MORE THAN A PROPHET ...

by Graeme Bradford

FOREWORD
By Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.

MORE THAN A PROPHET ... by Graeme Bradford

FOREWORD

By Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.

More than a Prophet is a book that was born out of the raging controversy over the credibility of Ellen White as
an inspired writer. Books, videos, and thousands of web sites are attempting to destroy the credibility of the gift
of prophecy manifested in the ministry and writings of Ellen White. Surprisingly, most of the attacks against
Ellen White come from former Adventists, some of whom were church pastors. Part of the problem has been
the failure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to educate its members regarding the human limitations of the
gift of prophecy manifested in Bible prophets as well as Ellen White.

To respond to the many attacks against Ellen White, Prof. Graeme Bradford spent twenty years of his life
examining and digesting the writing of Ellen White in the light of the manifestation of the gift of prophecy in
biblical prophets. By examining the human side of Bible prophets as revealed in scripture, Bradford shows that
the problems they encountered, were not much different from the criticism brought against Ellen White.

Prof. Bradford clearly states the objective of his book, saying: "Let me say from the outset, I write this book as
one having great confidence in the prophetic gift as it has been used in the ministry of Ellen White. After
reading and studying the evidence for and against her work, I emerge as a strong believer. However, I also
realize that the Adventist Church has not always used this gift wisely. Despite her protests during her lifetime,
after her death unrealistic expectations were placed upon her writings by those who saw her as a means to settle
questions on a variety of subjects. It is imperative that the Church places her ministry where the Bible would
have it placed. If this is not forthcoming then the gift that God designed to be a blessing can become
counterproductive."

Prof. Bradford maintains that there is a grave danger for Adventism to hold on to a 19th century eschatology
and thus become irrelevant to the great issues facing the church in the 21st century. He firmly believes that a
rediscovery of the real Ellen White, will lead to a rediscovery of what God intended Adventism to be.

I first read the manuscript More than a Prophet about 5 years ago. This study helped me greatly to gain a
balanced understanding of the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. In fact, I used some of the material in
preparing the Endtime Issues Newsletter No. 88, entitled "A Plea for a balanced Understanding of Ellen White's
Writings."

Favorable evaluations by respected Adventist church leaders and scholars gave me reasons to believe that the
manuscript would be published speedily, in view of the urgent need to restore confidence in the validity of the
gift of prophecy manifested in the writings, preaching, and teachings of Ellen White.

Unfortunately, the publication of the manuscript has been delayed for several years. Apparently the perception
has been that the manuscript was too demanding for the average reader. Eventually the decision was made to
repackage the manuscript in an abbreviated and simpler version that was published in two booklets Prophets
Are Human and People Are Human: Look at What they Did to Ellen White! These two booklets, published by
Signs Publishing Company in 2004 and 2006 respectively, are written in a fiction-style, with a couple asking
questions about Ellen White, and a pastor giving answers which are biblical and faith affirming. Both of these
1
books are available in ABCs in Australia, New Zealand and North America. Pacific Press is the distributor for
them in North America.

The two booklets have a popular appeal and will serve a useful purpose. But, my experience has been that an
increasing number of educated Adventists, prefer to put their teeth into a substantive study that examines
questions in a more analytical way. This conviction motivated me to ask Prof. Graeme Bradford permission to
publish the unabridged manuscript, as part of the Biblical Perspectives series.

Bradford enthusiastically accepted my proposal and emailed me the latest edited version of the manuscript.

Words fail to express my appreciation to Prof. Bradford for allowing Biblical Perspectives (my publishing
venture) to publish More than a Prophet. This book is long overdue and will help greatly in restoring
confidence in the prophetic gift of Ellen White. It is my conviction that this book could have prevented the
departure of thousand of Adventist members, who claim to have found serious mistakes and contradictions in
Ellen White's writings. This book would have helped them to understand what the Bible teaches regarding the
gift of prophecy, namely, that prophets are human. There are times when they communicate a message from
God, but there are also times when they speak their own mind. This was true for Bible prophets and it is also
true for Ellen White.

The scope of More than a Prophet extends beyond an analysis of the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. It
includes also an informative discussion of the conflicts between Fundamentalists and Liberal Evangelicals in
the twentieth century. According to Prof. Bradford this conflict affected the Adventist church, especially in
elevating the writings of Ellen White to a higher level of authority that she never intended.

What I found most informative is the analysis of the attempts made by Adventist church leaders and scholars at
the 1919 Bible Conference and more recently at the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop sponsored by the E. G.
White Estate, to deal with prevailing misconceptions over the inspiration of Ellen White. At both meetings it
was agreed to take steps to inform the church membership about the borrowing of Ellen White and her
inaccuracies in the area of history, science, and theology. It was agreed that a correct understanding of her
limitations, did not negate her inspiration, but would certainly affect her function and authority.

Tragically, no steps were ever taken, because it was felt that Adventist members would be shaken by the new
information, which was so different from what they had been taught. The result has been the deepening of the
division among Adventists over the authority of Ellen White. On the one hand, there are Adventists who firmly
believe in the inerrancy and verbal inspiration of all what Ellen White wrote. For them Ellen White is the final
court of appeal that supersedes even the Bible. But, on the other hand, there are Adventists who have lost their
confidence in the authority of her writings, and sometimes choose to leave the church. Antagonism toward
Ellen White is especially evident in most European countries where the use of her writings, especially in
preaching, has become a taboo.

I commend Prof. Bradford for devoting many years of his life to provide answers to many challenging
questions Adventists and non-Adventists are asking about the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. He is a man
with both a passion for truth and a passion for people. He informed me that he plans to devote his retirement
years to reclaim members who left the Adventist church, especially because of troubling questions about the
inspiration of Ellen White.

It is my fervent hope and prayer that More than a Prophet, the fruit of many years of painstaking research, will
help many honest seekers to find honest answers to questions about Ellen White.

2
 Introduction
Many books have analysed the work of Ellen White. Her ministry has received careful attention from capable
church historians and scholars within and outside the ranks of Adventism. So how can we justify the writing of
yet another volume?

My answer is twofold: First, although there have been numerous volumes in the past, to my knowledge none
has tried to incorporate recent biblical scholarship in the area of the gift of prophecy. Over recent decades
conservative Bible scholars have given diligent attention to the subject. Some excellent material has been
produced in articles printed in scholarly journals and books. Much of this material gives fresh insights and a
more meaningful appreciation of the work of Ellen White.

Second, her ministry has come under attack in recent times. These attacks can appear to be damaging. Books
and videos have been produced that could shake the average believer's confidence in her ministry. It is
imperative that this material be given a fair evaluation and response. Some of this material is accurate, but can
only be clearly understood if we have in mind a clear biblical expectation of how a prophet should function.
God often used the Philistines and the Amalakites to chastise Israel; now, perhaps, He is using the same
methodology to cause Adventism to come to a more realistic expectation of the ministry of Ellen White.

For generations the gift has been a blessing to those who read her writings wisely. However, at times, the gift
has been misused to stifle creative scholarship. In 1 Corinthians chapter 12 Paul makes the point that all God's
gifts are needed to produce a healthy church body. He warns about neglecting some and making others more
prominent than they deserve. Segfried Schatzmann understands Paul in the following way: "For Paul unity and
diversity coincided in the shared experience of the Spirit. . . . Diversity of charismata, therefore, does not
destroy the unity of the church. The opposite is true; namely, the unity of the church is contingent upon the
'proper functioning of the whole range of diverse charismata; without the diversity of the charismata there can
be no unity"1

Indeed the message of 1 Corinthians 12 is one that Adventism needs to ponder if it is to produce strong healthy
congregations. The question must be addressed, Has Adventism allowed this one gift to one person to
overpower the many gifts God has given to others?

This book is in two parts, with the first section attempting to give a biblical expectation of how a prophet
should function. The second section deals with how this matches the ministry of Ellen White.

This book has been 20 years in preparation. It comprises material I have shared in workshops with pastors and
lay people in Australia, New Zealand, England and the United States of America. Some of it was presented in a
workshop in the General Conference Pre-Ministerial Meetings in Toronto, Canada in 2000. Over the past two
decades I have read and digested some excellent material produced by the White Estate. Particularly is this true
of the early 1980s when my association with Robert Olsen and Ron Graybill helped me to realistically face the
material produced by Walter Rea and his claims of plagiarism. Olsen and Graybill were involved in the 1982
"International Prophetic Guidance Workshop" which provided much helpful material. Unfortunately this
material was never shared with the Adventist church membership at large.

In this respect the 1982 meetings may be compared with the "after-meeting" of the 1919 Bible Conference
where denominational leaders and teachers also shared their concerns about the wrong use being made of the
gift of prophecy as found in the ministry of Ellen White. At that Conference a few spoke from first hand
experience, for they had been involved in producing some of her books. Concerns were raised and valuable
material shared. Unfortunately, neither the 1919 nor the 1982 material was ever shared with church
membership. At times I will draw upon some of this valuable research and observations.

3
It has been my privilege to sit in classes taught by George Knight, professor of Church History at Andrews
University. In those classes I had my eyes opened to how the Adventist Church had evolved, particularly after
the death of Ellen White. Later I was sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Union Conference (in the South Pacific
Division) to travel in the United States and gather material to further develop what I had learned in Knight's
classes. Much of the historical material used in this book comes from these sources.

I wish to also acknowledge the help I have received from the followings sub-committee of the South Pacific
Division Biblical Research Committee.

Dr. Paul Petersen [Field secretary of the SPD, Chairperson]

Dr. Steve Thompson [Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Avondale College]

Dr. Ray Roennfeldt [Senior Lecturer in Theology, Avondale College]

Dr. Arthur Patrick [Former Curator of the White Resource Centre, Avondale College]

I have also appreciated the input I have received from some who have read the original manuscript and given
me valuable advice. Namely:

Dr. John Paulien, Dr. George Knight, Dr. William Johnnson and Dr. Alden Thompson and Dr Barry Oliver.

I want to show appreciation to Bruce Manners, Editor of the Signs Publishing Company for his help in making
the original manuscript more readable.

I wish also to acknowledge that the ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect the personal views of all those
mentioned above. At times I have ventured into the subject in areas where I believe Adventism has yet to travel.
Doing this can be perilous at times. It may be that others in the future will see more than I can see at this
present time. I do not feel I have exhausted this subject. I would like to think that this book will open a door for
more to be written on the subject. I hope to learn more from others myself.

I write this book as one having great confidence in the prophetic gift as it has been used in the ministry of Ellen
White. After reading and studying the evidence for and against her work I emerge a strong believer. I, along
with so many others, have personally benefited spiritually from having read her works. Very early in my
Christian life I read her book Desire of Ages. The two chapters which dealt with Christ in the Garden of
Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary, transformed my Christian life. Today I can see the fruitage of her
prophetic ministry in my Christian life. To me this is a powerful reason why I accept her prophetic ministry.

Although I accept her authenticity; yet at the same time I also realise that the Adventist Church has not always
used this gift wisely. Despite her frequent protests during her lifetime, after her death unrealistic expectations
were placed upon her writings by those who saw her as a means to settle questions on a variety of subjects. It is
imperative that the church place her ministry where the Bible would have it placed. If this is not forthcoming
then the gift God designed to be a blessing will become counterproductive.

Some will read this book with great comfort. Others will be inclined to say, "But this is not what we were
taught." I encourage every reader to heed the counsel that Ellen White gave to the church: "Long-cherished
opinions must not be regarded as infallible. . . . Those who sincerely desire to know the truth will not be
reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions are
crossed. . . . We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible.
Those who think they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion,
will be disappointed. . . ."2

Part of the thrill of being a Christian is to learn and grow in our understanding.
4
_____________

1 Seigfried Schatzmann, A Pauline Theology Of Charismata, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989)
p. 72. [back]

2 Counsels To Writers and Editors, pp. 36-37. [back]

5
Part One: Prophets Old And New

6
Chapter One

Ellen White under attack

Ellen White and her writings are under attack. Any search engine on the internet will find scores of anti-Ellen
White sites. The following titles are taken directly from those types of web sites:

"Plagiarism. Where did Ellen White get the material for her books?

"The Great Controversy: White copied both words and pictures.

"Proof that White's 'I was shown' visions were even copied.

"Prophesy blunders of Ellen White:

In the 1850s Mrs White said Jesus was to return in a few months.

Adventists living in 1856 would be alive to see Jesus return.

She would be alive when Jesus returns.

Christ would return before slavery was abolished.

"Mrs White saw Enoch on Jupiter or Saturn.

"Mrs White said that we have animal organs in our brains and the wearing of wigs would cause insanity.

"Mrs White did not practice what she preached regarding unclean foods.

"Mrs White contradicts herself.

Pork is a nourishing, strengthening food.

Pork should never be eaten under any circumstances.

"Mrs White taught the door of salvation is forever shut.

"Mrs White taught some races are a mixture of man and beast.

"Mrs White said her writings never contradict the Bible! She said, "There is one straight chain of truth without
one heretical sentence in that which I have written."

"Mrs White taught:

There was only one Herod.

The Tower of Babel was built before the Flood.

"We have clearly shown just a few examples that prove Mrs White does not fulfil the biblical tests of a prophet.
A prophet needs only one false prophecy to be disqualified.

7
"Although Seventh-day Adventism claims virtually all of EGW's writings came right from the throne, members
are very selective about what portions they decide to heed. If they really went all the way with Ellen White:

They wouldn't have photographs of loved ones displayed in their homes.

They wouldn't ride bicycles.
They wouldn't play tennis.
They wouldn't play chess, checkers, or cards.
They wouldn't dance.
They wouldn't eat meat.
They wouldn't wear wigs.
They wouldn't eat cheese.
They wouldn't eat ice cream.
They wouldn't go bowling.
They wouldn't attend movies.
They wouldn't attend opera.
They wouldn't eat between meals.
They wouldn't wear a wedding ring.
They wouldn't use black pepper.
They wouldn't eat vegetables and fruit at the same meal.
They wouldn't take out life insurance.
They wouldn't drink tea or coffee."

There are many thousands of pages on different web sites with these kinds of statements. Added to this are the
many books and videos aimed specifically at Seventh-day Adventist Christians with the stated purpose of
destroying faith in the integrity and calling of Ellen White. One suspects that often the objections come from
former Seventh-day Adventists revolting against a legalistic upbringing by parents who may not have had an
enlightened understanding of Ellen White's ministry.

In the past when attempts have been made to realistically deal with some of the above material, those who have
tried have received responses from members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church not unlike the following:
"How much confidence can anyone have in material said to be written by God's inspired prophet to His last
church if 'some of what Ellen White wrote was wrong,' and by inference, may sometimes be in conflict with the
Bible. And, also, if 'some is not even her own'?"

"The comment that 'some of what Ellen White wrote is wrong,' surely would not inspire anyone to overcome
their apathy. Busy people don't want to spend time reading books acknowledged to be wrong. If this 'honest'
admission is true, then how is anyone to know which of her writings are right and which wrong? Please supply
supporting evidence to inform church members of the things known to be wrong. I was taught that Ellen White
was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as biblical prophets, and therefore her messages were just as
inspired and reliable"

"The question I have is. Where is [Ellen White] wrong? I've never found it. She says that her work is either of
God or the devil."3

While not all church members would react in this way, the comments reflect where a significant number are in
their thinking. On the other hand when some members seriously consider this type of material it has a
devastating affect upon not only their confidence in the work of Ellen White, but also in the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, and for some, their confidence in Christ.

A few years ago I received a letter from a woman who had been shaken by some of the material presented to
her. Here is part of the letter I received.

8
"Dear Pastor Bradford,

"I have left the Adventist Church for good. I cannot be a participant in the deception that is going on in regard
to the church doctrines and Ellen White . . . I have never heard the church talk about the problems with Ellen
White's unfulfilled visions in all the time I have been in it—that's because the church doesn't give a balanced
view of her. It purposefully hides from people what it believes would damage their reputation and lessen the
chances of new converts. . . . My daughter was having studies for baptism when I left the church. It was the
hardest decision that I think I have ever had to make. I agonized over it for months . . . I know that the church
will continue to teach that Ellen White was a prophet . . . but it will not honestly and openly present all the
failures with her visions. . . . There is only one reason that the church doesn't teach the full truth of Ellen White.
It knows that, when armed with the full truth, people will reject her as a prophet."

To many sincere people within Adventism today it is disturbing to read this letter and to the above challenging
statements made about the ministry of Ellen White. And yet as you read these statements you say to yourself
"Could a deceiver give us books like Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ, and Christ Object Lessons?

About 100 years ago there were some in Adventism, like J. H. Kellogg and A. T. Jones, who felt that
everything Ellen White wrote had to be believed and would always be the truth. They had a view of her work
that could be described as very rigid. On the other hand there were some like Willie White, A. G. Daniels and
W. W. Prescott who held to a more flexible approach to understanding her work.4 They claimed they had a
more realistic expectation of her performance and, in their favour, they had worked with her in preparing her
books for publication. Eventually information came to hand regarding her work that had an effect on Kellogg
and Jones, and those like them. The new information did not fit into their narrow views of her work. Instead of
changing their views they chose to leave Adventism. In contrast those who belonged to the Willie White,
Daniels and Prescott understanding did not lose their confidence in her writings.5

Today we also have new information coming to hand regarding how Ellen White did her work. Some, as we
have seen, go into a state of denial and become angry at any suggestion she could be wrong. Others find their
faith is destroyed in Adventism and, often, in Christ as well. However there is a third way we want to explore in
this book. That is to build upon the understanding of Willie White, A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott.

It is my contention that these men had a correct understanding of how the prophetic gift should function. From
their conversations at a Conference we discover that they got their ideas not so much from Scripture as from
their association with Ellen White. Prescott, in particular, was surprised when she asked him for help in the
preparation of some of her works. It did not fit into his expectation of how the gift should function. He was
probably typical of most in his time in having these concepts. After his association with her in preparing books
for publication he was forced to change his views.

Today we can see from recent scholarship that the concepts they gained from associating with her were
biblically sound. These concepts which we will explore if understood and accepted afford a powerful apologetic
for her genuine prophetic ministry.

In order to correctly evaluate her ministry we need to make an in depth study of what the biblical expectations
are of a genuine prophetic messenger. This is what this book is all about. And so we will first develop an
understanding of the biblical expectations of the function of the gift of prophecy, and then see how the work of
Ellen White matches this expectation. Few Christians, Seventh-day Adventists among them, have given much
thought to this subject. In fact, it may be that most Christians have some wrong ideas on the subject.

Some readers may wonder why I feel a need to go into biblical inspiration so deeply. Those who have been
confronted with what is found on the internet, in books and videos will understand immediately why I labour
the point. Hopefully, by the end of this book all will understand how the points made regarding biblical
inspiration do have profound bearing on how we understand and appreciate the prophetic ministry of Ellen
White.
9
____________

3 South Pacific Record, May 15, 1999, page 13. Section on Letters to the Editor where some readers are
responding to a previous editorial which suggested that Ellen White may not have always got her facts correct.
[back]

4 We will read of their conversations in Ch. 18, "The 1919 Bible Conference and its aftermath". [back]

5 Spectrum, Vol. 12, No. 4, "Ellen White and Doctrinal Conflict: Context of the 1919 Bible Conference", Bert
Haloviak and Gary Land. pp. 19-34. [ back]

10
 Chapter Two

Steps to understanding biblical inspiration

Biblical inspiration! How do you define it? Christianity has never done so in any of its creeds. Maybe the
subject is best left in the too-hard basket? We know that the ways of God are past the understanding of humans.
God often puzzles us in the way He does His work—He appears to be too hard on Uzzah and too kind to David.
No wonder He said through Isaiah, "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,'
declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my
thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isaiah 55:8-9 NIV).

As we consider the topic of inspiration it may be necessary to lay aside ideas we have of how we think God
ought to have acted and go to the Bible to see how He did inspire the Bible. In other words, to let the Bible
speak for itself on this subject. For some this may be an unsettling experience. We like to have things all neatly
packaged and in order. However, we cannot always do that with God and the things of God. Take the universe
for example. It is far more living and dynamic than we had ever imagined. There are galaxies that appear to
dance and swap partners. Some appear to explode. Some planets have an atmosphere so thin that a cupful of air
from earth could be spread over several square kilometers to give an equivalent density. There are some white
dwarfs where all nuclear fuel has been burned up, where one teaspoon full of matter would weigh more than
several elephants.

Why is it like this? Maybe God loves variety. Perhaps He is like my wife in her garden who knows and delights
in every plant. Maybe He loves the great explosions. If nature tells us anything about God's character it tells us
that He is a living, dynamic God. He loves diversity.

He is an exciting Person. Life in heaven will not be boring. We will always be learning more about God and
His ways, and marveling.

Meanwhile He puzzles us. Why does He not come down and appear as He did at Mount Sinai again? Why does
He not make the earth tremble and the mountains quake? Why do we not hear His voice as people did long
ago? If only He would come to us and let us know He is around. It would help us to be certain He is there. It
would silence the skeptics and confirm the faith of the believers.

Could it be that God gives sufficient evidence to believe; but never removes all cause for doubt? Could it be
that God has so weighed the evidence that the honest in heart will know He is there; but those who do not want
to believe will find hooks on which to hang their doubts? Let us face it, different people can look at the same
evidence regarding Christianity and some believe while others doubt and remain sceptical.6 Both belief and
disbelief alike can come about as a result of a disposition within the person. Finding God is not so much an
intellectual pursuit as it is a heart experience. God says, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with
all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).7 God respects human freedom. This is in harmony with the Great Controversy
theme well known and understood by Seventh-day Adventists. The light that God gives us is clear enough to
guide the honest in heart; but not so blinding as to take away our power of choice.

There was a time when God did come and appear in a dramatic way—at Sinai. His voice roared, the lightning
flashed and the thunder rolled around the mountain. The effect upon Israel was to overwhelm them. They
responded to Moses with the words, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us
or we will die" (Exodus 20:19). The trouble was that their hearts were not changed. The evidence was so
powerful that they responded more from fear than anything else. As a result their obedience to God did not last
long. Even while Moses was on the mountain, they worshipped the golden calf.

11
 Sufficient evidence for inspiration

As with the existence of God, so it is with the inspiration of the Bible. God gives sufficient evidence to believe
but never removes all cause for doubt. There is strong evidence that the Bible comes from God in such things
as:

Prophecy—the ability of the Bible to be able to predict events before they happen.

The unity of content of the Bible—with 40 different writers contributing over 1500 years, the harmony of
content is miraculous.

The survival of the Bible—this book has been banned and burned so many times and yet it remains the best-
preserved book coming to us from the ancient world.

These evidences remove some of the intellectual objections and help prepare a person to take the promises of
the Bible and experience God. In the end, though, God is not a mathematical formula that can be analysed and
explained. He is a person. We can take the promises of the Bible and act upon them to find God. Christianity is
a love affair. When two people fall in love they spend time together and get to know each other. As they get to
know each other they develop a trust, and love becomes the centre of their experience.

But the most powerful evidence that the Bible comes from God is given to us by the Holy Spirit. Paul states this
point with the following words: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who
is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise
of his glory." (Ephesians 1:13-14).

With these words Paul takes us to the centre of Christian assurance. This comes from surrendering our lives and
allowing the Holy Spirit to work in us and give us new lives. Always we are accepted on the basis of what
Christ has done for us8, never on what He has done in us through His Spirit. However, as we look away from
ourselves to Christ's death on our behalf we can also find within ourselves a new creation.9 God implants new
motives and desires. If we have had this experience we will know it. We will also know that God is with us and
that the Bible promises do work when put to the test of experience.

So the believer can have powerful evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. Yet despite all this
evidence, there are things in the Bible which puzzle us. Such things as: The brutality of the Israelites towards
the Canaanites. They did this at the command of God.10 And the imprecatory psalms. Some of the psalmists ask
God to do terrible things to their enemies.

Many times as Christians we have to say we do not understand what is going on in certain Bible passages;
however, we do not throw away our faith. We still have sufficient evidence to believe. If we need to have an
answer to every question we will never have room to believe. Often we will just have to say, "Well I can't
answer that question; however I still believe." This is not wrong. It is how most Christians have had to live for
two thousand years. Future research may supply some answers, but people live and die not knowing all the
answers; yet still believe.

God could have made the evidence for the Bible more compelling. He could have given us the Bible without
any room for questioning. Instead He gave us sufficient evidence to believe without removing all cause for
doubt. The honest in heart will have enough to carry their faith. The honest in heart will not let some isolated
point rob them of their faith.

Understanding this is crucial when we look at inspiration and how it works. There will be times when we will
simply have to admit we cannot explain a point perfectly. This will be true of both the Bible and Ellen White. It
is important to realise that we do not have to have an answer to every question in order to believe.
12
 Defining the terms

To begin we need to define some of the terms used. People often argue over semantics without knowing that
they are arguing because they have failed to define their terms sufficiently. There are four terms we need to
define.

1. Revelation

Revelation is the content of what God is revealing. Prophets at times have concepts revealed to them by God's
Spirit—a revelation. The objective of God's revelation to us is that we might come to know Him and enter into
a relationship with Him. This revelation can be seen as progressive. God spoke in many different ways in Old
Testament times through prophets and gave His greatest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3).

2. Inspiration

This involves the methods God uses to give the revelation, record it and preserve it for His people. For example,
it may be a vision or a dream that is given orally or written out. Revelation is a vertical action while inspiration
is a horizontal action. However, it is possible to have inspiration without special revelation, as seen in 1 Kings
11:41 when the writer tells us where to go for the rest of the story of Solomon—the "book of the annals of
Solomon." Inspiration can be Spirit-guided research with the inspired writer guided by the Spirit in writing
from their own experience, or what has been revealed to them by others. It is possible to have revelation
without inspiration because what was revealed was not written down and preserved for others to benefit. An
example of this is found in John 21:25 where John states that not all Jesus did and said has been written down.

