. And she does it over and over again. The whole

purpose of the original quote...not the compilation quote, the actual author's words

is about the importance of spreading her books, not spreading the Bible.

As my earlier article said about the original quote:

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903:

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been

awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their

responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an

effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm

that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book

many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an

experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that

during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting

light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their

pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the

Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the

world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They

are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of

convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager

expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's

atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of

their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take

his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the

gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept,

here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has

given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good

would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a

determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a

thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort.

And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.

My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts

into this work, and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying

that God will prepare hearts to receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show

by a consistent course that you are true Christians. Walk and work in the light of

heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just, shining more and more unto

the perfect day.

Two things we can learn from this. First the compilers are not too particular about

accuracy and pointing to the original source material in compilations, for whatever

reasons. The second is that when you read it in context you see that the lesser light

is a reference not to Ellen White as lesser to the Bible but that she is acting as the

reflector of the light she is given by God. Which fits in with her earlier statements

such as...”

I applaud J. David Newman's attempt to bring back some sanity to Adventism with

regard to Ellen White. However we have to be historically accurate and honest with

what Ellen White actually said. The problem with doing that is that it shows

ultimately that she was not ever a prophet, in either the Old or New Testament

sense of the word. Adventism has dug itself into and EGW hole where her words

have taken over the Bible. In fact the Adventist denomination is about to rewrite

one of its fundamental beliefs so that there is no possible room for rationalization by

those who understand the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the

actually evidence of evolution in life. The new statement is likely to reflect the new

President of the Adventist church Ted Wilson views: “God created this world in six

literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin.” Because Ellen White

claims to have seen the creation in vision we can no longer accept the possibility for

the Genesis account to have been metaphor or allegorical, even though to make

any sense at all they really must be metaphors or allegory (see my article on

Adam's Psychology). But since we have all the additions from Ellen White we lose all

the possible other methods of interpreting the text. Because an extra biblical

authority has inserted new truth...new light into what was supposed to be God

inspired material. You really can't have it both ways however, did God really screw

up and forget to tell us all this important information?

There is nothing in Newman's article to save us from the self deceit of accepting a

false messenger of God as it perpetuates myths. I am not to saying that Ellen White

had malicious intent, only that she was deluded herself, something that happens to

far too many of us. And when deluded people tend to repeat the things they have

heard and believed without really looking critically at them, such as the quote taken

from the compilation that Newman used to spread a rather purposely originally

false statement about Ellen White. Myth takes on the cloak of truth, because people

repeat and embrace when they should be asking questions and examining issues

and testing their beliefs. We as a church are all the poorer.

Adventist Media Response and Conversation

Adventist Media Response and Conversation

Monday, March 21, 2011

Ellen White as Lesser Light intentional confusion?

Recently I was looking up some material and I happened upon this quote:

To put it simply, one of the main reasons I believe in Ellen White is that she never puts her

writings above the Bible. Think about it: There are churches and denominations today whose

teachings and beliefs depend on their founder or prophet, not on the Bible. That’s not the way it

is in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Ellen White always made it clear that she was the

lesser light leading to the greater light of God’s Word. I can see in her writings that she was only

seeking to bring people to God and did not want to lift herself up above the Bible or call attention

to herself. {AC 104.1} A Call To Stand Apart Selections from Ellen G. White A Paraphrase

Chapter 17 Chapter 17—Authority Of Scripture A Young Adult’s Encounter with Ellen White ...

on the Authority of Scripture

To what do we owe this particular teaching that Ellen White saw herself as a lesser light and

that this was made clear to this particular young adult? After all as the young person said “Ellen

White always made it clear that she was the lesser light leading to the greater light of God’s

Word.” So where do we first find this quote from Ellen White? Maybe the question should be

where do most of us first encounter this quote? I took some time to look it up and here are the

results:

--1953 compilation book called Colporteur Ministry, we read: (you can find these books at

http://egwwritings.org/ )

Sell Books That Give Light—The Lord has sent His people much instruction, line upon line,

precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the

Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. Oh, how much good

would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry

out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold

more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of

present truth. {CM 125.2}

You can also find it in the other compilations Evangelism and Selected Messages. The White

Estates new search engine lists the Evangelism quote as from the 1946 book:

--The Greater and Lesser Lights—Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a

lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.—The Colporteur Evangelist, 37. (1902)

{Ev 257.1}

As I was looking at these references they all seemed to be only found in compilations. And so

far I could not find anything older then the 1946 quote in Evangelism. But there it said that the

reference was from “The Colporteur Evangelist” Looking through both White Estate search

engines and my own EGW material which is supposed to have everything that she had

published and some other collections I could find no book or periodical or pamphlet by that title.

Searching the web I found a version on PDF which indicates that the Colporteur Evangelist is in

fact another compilation, though the one I found is dated 1950.

So that left me with a search for the quote and finding it in three compilations 1. Colporteur

Ministries 2. Evangelism 3. Selected Messages and a distant 4. Colporter Evangelist which is

not all that readily available unless you know it is out there hiding. Not a single one of these

compilations listed the actual first quote where Ellen White sets herself as the lesser light. It is

no wonder none of the other Adventist writers of her time referred to her in that way.

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903:

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the

importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate

them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will

you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's

Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They

have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-

work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has

graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into

the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these

books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a

savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means

in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager

expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and

to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator,

waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In

the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way

of salvation.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a

little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to

lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the

books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they

contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and

resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.