3. Illumination

When a person studies what has been recorded by a prophet, and the Holy Spirit gives understanding of what is
written, this process is illumination. Few can claim that God has given them a revelation by inspiration, but we
can claim that God will help us to understand what is written in the Bible by illumination. Jesus gave us the
promise "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth . . ." (John 16:13).

4. Authority

God is the ultimate authority in all matters. He is the Creator and Sustainer of us all. As such He is able to
declare to us right practice and belief. He has delegated this authority to be shared with us through the Bible.
Thus we might say that the Bible carries the same authority as if God were speaking to us directly.

Peter describes our four points with the following words: "Above all, you must understand [illumination] that
no prophecy of the Scripture [revelation] came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the
Holy Spirit [inspiration]" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Therefore, he says, the writings of the prophets are authoritative
for us as Christians.

The meaning of the words "carried along" are associated with the idea of wind in the sail of a boat. As the
writers of the Bible received revelations from God they were carried along by the Holy Spirit in such a manner
that the ideas they wrote out were recorded in a trustworthy and reliable manner. At the same time we know
that God respects human freedom. He did not obliterate the personality of the writer or take him entirely out of
his cultural background. The Bible is God's Word in human language. Paul, in commenting on the light he
received from God, said, "We have this treasure in jars of clay. . . ." (2 Corinthians 4:7). In other words God has
chosen to give His revelations to humans who are like clay vessels. Humanity is prone to err and
misunderstand; however God does not work apart from humanity.

13
 A mixture of the human and the divine

This calls for a balanced view of the inspiration of the Bible. It is God's words in human language. Just as Jesus
is the Living Word of God and as such He is truly God and Man, so the Bible is the written Word of God. It is
God's Word in human language. The Bible is both human and divine. Churches go wrong when they fail to
maintain a balance in this subject. Some churches go too far toward the humanity side of the Bible and tend to
leave God out of the picture. These are the more liberal churches. They water down the miracles of the Bible
and rob the Bible of the presence of God in its authorship. Other churches go too far toward the divinity of the
Bible. These are the more fundamentalist types of churches that virtually ignore some obviously human
elements of the Bible.

Perhaps the most concise and balanced expression is found in Ellen White's description: "The Bible is written
by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God as a writer, is
not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words,
in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the
different writers.

"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the
man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued
with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The
divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of
God."11

There are many reasons why I accept the inspiration of Ellen White, but one powerful reason is her view on
inspiration. And her ideas were not the prevailing views among her contemporaries. In reading her writings
regarding her own inspiration you find a harmony with what is found in Scripture.

The Bible may be likened to an intellectual man stooping over to talk to his young son in a language his son can
understand. God talks to us in our language. How else can we understand? He meets us where we are to reveal
Himself to us. Another way of illustrating this point can be made by taking a torch and shining the light through
a piece of blue colored glass. The light comes as pure white yet on the other side of the glass comes out with a
bluish tinge. So the Bible is both human and divine.

The human side is found in the language the Bible writers use. Some writers, such as John, have very rough or
elementary Greek expressions. Others, such as Paul, have more cultured expressions. Anyone who has worked
with the original languages of the Bible is fully aware of the differences of style used by the writers in harmony
with their cultural background.

It is obvious that God does not obliterate the human element in the giving of His messages. If He had so
chosen, He could have used a twelve-year-old schoolboy to write the whole Bible. If He had, the Bible would
have been distant and remote from us. Instead, as we read the Bible, the Word comes especially close to us
through fellow humans. God has met us where we are. For example who cannot identify with Paul when he
cries out, "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand
what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. . . . What a wretched man I am! Who will
rescue me from this body of death? . . . Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus." (Romans 7: 4, 15, 24; 8:1).

There is abundant evidence to demonstrate the presence of humanity alongside divinity in the Bible. Take, for
example, Paul's forgetfulness. "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that
no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanus; beyond
that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). The strong words he uses to describe
the Cretans are a good example of what Ellen White means when she says that some people, when reading the
Bible, will remark that such an expression does not sound like God speaking. "Even one of their own prophets
14
has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them
sharply. . . ." (Titus 1:12-13).12

Because of human expressions such as these we have grounds for concluding that although God gave thoughts
to the writers, they were given the freedom to express the ideas in harmony with their cultural background. Put
another way, God gave ideas and made sure the revelation was recorded in a reliable manner, but the words
were chosen by the writers in harmony with their culture.

____________

6 An example of this is found in Acts 17:16-34. Paul presented the claims of Christ only to be met with
cynicism from some and belief from others. [back]

7 All Bible quotations are taken from the NIV unless otherwise stated. [back]

8 Ephesians 2: 8-9 states this clearly with the following words "For it is by grace you have been saved, through
faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." [back]

9 2 Corinthians 5:17. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, the old has gone, the new has
come!" [back]

10 Joshua 6:21. "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men
and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." [back]

11 1SM, p. 21. [back]

12 In this statement Paul is quoting from the Cretan Epimenides who wrote six centuries before Christ wrote:
"The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!" See 6SDABC, p. 354. [back]

15
Chapter Three

God speaks in various ways

It is important to lay aside ideas of how God ought to have worked, and go to the Bible to draw
the information. We will examine the question "How did biblical writers get the information
they conveyed in their writings?" The answer is from many diverse sources.

Visions and dreams

In Numbers 12:6 God promises to speak to His people through visions and dreams to prophets.
After receiving the message by vision, the prophet had to express the ideas as best they could
using language they were familiar with. Notice how John attempts to describe the creatures
portrayed under the fifth trumpet: "The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their
heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their
hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lion's teeth" (Revelation 9:7-8, emphasis
added).

God meets people and prophets where they are in their culture, and uses images they are
familiar with. For example, Nebuchadnezzar sees the nations as part of an image of a man
resembling precious metals. Daniel sees the same nations as beasts of prey (Daniel 2 compared
with Daniel 7). Pharoah sees the Nile river, cows and stalks (Genesis 41:1-5).

God dictates the words

At times prophets such as Jeremiah, were to speak the words that God put into their mouths
(Jeremiah 1:9, 2:1). At other times God dictated words for the prophet to write (Jeremiah 36:1-
4, 32).

Through the natural senses as guided by the Holy Spirit

In one of his epistles, John tells us how he gained the knowledge he is sharing with us. "That
which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which
we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life"
(1 John 1:1, emphasis added).

Here John tells us he did not get his message or revelation by a vision or dream, but through
personal contact with Christ. What he had seen, heard and touched is the source of his message.
Yet in receiving the message and recording it he is still guided by the Holy Spirit.

By studying the writings of others

Perhaps the clearest statement made on this point is by Luke in his gospel introduction. "Many
have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as
they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the
16
word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it
seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilis, so that
you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4, emphasis added).

Here Luke tells how he studied the account written up by eyewitnesses to the life of Christ and
put it down in an orderly manner. Luke is sometimes referred to as "The Divine Historian." It is
doubtful if he ever had a vision or dream. Scholars often refer to Matthew, Mark and Luke as
the Synoptic gospels because much of each gospel has parallels in the other gospels.13 Only
John's gospel stands out because of it's original material.14 So it would seem that consulting the
writings of others is part of how we received the story of Jesus. Scholars have varying ideas of
who was the original source for so much of Matthew, and Luke's gospels. Some say they all
had access to a source they call the "Q document." Others say that Mark's gospel15 was the
original source for the others. Whatever the truth, it is clear that there has been a significant
amount of borrowing done by some of the writers of the gospels.

Borrowing by Bible writers

Of the New Testament writers only Paul and John are known to have had visions. But even
Paul still felt the need to refer to the writings of others (2 Timothy 4:13). And it is worth noting
that some of the studying and borrowing by biblical writers was from the writings of secular
writers. Paul's quotations from pagan scholars are well known. A few examples are:
Epimenedes is quoted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live and move and have our being."16
Aratus is quoted when Paul states in Acts 17:28, "For we are also his offspring"17 The Greek
poet Menander is quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:33, "Evil communications corrupt good manners."
On this occasion Paul gives no indication that this is a quote.18

Even some of the statements made by Christ have a familiar sound to some statements
previously made by Jewish rabbis. For example, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your
neighbour that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof."19 This sounds
much like the golden rule found in Matthew 7:12 yet it was said by Hillel a famous Jewish
teacher long before Jesus said it.20 Ellen White's comments on this point are also quite
significant: "Some of the truths that Christ spoke were familiar to the people. They had heard
them from the lips of priests and rulers, and from men of thought; but for all that, they were
distinctively the thoughts of Christ. He had given them to men in trust, to be communicated to
the world. . . . The work of Christ was to take the truth of which the people were in want,
separate it from error, and present it free from the superstitions of the world, that the people
might accept it on its own intrinsic and eternal merit."21

One of the puzzles of the New Testament is that it, at times, quotes the Pseudepigrapha with
some measure of authority and even as information coming from Scripture. The
Pseudepigrapha is a collection of Jewish writings dating from the first and second centuries BC.
The name is given to this collection because the names claimed for the authors are not genuine.
They sought to have their ideas accepted by taking the names of famous ancient personalities
such as Esdras (Ezra), Enoch and Solomon. It is possible that some of the details given in these
books could have originated from ancient traditions.

17
Anne Punton summarises the situation in this way: "Paul referred to a verse about the heart of
man being unable to conceive what God has planned for those who love him (1 Corinthians
2:9), might be from a composition entitled the Apocalypse of Elijah. . . . Further allusions to
matters not known from other Scriptures are how the famine in Elijah's day lasted for three and
a half years; (James 5:17) the mysterious role of the angels in the giving of the Law; (Galatians
3:19) and the spiritual rock which accompanied the Children of Israel in the wilderness; (1
Corinthians 10:4) Jewish tradition claims that the rock struck by Moses followed them
thereafter and provided water for as long as they needed it. We learn the names of the Egyptian
magicians, Jannes and Jambres, who opposed Moses; (2 Timothy 3:8) the way in which some
of the Old Testament martyrs died; (Hebrews 11:37) and how Lot deplored the evil of the
people amongst whom he lived (2 Peter 2:7).

Jude is very interesting in this respect. When he tells us about a controversy between the
archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, he is probably quoting from a work called The
Assumption of Moses. When he compares the false teachers of his day to 'shooting stars bound
for an eternity of black darkness', he had the Book of Enoch in mind. There, stars stand for
angels, in this case fallen angels. He then mentions a prophecy about the end of the world and
coming judgment which was attributed to Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam."22

As Punton has noted, Jude, when describing the coming of Christ, in verses 14-15, appears to
take his description straight out of 1 Enoch 1:9—the description appears word for word. It has
long puzzled scholars how Jude can use the words of 1 Enoch written about 100 B C and
ascribe them to Enoch the seventh from Adam.23 Even John the Revelator, when describing his
visions, seems to borrow imagery from 1 Enoch.24 It is unlikely he had a copy of the book with
him on Patmos, but it could be that when he tried to describe what he saw, the images of 1
Enoch were etched into his mind and are used either consciously or unconsciously. It is
estimated that he used more than 50 allusions to 1 Enoch.25

How much of the Bible would we abandon if we deleted all the allusions to pagan literature?
Gerald Wheeler gives us some indication: "Figures of speech in the Song of Solomon show
similarities to the religious literature of ancient Sumer, a civilization in existence three
thousand years before Christ. . . . Shall we abandon the Book of Proverbs because in places it
follows the literary pattern of Egyptian and other ancient near eastern wisdom tradition, on
occasion almost word for word? Must we cut the Psalter out of our Bibles because many of the
psalms draw from imagery also used in Canaanite Baal hymns?26

Many more examples could be given, in Ecclesiastes 12:9, the writer seems to suggest a search
to find many proverbs to use in his writings.

M. E. Boring summarises the sources of content of prophetic messengers with the following
observations: "The prophet presents all that he utters as a prophet as the immediately inspired
present address of the deity to his community. This message may well include material taken
from tradition and the prophet's own reflection, consciously or unconsciously, with or without
re-interpretation, but it is not presented as material which a past authority once said, but as what
the deity now says. The same material may be presented by the non-inspired teacher or

18
preacher, but with the formal and functional difference that this claim to immediate inspiration
is not made."27

God uses many diverse ways to convey His revelations to His prophets. Sometimes it is by
vision—a supernatural event. Often it is as the prophet consults the works of others, or in
observing events. It seems there is an economy of miracles at work in the way God reveals His
will. He never does supernaturally what is possible by natural means. Regardless of the
methods used, God still oversees the end product to make sure it conveys in a reliable manner
the message He wishes His people to receive.

____________

13 It is estimated that more than 90% of the Gospel of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke.
The writers of Kings and Chronicles also use materials from royal archives, prophetic records,
and genealogical lists. [back]

14 An excellent work showing the importance of this fact is found in Luke a Plagiarist? By
George Rice, (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1983). [back]

15 It is frequently contended that Mark received his material from Peter. [back]

16 See 6SDABC, p. 354. [back]

17 Ibid., p.354. [back]

18 Ibid., p 808. [back]

19 See 5SDABC, p. 356. [back]

20 For more examples see Tim Crosby, "Does inspired mean original?" Ministry, February,
1986, pp. 4-7. [back]

21 Ellen White, Review and Herald, January 7 1890, reprinted Review and Herald, June 2,
1983, p. 7. [back]

22 Anne Punton, The World Jesus Knew, (London, England: Monarch Books, 2000). p. 218.
[back]

23 See 7SDABC, p.708. [back]

24 See 5SDABC, p. 88 which states that there is general agreement that 1 Enoch was in
circulation by at least the middle of the 1st century B.C. [back]

25 For more details see the articles on 1 Enoch by J. H. Charlesworth in New Testament
Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 315-369. Also The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
In English, Vol. 2, Edited in conjunction with many scholars by R. H. Charles, DD., (Oxford,
England: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 189. [back]
19
26 Gerald Wheeler, "God speaks with a human accent," Adventist Review, July 14, 1983. p. 5.
[back]

27 M. E. Boring, What Are We Looking For? Toward a Definition of the Term Christian
Prophet, S.B.L. Seminar Papers, Missoula, 1973, p. 149, as quoted in Forbes, p. 273. [back].

20
Chapter Four

Literary assistance for inspired writers

Many Bible writers had help in putting their literary works together. For example, the book of Romans plainly
says, "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord" (Romans 16:22). Yet the letter begins with
a greeting from Paul. Who then is Tertius? Obviously he is Paul's scribe or secretary. At the end of the letter
Paul sends greetings to his friends in Rome. Tertius adds his greetings as well.

Leon Morris, when commenting on Paul's literary style, makes the following observations: "This complex
background complicates our study of Paul's writings. So does the apostle's literary style. He rushes on, often
leaving out words he expected his readers to supply (and which they hope they are supplying correctly!). He is
an original thinker, sometimes struggling with language to say things that no one had said before."28

Morris accepts the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles even though other scholars argue against it on the
basis of the differences in style and expression coming from within the epistles. Morris says the same scholars
would accept that Paul could have written some parts because there is evidence for similar style within the
epistles to the writing of Paul. In his footnote he gives his reason for accepting the full Pauline authorship for
the epistles while explaining the apparent difference in style within the letters.

"Donald J. Selby thinks that as time went on Paul probably 'tended to allow his amanuenses [secretaries or
literary assistants], who were also his fellow workers and traveling companions, more and more freedom in
composing the letters.' Their involvement in the work and their increasing familiarity with what Paul taught
'would make such sharing in the composition of the letters not only feasible but inevitable.' . . . E. Earle Ellis
points to the importance of the work of amanuenses and also of the inclusion of 'pre-formed pieces—hymns,
biblical expositions and other literary forms that are self contained and that differ from the language, style and
theological expression elsewhere in the same and in other letters' he thinks that 'any conclusions about the
authorship of the letters on the basis of their language, style and theological idiom are questionable at best.'"29

These scholars, who are held in high repute, suggest that the differences of style within the epistles could well
mean that Paul's literary assistants were responsible for some of the content. No doubt they were under Paul's
supervision.

Some scholars see a difference in style between 1st and 2nd Peter,30 the gospel of John and Revelation31 as
evidence of the apostles working with literary assistance.

Probably we will never know the full extent literary helpers played in putting together the books of the Bible.
We do however, get some glimpses by passing comments such as found in the writings of Jeremiah.

1:1-4 reads like a publisher's introduction.

36:4-6 tells us he dictated his message from God to Baruch who wrote the words on a scroll. Baruch also
represented Jeremiah at the temple when he read the words to the people.

43:3 Baruch is accused of having undue influence over Jeremiah.

51:64 seems to state that this now is the end of what Jeremiah had written. This being the case readers may well
ponder the source of chapter 52. A careful reading of chapter 52 will show that the chapter has been taken out
of 2 Kings 24:18 to 25:30 to show the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecies after his death. Perhaps it was put in
by those we may well entitle "The Jeremiah Estate."

21
The Hebrew prophets used poetry of thought rather than words rhyming. Some of it, (the psalms, for instance)
was put to music so that the people could retain it better. It would be incredible to imagine the prophets
speaking in such polished poetry, and that they did not get some literary help in doing this. It is also highly
unlikely that Job and his friends could speak and argue with such literary skill without some editing help. The
full extent of literary editing given to Old Testament writings will never be fully known. However, the few
glimpses we can see give us a strong indication that literary help did, at times, take place._________

28 Leon Morris, New Testament Theology, (Academie Books, Zondervan, 1990), p. 21. [back]

29 Ibid., fn. William Barclay also adds further thoughts with the following: "Paul's secretary or secretaries were
apparently allowed considerable freedom in their work. The pastoral epistles, e.g., use a vocabulary which is
quite different from Paul's other letters. There are 902 different words used in the three pastoral epistles. Of
these 306 do not occur in any other Pauline letter. There are 112 different particles or enclitics (untranslatable
words) in the other Pauline letters, but not even one in the pastorals." William Barclay, The Pastoral Epistles, p.
11. [back]

30 Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, p. 16. "The Greek of 1
Peter is polished, cultured, dignified; it is among the best in the New Testament. The Greek of 2 Peter is
grandiose; it is rather like baroque art." [back]

31 "The vocabulary and literary style of the Revelation are strikingly different from those of the Gospel
According to John. The former exhibits an unusual degree of liberty with the ordinary standards of Greek
diction and syntax, whereas the language of the Gospel conforms to good Greek usage." SDA Bible Dictionary,
p. 938 "It is not difficult to account for the linguistic and literary differences that exist between the Revelation,
written probably when John was alone on Patmos, and the Gospel, written with the help of one or more fellow
believers at Ephesus." 7SDABC, p. 720. [back]

22
Chapter Five

The problem of differences in the Bible

When Paul wrote to Timothy he was most anxious to instruct the young man to show respect for the Scriptures.
In doing so he makes perhaps the strongest and clearest statement to be found on the function and purpose of
the Scriptures. "From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for
salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good
work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Notice the following claims that the Scriptures:

Help us find Jesus for salvation.

Are reliable for teaching doctrines.

Are reliable in teaching us how to live.

From this we would conclude that the Bible is trustworthy and reliable to fulfil the purposes that God intended.
It is perfect for the purposes listed above. All who follow the biblical teachings will find Jesus, correct
teachings on doctrine and principles on how to live the Christian life. There is a danger that we may impose
upon the Bible our own set of expectations—expectations the Bible does not claim for itself.

In the Bible are to be found differences in details that seem to put some parts of the Bible at odds with other
parts. Over the years discerning readers of the Bible have noticed these differences. The following are a few
examples: After Christ's resurrection Matthew and Mark say that one angel appeared at the tomb of Christ. On
the other hand Luke and John say there were two. Regarding Christ's healing of the demoniac in the area of the
Gerasenes, Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 say He healed one. Matthew 8:28 says He healed two demoniacs. How far
had the disciples rowed when they saw Jesus coming to them on the water (John 6:19)? Did the Holy Spirit not
know exactly how far? Why was this exact distance not imparted to John?

When Jesus sent the twelve to the villages, Mark 6:8 records He told them to take nothing for the journey—
except a staff. Matthew 10:10 tells them to take no staff. When reading John's gospel, where do the words of
John finish and the words of Jesus take over? For example, did Jesus or John say the famous words of John
3:16?32 Who has the correct chronology for the life of Christ? There are differences within the gospels
themselves. For example Matthew, Mark and Luke put the cleansing of the temple at the close of Christ's
ministry; while John puts it in early and states the resurrection of Lazarus as the reason for the death plot
against Jesus.33 Numerous examples of chronological differences between the gospels can be added to the few
listed.34

What do we do with these differences?

Many books written against the inspiration of the Bible list the differences between the gospel stories as some
writers attempt to use these discrepancies to show that the Bible is full of mistakes and cannot be trusted. Those
with a mature better understanding of the purposes of Scripture—as stated by Paul to Timothy—respond by
stating, "These differences are not central to the message of the Bible." The differences do not affect the
teachings of the Bible. John tells us why he wrote his gospel (and it is true of the rest of the Bible as well): "But
these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may
have life in his name" (John 20:31). None of these differences affect our believing in Jesus and finding life in
His name. John had more in mind than just reporting the facts; he aimed to change the lives of his readers.

We err when we try to impose our Western ideas of logic upon a book written with an Eastern-mindset. In the
culture of Bible times, it did not matter to them if the details of a story did not fit exactly so long as the essential
23
ideas were preserved.35 Everett Harrison says, "The scientific age in which we live has put a premium upon
precise accuracy. Must we impose our standard on an ancient book?

We think we know what truth is. The chances are we are thinking in Hellenistic terms, identifying truth with
what corresponds to reality. But the writers of the Scripture were not as greatly influenced by this conception of
truth as by the Hebrew conception which identifies as truth what corresponds with the nature and purpose of
God. . . . If the gospel writers had been interested in presenting records which would meet the test of verbal
agreement, they would certainly have labored to harmonize their accounts. There is nothing superficial or
flippant about these accounts. Clearly they were written with all soberness and in the consciousness of handling
truth. But that was capable of multiform expression which gained its unity from its great Subject and from its
Author, the Spirit of Truth."36

We can see this illustrated for us in the book of Proverbs by comparing the person who has wisdom with the
person who is considered a fool. The wise person is not the intellectual giant, rather it is the person who knows
and obeys God. The fool on the other hand is not a person who lacks information, it is the person who does not
live in harmony with God.

The inspiration of the Bible may be compared to parts of our body. What is considered more important, an eye
or a little toe? Which would you sooner lose if you had to choose? The answer is obvious. Our eye is far more
precious to us than our little toe. So it is with the inspiration of the Bible. The parts of the Bible that deal with
the central message of the Bible, are preserved for us in a trustworthy and reliable manner. Some of the lesser
details can be portrayed differently within various books of the Bible. We come to this conclusion by reading
the Bible itself. Remember, all Scripture is inspired, but not all scripture carries the same redemptive value. If
we lost the genealogies of the Bible, would we miss them as much as the Sermon on the Mount?

Some Christians find this unsettling. Sometimes they will respond with the statement that if the Bible can have
these differences of detail then how can it be inspired? They will try to explain away the many examples that
can be produced. However, they are attempting the impossible. It is not necessary to try. If you find yourself
straining to try and explain away so much data you should be prepared to accept that your position should be
modified in harmony with the facts coming out of the Bible itself.

Some will respond by saying, "Perhaps the original copies of the Bible did not have these differences in them."
This effort is also futile. Those who spend their time studying biblical manuscripts tell us that while there are
some variant readings in the ancient manuscripts, only a tiny percentage of them have variations in readings.
Usually they do not affect the problem areas of differences of detail.37 Let us rejoice that God has preserved His
Word for us. The Bible is the best preserved book from the ancient world. He has preserved the essential
message of the Bible in a trustworthy and reliable manner.

Rather than seeing these differences of detail as problems, we ought to see them in a more positive light to
strengthen our faith. The fact that they are still in the Bible shows they have not been covered up. The Bible is
dealing with real people and real events. In many places it is history as we commonly have it recorded. When
we read historians writing on real life events we expect to see some differences of detail. In fact, the differences
are evidence that the descriptions come from genuine eye witness history. We would be inclined to question the
authenticity if we had witnesses who had exact agreement in every detail. In real life, genuine witnesses usually
have some variation on minor matters of detail. The Bible stories are for real.

Allowing for human and cultural elements

Remember, God meets people where they are to give them His life giving messages about Jesus. In the Bible
are some cultural statements that we may not think are accurate for us today. In fairness to the Bible, we must
keep in mind that the language used was the popular language of the Ancient East and not that of the scientific
world of the 21st century. The Bible is written for common people using the language of the market place and
social gatherings. The language within the culture of the times was the medium God used to get across the
24
spiritual truth He wishes His people to understand. If the Bible had been written in the language of science
today, it would not have been understood by the millions who have read it prior to our age.

God never offers anything faulty or imperfect, however He has to work with the best material He can find—
humanity with all its strengths and weaknesses. No wonder Paul wrote, "But we have this treasure in jars of
clay." (2 Corinthians 4:7). The following, for instance, only makes sense in certain cultural settings: Was it true
that the gospel had been proclaimed to every creature under heaven as Paul claimed in Colossians 1:23? If that
was so, why was he still planning to go to Spain? How could John see four angels standing on the four-corners
of the earth (Revelation 7:1)?

Can the heart really believe as expressed in Romans 10:9-10? Boyce Bennett observes: "People think with their
brains, but not all cultures have known this. The ancient Hebrews believed that people thought with their hearts.
That does not mean that they believed people 'thought emotionally.' The center of emotion was located
elsewhere in Hebrew folk psychology. But the center of thinking was believed to be in the heart. . . . The rise of
scientific investigation over the past few centuries has shown that folk psychology is no longer an adequate way
of understanding human beings. People think with their brains."38 Can our liver be greatly distressed as
expressed in Lamentations 2:11? Can Paul have love for others in his bowels as expressed in Philippians 1:8?
The mustard seed is not the smallest of seeds but it was considered so by the Semites of the first century
(Matthew 13:31). Could not Paul's advice regarding the covering and uncovering of the head also be considered
cultural (1 Corinthians 11:1-16)?

How then do we determine what is cultural and what is trans-cultural in the Bible. Bernard Ramm offers the
following advice:

"1. Whatever in Scripture is in direct reference to natural things is most likely in terms of the prevailing cultural
concepts;

"2. Whatever is directly theological or didactic is most likely trans-cultural;"39

In other words, Ramm is telling us that the Bible is a book dealing with salvation through Jesus Christ, but it
will do so frequently through the cultural concepts of the age in which it was written. The Bible is perfect for
the purpose that God intended it to function.

______________

32 Carl F. Henry ed. Revelation And The Bible, Article by Everett F. Harrison: "The Phenomena of Scripture."
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976), p.247. "A striking feature of John's gospel is the discourse material. Here
Jesus makes not use of the typical parabolic medium of the Synoptics. The addresses are mainly occupied with
his own person and credentials. Sometimes they become dialogues between himself and his auditors. In many
ways they reveal contrast to the discourses in the other gospels. It is significant that Jewish scholars have
experienced less difficulty in receiving these discourses as authentic than many critics of Christian persuasion,
for they recognize how closely they parallel Rabbinic examples. Verbatim reporting was not expected on the
part of a faithful disciple as he made available the sayings of his esteemed master. This freedom of expression
did not necessarily involve unfaithfulness in the fulfillment of his task." [back]

33 Even a cursory look at the gospel of John makes it clear that it is not a history textbook—much less a
biography—the historical trustworthiness of the gospels is not to be described in terms of modern
historiography, which stresses clear and strict chronological sequence, balanced selection of material, verbatim
quotations, and so on. In the real sense the gospel writers are preachers. They select the events of Jesus life and
his teachings, guided not by comprehensiveness but by their purpose in writing. They arrange the material not
always on the basis of sequential order but with a view to impress upon the readers certain specific truths.
Moisés Silva, But These are Written That You May Believe, from An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics,
Walter Kaiser and Moses Silva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994). [back]
25
34 For further examples the reader should study "The Question of Inerrancy in Inspired Writings." A paper
presented at the 1982 International Prophetic Guidance Workshop by Robert Olsen. See appendix A. [back]

35 "Many of the seeming discrepancies vanish once we understand the literary conventions for writing history
or biography in the ancient world. Neither Greek nor Hebrew had any symbol for our quotation marks, nor did
people feel that a verbatim account of someone's speech was any more valuable or accurate than a reliable
summary, paraphrase, or interpretation. The order of events described in a famous person's life was often
arranged thematically rather than strictly chronologically. So we should not be surprised to find minor
variations in both the sequence of episodes in Jesus' life form one gospel to the next and in the actual words
attributed to Him on any given occasion." Jesus Under Fire. Craig Blomberg "Where Do We Start Studying
Jesus?" p. 35. [back]

36 Carl F. Henry, Editor, Revelation And The Bible, Article by Everett F. Harrision "The Phenomena Of
Scripture", (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), pp 239-243. [back]

37 Sir Frederick Kenyon in his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscript, p. 55 has as a footnote the
following observation "Dr Hort whose authority on the point is quite incontestable, estimates the proportion of
words about which there is some doubt at about one-eighth of the whole; but by far the greater part of these
consists merely of differences in order and other unimportant variations, and 'the amount of what can in any
sense be called substantial variation . . . can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text"
(Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek, p. 2). [back]

38 Boyce M. Bennett, An Anatomy of Revelation: Prophetic Visions in the Light of Scientific

Research, (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1990), p. 3. [back]

39 Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, Paternoster, 1965, p. 53. [back]

26
Chapter Six

How much do prophets know?

There is no single passage in the Bible telling us all we wish to know about the gift of prophecy. In Romans
chapter 12, Paul writes regarding the operation of spiritual gifts and, as he mentions prophecy, he makes a
remark that could have significant bearing on our understanding of this gift: "We have different gifts, according
to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith" (Romans 12:6).

Commentators have pondered the meaning of what Paul means "let him use it in proportion to his faith." How
can a prophet prophesy in proportion to his faith? The word translated proportion is the Greek word analogia.
This is the only place this word appears in the New Testament. Many commentators have suggested that faith,
as mentioned here, is to be taken in a subjective manner tied in with measure mentioned in verse three. Paul
here is probably referring to how a person should function.40

David Hill offers this observation: "If that phrase means 'in proportion to our faith' i.e. in proportion to the
quality of our faith given or possessed, it could imply degrees of prophetic ability which varied according to the
amount of faith one had, 'faith' being the believer's confidence that God's Spirit is speaking in the actual words
he is uttering. What Paul is saying then is that the person who exercises the gift of prophecy should speak only
when conscious of his words as inspired and presumably only as long as he is confident that God is speaking
through him."41

Hill's understanding of the text seems to be reflected in the New Living Translation,42

"God has given each of us the ability to do certain things well. So if God has given you the ability to prophesy,
speak out when you have faith that God is speaking through you" (Romans 12:6).

Cranfield offers further insights: "Once again we have to choose between different possible interpretations.
Many commentators understand by 'the faith' here a special charismatic faith—in fact, something hardly to be
distinguished from prophetic inspiration. According to this view, Paul is warning the prophets against the
temptation to add something of their own devising, the temptation, when they come to the limit of their own
inspiration, to go on speaking. According to others 'the faith' is to be understood in the sense of the 'the faith,'
i.e. The body of truth to be believed, and 'according to the analogian' as meaning 'according to the standard' . . .
the prophet is to make sure that his message does not in any way contradict the Christian faith. It may be
suggested that the simplest and most satisfactory interpretation. . . . They are to be careful not to utter (under the
impression that they are inspired) anything which is incompatible with their believing in Christ."43

Recognising the fallibility of prophets

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

1. The Revelation.

2. The Application.

3. The Interpretation.

Regarding the revelation, we would expect there would be no mistakes because God never offers anything
imperfect or faulty. However, it is possible that mistakes could be made at stages 2 and 3 in the interpretation
and application.44

27
Frederick Harder asks the following hard questions to help us gain some insights into the fallibility of prophets.
"A recognition of this fallibility raises several questions. How can personal prejudices and errors be
distinguished from the divine word? How far were the prophet's natural faculties overruled or held in abeyance?
On the other hand, to what extent were they heightened, sensitized, or strengthened in order to receive and
understand the word revealed? How competent was the prophet to accurately communicate the message?
Finally, and just as important, how competent am I to understand what he or she said?

No simple, definitive answers exist. Certainly the prophet's mind did not become a typewriter or a recording
tape used by the Spirit as an inanimate device. The prophet's personality was not absorbed in or merged with
the Divine. Prophets sometimes even argued with God over the content of a message, as did Moses, Amos, and
Habakkuk."45

That prophets do not always comprehend clearly what God is revealing is made clear by Peter's "wondering
about the meaning of the vision" (Acts 10:17). It was some time later that he understood that it meant Gentiles
were to be accepted in the same way as the Jews (verses 34-35). Peter seems to indicate that this was a problem
for Old Testament prophets as well as they pondered what God was revealing to them about Christ and His
sufferings (1 Peter 1:10-11).

Prophets cannot perform at the level of Christ. He was always stating what was truth because He was God. As
such He was omniscient. Ordinary humans can not perform at the same level. They may move from a statement
of faith revealed by God to a denial of the implications of what has been revealed, as seen in the experience of
Peter. After having declared his faith in Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah,
for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Jesus is saying in effect
that this was a prophetic revelation given to Peter. Perhaps prophecy can be defined as that gift of the Spirit
whereby that which believers need to know at a certain time is revealed to them. If this is correct then this was a
prophetic revelation given to Peter.

Shortly after, Jesus began to explain to them His death. Peter responded by rebuking Christ. "'Never, Lord!' he
said. 'This shall never happen to you.' Jesus then rebuked him by saying, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a
stumbling block to me; you do not say the things of God, but the things of men'" (verses 22-23). This passage
should cause us to think carefully of how a person can be used of God to make prophetic statements and yet
soon after the human element can take over and be way off course in their statements.

It seems that God corrects errors only when the prophet's mistake endangers the central message itself. That is,
if the mistake would endanger spiritual welfare. Revelation 19:10 is such an example. John knelt before the
angel. This is breaking the second commandment. Immediately the angel intervenes and corrects the error.

No doubt if you were a prophet it would take faith to believe that God had spoken, that you as a prophet had
understood it correctly, and that you had delivered the message correctly to God's people. What a fearful
responsibility! Think of the implications in the lives of the hearers if you got it wrong.46

Added to the statement Paul made in Romans is another statement that can be quite disturbing, particularly for
those who always like to see things in black and white, and clear-cut. "For we know in part and we prophesy in
part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. . . . Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror;
then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known" (1
Corinthians 13:9-10, 12). Commenting on verse 9 the SDA Bible Commentary states, "The gifts of knowledge
and prophecy provide only partial glimpses of the inexhaustible treasures of divine knowledge. This limited
knowledge will appear to be all but cancelled in the superior brightness of the eternal world, as the light of a
candle loses its importance when placed in the bright light of the sun."47

Paul makes an important point here. Even prophets have only partial knowledge. How can finite beings
understand the mind of the infinite? The gift of prophecy is not the gift of omniscience. We must not put the
prophet up alongside Christ. He knew everything because He was "God with us." But this is not true of the
28
prophets. G. B. Caird says, "The prophet before all else is a man, and it is by the heightening of his normal
human faculties that he attains his depth of insight. But like all men he is fallible. He may imperfectly
understand the word that is spoken to him. He may lack the interpretive powers to make clear to others what he
has seen. Though he be far in advance of his age, he cannot wholly divest himself of the way of thought in
which he has been brought up."48

An example of what Caird is referring to is found in Psalm 121:6: "The sun will not harm you by day, nor the
moon by night." We understand how the sun can harm us by day. We could be sun-struck. But how can the
moon harm us by night? "This passage is poetic in form," writes George Reid, "meant to assure us that in every
circumstance God is our protector. However it illustrates an important fact: While God was revealing Himself
and His truth to the ancients, He did not at the same time correct every misunderstanding they had accepted as a
part of their culture. This is especially true of their views of the natural phenomena.

"Virtually every ancient society believed in a natural world manipulated by gods and demons. One of the Lord's
most difficult tasks was to teach His people that He is the only true God. Sunstroke, in the popular mind, was
viewed as the act of a demon active at midday. The night demon, it was supposed, inflicted mental derangement
or other maladies. Elements of this popular view persist to modern times in our terms, lunacy, lunatic, and the
slang term 'loony', words based on luna, a Latin term for moon. . . . The Bible describes the ancients as
believing certain things about the operation of nature that we now know to be inaccurate. Even inspired Bible
writers, while they received truth from God, were not, in the process of inspiration, purged of all incidental
misbeliefs."49

This example given by Reid can be multiplied. There can be no doubt that God does meet people where they
are in many of their cultural concepts. Think about the difficulty we have with Old Testament laws such as
those that deal with slavery, the treatment of women and blood vengeance. Nor are our concerns limited to the
Old Testament. As God unfolds the life-giving message of His Son He uses their cultural concepts in order to
speak to them in a meaningful way.

He uses a star to guide the Magi to the baby Jesus. The Magi were Eastern astrologers.50 In the ancient world it
was believed that the stars were gods who lived in the heavens above the clouds. The Magi accepted that this
star-god could move through the sky and guide them as they sought a specific house in Bethlehem.

On some occasions when Jesus healed He used spittle. He spat on a blind man's eyes and put spittle on the
tongue of a deaf man (Mark 7:32-33; Mark 8:22-23; John 9:1-6). Pliny the Elder explains that it was believed in
the time of Christ that spittle had healing properties. Jesus used this thought pattern as He demonstrated His
healing power.

Just preceding the return of Jesus the Bible describes the stars falling from heaven upon the earth (Revelation
6:13, Matthew 24:29). Today we know that stars do not fall to the earth. If one did we would be consumed.
What they thought were shooting stars we now know to be meteors. The Bible uses the language of the culture
of the times in which it was written.

As Jesus returns the Bible describes how the "heavens will disappear" (2 Peter 3:10) and "rolled up like a
scroll" (Revelation 6:14). The ancients believed the sky was a solid vault or canopy therefore it could be parted
or rolled up like a scroll.51

Prophets do not have all knowledge

Just in case we are inclined to think that prophets used of God possessed the gift of omniscience, consider John
the Baptist. Did he have a correct understanding of the nature of the kingdom to be set up by the Messiah? He
was the greatest of the prophets. He was God's special messenger to herald the coming of the Messiah and yet
when he was put in prison he almost lost his faith. He, along with the other disciples, believed that Christ would

29
set up a kingdom on earth. When Christ did not do this he sent some of his followers to ask Christ if He really
was the Messiah (Matthew 11:3).

John the Baptist had some things to learn and some things to unlearn. Remember when he was asked what was
required for eternal life he did not outline salvation by grace but rather told his inquirers to reform their lives
(Luke 3:11-14). Later his converts had to be re-baptised when they grew in their understanding beyond what he
had imparted (Acts 19:1-5).

In fact prophets may not even understand what the message Gods has given to them in vision really means. For
the first decade the Christian Church had a "shut door" view regarding to whom salvation in Christ was to be
offered. They felt their message was just for the Jews. Even though Christ said the message was to go the ends
of the earth, they did not see the openness of the gospel invitation clearly. So God gave Peter a vision on the
rooftop at Joppa (Acts 10). Some unclean animals were paraded before Peter and he was told to arise, kill and
eat. Coming out of the vision it says, "Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision . . ." (verse 17). He
was not sure what God was trying to reveal to him. Later he said, "God has shown me that I should not call any
man impure or unclean" (verse 29).

This is an excellent example of a prophet receiving a vision, not knowing what it was supposed to be teaching,
but future experience helped him to understand. Of course some of the prophets never understood the vision
they were given. Daniel never understood the 2300 evenings and mornings revealed in Daniel 8:14. He says in
verse 27, "I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding."

Peter comments on the prophets of the Old Testament as having "searched intently and with the greatest care,
trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he
predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1:10-11). No doubt Isaiah was one
such prophet who struggled to understand the sufferings of the faithful servant passages found in his book.

Some may wonder if the prophet always had an open line to God. That is, on all occasions they will have God's
answer to the situation. The evidence indicates that this is not correct. When challenged by Hananiah, Jeremiah
has no answer but walks away. Later he receives the answer (Jeremiah 28:10-11). Again, Jeremiah talks of how
on one occasion he meditated for ten days to receive an answer from God (Jeremiah 42:7). Elijah declares he is
not under inspiration regarding the problems facing the Shunamite woman when he declares "...the Lord has
hidden it from me and has not told me why." (2 Kings 4:27). There is even evidence of a need for a type of
spiritual tuning in. On one occasion Elisha called for a harpist to help him tune in and prophesy. Walter Kaiser
Jr. adds, "[Music] had the effect of quieting the disturbed thoughts and attitudes of the prophets, and of setting
theology in the context of doxology."52

King David inquired of his court prophet Nathan regarding the building of a temple. Should he do this? Nathan
responded, yes God is with you. It seems that the prophet gave advice that was not from God. That night God
told Nathan to go back and tell David he was not to build the temple because he was a man of blood. Solomon
his son was to build the temple (1 Chronicles 17:1-4).

On one occasion Paul was about to set sail for Rome. The time of year was dangerous for sailing because of the
frequency of storms. "So Paul warned them, 'Men, I can see that our voyage is going to be disastrous and bring
great loss to ship and cargo, and to our lives also'" (Acts 27:10). Later the storm hit savagely. They were
discouraged and now Paul gives a different message, "But now I urge you to keep your courage, because not
one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I
serve stood beside me and said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has
graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you'" (verses 22-24).

It would seem that the statement of disaster was Paul giving his opinion in view of the circumstances under
which they were going to sail. He was talking without having received a revelation. Later, when God spoke to
him, the revelation gave an entirely different message.
30
We can conclude that what God has revealed to the prophet they can speak with confidence. However there will
be many situations where they will be merely giving their own opinion. And when they give their own opinion,
they have no greater wisdom than anyone else. Inspiration is not a permanent attainment in the life of the
prophet. "In many ways prophets are just like other people," says Kenneth Wood. "They eat, they sleep, they
hear, the read, they learn, the speak, they travel. Prophets may be well informed in some areas of knowledge
and poorly informed in others."53

A. A. MacRae agrees with Wood when he gives the examples of Nathan giving David wrong advice and
Samuel not having the right idea of who was to be next king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:6-13): "Thus the prophet
might know a portion of the divine will but be completely incognizant of other portions. (Cf. 1 Cor 13:9. 'For
our knowledge is imperfect, and our prophecy is imperfect.')"54
________________________

40 See C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, (New York: Harper and Row, 1957, p. 23). Also, A. T.
Robertson, Word Studies in the New Testament,. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1931). Vol. lV, p. 403. [back]

41 David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (London,England: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979), p. 119 [back]

42 New Living Translation, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1996). [back]

43 C. E. B. Cranfield. The International Critical Commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to Romans, (Edinburgh, England: T. and T. Clark, 1979), pp. 620-621. [back]

44 Perhaps an example of this is to be seen in the prophetic activity of Agabus in Acts chapter 21. In verse 10-
11 he prophesies that Paul will be bind him and hand him over to the Gentiles. When the prophecy is fulfilled
[verses 30-33] there are two small mistakes. 1. It wasn't the Jews who bound Paul. They were trying to kill him.
It was the Romans who bound him. 2. The Jews did not hand him over to the Gentiles; the Gentiles took him
off them and rescued Paul. The general idea of Agabus is correct; but some of the details are wrong. Agabus is
a prophet of experience; yet he seems to have some details incorrect. Could it be that God revealed to him the
trouble ahead and Agabus had to fill in some of the details? We will never know the answer to this question,
however the important point for us to bear in mind is that the looseness here does not seem to worry Luke. He
does not apologize for it; nor does he see the need to touch things up to make them look better. [back]

45 James L. Hayward, ed. Creation Reconsidered, (Roseville, CA:. Assn. of Adventist Forums),. 2000. Article
by Frederick Harder, "Prophets: Infallible or Authoritative" p. 226. [back]

46 One cannot help getting the impression from Jeremiah's writings in Lamentations of how easy it would be
for a prophet to have some self-doubts about their work. In Jeremiah 20:7-9 he seems to express anger at God
as he lamented how he has been treated by others because he gave God's message to them. [back]

47 6SDABC, p. 784. [back]

48 G. B. Caird, The Truth of the Gospel, (London, England: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 59. [back]

49 George Reid, Windows on the Word article entitled "Smitten by the moon?" Adventist Review, April 28,
1983. p. 7. [back]

50 There seems to be a general consensus on this point. For example, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, IVP,
Leicester, England: 1980. Article "Magi" p. 930, Vol. 2. "Both Daniel and Herodotus may contribute to the
understanding of the Magi of Mt. 2:1-12. Apparently the Magi were non-Jewish religious astrologers who, from
astronomical observations, inferred the birth of a great Jewish King." [back]

31
51 These points regarding the ministry of Jesus are adapted from an unpublished, undated paper by Richard
Way entitled "Heaven In Ancient Cosmology." [back]

52 Walter Kaiser, Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Prophecy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989),
p. 76. [back]

53 Kenneth Wood, Hear the Word of the Lord. A Bible study presented at the 1975 General Conference session
in Vienna and published in the Review and Herald, July 16, 1975, p. 11. [back]

54 Merrrill C. Tenny, Editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1975). See Article by A. A. MacRae, "Prophets and Prophecy," p. 880. [back]

32
Chapter Seven

Testing prophets
This is a complex subject. And some of the complexities are shown in the story of two prophets found in 1
Kings 13:1-32. Here, a true prophet courageously makes a prediction before a wicked king who seeks to harm
him, but God works a miracle to save his life. On the way home he meets an older prophet who lies to deceive
him into coming to his house for a meal. The younger prophet goes against what God had clearly instructed
him. While at the meal the older prophet, now under the Spirit of God, makes a prophecy regarding the death of
the younger prophet who has disobeyed God. That prediction comes to pass when the younger prophet is killed
by a lion. The older prophet appears to be remorseful and gathers the body for burial.

This is a puzzling and disturbing story that breaks many of the rules we would think should operate regarding
the judging of a prophet to be true or false.55 The older prophet speaks both lies and, as well, gives a true
prophecy described as the "word of the Lord." The younger prophet gives a true prophecy, but is deceived into
disobedience and loses his life. It teaches, as does the story of Baalam, that someone may have been a true
prophet and yet become a false or apostate prophet.

How not to judge a prophet

How then shall we judge a true prophet from a false prophet? First, Let us consider how not to judge a true
prophet.

1. Not by physical manifestations

Daniel experienced loss of strength (Daniel 10:8), he did not breathe (Daniel 10:17) and he was given extra
strength (Daniel 10:18-19). But

it is well known that these experiences can be found in the occult as well as in biblical prophets; therefore the
Bible never sets them up as a means of testing true prophets from false. In fact, if we were to judge some
biblical prophets by the way they conduct themselves we would be inclined to lock them away in an appropriate
place.

Isaiah walked naked through the streets of Jerusalem for three years. Ezekiel seemed to be playing war games
like a little boy. He took a clay tablet and drew on it the city of Jerusalem and made a siege against it. He lay on
his side for many days out in the open. He cut off his hair and divided it up. He threw some of it into the wind
and some he burned. He cut a hole in a wall and began to drag furniture through. Jeremiah smashed a pot before
his listeners and later wore a wooden yoke around his neck. Day after day he stood at the entrance to the temple
and plagued the life out of people with his doomsday predictions.

Old Testament prophets can appear to be strange people at times. Why did they act as they did? One answer is
that there were cultural expectations made of them. If they did not meet those expectations the people would
most likely not take any notice. This explains why Aune56 and Forbes,57 authors of two of the classic works on
prophecy in the ancient world and the Bible, spend so much time considering prophecy in the ancient
Mediterranean world. Aune makes this observation, "Prophetic or messianic leaders who might arise were
expected to conform to various preconceived images of what such eschatological figures should say and do."58
We would expect a prophet to act differently from one age to another in harmony with the cultural expectation
of the times in which they live. This we would expect to be true of both true and false prophets.

The Encyclopedia of Religion adds, "In ancient Israel, as in every society, the behavior of divinely possessed
individuals followed certain stereotypical patterns, although these patterns varied somewhat depending on the
historical, geographical, and social setting of the prophet's activities. . . . Individuals who wished to be
33
accredited as prophets were thus subtly pressed to conform to the group's picture of genuine prophetic behavior.
Prophetic actions. Biblical writers rarely describe behavior indicative of possession, but the existence of
stereotypical prophetic actions can be inferred by the Bible's occasional

use of the verb hitnabbe', which seems to mean 'to act like a prophet, to exhibit the behavior characteristic of a
nabi.' . . . It is clear, however, that the prophet's characteristic behavior was evaluated positively by some
groups but negatively by others. In some cases it was seen as a sign of divine legitimation and favor (Nm 11:
11-29, 1 Sam 10: 1-13), while on other occasions it was considered an indication of madness or possession by
an evil spirit ( 1 Sam. 18:10-11, 19: 18-24; 1 Kgs. 18:26-29; Jer. 29:24-28)."59

J. Lindblom shows how the physical experiences and claims of the prophets of Israel were not unlike those of
nations around them who claimed to have contact with their own peculiar deities.60 Both true and false prophets
can have many of the same physical manifestations. No doubt they often did as there would be an expectation
by the people as to how a prophet should act. Acting against expectations could lead to rejection.

In the New Testament concept of prophecy, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14: 32 that "the spirits of the
prophets are subject to the control of the prophets" makes the point that true prophets are rational and under
control as they prophesy. We would not expect them to be acting as did the pagans in their irrational behaviour.
While prophets may have visions in an ecstatic state, they were to declare them in a rational manner.

2. Not by prophecies coming to pass in isolation from other factors

Jeremiah 28:9 is often quoted regarding the need for prophecies to come to pass in order to tell a true prophet
from a false prophet. Is this the right passage of Scripture to use? It deserves close consideration: "The prophet
who prophecies peace will be recognised as one truly sent by the Lord only if his prediction comes true."

The context of this passage is of a prophetic contest between Jeremiah and Hananiah. Hananiah says there will
be peace for Jerusalem and Judah; while Jeremiah says the Babylonians will come and destroy the city of
Jerusalem, and the Kingdom of Judah will fall. Jeremiah responds by saying that if Hananiah's prophecy of
peace comes to pass then they will know that God has spoken through him. In other words,

this is a specific situation being addressed. It ought not to be used as a blanket statement regarding testing
prophets if they are true or false on a basis of whether what they say comes to pass.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 shows why this can be dangerous, and gives a more complete picture regarding fulfillment
of prediction as a test. "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you
a miraculous sign or a wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let
us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) and 'let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of
that prophet or dreamer. . . . That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion
against the Lord your God. . ."

This passage warns that if a miraculous sign or wonder takes place as foretold by a prophet, this is not of itself
sufficient to say that that prophet is of God. False prophets, may, at times, predict events that come to pass. We
see this through the powers operating within the occult. Evil angels can work through human agencies to
foretell the future with greater accuracy than humans left to themselves. This passage tells us that the prophet
must also teach us to worship the One True God and give obedience to Him.