My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts into this work,

and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying that God will prepare hearts to

receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show by a consistent course that you are true

Christians. Walk and work in the light of heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just,

shining more and more unto the perfect day.

Two things we can learn from this. First the compilers are not too particular about accuracy and

pointing to the original source material in compilations, for whatever reasons. The second is that

when you read it in context you see that the lesser light is a reference not to Ellen White as

lesser to the Bible but that she is acting as the reflector of the light she is given by God. Which

fits in with her earlier statements such as:

Christ makes no apology when he declares, "I am the Light of the world." He was, in life and

teaching, the gospel, the foundation of all pure doctrine. Just as the sun compares with the

lesser lights in the heavens, so did Christ, the source of all light, compare with the teachers of

his day. He was before them all; and shining with the brightness of the sun, he diffused his

penetrating, gladdening rays throughout the world. (Youth Instructor.1897-09-16.004)

God the greater light gave Sister White the light in the material she wrote. Thus compared to

God the source of all light she is a lesser light. She did not mean that she was a lesser light to

the Bible, after all in her own statement she misuses the Bible using the Isaiah quotation which

derides those who take line upon line precept upon precept, even if the King James Version

were correctly translated the context makes it clear it is not a description of how to arrive at

truth.*. She asserts that her material leads to people who read her work with eager expectation

to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, the books making the gospel plain.

I suppose that is why the compilation did not actually give the original quote reference, after all if

the goal is to carry forward a myth as the young adult in the first quote stated Ellen White

leading to God's Word, which is in itself interesting because God's Word while traditionally

(though inaccurately) used as a reference to the Bible would certainly not be restricted to the

Bible would it? I am not saying this is a conspiracy of the Adventist church, rather it is a

manipulation of the Adventist church and a very effective one.

* Isaiah 28:8-13 NIV:

All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. "Who is it he is trying to

teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just

taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule n; a little here, a

little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people,

to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of

repose"-- but they would not listen. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: Do and

do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there-- so that they will go and fall

backward, be injured and snared and captured.

Expositor's Bible Commentary:

9-10 As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made

their response. The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the

words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able

to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the

spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.

Many commentators have been puzzled by v. 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the

Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to

make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol -impregnated atmosphere that

surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them

repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this

gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the

receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that

could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate

in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that

might just as well have been a foreign language.

Expositor's Bible Footnotes

10 The interpretation given above is now widely held, for it is difficult to derive proper sense

from the Hebrew as it stands. The NIV text is about as near as the translator can get. There

seem to be echoes of the Hebrew of v. 8, which suggests that the interpretation in terms of

broken syllables mouthed by their recipients is correct. G. Fohrer (Das Buch Jesaya, in loc.)

suggests that the syllables actually used are those a Hebrew mother would use to teach her

child the alphabet. This is possible.

11 Paul quoted this verse at 1 Cor 14:21, where he seems to be implying that uninterpreted--

and therefore meaningless--glossolalia will simply confirm the unbelieving hearer in his sin and

therefore anticipate his judgment. Whether in Isaiah's day, Paul's, or ours, it is meaningful

utterance a message from God addressed to the understanding--that humans need to bring

them to the sure foundation of faith.

Olson, Robert W. The 1919 Conference and Bible and History Teachers' Council. Washington, DC: Ellen G. White Estate, September 24, 1979. 10p.Her. Room DF (BIBLE CONFERENCE - 1919)

Olson, Robert W. Historical Discrepancies in the Spirit of Prophecy. Washington, DC: Ellen G. White Estate, July 17, 1979. 10p. Page 9 is an Appendix Note by Arthur L. White; page 10 is a photo of delegates to the Bible Conference.Her. Room DF (BIBLE CONFERENCE - 1919

Do we as Adventists see Ellen White's writings as another Bible? No!The writings of Ellen White are not a substitute for Scripture. In response to people who considered her writings on the same level as the Bible she wrote:"I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God...You are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made God's word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard...you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God's inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies, calling your attention to the words of inspiration which you had neglected to obey, and urging you to fashion yourlives in accordance with its pure and elevated teachings." T5 p. 664

"The Word of God", EGW writes, "is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind andmay be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the Word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, GOD GIVES plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the word that they haveneglected to follow." 5T 663

"The Bible is a perfect, and complete revelation," declared James White, "It is our ONLY rule of faith and practice." WLF p.13He continues:

"But this is no reason, why God may not show the past, present, and future fulfillment of his word, in these last days, by dreams and visions: according to Peter's testimony. True visions are given to lead us to God, and his written word; but those that are given for a new rule of faith and practice, separate from the Bible, cannot be from God and should berejected." (ibid)

Ellen White agrees:"I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the "last days" not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those whoerr from Bible truth." EW p.78

In Counsels on Sabbath School Work, page 84, Ellen White wrote, "The Bible and the Biblealone, is our rule of faith."

She wrote the following to Stephen Haskell two months prior to her later testimony:"I have been waiting for the time when there should be an investigation of the doctrines that Brother Daniells and others have been advocating. When is this to be? If Elder Daniells thinks that some of the interpretations of Scriptures that have been held in the past are not correct, our brethren should listen to his reasons, and give candid consideration to his views....Is not the present a favorable time for you and others of our ministering brethren in this conference to meet with Elder Daniells for a thorough examination of the points of faith regarding which there are different views?" [Ellen White to Stephen Haskell, May 24, 1910, RG 21, Special Files, "TheDaily,"Section 1]