James Dunn comments about "the problem of false prophecy—the problem of how to discern whether
inspiration is of God or not. At first sight the answer seems simple—the test of fulfillment and non-fulfillment:
the false prophecy will fail, only the true prophecy will be fulfilled. This was the earliest and most regular test
used in the Old Testament (1Sam 3:19; 1 Kgs. 8:56; Jer. 28:9; Isa. 41:21-24; 42:9; Ezek. 33:33), and finds its
classical expression in Deut 18:22. The trouble was that sometimes the word of a false prophet did come true,
and sometimes the word of a true prophet was not fulfilled; Yahweh could change his mind (2 Kgs. 20:1-7)."61
34
We must be careful in using fulfilment of prophecy to test a true prophet from a false prophet. Do we consider
Jonah to be a false prophet because Nineveh was not destroyed as he predicted? Obviously there are,
sometimes, certain conditions to be met in the fulfilment of some prophecies even though the conditions may
not be stated at the time the prophecy is given. Jonah did not state any conditions and yet in the mind of God
there were conditions involved.

hen considering the fulfilment of prophecy for judging true and false prophets we must always keep in mind the
following statement made through Jeremiah, "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be
uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not
inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built
up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had
intended to do for it" (Jeremiah 18:7-10).

Sometimes when prophets predict the future they do so in order that something can be done about it—to bring
about repentance and a right relationship with God, and so avoid the prophecy of judgment coming upon them.
For instance. In Jeremiah 26:16-19 some of the elders argue that Jeremiah should not be put to death because
Micah had also prophesied doom for Jerusalem and it did not happen because of a right response from
Hezekiah.62

Think of the returning exiles from Babylon. Ezekiel had prophesied of the building of a glorious temple in the
last chapters of his book. When they built Zerubbabel's temple some of them wept that it was not as glorious as
Solomon's. It certainly was nothing like the glorious temple Ezekiel had predicted. Did this make Ezekiel a
false prophet? Certainly not. Their poor response led to a poorer temple than God had promised. God had also
promised a glorious future for the nation that was never realised.

Another reason why fulfilment must be limited as a test of a true prophet is that sometimes there may be a delay
in the fulfilment. A whole generation may live and die and not see the prophecy come to pass as predicted. An
example of this would be Ezekiel's prediction that Tyre would be destroyed and cast into the sea. It was
destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and then lay in ruins for many generations until Alexander the Great unwittingly
fulfilled the prophecy. Think of all those who lived and died and never saw the complete fulfilment of what
Ezekiel had prophesied.

Sometimes when prophecies are given by true prophets there are conditions to be met in order for the prophecy
to come to pass. In giving the prophecy there may be built in safeguards that can be difficult to detect at first.
For example, Paul appeared to give people in his age the hope that Christ would return in their time. That is,
while the present generation was still living. He wrote to the Thessalonians and Corinthians: "According to the
Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly
not precede those who have fallen asleep. . . . After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air . . . ." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, emphasis added).
"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51, emphasis
added).

To the first readers and hearers it would appear to be quite clear that Paul was promising them that some would
live through to see Christ come. Certainly that is how the Thessalonians understood him as some began to stop
working because they felt the coming of Christ was so near. Paul rebuked them for this in his second letter
where he appears to modify his earlier statement to suggest the coming of Christ may still be further down the
track because the "man of sin" must first arise to do his anti-Christian work.

It has often been debated within the ranks of Christians what Paul meant by these statements. Could Christ
really have come in the lifetime of those people in the first century? The fact that He did not does not lead us to
the conclusion that Paul was a false prophet. Maybe there were some conditions in the mind of God that did not
allow the coming of Christ in the first century. In Christ's parables there are hints of a delay. That is, the
parousia could take longer than many expected.63
35
Another reason we must be careful in using fulfilment of prophecy as the means of judging true prophets from
false is found in the nature of God. God is active and dynamic. If He chooses He may not limit Himself to
fulfilling the prophecy the way in which it was originally given. It is possible that God may choose to exceed
the original prediction and, because of this, the existing generation may fail to recognise that the prophecies are
being fulfilled.

A good example of this is seen in how Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies concerning His coming as the long
awaited Messiah. The Jewish leaders made the point that He could not be the long awaited one because He was
a Galileen from Nazareth. They correctly pointed out that no prophet was predicted to come from of Nazareth.
They knew Bethlehem was predicted in Micah 5:2. However, the prophecy had been fulfilled when Christ was
born in Bethlehem but later He went and lived in Galilee. This they did not expect.

It is difficult for us to put ourselves in the mind-set of the Jews of Christ's day because we have the New
Testament, which shows us the way in which Christ did fulfill the prophecies. But if we were able to put
ourselves into the same situation as the Jews in Palestine in the 1st century with no New Testament to guide us
would be have been any wiser?

Try this as an exercise some time: Can you find from the Old Testament prophecies about the incarnation of
Christ? That is, the fact that the Creator would Himself become a babe at Bethlehem. Can you find in the Old
Testament the fact that He would die the death of crucifixion? Can you find from the Old Testament alone that
the Messiah would be resurrected? Remember you are to do this without the help of the New Testament. At
best, this is not an easy task. And yet these three events are pivotal in the ministry of Jesus. The fulfilment of
prophecy can be full of surprises. God is not limited by what He has previously said. He is dynamic, ever
moving forward, expanding the scope of His purposes and our understanding of them. Often giving more than
what He has promised.

3. Not by inerrancy of lifestyle

Although godliness was the usual direction of their lives, we do see the best of prophets stumbling and falling at
times. We should be careful not to judge them on their worst times, which may be fleeting compared to the
overwhelming amount of their lives which were godly. Note these: Abraham (the first person ever to be called a
prophet) denied Sarah was his wife and told the half-truth that she was his sister (Genesis 12: 10-20). Samuel
deceived Saul into thinking he was going out to make a sacrifice when in reality he was going out to anoint
David as king (1 Samuel 16:2). David lied to the High Priest to get the consecrated bread (1 Samuel 21:1-9). He
was also a mass murderer and an adulterer. Jeremiah lied to the people at the king's suggestion (Jeremiah 38:24-
29).

Moses lost his temper and had to be disciplined by God because of his rash actions (Numbers 20: 9-13). Some
of the most magnificent prophecies found in the Old Testament regarding the coming of Christ were uttered by
Balaam who was an apostate (Numbers 22-24).64 Elijah fled in despair and wished to die (1 Kings 19: 3-5).

In the New Testament, Peter is led astray in his judgment by the Judaisers and withdrew from eating with
Gentiles. He was later rebuked by Paul for denying "the truth of the gospel" (Galatians 2: 11-14). Earlier,
though, he had been given a vision to show that all people were equal in the sight of God (Acts 10:9-48). After
realising the significance of the vision and declaring it to others he later fails to live by what had been revealed
to him and what he had proclaimed to others.

Paul had a sharp disagreement with Barnabas about the future ministry of Mark. He did not think him worthy to
go with him on his next missionary journey and they parted company. Paul went with Silas and Barnabas took
Mark with him. Subsequent events showed that Barnabas showed better judgment than Paul. Mark performed
well when given the chance (Acts 15:36-41).

36
We must recognise that prophets are human, like the rest of us. They can make mistakes. They can follow poor
advice. They can misjudge a situation. They can be discouraged and irritable. They may be well informed in
some areas and not so in other areas. Even prophets used mightily by God are still very human. The danger is
that we may expect them to have the perfection we see in Christ. The truth is that no one has lived as He lived.
If they fail at times it does not make them false prophets because of their lapses.

How then shall we judge prophets?

Regarding Old Testament prophets, Craig Evans has some helpful advice: "The difference lay in their
hermeneutics. The false prophets and other 'official theologians' (that is, the priests and wise men) maintained a
hermenutic of continuity. That is, after reviewing Israel's sacred traditions, they were convinced that the God of
Israel who had bought His people out of the land of slavery and into the land of promise would surely preserve
His people in that land. If Yahweh had the power to humble mighty Pharaoh, deliver Canaan into Israel's hands
and enable David to capture and establish Jerusalem as the holy city, then Yahweh could always be expected to
crush Israel's enemies in her hour of need. . . . despite Israel's sin God still remains gracious. . . . It induced the
belief that Yahweh was God only of the Hebrews and never of the enemy. Thus the official theologians
attempted to limit, localize, and domesticate God for the immediate and short range interests of Israel. Such a
hermeneutic sought to manipulate God: 'if we do this then He must do that.' If Israel got into trouble then
repentance and reform obligated Yahweh to straighten things out. The false prophet's messages of reassurance
which were sweet to the ears—failed to inform Israel prophetically. When crushing events unfolded, the words
of these prophets were found to be false. Their messages had failed to explain to Israel who her God was and
what He was like. History had judged their hermeneutic to be false.

The true prophet, likewise, appealed to these same Torah traditions. He agreed that Yahweh was indeed
powerful enough to maintain His people in His land . . . but Yahweh was also powerful enough to take Israel
out of the land and put her back into exile . . . . Yahweh was the God of all peoples. . . . Yahweh was also the
God of Israel's enemies. To suppose He is not is tantamount to polytheism, that is, in the sense that Israel's
enemies have real gods. . . . Those prophets who spoke as true monotheists became part of and contributed to
this process and so became 'Bible.' . . . The false prophet, by way of contrast was bound primarily with the
interests of the people rather than with God."65

How could a king—sitting on his throne, with two sets of prophets speaking entirely different messages—
determine who was speaking on behalf of God? The answer was to be found in the fact that the false prophets
offered prosperity without repentance. They preached the gospel without the law. The writings of the true
prophets are full of complaint against them. For example Jeremiah complained, "From the least to the greatest,
all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as
though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say when there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:13-14).

True prophets stressed that God's people had to turn from their evil ways or face the consequences. They
preached "repent or perish" (Ezekiel 14:6; 18:30). As such they were the guardians of the covenant God had
made with Israel. They were there to remind Israel of the promised blessings, which come from obedience and
the curses that had been promised from disobedience.

In New Testament times the classic test of a true prophet is the statement made by Jesus: "Watch out for false
prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will
recognize them. . . . Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform miracles?' Then I will tell them
plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7:15-23).

This passage of Scripture is of vital importance to testing true prophets from false. Here Jesus Himself lays
down clear criteria. It is not by laying claim to working in the name of Jesus. It is not by miraculous

37
manifestations whether that may be the physical manifestations accompanying the prophet's work. It is not by
driving out demons.

The real test is that of obedience. Verse 23 says, literally, "Depart from me the [ones] working lawlessness."
The word translated "lawlessness" is anomia. Nomia means "lawfulness" and an "a" before a word in Greek
means "against." It is the equivalent of "un" in English and reverses the meaning of an adjective. So the word
literally means "against the law" or "unlawfulness".

True prophets will uphold obedience to God's law both in their lives and in the lives of others. Jesus illustrates
this when He states in verses 24-27 that it was the wise man who built his house on the rock. He obeyed the
words of Jesus. It was the foolish man who built his house on the sand and lost it. He was foolish because he
did not obey the words of Christ.

When prophesying of the coming of the day of the Lord, Peter states another important work of prophets with
the challenge to live holy lives. "Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you
to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming" (2
Peter 3:11-12).

Paul provides some additional ideas on how to test true prophecy from false when he addressed the church in
Corinth. First he says they can not be true prophets if they cried out, "Jesus be cursed!" (1 Corinthians 12:3).
Second, true prophecy will edify and build up the community of believers (1 Corinthians 14:4, 31). For John
the test was that the prophet must acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3). For both
Paul and John the important test for a prophet can vary according to the local situation and the issues being
faced.

The great test to be applied to prophets, to determine if they are true or false is, Do they call us to worship the
true God and give obedience to his laws by living a holy life? If we have erred from the faith they will call us to
repent and give obedience to God's Word. They will call us away from false worship. This puts the test within
the understanding of the educated and the uneducated alike.

And for Paul, anyone claiming they are from God will preach the true gospel. Even if they are an angel from
heaven, if they preach not the true gospel they should be eternally condemned (Galatians 1: 6-11). The gospel
Paul claimed was revealed to him by direct revelation is spelt out by him: "Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . . ." (1
Corinthians 15:3-4).

_______________

55 See D. W. Van Winkle, "1 Kings 13: True and False Prophecy," Vetus Testamentum 29 1989, p. 31. Van
Winkle quoted J. L. Crenshaw as saying "At the outset it must be declared that this passage deals the death
knell to every attempt to specify absolute criteria by which to differentiate the true from the false prophet."
[back]

56 David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1985). [back]

57 Christopher, Forbes: Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment,
Ph.D. diss., Macquarie University, 1987. [back]

58 Aune, p.121. [back]

59 The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12 Edition, Mircea eliade, (NY: MacMillan Pub. 1987), article
"Prophecy", p.17. [back]
38
60 J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, (Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press,1976), pp. 29-46. [back]

61 James D. G. Dunn, The Christ and The Spirit, Vol. 2, Pneumatology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998),
pp. 29-30. [back]

62 The prophesy was made in Micah 3:12 and avoided by Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:3-6.[back]

63 Christ gave some parables towards the end of His famous sermon on the end of the world to illustrate the
unexpected timing of His return. In them are some hints of the timing being longer than many would think.

• The unfaithful servant said to himself "My master is staying away a long time" Matthew 24:48.
In the parable of he Ten Virgins there was a lapse of time which caused them all to "become drowsy and
fall asleep" 25:5
In the parable of the talents He stated "After a long time the master of those servants returned. . . ."
25:19. [back]

64 Frederick Harder observes the following "Upon a review of biblical personalities identified as speaking or
acting under the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, we must conclude that perfection of character was not a
qualification required for their selection. Cain, murderer of his brother, received the first message from God
outside of Eden of which we have record. The pagan king, Abimelech, was given a divinely inspired dream.
Jephtha—bastard son of a harlot, bandit chief, and killer of his daughter—was victorious recipient of 'the Spirit
of the Lord.' The song of the prophetess Deborah was not only one of gladness in victory but also of exultation
in vengeance. Creation Reconsidered, (Roseville, CA: Assn. of Adventist Forums, 2000). Article. "Prophets:
Infallible or Authoritative", Frederick E. J. Harder, pp. 226-7. [back]

65 Craig A. Evans. Animadversiones Paul and the Hermeneutics of "True Prophecy": A Study of Romans 9-11,
Biblica, v. 65, No. 4, pp. 560-570, 1984. [back]

39
Chapter Eight

Change in the prophetic role

The gift of prophecy is manifested in a variety of ways in the Bible. But first we need to define the word
"prophet" from the Bible and note the different ways the word is used at various periods of biblical history.

The first time the word is used is in reference to Abraham where Abimelech is told that Abraham is a prophet
(Genesis 20:7). Here the word nabi is used, which is the usual Old Testament word for describing a prophet.
More meaning is established in Exodus where, after Moses declared his lack of eloquence, God said to him that
He would appoint Aaron his brother to act as his prophet (nabi). "See, I have made you like God to Pharoah,
and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother
Aaron is to tell Pharoah. . . ." (Exodus 7:1-2).

The nabi then was one who spoke on behalf of God. From the experience of Samuel we learn that the nabi was
one to whom God revealed Himself and received messages directly from God (1 Samuel 3:7, 21). In the case of
Samuel it was information that had contemporary relevance and was not a result of his own meditation or
philosophical speculation. During the time of Samuel the period of the Judges gave way to the monarchy. At
this time we see two distinct types of Old Testament prophets develop. Samuel takes on the title of seer (roeh
and chozeh are the words usually translated as "seer") which seem to be used interchangeably with nabi to
describe the work of Samuel.

Clifford Hill suggests that during this time the seer was primarily the solitary contemplative figure while the
nabi became primarily associated with bands of roaming prophets who had more ecstatic types of experiences.
66
He also notes that the nabi during this time had ecstatic experiences that, on one occasion, were shared by
Saul. These prophets would go about in procession from the high places playing musical instruments while they
were prophesying.

Music appears to have played an important part in their style of prophesying. Later David set apart the sons of
Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun for the ministry of prophesying accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals (1
Chronicles 25:1). Prophecy appears now to have become an attempt to enter the presence of God both to
worship and receive guidance from Him. Prophetic activities in the Old Testament appear to include not only
receiving messages from God, but also include some forms of music and praise. Samuel joined in with other
prophets and it seems that prophesying could come upon people involuntarily at times, as in the case of Saul
and his messengers (1 Samuel 19:20-23).

Leon Wood builds a strong case to show that these OT experiences were not ecstatic frenzy. "In the first of the
two instances regarding Saul (1 Sam. 10), the thought would be that the prophets, coming down from the high
place with musical instruments, were again rendering praise to God. They could well have just been dismissed
from class, as noted earlier, and they could have had the custom of singing as they walked together to their
place of residence. This would account for Samuel's knowing ahead of time that they would be so engaged
when Saul met them. Then as to Saul's action when he did encounter them, the thought would be that he simply
joined in singing with them. The astonishment of those seeing him, when he did so, would have been due to his
otherwise timid nature. They had been accustomed to seeing him standing aside watching such activity, rather
than joining in with it."67

The understanding of prophecy developed to include not only a revelation from God; but included people
praising God in worship. This is consistent with New Testament usage as well.

David Aune summarises the variety of prophets found in the Old Testament: "Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha,
combined the characteristics of the holy man, the sage, the miracle worker, and the soothsayer . . . they were
associated with the holy places and religious ritual. . . . and could combine the roles of priest and prophet like
40
Samuel. . . . they were itinerants and moved about with some freedom, apparently living off the gifts and
offerings of those they served. Master prophets were given the title 'father.'. . . And presided over the prophetic
guilds called 'sons of the prophets.'. . . . these prophets would often prophesy in groups. . . .

"Cult and Temple Prophets. . . . Since priests were primarily attached to sanctuaries and to the temple cult in
Jerusalem. . . . many psalms, which were certainly part of the temple ritual appear to have had a prophetic
origin. . . . Court Prophets. . . . There are many references to Israelite prophets who convey divine messages for
Yahweh to the reigning monarchs. . . . Free Prophets. . . . the phenomenon of 'free prophecy', in contrast to
temple and court prophecy developed dramatically during the mid-eighth century BC. These prophets . . . were
reformers . . . to call Israel back to the ancient covenant traditions. . . ."68

The writer to the Hebrews correctly said, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at
many times and in various ways" (Hebrews 1:1).

New Testament prophecy

New Testament prophecy commences with the appearance of John the Baptist. In his dress and solitary style of
ministry he would appeal to the populace as being a prophet after the tradition of the Old Testament. In addition
he denounced immorality and wickedness and demanded repentance in view of the fact that God was about to
send His long awaited Messiah, who would punish the ungodly. In doing this he met the Old Testament
expectations of prophetic activity. This, with the power seen to attend his work, caused many to accept him as a
true prophet.

Although Jesus did not claim to be a prophet, many saw Him as such. His disciples saw Him as the fulfilment
of what Moses said regarding how God would raise up a prophet like himself (Deuteronomy 18:15, Acts 3:22-
26). That Jesus expected His followers to have prophetic inspiration is clear from Matthew 10:19-20: "But
when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to
say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." In John 16:12-15, Jesus
promised that the Holy Spirit would still speak to His followers after He has departed. But when the followers
of Christ say words, caused by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, it does not necessarily make them prophets.
All the followers of Christ are able at times to say words prompted by the Spirit. (Perhaps we could label them
"prophetic statements"). This does not necessarily make a person a prophet. We will see that this term seems to
be used in the biblical passages to describe those who are especially called and used by God for a prophetic
ministry.

A useful way of defining prophecy in the New Testament context is by saying it is the Spirit of God revealing
to believers what they need to know to meet specific situations. This is now a possibility for all believers; but
there are some specially chosen individuals who will receive the prophetic gift.69 As such they will be used
more frequently and be recognised as having the prophetic gift.

In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament anticipates that the gift of prophecy will become more
widespread. It will not be limited to the Hebrew race alone nor to a few select individuals as in the past. The
opening of the Christian era was accompanied by a powerful manifestation of the Gift of Prophecy.

Peter gave meaning to the outpouring of God's Spirit at Pentecost by saying, "This is what was spoken by the
prophet Joel: In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will
prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men
and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophecy" (Acts 2:16-18).

Peter is saying clearly that from now on God is going to pour out His Spirit upon all people regardless of race,
gender, age or social standing. The Holy Spirit will now abide in every believer. Ministries of ancient prophets,
priests and kings have now passed into the lives of ordinary people (Revelation 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9-10, 1
Corinthians 14:1).
41
James Dunn reflects upon the significance of Pentecost: "This application of the Joel prophecy to the infant
community in Jerusalem undoubtedly reflects the high spiritual enthusiasm which must have marked these
days—so rich and varied were their experiences of inspiration, the revelations given to them by God, that it
seemed evident that not just one or two had been singled out to manifest the prophetic gift, but all had been
anointed as prophets—the end time had come."70

Gerard Friedrich summarises the differences between the new gift of prophecy and the Old Testament gift of
prophecy: "The prophets of the NT have much in common with those of the OT and they rightly bear the same
name. Agabus, like the OT prophets . . . uses a symbolic action to intimate Paul's imprisonment. . . . The vision
of prophetic calling in Rev 1:9ff reminds us of the visions of the OT prophets in Is 6:1ff and Ez. 1:1ff . . . .

"But there are also differences between NT prophecy and that of the OT and Judaism. In the OT and Judaism
only a few were called to be prophets apart from the prophetic groups mentioned in the historical books of the
OT. . . . Now some NT prophets are given prominence, e.g. Agabus . . . Barnabas and Silas . . . the four
daughters of Phillip. . . . Fundamentally, however, prophecy is not restricted to a few men and women in
primitive Christianity. Acc. to Ac. 2:4; 4:31 all are filled with the prophetic Spirit and acc. to Ac. 2:16ff. It is a
specific mark of the age of fulfilment that the Spirit does not only lay hold of individuals but that all members
of the eschatological community without distinction are called to prophesy. In Corinth there was obviously a
greater number of prophets, for those who spoke at divine service had to be limited to two or three, 1C.14:29. In
spite of this, Paul urges the Corinthians to strive after the charisma of prophecy, 1C14:1,5,12,39. It is not the
gift of a chosen few. It can be imparted to any man even though in practice it may be limited to a comparatively
small circle.

"In comparison with OT prophecy the work of the NT prophets has undergone both an extension and a
restriction. . . . the NT prophet does not enjoy such unlimited authority as the Jewish prophet. . . . He is not an
unrestricted ruler over others. He is subject to their judgment. . . . He does not stand above the community; like
all the rest, he is a member of it. Closest to Jewish prophecy in this regard is the prophet of Rev. . . . Here there
can be no question of testing the correctness of his sayings . . . since they are declared to be reliable and true by
the supreme authority, God Himself . . . criticism of what he says is impossible."71

The Pentecost fulfilment indicates a wider number of people will now experience this gift. Paul in 1 Corinthians
14:1 encourages all believers to "eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy." At the same time
he states that not all will have this gift

(1 Corinthians 12:29). Paul does, however, rank the gift of prophecy over all the other gifts of grace. In 1
Corinthians 14:1 he admonishes them to desire spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. When he mentions the gifts
he repeatedly lists prophecy after the apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). Evangelists,
pastors and teachers are always listed behind prophets. In Ephesians 2:20 the prophets are with the apostles
listed as part of the foundation of the church.

There is a wide divergence in the way the gift operates in the New Testament. Wayne Grudem puts forward a
proposition, supported by D. A. Carson,72 suggesting that the successors to the Old Testament classical
prophets were the Apostles who were also prophets. Grudem gains support for his idea from the Greek form of
expressing apostle/prophets in Ephesians 2:20 as signifying the one person. However, although the Greek
language does allow for this concept it does not mean this understanding is watertight. His strongest argument
comes from the fact that it is the Apostles who are like the Old Testament prophets in that they are the authors
of the Scriptures. Luke being an exception.

He also argues that because of the widespread use of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament the word
prophet does not have the same authority as in the Old Testament, but the word Apostle carries immense
authority. Paul never claims authority on a basis of his being a prophet; but always on his apostleship (1
Corinthians 9:1-2).

42
Ben Witherington III adds, "On the issue of the office of prophet, Paul has little to say. He seems strangely
reluctant to use the term prophetes as a way of characterizing who he is and what his role is in the churches.
This contrasts dramatically with his use of the term 'apostle.' This reluctance is understandable when we
recognize that NT prophets did not have the same status, standing, or unquestioned authority as some of the OT
prophets. Rather, there is evidence from Paul suggesting that the utterances of Christian prophets needed to be
weighed, since it was possible for their prophecy, in the enthusiasm of the moment of revelation, to exceed the
proportion of their faith and understanding. Thus, on the one hand, Paul has to encourage even the 'charismatic'
Corinthians to seek to prophesy, and on the other hand, he has to urge the Thessalonians not to despise
prophecy or quench the Spirit. The prophet, it seems, did not have the highest honor rating in

Paul's communities. Yet Paul clearly rated prophets as very important to the early church, placing them behind
only the apostles in his lists of church roles and functionaries."73

Paul also clearly pulls rank on local prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38 where he says, "Did the word of God
originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually
gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself
will be ignored." Paul sees himself as one who passes on the words of Christ and calls for the local prophets to
acknowledge what he says; if not they will be ignored. It does appear that there are different levels of the gift of
prophecy operating in the New Testament.

Levels of the gift of prophecy

It is to these levels of the gift of prophecy we need to turn to understand the different functions and
manifestations of the gift in the New Testament. At perhaps the lowest level are some who are given a
revelation. There is no record of them receiving another and they are not called prophets. If a person is
recognised as a prophet the biblical text will usually stress that they are a prophet. However there are times
when believers will make prophetic statements. That is, a statement prompted by the Spirit.

For instance: There is a prophetic utterance by Mary (Luke 1:46-55). Zechariah the father of John the Baptist
makes a prophetic speech about Jesus (Luke 1:67-79). Simeon makes a prophetic speech also about Jesus (Luke
2:25-35). Even Caiaphas the apostate high priest unwittingly makes a prophecy about the significance of the
death of Christ (John 11:49-52). Ananias received a prophetic revelation regarding the life and work of Paul;
yet he is not called a prophet. He is simply called "a certain disciple" (Acts 9:10).

From these experiences we see that the Gift of Prophecy move upon a variety of individuals who may,
consciously or unconsciously, make prophetic statements. This may or may not happen to them again. None of
those mentioned here are ever called prophets. However, they gave prophetic messages.

All believers are encouraged by Paul to eagerly desire spiritual gifts especially the gift of prophecy (1
Corinthians 14:1). He also stated that not all will have this particular gift (1 Corinthians 12:29). According to
the statement made by Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21) we can expect a widespread use of the gift now that we
are in the age of the Spirit. However nowhere in the book of Acts do we find all of God's people exercising this
gift. It is reserved for those whom God chooses,

1 Corinthians 14 seems to be laying down the way in which the gift should operate at the local church level.
Some would call this congregational prophecy. The gift of prophecy is said to be for "strengthening,
encouragement, and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14:3). This gift includes a revelation (verse 30) and the prophet is
in control of his/her mind (verse 32). They must also speak in harmony with what Paul has previously taught
(verses 36-38). This form of prophecy operates when the congregation is assembled. It may be personal
encouragement or public testimonies.74 It must be a revelation to be a prophecy or it is simply a teaching.75

When prophesying, the local congregational prophets always have control of their minds.76 For the most part,
Christian prophecy is not a mindless experience, as often happens in paganism and the occult. At the same time
43
we must remember that John the Revelator seems to have an ecstatic experience when he says he was "in the
Spirit" (Revelation 1:10; 4:2; 17:3 and 21:10). He sees and hears what is beyond the normal comprehension of
the senses. Paul also seems to have had an ecstatic experience when he relates his vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1-
4.77 But for local prophets found in congregations Paul infers that there is no such ecstatic experience (1
Corinthians 14:32). Instead they are to be in control of their senses. They are fully aware of what they are doing
and, if speaking, can stop and hand over the right to speak to someone else. Some may have been given their
content before coming to the meeting. Some may be given their revelation while the meeting is on and feel a
compulsion to be given a hearing. The one who is prophesying must be in control sufficiently to be able to
bring his revelation to a halt in order to give way to another.

Chris Forbes comments on Christian prophecy and its relationship to preaching and teaching: "It seems to have
been far more 'for immediate consumption.' It was something about a particular time and place, at that time and
place. Was Christian prophecy basically the same as preaching? Probably not. As far as I can tell it wasn't a
matter of reading Scripture and expounding its meaning. The two examples in Acts certainly aren't exposition
of Scripture and don't even quote it. In fact, you never find prophecy in the New Testament closely linked with
expounding the Word of God. They were different things. Teachers and preachers expounded Scripture.
Prophets passed on direct revelations from God. . . . It was immediate, verbal, direct, about the congregational
situation. It wasn't of long term relevance."78

Ephesians 5:19 admonishes local Christians to "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.
Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord. . . ." Andrew Lincoln understands this as "speaking to one
another in psalms and hymns and songs inspired by the Spirit. . . . 'spiritual songs' to snatches of spontaneous
praise prompted by the Spirit. . . . the songs which the believers sing to each other are spiritual because they are
inspired by the Spirit. . . . Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20; Eph 5:14; 1 Tim 3:16 may provide some examples which
have found their way into the NT, to snatches of song freshly created in the assembly. . . . Believers who are
filled with the Spirit delight to sing the praise of Christ, and such praise comes not just from the lips but from
the individual's innermost being, from the heart, where the Spirit himself resides."79

This singing would possibly be the same singing that Paul refers to when he says, "So what shall I do? I will
pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my
mind" (1 Corinthians 14:15). No doubt the singing brought spiritual encouragement to the congregation in
harmony with what prophecy was meant to do as outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:3.

Paul also encourages the Thessalonians to treat this form of prophecy with respect (1 Thessalonians 5:20).80 For
those used by God to prophesy on a regular basis, it would seem they are actually called prophets. This could
include some at the local church level as pictured in 1 Corinthians 14 or even an itinerant prophet like Agabus
(Acts 11:27). It seems that the early church had a good supply of people who were recognised as prophets. Acts
13:1)

At the higher level were the Apostles who were also prophets (Ephesians 2:20). Paul uses an authority unlike
any other New Testament prophet. For instance, "Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle
spirit?" (1 Corinthians 4:21). "Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan
to be taught not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20).

If we see the Apostles as the successors of the Old Testament prophets we should not expect to treat their
messages with any less respect for they are the conveyers of Christ to us. They were instructed directly by
Christ. Paul is conscious of this When he states "For I received from the Lord what I passed on to you. . ." (1
Corinthians 11:23).

Paul zealously defends his authority not on the basis that he is a prophet; but an apostle. "Am I not free? Am I
not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord…." (1 Corinthians 9:1). "I want you to know, brothers, that the
gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it;
rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul's authority as an apostle means
44
his writings have become an important part of the Bible. To argue against his teachings would be in defiance of
the fact that the apostles were men taught directly by Christ and commissioned by Christ.81

Peter sees that the authority of the Old Testament prophets has been passed on to the New Testament apostles:
"I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and
Saviour through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2, emphasis added).

In New Testament times the status of the Old Testament prophet was given to the apostles who had seen Christ
in the flesh and been taught by Him. They had also been witnesses to His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22; 1
Corinthians 9:1

Chris Forbes offers a summary of early Christian prophecy with the following observations, "For most scholars
early Christian prophecy, like Gaul under the Romans, is divided into three parts. There are said to be
wandering Christian prophets, who travel from place to place, staying for differing periods with Christian
groups as they go. . . . There are said to be Christian prophets resident within congregations whose ministry
does not normally extend beyond those congregations. . . . Finally there are those Christians who, though
they are not considered 'prophets' in any regular or official sense, non the less occasionally prophesied. . . . The
evidence here is the theological conception of the New Testament writers that in some sense 'all the Lord's
people are prophets.'. . ."82

No doubt Forbes has in mind wandering Christian prophets like Agabus who seemed to have others accompany
him. (Acts 11:27) Then there would be those who belong to local congregations. (1 Corinthians 14 and 1
Thessalonians 5) and others such as Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon who we have mentioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________

66 Clifford Hill, Prophecy Past and Present. An Exploration of the Prophetic Ministry in the Bible and the
Church Today. (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1989). He states that this was only a temporary
distinction as a later editorial notes states in 1 Samuel 9:9 ". . . because the prophet of today used to be called a
seer." pp. 13-15. [back]

67 Leon Wood, The Holy Spirit In The Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), p. 112. Wood
devotes two whole chapters in his book to deal with the question "Were Israel's prophets ecstatics?". He builds
45
a powerful case to show they were not in a state of ecstatic frenzy and as such were distinct from the pagans
around them who frequently had ecstatic experiences when prophesying. [back]

68 Aune, pp. 83-85. [back]

69 1 Corinthians 12:29. [back]

70 Dunn, p. 27. [back]

71 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Ed Gerhard Friedrich. Translator and
Editor. Article "Prophets," by Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 849. [note: The set is
dated 1964 though some individual books may carry a later date.]. [back]

72 D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, (Homebush West, NSW,
Aust.: Lancer Books, 1988), p. 94. [also published in the United States, same pagination, (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1987), p. 94]. [back]

73 Ben Witherington III, Jesus The Seer, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 316. [back]

74 Michael Green, To Corinth with Love, (London, England: Hodder & Stoughton, 1982). Also republished as
The Corinthian Agenda, (England: Victoria, 2004). Speaks of this form of prophecy as follows "Prophecy is not
the equivalent of Scripture. Prophecy is a particular word for a particular congregation (or person) at a
particular time through a particular person. Scripture is for all Christians in all places at all times." p.75. [back]

75 1 Corinthians 14:24, 30 seems to teach prophecy has to do with receiving revelations and making known
secrets of people's hearts. [back]

76 1 Corinthians 14: 32 "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets." This seems to
infer that prophecy does not involve the surrendering of the mind to another power. Always the prophet is in
control. [back]

77 Ecstasy is a vague term open for different meanings. It needs to be qualified as there are many degrees
ranging from mild dissociation to extreme uncontrollable frenzy. [back]

78 Chris Forbes, On being, April, 1991, "Straight From God", p. 13. [back]

79 Andrew Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary, Ephesians, No. 42, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990),
pp. 345-346. [back]

80 John Stott, The Message of Thessalonians, "This form of prophecy was not considered to be a message
which brought the very words of God to the people. It was rather a timely word of instruction, encouragement
or rebuke which brought the general thrust of God's guidance to the church in each particular situation." p. 128.
[back]

81 Apostles were men taught directly by Christ. Paul argues this way to defend his apostleship in Galatians 1:1,
11, 12. In Acts 2:21-22 it was seen as a necessary in finding a replacement for Judas. [back]

82 Forbes, pp. 292-293. [back]

46
Chapter Nine

The need for discernment

In the New Testament we are told to evaluate prophecies. Apart from the authority given to prophets in the Old
Testament and that of the apostles in the New Testament, we have seen that prophecy is sometimes given a
lower status in the New Testament. For instance, the Thessalonians were inclined to treat it disrespectfully
(1Thessalonians 5:20) and that Paul tries to advance it over tongues in the thinking of the Corinthians (1
Corinthians 14:5).

The New Testament does not picture prophets as taking over from the apostles after they died nor does it
picture them as the ones, who are in particular, to guard the church against false teaching. Jude admonishes all
church members "to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). Not that the gift
is without some doctrinal authority, however that authority which is to be used to protect the faithful from
doctrinal error does not belong to the gift of prophecy alone but is also given to apostles, evangelists, pastors
and teachers. (Ephesians 4:11-14)

In contrast to the authority given to the apostles in the New Testament, prophets are to have their prophecies
evaluated. Carson has this observation to offer as he contrasts Old and New Testament prophets, "If a prophet
speaking in the name of God was shown to be in error, the official sanction was death. But once a prophet is
acknowledged as true, there is no trace of repeated checks on the content of his oracles. By contrast, New
Testament prophets are to have their oracles carefully weighed (1 Corinthians 14:29; so also 1 Thess. 5:19-21).
The word diakrino suggests that the prophecy be evaluated, not simply accepted as totally true or totally false.
The presupposition is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the
wheat must be separated from the chaff. Moreover, there is no hint of excommunication as the threatened
sanction if the prophet occasionally does not live up to the mark."83

In his footnote Carson agrees with Grudem that the verb used in 1 Corinthians 14:29 which is diakrino
translated "weigh carefully" bears "the meaning of sifting, separating, evaluating: whereas the simple form
krino is used for judgments where there are clear cut options (guilty or innocent, true or false, right or wrong)
and never for evaluative distinction."84

Scholarly consensus for evaluation

There is broad consensus among respected scholars for the need to evaluate Christian prophetic messages.85
Although there may be some variation among scholars as to how and who does the evaluation; yet there is basic
agreement that the need for evaluation and discernment is important. At the risk of repetition, but because this
is such an important point I will quote a few highly respected scholars to show how widespread this point is
accepted by scholars who are competent in this subject.

David Aune states: "In several places within his letters Paul directly addresses the subject of evaluating
Christian prophecy (1 Thess.5:19-22; 1Cor. 12:10; 14:29). These references are all-important since they
constitute the earliest evidence that Christian prophecy was subject to some form of community control. . . .
The injunction to test everything is a general principle; in all circumstances and situations, including that of
congregational prophecy, the will of God must be discerned so that the good may be accepted and the evil
rejected. . . . Rather than reject prophesying out of hand, Paul recommends that they allow the Spirit of God to
speak through prophets and then retain that which is good and profitable and reject that which is regarded as
evil and worthless. . . ."86

Max Turner: "Paul knows that congregational prophecy, by contrast, is sometimes so unprepossessing that
prophecy as a whole is in danger of being despised (1 Thess. 5:19,20). Both at Thessalonica and at Corinth he
demands that congregational prophecy be evaluated—not that it just be accepted totally as true prophecy or
47
rejected totally as false prophecy (as in the Old Testament, according to Grudem). The presupposition is that
any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated
from the chaff. The one prophesying may genuinely have received something from God (albeit often
indistinctly), but the 'vision' is partial, limited in perspective, and prone to wrong interpretation by the speaker
even as he declares it (1 Cor. 13:9, 12)."87

Turner then goes on to comment on the use of diakrino as being a word to imply evaluating and separating as
opposed to krino being a word to say something is wholly true or false. "It is a matter of deciding what is from
God, and how it applies, and of separating this from what is merely human interference. Indeed the human
element and human error appears to have been so apparent that in 1 Thessalonians 5:19, 20 Paul has to warn the
congregation, 'Do not despise prophecies, but test everything hold fast to what is good. Arguably, then,
prophecy in the New Testament is thus a mixed phenomenon."88

Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:29, Anthony Thiselton says, "The most significant Greek word for comment
is diakrinetosan, let them sift . . . although many translate test (Barrett), NRSV follows Goodspeed's weigh,
while KJV/AV and NT in Basic English have judge; Phillips has think over; and REB, exercise their judgment.
However, as BAGD and other lexicographical studies make clear, the most frequent and most characteristic
force of diakrino in the active voice is to differentiate or to distinguish between. . . . The authentic is to be sifted
from the inauthentic or spurious, in the light of the OT scriptures, the gospel of Christ, the traditions of all the
churches, and critical reflections. Nowhere does Paul hint that preaching or 'prophecy' achieves a privileged
status which places them above critical reflection in the light of the gospel, the Spirit, and the scriptures. It is
never infallible."89

The NEB translates 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 in the following way, "Do not stifle inspiration, and do not despise
prophetic utterances, but bring them all to the test and then keep what is good in them and avoid the bad of
whatever kind."

It is important to note that neither the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:29 nor 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 are talking
about testing true prophets from false prophets. Both statements are made in the context of worship services
where regular, accepted prophets are operating. The evaluation is not of the prophet who has already been
accepted by the congregation, but the message itself, which may be of mixed quality. There can be no doubt
that 1 Corinthians 14 is dealing with a worship service. Regarding 1 Thessalonians 5, David Hill, after
commenting on Romans 12:6 and how prophets need to prophesy according to the amount of faith that they
have, states: "R P Martin (with due acknowledgement to J M Robinson) has drawn attention to certain
interesting features of 1 Thess. 5:16-22; in the original Greek the verb in each of the short sentences stands last;
there is a predominance of words which begin with the Greek letter 'p,' thus giving a rhythm; and the order of
the injunctions 'pray, give thanks' and 'do not despise prophesying, but test everything' (i.e. the utterances) is
particularly noteworthy." On the basis of these observations he continues, "When the passage is set down in
lines, it reads as though it contained the 'headings' of a church service."90

Wayne Grudem makes this comment: "Each prophecy might have both true and false elements in it. The RSV
captures this meaning very well: 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. . . . the
congregation would simply evaluate the prophecy and form opinions about it. Some of it might be very
valuable and some of it not.'"91

Cranfield offers this helpful advice when commenting on Romans 12:6: "The high place he assigned to it
[prophecy] among the spiritual gifts is indicated by 1 Cor 14:1, 39. While any Christian might from time to
time be inspired to prophesy, there were some who were so frequently inspired that they were regarded as being
prophets and forming a distinct group of persons. . . . But Paul recognized the need for prophetic utterances to
be received with discrimination. He gives instruction in 1 Cor 14:29 that, while the prophets are prophesying,
the rest of the congregation is to 'discern'. . . . And in 1 Cor 12:10 the gift of discerning of spirits . . . is
significantly mentioned immediately after the gift of prophecy. For there was the possibility of false prophecy;

48
there was also the possibility of true prophecy's being adulterated by additions derived from some source other
than the Holy Spirit's inspiration."92

Witherington adds the following when commenting on Romans 12:6: "This conjures up the scenario of
prophets speaking in a fashion that exceeds their inspiration. Such a possibility might well explain why Paul
says what he does in 1 Cor 14 about the need for the Corinthians to weigh or sift prophecy offered by other
Corinthians. If this is a correct reading of Paul's meaning, then Grudem is likely right that Paul sees the
prophecy of the Gentile churches as not having the same degree of inspiration or authority as either OT
prophecy or his own teaching or, for that matter, Jesus prophecy and teaching, none of which is said to need
weighing or sifting (cf. 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29)."93

An important point coming out of Paul's counsel regarding prophecy is for us not to make the same mistake (as
was made in Corinth) of overvaluing prophecy by thinking of prophecies as always being the very words of
God. For Paul the test of prophecy was that it exalted Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:3), manifested love (I Corinthians
13: 4-7) and built up the body (1 Corinthians 14:3).

Aune agrees with Cranfield on the intent of the gift "discerning of spirits" being mentioned after the gift of
prophecy. "The close relationship between prophesying and the evaluation of prophetic utterances in 1 Cor
14:29 indicates that there is a connection between the gift of prophecy and the gift of 'discerning of spirits,' just
as there is between the gift of tongues and the gift of interpreting tongues (1 Cor.12:10). The difficult phrase
diakrisis pneumaton, usually translated by such expressions as 'discerning of spirits' (AV) or 'the ability to
distinguish between spirits' (RSV), is generally taken to mean the gift of discerning whether a particular
prophetic utterance is inspired by the Spirit of God or by an evil spirit. . . . The term 'spirits' in the phrase might
more appropriately be understood as 'prophetic utterances,' or revelations of the Spirit, on analogy with the use
of the term 'spirit' (pneuma) in 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 John 4:1 and particularly 1Cor 14:12. . . .

This evaluative process or procedure may lie behind such enigmatical expressions as 'it seemed good to the
Holy Spirit and to us' (Acts 15:28) Similarly, when Paul was repeatedly told of the fate which awaited him in
Jerusalem . . . he decided to proceed . . . regardless of what might happen. Paul's decision can appropriately be
labeled an evaluation of prophetic utterances."94

A hierarchy of prophets

Aune's reference to Paul's decision to still head towards Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 21 is an excellent
example of what Paul means when he states we are to evaluate prophesy. Acts 21 has New Testament prophecy
operating at the different levels already referred to. First, Paul an apostle who is also a prophet, feels
"compelled by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem" (Acts 20:22). On the way he is met by some disciples at Tyre who
"through the Spirit"95 urge him not to go up to Jerusalem.

It appears that Paul evaluates their message and still decides to press on. These disciples were not established
prophets, they are called "disciples." Probably they are operating at the 1Corinthians 14 level. It is possible they
were given an insight, by the Spirit, of trouble ahead for Paul. They put their interpretation on it to warn him
not to go. Probably they have a wrong interpretation because Paul previously said he was being compelled by
the Spirit to go to Jerusalem. Paul exercises his right to do some sifting of the message in harmony with 1
Corinthians 14:29.

Paul stays at the home of Phillip who has four daughters who prophesy (verse 8). We are not told the content of
their prophecies, however they are probably once again operating at the 1 Corinthians 14 level. The present
tense expressed by the word propheteuousai would seem to suggest that they exercised the gift regularly. While
he is there, Agabus comes and warns of the dangers ahead ( verses 10-14). It appears that the Holy Spirit has
spoken to Agabus and given him an insight to the troubles Paul can expect. He states that the Jews will bind
Paul and hand him over to the Gentiles.

49
Notice that Agabus does not put his own interpretation by saying Paul should not go. He merely states what will
happen. It is those listening who put their interpretation on the matter and plead with him not to go. Paul
overrides their interpretation as he did with the disciples from Tyre. Agabus is a man used so often by God,
with the gift of prophecy, that he is called a prophet. Yet, even though he is an experienced prophet, his
prediction does not quite work out exactly as he stated. Compare verse 11 where Agabus states that Paul will be
taken by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles. The fulfilment in verses 30-33 shows that what actually
happens is the Jews take Paul and try to kill him. They do not hand him over to the Gentiles; the Gentiles rescue
him and take him away from the Jews.

It does not work out exactly as Agabus stated. Perhaps Agabus had a revelation of trouble ahead. Maybe he did
a little filling in himself. All we know is that there is a lack of precise detail here in a true prophecy, made by an
experienced prophet. Acts 21 is an important passage to study to come to understand more fully New Testament
prophecy.96

Gillespie sees in 1 Corinthians 15 an example of what Paul has been stating about the need to evaluate
prophecy in the previous chapter. It seems that some were saying there is no resurrection of the dead, and Paul
is using his prophetic revelation in verses 51-55 as a critique of what other prophets were saying. In other words
when he states in 14:37 that the other prophets must acknowledge what he is saying as the Word of God or they
will be ignored, he is demonstrating what he means in the next chapter.97

Alistar Stewart-Sykes quotes Gillespie and supports him in this concept: "In the description of Corinthian
worship which precedes this chapter we are told that prophecies which are given are to be subjected to
prophetic judgment and interpretation. In what follows we may have such a prophetic judgment of a prophecy .
. . a transition from a prophecy to a judgment of a prophecy in the way that was normal in worship . . . this
chapter may give us an idea of what the prophetic judgment might have been like. A brief oracle is delivered,
and then subjected to judgment and interpretation by another of the prophets. . . . Forbes correctly argues that
these 'others' should not be restricted to a class of prophets, since any member of the congregation is potentially
a prophet, but given the strong link between diakrisis and prophecy which Forbes himself notes we may see
that interpretation was a prophetic function, and since in practice not all were actually prophets, so it fell to
those who were in practice prophets to deliver the verdict."98

Stewart-Sykes adds that the book of Revelation offers another example of a hierarchy of prophets: "Aune
suggests that the whole of the apocalypse, since it was intended for delivery in worship, functioned in the place
of a prophetic sermon which would otherwise have been delivered by a local prophet; as such it is what we
would call preaching. . . . John was a wandering prophet who functioned in all of the churches, there were
nonetheless local prophets as well, and yet that John represents a charismatic leader among them, whose voice
might rise above theirs, as it did on this occasion. . . . the fact that his message may replace theirs on this
occasion is an indication that there is some hierarchy of prophets . . . just as the voice of John rises over that of
any local prophet so the voice of those who were congregational prophets would rise above those of others"99

Stewart-Sykes sees John as a visionary prophet, that is, "his means of inspiration are visions revived outside of
the context of worship, the contents of which are subsequently reported to the community."100 He also sees John
as a "free prophet of the Old Testament type" in that unlike the prophets described in 1 Corinthians he is not
subjected to evaluation.

"Whereas this may be an indication that the practice of examining oracles is alien to this community it is
equally likely, as we have also suggested, to be a reflection of his charismatic authority. Aune picks up hints of
opposition to John among the churches at 2:14 and 2:20-23, where other (presumably local) prophets are tarred
with the brush of false prophecy under biblical pseudonyms. The fact that John needs to oppose prophecy with
prophecy is an indication that only a prophetic message carried authority in these communities, and having
been received the prophetic messages of 'Balaam' and 'Jezebel' were acted on. . . . Quite regardless of its date,
the Johannine apocalypse thus enables us to see the church functioning at its most primitive level in terms of
how the word of God was communicated to the community."101
50
He summarises his arguments: "Herein lies one of the origins of Christian preaching: for when prophecy was
delivered it was necessary that the prophecy be judged, interpreted and expounded. Thus it is in this process, it
is suggested, that the origins of the homily lie. . . . The practice of the synagogue and the schools however did
impact at a later stage upon the development of preaching out of these origins, as Scripture came to replace the
living voice, and the process of expansion and application was applied to the written word. . . . The theological
development of a growing respect paid to the written canon . . . with the eventual result that Scripture comes to
dominate prophecy to such an extent that the prophetic voice disappears altogether."102

The evidence from the New Testament is that prophecy was being looked down upon and despised as it was
being abused. The danger the church faced was that they would not hear the genuine messages coming from
authentic prophets. Paul counseled the church not to despise prophecies, but to test them. However, even with
the genuine prophet there is an expectation at times a mixture of "wheat and chaff" as we see the human
element surfacing. We should not therefore necessarily reject as false prophets those who at the lower level of
prophecy do not demonstrate infallibility in conveying their messages. This judging of Christian prophets
should not be confused with the Old Testament rules about judging false prophets. The New Testament
passages deal with judging the prophecies being delivered, and not the prophet themselves.

______________

83 Carson, pp. 94-95. [back]

84 Ibid., p. 95, footnote 69. [back]

85 Space forbids the inclusion of many of them. But a reader interested in this aspect of the subject should
consult Thomas W. Gillespie, The First Theologians. A study in Early Christian Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans,1994), pp. 33-63. [back]

86 Aune, p. 219. [back]

87 Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts Then and Now, (Cumbria, CA: Paternoster, 1996), pp. 213-
214. [back]

88 Ibid., [back]

89 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 1140. [back]

90 David Hill, New Testament Prophecy, (London England: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, [date ?]) [back]

91 Wayne Grudem The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (New York: University Press of America, n.d.), pp.
66-67. [back]

92 Cranfield, p. 620. [back]

93 Witherington, p. 326. The following statements from Witherington are also worth noting
"Although prophecy is alive and well in the Pauline churches, Paul's letters do not read like the works of a
classical prophet—a collection of oracles offered on various occasions. . . . Texts in both 1 Cor 14 and Romans
12 suggest that Paul thought that it was possible to prophesy beyond the extent of one's inspiration and faith,
and so such prophecy had to be sifted or weighed." p. 328. [back]

94 Aune, pp. 220-222. Siegfried Schatzmann A Pauline Theology of Charismata, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1989), pp 40-41, "the authority which the OT prophet claimed in his message introduced and indicated by the
formula, 'thus says the Lord', is nowhere accorded to the Corinthian prophets; nor to any others. Indeed Paul
51
instructed clearly in 14:29 that prophetic utterance was subject to spiritual evaluation of the message and the
source of its inspiration." He lends limited support for the concept that "distinguishing between spirits" relates
to evaluating prophecy. He sees it as including a wider scope by offering the following observations.
"Discernment of spirits. James D. G. Dunn translates diakriseis pneumaton as 'evaluation of inspired utterances'
and links it closely to the preceding utterance of prophecy. Diakrisis may indeed be correlated with prophecy;
in 1 Thess 5:20, 21 Paul mentioned the necessity of testing or evaluating all things, which follows immediately
after the exhortation, 'Do not treat prophecies with contempt.' There may be precedent, therefore, for the
restrictive interpretation suggested by Dunn. But against such a narrow conception speaks the fact that Paul did
not elaborate on precisely what he meant by this gift in 12:10. The need for Spirit-led evaluation of all
charismata is held in abeyance. . . . . In the light of the test which Paul had already established in 12:3, it is
more appropriate to stay with the meaning given by most interpreters. Accordingly, discernment of spirits
means the Spirit-given ability to distinguish the Spirit of God from a demonic spirit, under whose direction the
charismatic exercises a particular gift." [back]

95 A term usually considered to mean the gift of prophecy at work. Compare the expression as it is used when
Agabus makes a prophecy in Acts 11:28. [back]

96 Graeme S. Bradford, "Was Paul resisting the Spirit of Prophecy on his way to Jerusalem?" Unpublished MA
paper. December 1993. In this paper I suggest that Paul was indeed following the procedure of evaluating
prophecy when he still followed his own convictions that God wanted him to witness to his faith in Jerusalem.
He still continued on his journey despite warnings given to him through Christian prophecy. Witherington
expresses a similar view when he makes the following comment regarding Paul's attitude towards Agabus in
Acts 21.

"I suggest that, in these two texts, Luke is telling us much the same as what we find in 1 Cor 14. 'NT prophecy
would seem to have had an authority of general content and was not to be taken as a literal transcript of God's
words, but rather was something that needed to be weighed or sifted (see 1 Cor 14:29). What does have
absolute authority, in Luke's view, is (1) the OT prophecies and (2) the words of Jesus, whether during his
ministry or as conveyed in visions from the exalted Christ. In the age of prophecy fulfillment, there was indeed
new prediction, but it had to be weighed carefully. One might prophesy beyond the measure of one's faith."
Witherington, p. 342. [back]

97 Gillespie, pp. 220-221. [back]

98 Alistar Stewart-Sykes, From Prophecy to Preaching: A Search For The Origins Of The Christian
Homily, (The Netherlands: Brill, Leiden. Boston, Koln., 2001), pp. 102-3. [back]

99 Ibid., p. 118. [back]

100 Ibid., p. 126. [back]

101 Ibid., p. 131. [back]

102 Ibid., pp. 270-271. [back]

52
Chapter Ten

The post-biblical era

Even in the time of the apostles, prophecy was subject to misuse and thus inclined to be looked down upon by
Christian congregations. We discover this in the many warnings and counsel found in the New Testament
writings. For instance, "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything.
Hold on to the good" (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). It seems there were reasons for the Thessalonians to look
down on the gift and treat it with contempt.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:1-3 encourages church members to eagerly desire this gift and endeavours to elevate it.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, Paul seems concerned that some false prophecies are being made declaring that "the
day of the Lord had already come." F. F. Bruce makes the comment, "'Neither by spirit,' i.e. by a prophetic
utterance made in the power of the Spirit of God or of another spirit. The prophecy might be a false prophecy or
it might be a genuine prophecy misunderstood. . . . Prophecy was encouraged in the Thessalonian church
(1Thess 5: 19, 20) and no doubt things to come figured largely in such prophecy: possibly the 'word of the Lord'
of 1Thess 4:15 was communicated in this form. But discrimination was necessary (1Thess 5:21, 22) and
nowhere more so than with prophecies relating to future events."103

John also finds it necessary to warn his people: "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" (1 John 4: 1).

With the close of the Apostolic age, the prophetic gift as exercised by the apostles ended. Those who had been
taught by Christ and had passed on the message concerning Christ had died. With that the Scriptures are seen to
be complete.

Many biblical references indicate that the gift of prophecy will continue on along with other gifts. They are all
needed to build up a healthy body of believers and to keep the church on course.104 The church at large was
sensitive to the work of false prophets and the abuse to which the gift of prophecy was being subjected. The
apostles warned that attempts would be made by false teachers and prophets to lead them astray.105 Revelation
2:2 indicates problems existing near the turn of the first century: "I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men,
that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false." And the church did
not always handle it well, "Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls
herself a prophetess. By teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food
sacrificed to idols" (Revelation 2:20).

The prophets replaced

While the apostles were alive they were the first court of appeal regarding the testing of true and false prophets.
But now new tests were needed appropriate to the local situation at times. The Didache, which probably
originated at Antioch in Syria at the turn of the century, gave tests which were considered appropriate for the
time. "If he abide three days he is a false prophet . . . if he asks for money he is a false prophet . . . (Did 11).
"Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons . . . for unto you they also perform the service of prophets and
teachers . . ." (Did 15).106

Witherington comments on prophecy as found in the Didache: "Didache 11:12 urges, 'whoever shall say in the
spirit, 'Give me money or something else,' you shall not listen to him; but if he urges you to give on behalf of
others you shall not judge him.' What this verse must mean is that indeed some words of prophets, even if
spoken in the Spirit, are not truly from God and are not to be heeded or complied with. This, in turn, means that
our author is not just saying, 'judge what he does, not what he says.' There is to be a sifting even of what he
53
says. The prophet's words are not to be taken as the Gospel if they do not comport with the 'dogma' of the
Gospel. The situation here does not seem to be significantly different from that found in 1 Cor 14, for in neither
case is it simply assumed that what the prophet says in pneumatic state is necessarily the very words of God.
Again, we are dealing with a different situation from that found in the early church when it treated prophecy
found in Scripture and apparently also the prophetic teaching and utterances of at least the original apostles."107

He goes on to summarise the work of prophets in the early church: "The impression given by both the material
in Luke-Acts and the material in the Didache is that prophets has authority in the early church, but not absolute
authority. They are seen as inspired but not infallible, and they are held responsible for what they say."108 He
then repeats his summary, "In the literature discussed in this chapter, prophecy appeared as a phenomenon
including prediction, but expressed in general or generic terms. It had an authority of general content but
seldom offered clear specifics, and in any case, the prophet might say more than his inspiration warranted in the
excitement of the moment."109

It would seem itinerant prophets and teachers were taking advantage of the local people and the advice was
given to look more to local leadership for church guidance. As we move past the apostolic era and the church
becomes more organised it seems that the gift of prophecy virtually disappears and prophets are replaced by
administrators. It was an over reaction that led to the banning of prophets. Irenaeus who wrote about 185 AD,
complained about "wretched men indeed, who in order not to allow false prophets set aside the gift of prophecy
from the church. . . ."110

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics adds: "Disappearance of the prophetic office. The churches were now
put on the defensive and they soon sought to co-operate in the maintenance of their apostolic heritage. Joint
action in councils was the most effective means at hand. This brought the bishops together and greatly
increased their prestige and power. . . . Prophecy was thus placed under the restraint of written records, and it
was considered more important to interpret the old prophecies than to utter new ones. All the unstable,
intermittent spiritual gifts shared the fate of the prophetic. . . . There were sporadic efforts to reinstate prophecy
as a special function in the life of the church, but it had served its day. . . . Its most important and essential
element was absorbed by the teachers and preachers, and the office practically disappeared."111

Teachers and theologians came to the fore to preserve the faith and develop uniform interpretations of the
Scriptures and creeds. Ecclesiastical authority developed to safeguard the church against schism. Spiritual gifts
became identified with office. Ministers and priests became distinct from laity in order to recognise
spiritual endowments. Priest-bishops came in to perpetuate apostolic authority. Traditions of faith and worship
took over from the sporadic forms of worship. As this took place many argued that now the canon was
complete there was no longer any need for the gift of prophecy. This was in part fuelled by reactions against the
prophets found among the Gnostics and Montanists.

In addition, Alister Stewart-Sykes in his recent book From Prophecy to Preaching demonstrates that preaching
took over from prophecy in the early centuries of the Christian era and was, in part, a cause for the decline and
eventual demise of prophecy in worship services. "Herein lies one of the origins of Christian preaching: for
when prophecy was delivered it was necessary that the prophecy be judged, interpreted and expounded . . . as
Scripture came to replace the living voice . . . with the eventual result that Scripture comes to dominate
prophecy to such an extent that the prophetic voice disappears altogether. . . . This phenomenon has been
termed 'scholasticisation' a term intended to describe the process whereby the process by which the loose
organisation of communication of the word of God in the earliest households through prophecy, and through
reactions to prophecy which in themselves are prophetic, is replaced by systematic communication through the
reading and interpretation of Scripture. . . ."112

That the gift of prophecy continued on in Christianity during the Reformation and Post-Reformation era is
recognised by A G Daniells: "Just what measure of spiritual illumination they received, it is impossible for us to
know and declare. From our knowledge of the limitations and blindness of the minds of men at the present
time, we cannot conceive how those leaders could see, and understand, and do as perfectly as they did without
54
special guidance by the Holy Spirit. Perversion, darkness, and corruption were universal and supreme. Many of
the spiritual leaders of the period sincerely believed that the Lord made Himself known to them in visions and
spoke to them in dreams."113

Seventh-day Adventists believe they still live in the age of the Spirit. We believe that the gifts that came into
being at Pentecost are to be with the church until Jesus returns. We believe the prophetic gift has been
manifested in the life and work of Ellen White. We will now begin to apply what we have seen, from the Bible,
to her life and ministry.

______________

103 F. F. Bruce, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 45, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, General Editor David A. Bubbard,
(Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982). pp. 163-164. [back]

104 Acts 2:17-21, Ephesians 4:11-14; 1 Corinthians 12-14. [back]

105 Peter had warned the church to be wary "But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will
be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord
who bought them. . ." 2 Peter 2:1-2. Paul had also warned the elders of Miletus to be watchful because ". . .
after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from you own number
men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!" Acts
20:29-31. [back]

106 These points are gleaned from J. B. Lightfoot, Translator, The Apostolic Father, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1974). [back]

107 Witherington, p. 345. [back]

108 Ibid., p. 347. [back]

109 Ibid., p. 350. [back]

110 Cited in C. Hill Prophecy Past and Present, p. 234-235. [back]

111 Cyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Edit Hastings. Vol. 10 (Endinburgh, NY: T and T. Clark, n.d.), pp.
383-384. [back]

112 Alister Stewart-Sykes, pp. 270-271. [back]

113 A. G. Daniells, The Abiding Gift of Prophecy, (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1936), p. 221. [back

55
Chapter Eleven

The gift of prophecy in Adventism

More than 150 years ago a 17-year-old girl began to give messages to early Adventist believers and said they
were from God. Often these messages were not what they wanted to hear. Often they ran contrary to their plans.
At times they pointed out weaknesses in the lives of many of the leaders and gave them advice contrary to their
own inclinations. But they believed her. Throughout her 70-year ministry, those who were closest to her were
firm believers in the fact that God had given her the gift of prophecy. Why was this? There are several reasons.

1. They saw that she was a true Christian.

2. They felt the power of her ministry in uplifting Jesus Christ, and in her calls for obedience to God and His
Word.

3. When they were discouraged after the "Great Disappointment" of 1844 she was the one who kept their
advent hopes alive.

4. In 1 Corinthians 14: 22-25, Paul declares that the presence of prophecy among God's people is a sign to
believers. It confirms the presence of God is with them. She was indeed able to reveal the secrets of the human
heart. There could be no doubt that she had revelations in order to come by this knowledge. Over many years
she sent out personal testimonies to individuals. Only a handful ever claimed they were irrelevant.114

5. She gave them a sense of purpose and direction, a belief that God was still with them.

6. She expanded their concepts of mission to the world.

7. She gave them a sense of breadth and depth of mission to include health, education and welfare.

8. They witnessed her save the church from theological disaster

at the hands of Kellogg, Waggoner and the Holy Flesh Movement.

9. When her counsel was followed, individuals usually prospered. When they failed to follow her counsel,
things did not always prosper. Her messages and predictions were timely and practical.115

10. She saved the Church from Arianism by highlighting the true divinity of Christ.

They still believed, even though they were also aware of weaknesses in her life. And they could have listed
them as well:

1. She did have some problems in her marriage. There were times when she and her husband worked apart.116

2. She had problems with her children. She tended to favour Willie as the "good boy." James Edson, the only
other of her four sons who survived to adulthood, turned away from the faith, but she won him back and he
became a missionary to former slaves in the south of the United States.

3. She often became despondent over the criticism she faced. She could even doubt her own experience in
Christ.117

4. She could be forgetful.118

56
5. She may not have always been as open about her use of other sources as she could have been.119

6. She struggled to give up eating flesh foods and live up to the health counsel she had given to others.120

However, as they applied the biblical tests for a prophet, they saw that she matched the biblical expectation in
that she uplifted Jesus and called for obedience to God and His word. (It is also helpful to remember that all of
us would like to be judged by the general tenor of our lives and not from a few lapses.)

They found that she was in harmony with the major doctrines of the Bible such as Creation, salvation, law and
the deity of Christ. And, in hindsight, you can add that she had a view of inspiration that is biblically correct
even though it was not the prevailing view of her contemporaries. Her material on the subject was not printed
until volume one of Selected Messages appeared in 1958, with more of her material on the topic appearing in
volume three in 1980. A large number of Adventists are still oblivious to her views found in these volumes.
Why her views on inspiration have not been widely known until recent times will be dealt with when
considering the 1919 Bible Conference and its aftermath.

Support for Ellen White's ministry

H. M. S. Richards had tremendous confidence in the prophetic gift of Ellen White because as a young man he
heard her preach just three years before she died. About 5000 people were present, most of them non-
Adventists. Here is how he described it: "Willie White led her out to the table where she was to speak. Just a
little old lady in a black silk dress, with a little cap on her head. But, oh, when she started to preach there came
one Bible text after another—at least 100 of them quoted right off just like that. She had no notes. She had her
Bible but she never had to look at it but she would just keep turning the pages and quoting the texts. Her voice
was like a silver bell as it carried out over that great audience. It started to rain; but above its din on the iron
roof, you could hear that silver voice ringing out clearly through it all.

"When she had spoken about 45 minutes her son came out and said, 'I think you are getting tired mother. You
have talked long enough. I think you had better sit down.' 'No not yet I haven't prayed yet.' Then she began to
pray and when she did something happened. Before that she was just a dear old lady, talking. But when she
knelt down a great change came over the whole congregation. She was God's prophet then and God honored
her. Within 30 seconds we were all in the presence of God. I was afraid to look up lest I should see God
standing there by her side. Within minutes you could hear sobs around the congregation."121

That experience stayed with Richards the rest of his life. Later, when troubles over her writings erupted he
never lost his confidence in her ministry. He always had a true biblical expectation of what to expect from a
person manifesting the gift of prophecy. In his biography of Richards, Robert Edwards comments on Richard's
attitudes and understanding of the work of Ellen White: "Although the writings and the character of Ellen
White powerfully influenced him, he also had common sense enough to know that she was a fallible human
being, that she made mistakes.

When the furor over the accusations that she had plagiarized from other authors shook many in the church some
years ago, Richards remained unperturbed. 'They haven't discovered anything new,' he said, 'All those charges
are old. I heard them all 40 years ago. They were all discussed at the 1919 Bible Conference. . . .' H. M. S.
Richards accepted her for what she was and what she herself claimed to be. It protected him from the
disappointments some men and women experienced who held an unreal view of what a prophet and prophecy
should be."122

Walter Martin123was once interviewed about his concepts of Ellen White. He was critical of her work, on a
basis she did not meet up with his private expectations. Toward the end of the interview he said, "I have been
pressed and pressed by people to get me to say Ellen White is a false prophet. . . . Mrs. White in my opinion,
made false statements. She misused what she claimed was the prophetic gift she had. I believe this, in certain
instances. But if you're going to try and say that makes Ellen White the same as the false prophets prohibited in
57
Exodus and Deuteronomy, then you have to demonstrate, that Ellen White was an unbeliever and that it was a
deliberate and willful perversion of truth regarding salvation and revelation. That's a very fine line. Of course,
technically, I would have to say that the person who prophesies in the name of God and turns out to be wrong,
has prophesied falsely. You have to say that. But they want me to go further than that. They want me to make
Mrs. White a biblical false prophet which means that she is not a Christian. I cannot endorse that."124

Martin, although critical in many respects, still accepted her as a believer in Jesus Christ and a true Christian.

Notes for the honest inquirer

There have been many critical of her work. It may also be that those who are most critical have not done their
homework in the Scriptures to have a proper understanding of the biblical expectations of how a person
functions under the gift of prophecy. Remember, the real test is that the prophet calls people to holy living and
obedience to God's word. The true prophet will uplift Jesus Christ as the sin bearer of the world and challenge
people to trust in Him. Jesus said that "by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7: 15-23).

The honest inquirer attempting to make a decision regarding Ellen White's authenticity should read some of her
most famous books. As you read books like The Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ you will find the fruitage
that Jesus said should be found in a true prophet. Ingemar Linden in his book The Last Trump states, "If EGW
had achieved nothing else than write The Desire of Ages she would still merit a place among the outstanding
Christian women. Her life provides spiritual food for Christians in all walks of life."125

In The Desire of Ages, the chapter on the Garden of Gethsemane paints such a picture of Christ as to melt the
hardest of hearts—as does the chapter on Calvary. The fruitage of this book is to exalt Christ and lead people to
trust in Him. The little book Steps to Christ has a marvelous chapter on how a person may know they are a
Christian. Here the fruitage of the book is to build Christian hope and assurance. Some will argue that some of
this material has been gleaned from other writers. However, as we have already seen, writers under inspiration
can do this.

Also, as noted, writers under inspiration may see a need to have secretarial help. While Ellen White's husband
was alive he helped her with her writing, but after his death she felt very inadequate. This was partly because of
her lack of formal education. She said, "I am not a scholar. I cannot prepare my own writings for the press. . . . I
am thinking I must lay aside my writing I have taken so much pleasure in, and see if I cannot become a scholar.
I am not a grammarian. I will try, if the Lord will help me, at forty-five years old to become a scholar in the
science. . . . Oh, that God would quicken the understanding, for I am but a poor writer, and cannot with pen or
voice express the great and deep mysteries of God. . . ."126

__________________

114 For more information see Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord—The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G.
White, (Nampa, ID, Pacific Press,1998), "Some Visions Directed to Secret Problems," pp. 164-166. [back]

115 Ibid., "Timely Instructions and Predictions," pp. 154-166. [back]

116 After James White had a stroke he often became very depressed and difficult to live with. He did not
always appreciate having his wife say to him that God had told her what to tell him. For details regarding the
frank letters they shared when apart read Ellen G. White (Six-volume biography). Arthur. L. White.
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald), Vol. 2, pp. 425-445. [back]

117 EW, pp. 20-24. [back]

118 George Knight writes "On February 18, 1887, Mrs. White wrote an important letter to Jones and E. J.
Waggoner. She pointed out that she had been looking for the testimony she had written to J. H. Waggoner in
58
1854, but could not find it. She recalled that she had written "to him that I had been shown his position in
regard to the law was incorrect," but that she could not recall exactly what was incorrect about it, since "the
matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind.". . . . In her letter to Butler and Smith, Mrs. White once again
referred to the lost testimony to J. H. Waggoner, pointing out that the counsel may not have been on doctrine at
all. "It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was a great danger of
disunion." From 1888 to Apsostacy, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987), pp. 25, 27. [back]

119 Although she frequently recommended to others to read the same books she was using there were times
when she appears to be not as open. Robert Olsen, Sec. of the White Estate comments "It is apparent that Ellen
White's literary practices were well known by our church members during her lifetime. Yet it is equally clear
that she did not encourage discussion of the subject. Why? In my opinion, she did not want her readers to be
distracted from her message because of concentrating on her method. Undue attention to how she wrote might
raise unnecessary doubts in some minds as to the authority of what she wrote. Robert Olsen, "Ellen White's
Denials," Ministry, February 1991, p. 18. See the full article in appendix C. [back]

120 Ron Graybill, The Development of Adventist Thinking On Clean and Unclean Meats, EGW Estate,
10/6/1981." . . . there is evidence of some laxness in the 1870's and 1880's which allowed a little meat to appear
on her table when it may not have been essential. Given the difficulties of refrigeration and transporting food in
the nineteenth century, it was much more difficult then to gain an adequate diet without using flesh foods." p. 3.
[back]

121 H.M.S. Richards, Feed My Sheep, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1956), p. 41. [back]

122 Robert Edwards, H. M. S. Richards, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998), pp. 35-37. [back]

123 Walter Martin was a Baptist pastor and widely acknowledged as an authority on cults before he died late
last century. [back]

124 Adventist Currents, July 1983, p. 28. [back]

125 Ingemar Linden, The Last Trump, An historico-genetical study of some important chapters in the making
and development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 1978), p. 221. [back]

126 3SM, p. 90. [back]

59
Chapter Twelve

Borrowing to illustrate spiritual truth

Even though a great deal of study has been undertaken to find out more about her borrowing from other writers,
there still exists, and will always exist, a difference of opinion as to the percentage borrowed. How could
anyone ever hope to reconstruct all her sources?127 The truth is that we all borrow from each other, and from
many sources of which we are scarcely aware.128 And it is difficult for us to sit in the mindset of those who
lived in her age. Today we have tight copyright laws, which, in her day were just coming to the fore.

The first person to point out her borrowings from others was a former Adventist pastor D. M. Canright. Yet
when the denomination wished to reprint Moses Hull's book The Bible from Heaven,129 they asked Canright to
work it over to print it under his name. This he did and followed Hull's work very closely. He even felt free to
put in the preface that the book had been written "after extensive reading and careful thought upon the
subject."130 Neither James White nor the other Adventist leaders saw anything wrong with using the material
from Hull. They all perceived what they wrote as belonging to a pool of common property with anyone free to
dip into the pool.

This was also true of Ellen White's writings, they took from her and she took from them. Willie White
comments: "All felt that the truths to be presented were common property and wherever one could help another
or get from another in the expression of biblical truths, it was considered right to do so. Consequently there
were many excellent statements of present truth copied by one writer from another. And no man said that ought
which he wrote was exclusively his own. In the process of time many things which Sister White wrote and said
were used by others without credit, and she in turn when dealing with prophetic exposition or doctoral
statements felt free to use without credit the statements and teachings of leading writers among the pioneers
when she found in their writings the exact thought that she wished to present."131

When Ellen White used material from other Adventist writers in her book The Great Controversy132 she was
doing what they all felt free to do with each other's writings. And although Canright tried to upset the Adventist
community with the charges of plagiarism, they were never upset by what he revealed. It could well be that
many were already aware of her borrowing practice. The books she borrowed from were often the same books
she recommended the Adventist community to read.

Vincent Ramik a copyright-law specialist researched the legal aspects of her use of other writers and came to
the conclusion in his report that there would have been no legal case against her in her day, and that he had his
life changed forever by reading her books.133 William Hanna in the preface to his book The Life of Christ, one
of Ellen White's sources for The Desire of Ages states, "Nor has he thought it necessary to burden the following
pages with references to all the authorities consulted."134 It seems that Ellen White's time was a state of
transition regarding the need to acknowledge the use of the writings of others. The important point to note is
that we must not judge her by today's expectations, but see her operating within the context of her time and the
expectations of that time.

Times and expectations do change. I now look back in horror that when I did my theological training we
accepted the fact that the girls at Avondale only received about half the wages of the boys. They had to pay the
same fees and all other costs were the same but because they were female they were paid less. No one, to my
knowledge, ever questioned it, but looking at it through today's eyes, it was wrong.

God meets people where they are. He works within their cultural mindset. Ellen White wrote and borrowed in a
way that appeared normal to her and her contemporaries. Today we think differently.135 Her mindset allowed
her to borrow freely from other writers—as did others.136 Some of them we regard as great writers.

60
Debate has centred around how much of her work is borrowed from other authors. But the percentage she
borrowed is not as important as why she borrowed. The truth is she borrowed to glorify Jesus. She borrowed to
move people's heart to have faith in Him.After her death they found in her library a book entitled Sunshine and
Shadows Along the Pathway of Life by M. G. Clarke. In the flyleaf of the book Ellen White had written a note
that shows us her thinking regarding how she could use what she had read and appreciated so much in the book:
"This is a book I esteem highly. Never let it be lost of [sic] this time. I appreciate it, I shall be pleased to keep
this book for it has treasures of truth which I appreciate in presenting to many others."137

How Ellen White wrote

It is important to understand how she did her work. Insights from her son, Willie, are helpful because probably
no one understood her work better than he did, for he worked with her for many years. Willie states, "The great
events occurring in the life of our Lord were presented to her in panoramic scenes as also were other portions of
The Great Controversy. In a few of these scenes chronology and geography were clearly presented, but in the
greater part of the revelation the flashlight scenes, which were exceedingly vivid, and the conversations and the
controversies, which she heard and was able to narrate, were not marked geographically or chronologically, and
she was left to study the Bible and history, and the writings of men who had presented the life of our Lord to
get the chronological and geographical connection"138 It would seem that it was left to her to fill out these
"flashlight scenes" and "panoramas" in her visions by studying the writings of others.139

In a letter he wrote to F. M. Wilcox, Willie gives more insights as to why she borrowed ideas from history:
"Sister White has often quoted from history. Her descriptions of scenes presented to her in vision, and her use
of the statements of historians, have been made for teaching the way of salvation, and not for the purpose of
approving or correcting history. Her burden has been to make clear to the common people the character of the
great controversy between good and evil, and to arouse in their hearts a hatred for sin and a loyalty to the King
of Kings. . . .

"From this we may conclude that it is not the will of God that we use these writings to prove the historical
accuracy of authors or to correct their errors. But rather that we use them to make clear to the minds of men, the
living truths of the Word of God, and the practical meaning of the signs of the times, and the fulfillment of
prophecy. History has been used to illustrate the lessons of the book"140 (emphasis added).

Willie also makes the following, significant points: "The class of matter written by Mrs White, in which she
used the writings of others, is comparatively small when considering the vast field covered by her writings. It is
in the delineation in prophetic and doctrinal exposition that we find that she used the words of others or had
closely paraphrased them. In the vast field covering thousands of pages of messages of encouragement,
reproof, and spiritual instruction, she worked independent of all other writers, also in her divine prediction of
future experiences through which the church must pass"141 (emphasis added).

It is important for us to note the reason she gathered the material from history, prophecy and doctrine is that she
might bring home spiritual lessons to her readers. First and foremost she was fulfilling the role of a prophet as
Paul had stated, "But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and
comfort" (1 Corinthians 14: 3). Above all else, she was concerned with upholding a high standard of Christian
living. Doctrine was not her main concern unless she saw false doctrine undermining faith in Christ.

At the General Conference session in Minneapolis, in 1888, where the leadership was divided on the correct
understanding of the law in Galatians and other theological points, George Knight makes the following
observation, "The message of 1888, as Ellen White viewed it, is not doctrinal. We do not find her concerned
with the law in Galatians, the covenants or the Trinity. Nor do we find her expounding upon the human or
divine nature of Christ or sinless living as key elements of the message. She was not even obsessed with the
doctrine of righteousness by faith. Her special interest was Jesus Christ, that Adventists might apply the
attributes of His loving character to the practical experience of daily life, and that individuals go to Him for
forgiveness."142
61
Bert Haloviak agrees: "In Dec of 1888, after noticing the spirit of those who defended the old position on
Galatians, EGW noted: 'For the first time I began to think it might be we did not hold correct views after all,
upon the law in Galatians, for the truth required no such spirit to sustain it.' Notice how she explained issues to
a group of ministers. . . . 'I am afraid of you and I am afraid of your interpretation of any scripture which has
revealed itself in such an un-Christ-like spirit. . . . I am afraid of any application of scripture that needs such a
spirit and bears such fruit as you have manifested. . . you could never have given a better refutation of your own
theories than that you have done. . . . I have nothing to say, no burden regarding the law in Galatians. This
matter looks to me of minor consequence in comparison with the spirit you have brought into your faith. . . .
The most convincing testimony that we can bear to others that we have the truth is the spirit which attends the
advocacy of that truth. If it sanctifies the heart of the receiver, if it makes him gentle, kind, forbearing, true and
Christ-like, then he will give some evidence of the fact that he has the genuine truth."143

Here, Ellen White was more concerned with Christian conduct than theological correctness. In doing this she
was fulfilling her role as a prophet. She borrows material from history, theology and prophecy with the main
aim of helping to press home spiritual truths so that we might become better Christians. This she saw as far
more important than being precisely accurate in every detail. In her introduction to The Great Controversy she
states that she is using "well known and universally acknowledged . . . facts which none can gainsay."144 That is
she is using facts which were commonly acknowledged by people in her era. Her purpose is that of spiritual
application.

When we look at her writings we see that most of what she had to say is in the area of spiritual application of
Scriptural principles to daily living. Comparatively speaking, only a small percentage of her writings have to do
with deep theology. She was more concerned that we show the fruits of the Spirit in our daily living and follow
in the footsteps of Christ.

Raoul Dederen agrees, "As interpreter of the Bible, Ellen White's role was that of an evangelist—not an
exegete, nor a theologian, as such, but a preacher and an evangelist. . . . No wonder, therefore, that the
prophetic and hortatory mode was more characteristic of her than the exegetical . . . she was, in the typical
prophetic attitude, primarily desirous to press the text into service for the immediate objective, that of the
spiritual quickening of her hearers or readers. She lived in a century of evangelistic revival, and her main
purpose was to arrest attention and to bring conviction and repentance more than merely to relay
information"145 (emphasis added).

Discussion of Ellen White's writings

In the after-meeting of the 1919 Bible Conference, A. G. Daniells146 could speak with authority. He had on
many occasions, along with W. W. Prescott, been part of the team that worked with her in the putting together
of some of her books. During the course of the after-meeting he made this observation, "Well, now, as I
understand it, Sister White never claimed to be an authority on history, and never claimed to be a dogmatic
teacher on theology. She never outlined a course of theology, like Mrs. Eddy's book on teaching. . . .

She never claimed to be an authority on history . . . she was ready to correct in revision such statements as she
thought should be corrected. I have never gone to her writings, and taken the history that I found in her
writings, as the positive statement of history regarding the fulfilment of prophecy."147

At the after-meetings, H. C. Lacey adds an interesting comment: "In our estimate of the spirit of prophecy, isn't
its value to us more in the spiritual light it throws into our own hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy
in historical and theological matters? Ought we not to take those writings as the voice of the Spirit of our hearts,
instead of as the voice of the teacher to our heads? And isn't the final proof of the spirit of prophecy its spiritual
value rather than its historical accuracy?

"A. G. Daniels: Yes I think so."148

62
Not only did Ellen White's helpers have this view of her writing, but she supports this concept. Notice in a letter
Willie wrote to S. N. Haskell (a letter she signs at the end with the comment, "I approve of the remarks made in
this letter, [signed] Ellen White): "Regarding Mother's writings, she has never wished our brethren to treat them
as authority on history. . . . When Controversy was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it
as an authority on historical dates and use it to settle controversies. . . ."149

At another time, Willie wrote, "Regarding Mother's writings, I have overwhelming evidence and conviction that
they are the description and delineation of what God has revealed to her in vision, and where she has followed
the description of historians or the exposition of Adventist writers, I believe that God has given her discernment
to use that which is correct and in harmony with truth regarding all matters essential for salvation. If it should
be found by faithful study that she has followed some expositions of prophecy which in some detail regarding
dates we cannot harmonize with our understanding of secular history, it does not influence my confidence in
her writings as a whole any more than my confidence in the Bible is influenced by the fact that I cannot
harmonize many of the statements regarding chronology."150

Here, Willie, some of her helpers, and Ellen White herself view her work as it should be seen, and in harmony
with the one statement in Scripture which clearly tells why the gift of prophecy was given: "But everyone who
prophecies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14:3).

Perhaps we can understand her mindset even further when we read statements like this from The Desire of
Ages: "In the story of the Good Samaritan, Christ illustrates the nature of true religion. He shows that it consists
not in systems, creeds, or rites, but in the performance of loving deeds, in bringing the greatest good to others;
in genuine goodness."151We can also see her understanding of different ideas as expressed in the Bible when
she wrote "The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus in order to reach man where he is,
took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human in imperfect.
Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was
given for practical purposes."152 To her the Bible was primarily given to help us to find Jesus and tell us how to
live. Not just to pass on information. Because of this she never got "hung up" as did some others because of the
differences of details found within the Scriptures. She saw her own writings operating in the same manner. Her
writings were primarily to help us find and maintain our faith in Jesus and teach us how to live in harmony with
His will. In doing this she was fulfilling the role of a prophet.

The problem of historical inaccuracies

It can be unsettling for some to come to grips with the fact that there are historical inaccuracies in her writings,
so let's explore this matter further. In her appendix to a draft copy of Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 2 she makes this
comment: "A special request is made that if any find incorrect statements in this book they will immediately
inform me. The edition will be completed about the first of October; therefore send before that time."153

When writing The Great Controversy she made this request, "Tell Mary to find me some histories of the Bible
that would give me the order of events. I have nothing and can find nothing in the library here" (Letter
38,1885).154 And we know in order to get a chronology for the life of Christ when writing The Desire of Ages,
she consulted Samuel J. Andrews The Life of our Lord Upon the Earth.155

The evidence is clear that she was open to help and willing to consult others in regards to historical details. This
has not always been widely understood until recent times. In her day there were some well informed on this
matter, an inner circle who helped her in her work. Sadly this knowledge was not widely known156 in her time
and almost lost after her death. We will investigate how this came about in chapter 18 on the 1919 Bible
Conference.

In 1982 an Adventist pastor in Czechoslovakia gave a copy of The Great Controversy to Dr. Amedo Molnar of
Prague University. He was asked to give an evaluation on her work in his area of speciality, namely the
Waldenses, Wycliffe, Huss, and Jerome. In his letter he notes her errors regarding the facts of history and how
63
there are many important historical events omitted. He repeats the idea that it seems to him that she is not
writing history but rather is giving a meaning to history. He states, "The impulse of her work lies in the
interpretation of the sense of historical events teaching the believing and hoping Christian, i.e. it lies in another
field other than proper historical research. As far as her work . . . is not used as a substitute for the strictly
historical research . . . it may feed an eschatological hope of the believing Christians"157

In other words, she is not a historian. Rather, she is giving a meaning to history. She is interpreting history for
Christians. Today these historical inaccuracies are acknowledged by the White Estate; but this should not be a
problem for those who have a correct view of her work.158

In the 1970s, William S. Peterson wrote an article "A textual and historical study of Ellen White's account of
the French Revolution." He was very critical of her work from a historian's point of view claiming that she had:
Not used the best sources available to her; she had used her sources carelessly; they were strongly anti-Catholic
sources; they were weak on factual evidence; sometimes she had misread them; at other times she had
exaggerated them; and occasionally she left out crucial facts.

Ron Graybill, a research assistant in the White Estate was given the job of checking out the work of Peterson.
In the Summer of 1972 Spectrum, Graybill responded to Peterson's work on the "French Revolution" chapter of
The Great Controversy. A study of the notes left by Clarence Crisler, Ellen White's secretary, showed that she
was not misusing sources at all. The notes showed that she took the history in this chapter straight out of Uriah
Smith's Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation. Uriah Smith was the poor historian and she followed his lead.159

It is well known that the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy was revised in 1911. The plates for the older
edition had worn and so there was an opportune time for a reprint and revision. She received advice from
Prescott and accepted some of his advice.160 Among the changes were: In the 1888 edition she wrote, "The
Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures." In the 1911
edition she said, "The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the
Holy Scriptures." In the 1888 edition she said the fall of Babylon cannot refer to the Romish Church because it
fell in the early centuries. In the 1911 edition she wrote that the fall of Babylon cannot refer to the Roman
Church alone.

When the new edition was released it was met with a mixed reaction. W. A. Spicer felt there should have been
more changes and blamed the editors.161 One gets the impression that, particularly toward the end of her life,
she was significantly relying upon the input of others in the production of her books.162 This point is made even
stronger when we read a letter written to W. W. Prescott from her secretary Clarence E. Crisler. In this letter he
appeals to Prescott to come to give some help in the work of Ezra (which must have been for writing the book
Prophets and Kings). In this letter he makes a list of the problem areas they need help and then says at the end,
"I am sure that Sister White would be specially pleased and cheered, if she could know that you were coming
soon to help us over hard places."163

Understanding her purpose

That she had people helping her do her work should not cause too much concern when we understand that
Paul's writings also show evidence of such help (see chapter four, "Literary assistance for inspired writers").
And if we also have clearly in mind her purpose in writing was to take material from history to impress home
spiritual truth by way of illustration. And, of course, 1 Corinthians 14:3 must remain the theme text: "But
everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort."

Even in her day, not everyone had this idea clearly in mind and they gave her writings an authority beyond
what was appropriate. This could account for the protest that Prescott made to Willie in the year that Ellen
White died. "It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious
errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average

64
ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use them as sufficient authority in their
sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things we know to be untrue. . . .

The way your mother's writings have been handled and the false impression concerning them which is still
fostered among the people have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to
deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books, and that no serious
effort has been made to disabuse the minds of the people of what was known to be their wrong view concerning
her writings. But it is no use to go into these matters. I have talked to you for years about them, but it brings no
change. I think however that we are drifting toward a crisis which will come sooner or later and perhaps sooner.
A very strong reaction has already set in."164

Prescott's letter is indeed a serious one. It seems Willie White and Prescott held to the same ideas regarding
how Ellen White's work was produced, their difference lay in the fact that Prescott felt Adventists should be
better informed.165 What he says is hinted at in the conversation of the 1919 Bible Conference after-meeting. It
seems many Adventists held to a view of verbal inspiration regarding her writings.166 J. N. Anderson asks the
question "Is it well to let our people in general to go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies?
When we do that, aren't we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day?"167

We will return to the subject of Adventists and their views of inspiration later. Meanwhile it is important to
keep in mind Ellen White's understanding of her work. Regarding the writing of The Great Controversy, she
states in the introduction, the purpose of the book, "To unfold the scenes of the great controversy between truth
and error; to reveal the wiles of Satan, and the means by which he may be successfully resisted; to present a
satisfactory solution of the great problem of evil, shedding such a light upon the origin and the final disposition
of sin as to make fully manifest the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with His creatures; and
to show the holy, unchanging nature of His law, is the object of this book."168

She also talks in terms of how she viewed the material from history that she borrowed, "The great events which
have marked the progress of reform in past ages are matters of history, well known and universally
acknowledged by the Protestant world. . . ."169 (Emphasis added). That is, she is telling us that she is using
ideas accepted by the Protestant world of her day to present the Advent message to them. If God had given her
information we know to be more correct today her book would have been rejected by many who felt they were
well informed in her era. We have seen that God meets people where they are to give to them His messages
about Jesus. In doing this she was in harmony with how God has used prophets in the past.

We must keep clearly in mind her stated purpose and then we will not stumble on some of the details as she
uses history—as it was understood by many in her time—to illustrate spiritual lessons. The Great Controversy
was never meant to be the final word on history, prophecy or theology. She borrowed much of her material
from other Adventist writers, particularly Andrews and Smith.170 She was willing to make changes when she
had input from others and no doubt she would continue to do so if she were alive. The book was prepared for
public usage to be sold as an evangelistic tool to win people to Adventism, using concepts that Adventism had
at that time of its development.171

Some say that when she states "I saw" her words have special authority. However, we know there were times
when she used these words and then quoted from the works of others. It could be that the words "I saw" or "I
was shown" mean "she saw" or "was shown" through the study of books. There are even times when she uses
the words of authors when describing words she had heard spoken in vision. Ron Graybill an Associate
Secretary of the White Estate made the following comments in a series of General Conference Worships in
1981

"Did Mrs. White ever borrow when she was reporting a vision? Did she ever say 'I was shown' and then
proceed to borrow? The answer to that is 'yes,' although examples of it are not very plentiful. They are quite
rare. I know of only three clear and unequivocal examples."172 Graybill then goes on to give examples and
show how the handwritten drafts of her material were even closer to the source than the published versions
65
which followed. This was no doubt due to the work of her literary assistants. Graybill adds further light to her
borrowings with the following comments "She also employed extra-biblical comments on the lives of various
biblical characters, often turning the speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact.
Sometimes similar use was made of their comments on the thoughts and activities of supernatural beings, that
is, God, Satan, and their respective angels. . . . These borrowings occurred not only in the historical sections of
The Great Controversy but also in its prophetic sections.173

If we continue to see her work in harmony with her stated purpose, and the stated purpose of Scripture for
prophets then we should find no problem with the above data.

Problems only arise when we claim more for her works than she claimed for them herself. She made this
helpful comment: "The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the
truths of inspiration already revealed. . . . Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the
Testimonies simplified the great truths already given" (5T 665).

___________

127 It is probably wrong to assert that Ellen White was uneducated. She was self-educated. It is obvious that
she was an avid reader with a retentive memory. [back]

128 Edward Young: conjectures on Original Composition quoted in Plagarism W. A. Edwards, Cambridge
Press, London. 1933, "So few are our originals, that if all other books were burnt, the lettered world would
resemble some metropolis in flames, where a few incombustible buildings—a fortress, a temple, a tower—lift
their heads in melancholy grandeur, amid the mighty ruin." p. 14.

Perhaps it may help us to think in terms of her age if we think of the following statements:

A friend of Samuel Johnson, discussing the subject of criticism with him, remarked that critics of repute
labored under a burden: they were expected to be saying witty and meaningful things all the time, and it was a
heavy tax on them. 'It is indeed a very heavy tax,' said Dr. Johnson, 'a tax which no man can pay who does not
steal.

There are, in history of literature, few examples of alchemy as vivid and unassailable as "Kubla Khan" and
"The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." Coleridge poured the essence of dozens of strange and obscure travel
books into his masterpieces. The more we scan his sources—the greater is our wonder at the supreme skill with
which he assimilated and metamorphosed what he took and the keener our realization that the result was
irrevocably his. Ibid., p 84-85.

"In The Pickworth Paper Dickens sifted Boswell's Life of Johnson, drew more heavily on Washington Irivne
(he copied some passages from Irvine verbatim, lifted descriptions with slight alterations, and adapted some of
Irving's tales, and plucked freely from contemporary papers and journals, song and travel books, comedies,
fiction, poetry, essays, and biography. It has been said that A Tale of Two Cities owes its very existence to
Carlyle's French Revolution . . . and that a A Child's History of England is little more than a copy of
Goldsmith's History of England. Ibid., p. 86. These statements give us an insight into the mind set of those who
lived closer to the world of Ellen White. [back]

129 It could no longer be published under Hull's name as he had left the denomination and become a
spiritualist. [back]

130 For a more complete reading of this incident see Ron Graybill's article in Insight, 21 October, 1980, p. 7-
10. [back]

66
131 "Brief Statements Regarding The Writings of Ellen G. White." Prepared by W. C. White and D. E.
Robinson. p. 7. [back]

132 She says in the introduction, "In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of
reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works." [back]

133 "Was EGW a Plagiarist?" Four articles printed in Adventist Review, commencing September 17, 1981.
[back]

134 William Hanna, The Life of Christ, p. 9 as quoted in Roger Coon's article "The Integrity Issue: Was Ellen
G. White an Honest and Honorable Person?" White Estate unpublished document.

135 Those wishing to read more on her mindset should read "Was Ellen White a Pious Fraud" by Jack
Provonsha. Unpublished article available from the White Research Center. [back]

136 See footnotes 4-7. [back]

137 A photocopy of the original was sent to all Research Centers by Robert Olsen Secretary of the White Estate
on March 9, 1983. [back]

138 3SM, pp. 459-460. [back]

139 Ibid., "In some of the historical matters such as are brought out in Patriarchs and Prophets and in Acts of
the Apostles, and in Great Controversy, the main outlines were made very clear and plain to her, and when she
came to write up these topics, she was left to study the Bible and history to get dates and geographical relations
and to perfect her description of details." p. 462.

Ron Graybill points out that there are times when she takes "extra-biblical comments on the lives of various
biblical characters, often turning the speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact.
Sometimes similar use was made of their comments on the thoughts and activities of supernatural beings, that
is, God, Satan, and their respective angels." E. G. White's Literary Work An Update: General Conference
Worship, November 15-19, 1981, p. 11. [back]

140 Letter from Willie White to F. M. Wilcox, April 27, 1915. DF 107d. [back]

141 W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, "Brief Statements Regarding the Writings of EGW." August 1933, p. 19-
20. Perhaps this concept of her ministry was developed early in her ministry. This seems to be the implications
of her statement regarding her ministry with that of her husband. She wrote: "Our meetings were usually
conducted in such a manner that both of us took part. My husband would give a doctrinal discourse, then I
would follow with an exhortation of considerable length, melting my way into the feelings of the congregation.
Thus my husband sowed and I watered the seed of truth, and God did give the increase." 1T, p. 75. [back]

142 George Knight, From 1888 To Apostasy, Review and Herald, 1987, p. 69. [back]

143 Bert Haloviak, "Ellen White and the Pharisees," Two unpublished sermons preached at Beltsville SDA
Church, Oct, 23, 1982. [back]

144 The Great Controversy, p. xi. [back]

145 Raoul Dederen was professor of theology, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University when he wrote
this article entitled "Ellen White's Doctrine of Scripture" in a special supplement to Ministry, July, 1977, p. 24.
[back]

67
146 The 1919 after-meeting was held with church administrators and Bible teachers to try and sort out some of
the wrong views coming to the fore regarding the use of Ellen White's writings. This meeting was held just 4
years after her death. [back]

147 1919 Bible Conference Minutes printed in Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 1, May 1979, p. 34. [back]

148 Ibid., p. 38. [back]

149 Willie White to S. N. Haskell, October 31, 1912. For the background to the writing of this letter see
Ministry August 1997 article by George Knight "The Case Of The Overlooked Postscript: A Footnote On
Inspiration." pp. 9-11. In The Great Controversy it is estimated that she quotes from 88 authors but at times she
is using secondary sources. For example when she cites Scott, Thiers and Alison in her chapters on the French
Revolution, her sources for these quotations was Uriah Smith's Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. Robert
Olsen, "Ellen White's use of historical sources in The Great Controversy," Adventist Review, February 23, 1984,
p. 4. [back]

150 3SM, pp. 449-450. [back]

151 DA, p. 497. [back]

152 1SM, p. 20. [back]

153 3SM, p. 58. [back]

154 Ibid., p. 122. [back]

155 Ibid., p. 123. [back]

156 Evidence of this is found in a letter to her from W. W. Giles which reads "I enclose $25 [by] bank draft. It
is intended as payment to you for composing or writing a small pamphlet embodying answers and explanations
to the ten paragraphs on enclosed sheet. . . . In case you think of other tricks of Satan to ensnare sinners who are
anxious to be saved, please add it to the work. I suppose it will require about 40 or 60 pages of a pamphlet."
Letter W. W. Giles to EGW, 5/7/1890. [back]

157 Prof. Dr. Amedeo Molnar, 21st June 1982 translated by Miloslav Sustek. [back]

158 "Historical Difficulties In The Great Controversy" by Ron Graybill associate secretary of the White Estate.
[back]

159 Don McAdams, "Shifting Views on Inspiration." Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 30-31. [back]

160 A little more than half of his 105 suggestions were accepted by her. [back]

161 "It is too bad that the editors of these manuscripts should try to settle some of these controverted questions
where authorities disagree. . . .We have had quite a battle, some of us, for several years, trying to make the
brethren see that it was not right to claim any extraordinary authority for matters of this kind. While this
is conceded enough privately, the difficulty has been, it seems to me, that courage has been lacking to take a
straight and consistent position. Years ago, I urged W. C. W. to have a statement in the revised "Great
Controversy" that would relieve the whole situation. I hoped it would have been there, but it has not been made.
People are left to run across places where the revised edition corrects statements in the old edition, and then
some poor soul has a worrying time over it, when it is altogether unnecessary. The trouble is all in the book-
making, and there has been too much of an effort on the part of the book-makers, I believe, to emphasize the
fact that they do it all under observation, as though that would make sure of inspiration and correct work. . . . I
68
believe the editors have been a little hard to deal with in accepting suggestions, . . . A comparison of the new
and old editions of "Great Controversy" will show many things changed, although some things should surely
have been corrected further. . . . " W. A. Spicer to L. R. Conradi, November 30, 1914. 21bk 63, p. 618, Spicer
was secretary of the General Conference at the time of writing.

Spicer also was upset with the part the bookmakers had in her book Sketches from the Life of Paul he complains
"The charge of plagiarism in Sister White's books was raised by D. M. Canright. Sketches from the Life of Paul
was made up, unfortunately, from manuscripts by Sister White, with the gaps filled in by extracts from
Conybeare and Howson's Life of Paul here and there . . . those responsible for such a job should never have
done what they did, and the book was withdrawn from circulation. I do not suppose Conybeare and Howson, if
they are alive, ever heard of the book. I think the book-makers had no right to use the matter as they did, and I
think those responsible for it years ago felt the same after they had done it. That is why I suppose the book has
not been continued in print." W. A. Spicer to E. W. Webstere, February 14, 1910. 21 bk 53, p.188. [back]

162 For a more complete study "A Response to Two Explanations of W .W. Prescott's 1915 Letter." A paper by
Gilbert M. Valentine June 1981, Andrews University. [back]

163 Clarence E. Crisler to W.W. Prescott, December 27, 1907. [back]

164 W. W. Prescott to W. C. White, April 6, 1915. [back]

165 This point has been substantiated by Gilbert Valentine in his paper "A Response to Two Explanations of
W. W. Prescott's 1915 letter." June 1981 Andrews University. [back]

166 Verbal inspiration is the idea that God gave the prophet every word to write. It was a view widely held in
the Christian world in the days when they were speaking and still held today. This is different to thought
inspiration and the methods of inspiration we have been writing about in chapter. . . . If most of our people held
to this view then it would mean that it would be difficult to explain to them the way in which she was doing her
work. [back]

167 1919 Bible Conference p. 46. [back]

168 Ellen White, The Great Controversy, xii. [back]

169 Ibid., xii. [back]

170 Ibid., She states "In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our
own time, similar use has been made of their published works. [back]

171 At the same time it must be noted that she never got involved in the concept of Turkey being the "King of
the North" as found in the writings of Uriah Smith and others. She does keep to the main theme of the "End
Time" as being a religious contest between those who wish to be found loyal to Jesus by keeping His
commandments and those who reject the law of God. [back]

172 E. G. White's work: An Update. General Conference Worship, November 15-19, 1981. Ron Graybill,
Associate Secretary, E. G. White Estate. [Edited transcript of tape recording], p. 6. [back]

173 Ibid., Graybill also states her sources "She draws upon Uriah Smith in the chapter on the Sanctuary. She
draws upon J. N. Andrews on the history of the Sabbath. She draws on her husband, James White, in the history
of the Millerite Movement." pp. 19-20. Those wishing to study in detail the nature of her borrowings should
study Graybill's worship series which is available from the E. G. White Centre. [back]

69
Chapter Thirteen

A multi-gifted prophet
The subject of spiritual gifts has only come to the fore in Christian thinking over recent decades. It was placed,
for the first time, in the Fundamental Beliefs during the General Conference session at Dallas in 1980. Before
this, most Adventists probably thought of spiritual gifts as being the gift of prophecy as manifested through
Ellen White.

Adventism has now come of age regarding this subject and teaches that every believer has at least one of the
gifts mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12; Romans 12 and Ephesians 4.174 There is also a general consensus
that not all gifts are mentioned by Paul. The point laboured by Paul in 1Corinthians 12 is that all the gifts are
necessary for the healthy function of the body. Even the gifts we do not think are so necessary are important (1
Corinthians 12:14-26). Willie White called for better understanding of the gifts. "Regarding the effort that
should be made to emphasize in the minds of our people the importance, the sacredness, and the authority of the
apostolic gifts, my brethren will find me fully in harmony with an effort to uplift confidence in this gift. It is my
conviction that the gift of prophecy will be better understood when there is a better understanding of all the
other gifts in the church"175 (emphasis added).

The message of 1 Corinthians 12 is that we must not let any one gift dominate and think that other gifts are not
necessary. If we allow this to happen, we are out of harmony with clear New Testament teaching and we will
never have a healthy body. There is a grave tendency in Adventism that while admiring the gift of one person,
used mightily by God one hundred years ago, we may allow other gifts God has also given to His people to be
eclipsed. Some in early Adventism were determined to use their own gifts while still being true believers in
Ellen White's gifts. One such highly respected person was Uriah Smith. Ingemar Linden states: "It is surprising
that Uriah Smith could preserve his position in the Adventist denomination, when he at times rejected some
views of EGW. [He references this statement with A. V. Olsen's book Through Crisis to Victory, chapter 9.]
"Correspondence from 1883 reveal that Smith could be rather frank and independent in his attitude towards the
'Spirit of Prophecy.' . . . Smith defended the Protestant sola Scriptura view and saw no need for 'additional light'
for doctrinal instruction. . . . He informed Canright: 'The idea has been studiously instilled in the minds of the
people that to question the visions in the least is to become at once, a hopeless apostate and rebel; and to many,
I am sorry to say, have not strength of character enough to shake off such a conception; hence the moment
anything is done to shake them on the visions they lose faith in everything and go to destruction.' Thus Smith
directly criticized EGW and her far-going claims."176

More than a prophet

There can be no doubt that Ellen White did show evidence of having the gift of prophecy, however, her own
statement seems to indicate that she sees herself as being more than a prophet. "Some have stumbled over the
fact that I have said I did not claim to be a prophet; and they have asked, Why is this? I have no claims to make,
only that I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger. . . . Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are
you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet,
but I have made no claim to this title. . . . Why have I not claimed to be a prophet? Because in these days many
who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes
much more than the word "prophet" signifies.

"To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no
controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a
messenger. . . . My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much
more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend"177 (emphasis
added). It is clear that she saw her work as being much more than a prophet, and gifts often come in clusters.

70
Quite probably she also had the gifts of: Wisdom and discernment; insight and encouragement; leadership and
faith.

Some have wondered if another of her gifts to be included should be the gift of apostleship. This is quite
possibly a correct view if one understands the gift to be as one who pioneers new work for the church. This gift
is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:23 where the original Greek language calls these people "apostles of churches."
Roy Naden prefers to call this gift the "gift of pioneering" and clarifies what he means, "In recent years there
has been quite a debate over whether or not this gift is still operative. As long as we use the usual term
'apostleship' to describe this gift we will have difficulty resolving such questions. But it seems to me that if we
focus our attention on the function and not the title, we will conclude that this gift must be found today if the
gospel is to reach the entire globe. We need tens of thousands of Christians gifted 'to pioneer' God's work. . . ."

He goes on to discuss more fully the meaning of the word "apostle" as he understands the function of this gift in
the church today. He begins with a translation of 1 Corinthians 12:28: "Now you are Christ's body, and its
respective organs, and God has placed these in the Community as follows: first envoys [pioneers]" (1
Corinthians 12:28, Schonfield). . . . The Greek noun apostolos means, 'a messenger' or 'an agent of another.'
The verb means 'to send out in action' or 'to give a message.' The New Testament meaning, therefore, is quite
plain: pioneers are those sent out on a mission with a special message."178

Using this definition of the word 'apostle' we find that Paul and Barnabas are called apostles in Acts 14:14 and
Paul, Silas and Timothy likewise in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6. This use of the gift is not to be confused with
others who were called "apostles" on a basis that they had been taught directly by Christ in the flesh and had
been witnesses to His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Paul lays claim to being an apostle with special authority
because he had been a witness to the resurrection and taught directly by Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1).

He also demonstrated his apostolic calling with signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 12:12). Today we do not have
such people in the church beyond the first generation of Christians. Nowhere do we find Ellen White laying
claim to such authority or exercising it.179

We do, however, find her opening up "new work" as does an apostle in the sense of being a pioneer. In the
early years she along with her husband were both pioneers. For many years they traveled large distances to
open up new areas to the newly found faith. In this way they were gifted as was Paul, Silas, Timothy and
Barnabas. Later, after her husband's death, she pioneered the founding of many of our institutions such as Loma
Linda University and Avondale College.

Multi-giftedness seems to be part of the New Testament teaching regarding the receiving of the gifts of the
Spirit. And so it is that Paul can write of himself, "And for this purpose I was appointed a herald [preacher] and
an apostle . . . and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles" (1 Timothy 2:7, emphasis added). In Acts 13:1
Barnabas is linked with prophets and teachers yet in 14:1-4 he along with Paul is called an apostle. From this
we can see that prophets along with others also teach and preach. They can at times open up new work as did
Barnabas. There is a definite overlapping of ministries.

E. Earle Ellis after wrestling with multi-giftedness of leaders in the early church comes to the conclusion, "It is
not always easy to distinguish the role of the prophet from that of other ministries. . . . there is no clear division
in Judaism or the primitive church between the teaching of a prophet and of a teacher. . . . There is also an
overlapping of the roles of apostle and prophet. . . . In summary, the ministries of the apostle and the prophet in
Acts may be compared to two concentric circles, in which the circle of the prophet's activities is somewhat
smaller."180

Applying Ellen White's multi-giftedness

The question then is, Are we always to regard Ellen White as acting as a prophet? We have seen that inspiration
does not work with a prophet constantly. We have previously seen there are times when prophets give their own
71
opinion on matters—such as Paul's perception that the boat was going to sink and there would be a loss of life
(later he was corrected by an angel), or Nathan giving advice to David only to be corrected later on by God.
The prophet knows what God reveals, beyond that they know no more than anyone else.

At one time when the magazine the Health Reformer was struggling and rapidly losing subscriptions, James,
Ellen White's husband, took over as editor to save the magazine. He requested that she furnish up to six pages a
month as her contribution. This she did with some articles from her own pen and others, which she clipped
from other periodicals. It was while acting in this capacity that many of the statements she made regarding
health, which we would consider to be wrong today, were made. Statements such as the wearing of wigs causes
insanity and the claim that women tightening their waists into what was called "wasp waists" could be passed
on to their daughters.

The question is, Was she acting as a prophet during this time or was she using some other spiritual gift? Both
Arthur White and Robert Olsen took the position that she was not wearing the "hat" of a prophet but that of an
editor.181 Olsen goes on to put forth a dilemma regarding her writing which is, "How can we determine what is
inspired and what is not?" Then he asks, "Who makes this determination? The White Estate? The GC? Does the
church need to go through a process similar to the canonization process of the New Testament in order to
ascertain this?"182

This is a valid point. It is obvious that in the area of health she was, for the most part, a product of her time. She
does, at times, borrow from current health reformers for many of her ideas. This she uses freely as well as ideas
given to her in vision. Previously we have seen that originality is not a test of inspiration and that prophets are
prone to be part of their culture in areas where God has not given them special knowledge. It is obvious that
some of the concepts she borrowed from health reformers were not correct.183

Even if she is acting as a prophet in these cases it is helpful to remember the need to evaluate prophecy, to
understand that wheat and chaff may come out. God does not expect that we will lay aside our minds, we must
use common sense. Most of what she wrote in the area of health is still of great value. We must not let a few
minor points invalidate the many good points she makes. After all, she never claims to be infallible: "In regard
to infallibility, I have never claimed it; God alone it infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness,
or shadow of turning" (Letter 10, 1895).

Once, when a believer was upset because she spoke of one of our hospitals as having 40 rooms and he stated
there were only 38, she responded by saying, "The information given concerning the number of rooms in the
Paradise Valley Sanitarium was given, not as a revelation from the Lord, but simply as a human opinion. There
has never been revealed to me the exact number of rooms in any of our sanitariums; and the knowledge I have
obtained of such things I have gained by inquiring of those who were supposed to know. . . . But there are times
when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written
and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are
not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God."184

Inspiration does not stay with the prophet for 24 hours each day. God may reveal things to them in certain
areas, but in other areas they may know no more than others. Our problem is how to sort out the sacred revealed
messages from what is common or not revealed. This is not any easy task, which is why Paul exhorts us to
evaluate the prophet's messages—all prophetic messages must be evaluated by the biblical messages and be
subservient to them.

Another thing to keep in mind is that she may be speaking when another one of her gifts is operating, such as
the gift of wisdom or discernment. When this is happening we would anticipate she would not have the same
authority as when she has something directly revealed from God. How then can we know what is revealed from
what is her own wisdom? How can we sort out what is revealed from what is borrowed? We may never have
satisfactory answers to these questions. There are good reasons to follow the biblical injunction to evaluate
prophecy. We do not lay aside our minds, we use our common-sense enlightened by a knowledge of the Bible.
72
If we keep in mind the biblical concepts as to why the gift of prophecy is given, from New Testament times
onward, we have no problem facing these issues. Paul tells us that the gift was for "strengthening,
encouragement, and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14:3). Ellen White frequently took ideas that were common
knowledge in her day and culture and applied a spiritual lesson to the lives of God's people. Recognising this,
we will not become too disturbed regarding the data she uses, but continue to uphold the principle behind what
she is saying.

Understanding her prophetic ministry

So how do we understand how her prophetic ministry operated? This question will always be hotly debated
within Adventism and we may never have full agreement. Even she seemed ambiguous about her function.
When she said her work included more than a prophetic ministry it would have been helpful if she had said
more to guide us. When we look at the prophetic ministry of Ellen White we see a range of things happening.

At times her ministry resembles that of Daniel and John the Revelator. She does have apocalyptic visions. She
also showed the physical manifestations of Daniel—particularly in her early years. Under this prophetic mantle
she claims an authority of one who has a message from God that needs to be heeded by God's people. In this
mode she is similar to the classic prophets of the Old Testament who believed God used them in a special way.
They confidently stressed that if the people refused to listen and heed their call it would be to their great loss.

There are times when she appears to have a ministry similar to that described in 1 Corinthians 14 when she
reveals the secrets of people's lives. However, unlike the Corinthian prophets she is not restricted to a local
congregation and is not one of many local prophets operating at the same time. Instead she moves around to
different churches encouraging the believers. In this ministry we can see a similarity to the prophetic ministry
of Agabus.

At times she bears messages that need to be evaluated by the hearers as to their appropriateness. Some of these
messages need to be understood in the light of the cultural setting of the time when they were first delivered.
We also have to bear in mind the human aspect in receiving and delivering the messages (as previously stated
in reference to Romans 12:6). That is, there is a chance she may not get things quite right in every precise
detail. Remember she never claimed infallibility.185 Mingled with the above is the fact that she may be using
gifts given to her by God other than the prophetic mantle. How her multi-giftedness coordinates is a subject that
invites further study. Perhaps Arthur White and Robert Olsen have opened that door when they stated that she
was not working in the prophetic office when acting as a sub-editor of the Health Reformer at her husband's
request.

Although some issues above may be hazy, other matters are clearly important. The main one is that Ellen White
repeatedly said we ought to go to the Bible and not her writings for church teachings. She says she is only the
"lesser light" to lead people to the "greater light." She does not claim the authority of a biblical writer.186 Rather
than claiming this authority, she is grateful to have the help of others in understanding biblical material (more
on this later).

Perhaps it is best to stay with her own definition of her work—as God's messenger. She was especially called
and equipped with the appropriate gifts needed to do a work in helping to establish the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. Her calling and equipping was unique and in harmony with the task God had in mind for her. There is
no one to whom she can be compared. That makes it difficult to tie her role down neatly, even if we do like neat
packages.

____________________

174 It is strongly implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, that all believers are part of the body of Christ and
as such have a function according to their particular spiritual gift. [back]

73
175 Letter from Willie White to A. G. Daniels, 31/12/1913, p. 10. [back]

176 Smith to Canright, April 6, 1883 as quoted in The Last Trump, pp. 208-209. [back]

177 1SM, pp. 31-32, 34, 36. [back]

178 Roy Naden, Your Spiritual Gifts - Making The Great Discovery, (Berrien Springs, MI: Instructional
Product Development. 1989), pp. 115-117. [back]

179 Sinclair B. Ferguson and Dasvid F. Wright, Editors, New Dictionary Of Theology, (Leicester, England:
InterVarsity Press, 1988), article "Apostle". [back]

180 W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, Editors, Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical
Essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday. (Devon England:. paternoster, 1970), pp. 64-65. [back]

181 "Current Issues On Ellen White's Writings" by Robert Olsen, March 28, 1986. p. 10. [back]

182 Ibid., p. 11. [back]

183 George W. Reid, A Sound of Trumpets, Americans, Adventists, and Health Reform, (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1982). Is an excellent work to describe how she borrowed some material from current
health reformers in her day. It seems that orthodox medicine in her day was in a terrible mess. She does borrow
much of what was good from the reformers but not infallibly. Some ideas had to be discarded and other ideas
carried on as they were of great benefit. Proof of this is the fact that many surveys in the late 20th century have
shown Adventists to be far healthier than the general population. Her warnings against the use of tobacco and
vegetarianism have become well respected in our day. Her book Ministry of Healing upholding natural living is
just as valid today as ever. [back]

184 1SM, pp. 38-39. [back]

185 Ibid., pp. 24, 37. [back]

186 Thus she wrote "The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the
unerring standard. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim
as truth from the revealed Word of God." Letter 12, 1890.

"Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater
light." Ev, p. 37. [back]

74
Chapter Fourteen

Ellen White's spiritual growth

All of us are on a journey. We grow in our understanding. All of us can look back and see how different we
understand things now compared to how we saw them twenty years ago. Prophets are human and go through a
process of growth. We saw earlier that even John the Baptist had some things to learn and unlearn regarding his
special area of ministry, the coming of the Messiah and His setting up of His kingdom.

Ellen White was no different. We can see a huge difference between: The frail young girl, so timid that she
would rather die than have another vision; the middle aged woman who could look church leaders in the face
and carpet them; and the older woman who needed help in getting around and continue to function in her
ministry.

We must allow Ellen White to be a normal human. She was no super-woman. She experienced remarkable
spiritual growth during the course of her life. The young Ellen White was a sensitive person who thought of
God as being cruel and a tyrant. She felt if she failed in her duties, His frown would be upon her. She suffered
long bouts of depression when she wanted to die. She did not seem to enjoy the peace that comes with knowing
the good news of the gospel. She certainly did not enjoy passing on the messages that God gave to her and
would often soften them down. She felt envious for those who felt they only had their own souls to care for.187

She once wrote to her husband, "I wish self to be hid in Jesus. I wish self to be crucified. I do not claim
infallibility, or even perfection of Christian character. I am not free from mistakes and errors in my life. Had I
followed my Saviour more closely, I should not have to mourn so much my unlikeness to His dear image."188

Later in life she could reflect, "For sixty years I have been in communication with heavenly messengers, and I
have been in constantly learning in reference to divine things. . . ."189

Alden Thompson observes regarding her growth in understanding, "The visions that God sent Ellen White were
always designed to be understandable to her at her level of growth at the moment of reception. . . . As she
became capable of seeing more, God showed her more. That is why she did not tell the great controversy story
just once in 1858 but kept retelling the story throughout her life and making some significant changes along the
way."190

The early years

In the earlier years of her work she tended to be very charismatic and had many visionary experiences. When
she was called as a young girl in New England she was only one of many hundreds who claimed to have the
prophetic gift. The whole atmosphere of the area was supercharged as many of the early Adventist believers
had come out of the Millerite movement. Methodist connections were quite strong as well. This was in a time
and area when Methodists were often called the "shouting Methodists." It was common to find among them
shouting, swooning, trances, and healings. Speaking in tongues appeared at times also. Some, looking back
today, might well call the cradle of Adventism a "primeval soup."

The early Ellen White did not stand apart from the community of believers. She was in harmony with the
culture of the time. Prophets seem to act in a way that the people receiving their messages would expect them
the act. If this were not true then they would never get a hearing.

In recent times we have learned of the Israel Dammon trial. This was brought to light with the discovery of a
newspaper account of the trial of an Adventist elder, Israel Dammon, who was brought to trial in Dover, Maine,
on February 1845 for vagrancy, neglect of family and disturbing the peace after leading out in an Adventist
home meeting. One witness said, "I never saw such confusion, not even in a drunken frolic."191 It seems as
75
though what was going on was real fanaticism. There was crying and shouting, people swooning, kissing and
crawling around on the floor. In the midst of it all Ellen White was lying on the floor going in and out of vision.
Apparently the noise was such as to disturb a neighbor who called the police. The police came and Dammon
was arrested, but only after some resistance when some women took hold of him and prevented the police from
taking him.

Before we judge this incident too harshly, from a distance, remember again that God meets people where they
are. From this distance, it seems like fanaticism. However, they were part of the frontier culture of North
America in the early 19th century. Early Adventists were part of a religious culture with a strong Shouting
Methodist influence. Some Bible prophets acted strangely at times, but they acted in harmony with the culture
of their time. Likewise with Ellen White's behaviour. Importantly, no witness of the event ever accused her of
any impropriety. It is a fact that some of the early Adventists did have some fanatical tendencies and she was
called to witness to them. However this does not mean that she was part of their fanaticism or condoned it.

We must also bear in mind that out of these experiences she was able to emerge and lead a movement. If she
had not been charismatic in the sense that they expected a prophet to act, they may have ignored her. As time
went on she and others moved away from these experiences. The movement matured and she matured with it.
Later she would use her influence to counter extreme manifestations such as were found in the early years. It is
a tribute to her that she was able to forge a movement that would eventually envelop the world. Some two
hundred other New England prophets of her time192 have disappeared from history but her work was especially
blessed of God and endured.

Signs of a maturing ministry

The earlier part of her ministry is marked with many visions and charismatic experiences; but the visions had
all but disappeared in the latter part of her ministry. As the movement became more organised and
institutionalised so she matured and, indeed, she was part of the church's maturing process. When fanaticism
rose again in the "Holy Flesh Movement" she stood out against the extreme manifestations and called for more
balanced expressions of faith and worship.

In the early years of her ministry she, along with others, taught that the door of opportunity was closed to all
who had not accepted the preaching of the Millerites regarding the soon coming of Jesus. She was part of the
"Shut Door Adventist" group that emerged out of the Millerite movement.193 We have to bear in mind that
prophets do not always understand what God is revealing to them in vision. We have already noticed that Peter
pondered in his heart what the vision on the rooftop at Joppa was meant to convey to him. Subsequent
experience at the home of a Gentile made it clear that he was to treat the Gentiles as equals with the Jews.

On the Shut Door she, like Peter, found that subsequent experiences taught her what God was saying to her in
vision. As children were born to the Shut Door group and people wished to join up with them they were
brought out of this error. The truth is, she often had trouble understanding what her visions were meant to teach.
Willie White states that sometimes the vision was repeated to her in order to clarify the message.194 He also
stresses the immense difficulty that she and others had in understanding what God was getting her to say,
"Oftentimes when we go to Mother and ask her to explain the things she has written, she will say, 'I cannot
explain it; you should understand it better than I. If you do not understand it, pray to the Lord, and He will help
you.'"195

Bert Haloviak adds, "There were times when Ellen White herself could misinterpret a vision or misstate or
imperfectly express what had been revealed to her. Note what her son, W C White stated to Kellogg: 'Sister
White was not infallible in stating things revealed to her.' There are at least three examples where Ellen White
apparently misstated or misunderstood something revealed through vision: Eve touching food in the Garden of
Eden and death as the result; the number of generations contemporaneously living at the time of the flood; the
use of Southern Publishing facilities as a depot."196

76
As a middle-aged woman we find her leading a rapidly growing movement. She pioneered the setting up of
medical and educational work. She encouraged welfare and temperance activities. She was in constant demand
as a speaker. She was a counselor to church leaders and various individuals. But above all she wanted to make
the church centred in Christ and committed to uplifting Him in all areas of its work. We find differences
between her early and later writings as her own understanding of God's grace became more fully developed.
Later in life she does not seem to fear God as she had when a young girl. In her later works we see a clearer
portrayal of the goodness and mercy of God. An interested reader should compare her books to see the change
in emphasis and style—compare Early Writings with The Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ.

The Aging Problems

Later, as a woman in her 80s, she acted as other elderly women and needed to rely on others more. Willie White
once had to explain to Prescott that he had difficulty in passing on to her some information from him because
she was not able to comprehend. He said he would wait for an opportune time.197

After her death S N Haskell wrote to Willie, "If I believed even what you have told me about having to tell your
mother the same thing over three or four times in order that she might get a clear idea of things, so that she
could give a correct testimony on some points, it would weaken my faith, mightily; not in your mother, but in
what comes from her pen."198

Gilbert Valentine adds, "Rumors had apparently reached Mrs White that Daniells and Prescott were revising
church books in order to introduce new ideas. In actuality it was W C White who was coordinating the revision
of The Great Controversy, but this was another period when the aging Mrs White was not in good health.
Periods of depression clouded her days, and W C White had to be very diplomatic and sensitive with regards to
the various problems he brought to her."199

It is difficult to get a clear picture of her mental deterioration towards the end of her life. Jerry Allan Moon
maintains that her mind was clear on spiritual matters right to the end even though she was confused on local
and minor matters.200 One does get the impression, from the letters of Prescott and Crisler however, that there
was an attempt by her helpers to assist and not give any impression of mental deterioration. Books were still
being rushed out for publication just prior to her death, and after as well.

Many Adventists, as well as those who are antagonistic to Ellen White's writings, have failed to take into
account that she did start out a young and in many respects immature girl to whom great responsibility was
given. Nor do they take into account that she did grow old and suffer with the frailties that accompany those
who live into their 80s. Most tend to see her as always being a woman in her prime. Failure to understand this
has caused many to overlook her personal spiritual journey and growth to spiritual maturity. This accounts for
the fact that some can produce statements from the earlier Ellen White and match them against the latter Ellen
White, and make them appear to be contradictions.

__________________

187 This is how she describes her early experiences when called to deliver God's messages in 1T, pp. 58-74.
[back]

188 Ellen G.White to James White, May 16, 1876. Letter 27, 1876. [back]

189 This Day With God, p. 76. For more information on Ellen White's spiritual journey read From Sinai to
Golgotha. A five part series in the Review by Alden Thompson, commencing December 3, 1981. see
www.sdanet.org.atissue/white/alden. [back]

190 Ibid., December 24, p. 8. [back]

77
191 For a fuller description see Jonathan Bulter's article "Prophecy, Gender, and Culture: Ellen Gould Harmon
White and the Roots of Seventh-day Adventism," Religion and American Culture: Journal of Interpretation,
Winter 1991, pp. 3-29. Also Scandal or Rite of Passage? Historians on the Dammon Trial, edited by Rennie
Schoepflin, Spectrum, Vol. 17, No 5, pp. 38-50. [back]

192 This information was shared in "The History of Adventist Theology" Andrews University class by Dr.
George Knight. It would also help to clarify why she did not particularly wish to be called a prophet but rather
chose the title "messenger of the Lord". It seems the many who were claiming to be prophets (when she first
began to receive visions) were bringing the title into disrepute. [back]

193 Some would argue that this teaching is an embarrassment to the Seventh-day Adventist Church today.
Those who use such an argument should be reminded of the fact that a similar "Shut Door teaching" was
applied by early Christians (including Peter) for the first 10 years of the existence of the newly formed
Christian Church. For the first 10 years they only preached to the Jews as being worthy of God's grace. That is
the purpose of the vision given by God to Peter in Acts 10: 9-34. All movements raised up by God still have the
imperfections common to humanity. [back]

194 Willie states, "Several times we thought that the manuscript of the book was all ready for the printer, then a
vision of some important feature of the controversy would be repeated, and Mother would again write upon the
subject, bringing out the description more fully and clearly. Thus the publishing was delayed, and the book
grew in size." 3SM, p. 442. [back]

195 W. C. White, "The Integrity of the Testimonies to the Church." Remarks at College View, Nebraska,
November 25, 1905, F. C. Gilbert Personal Collection, Box 4, untitled fld. [back]

196 Sligo Series, Oct. 22 and 29, 1980. Unpublished paper, pp. 7- 8. A series of talks given by Bert Haloviak
the General Conference archivist. [back]

197 Willie wrote to Prescott. "Sometimes I tried to talk with Mother about the things which have been such a
burden on your heart, but she could not understand me, and so I put the matter off, thinking the time would
come when her mind would be led out upon this matter." W. C. White to W. W. Prescott, March 12, 1915
[back]

198 S. N. Haskell to W. C. White, November 27, 1918, WEDC. [back]

199 Gilbert M .Valentine, The Shaping of Adventism, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1992),
p. 208. [back]

200 Jerry Allen Moon, W. C. White and Ellen White, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation
Series, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993), pp. 344-345. [back]

78
Chapter Fifteen

Ellen White's theological growth

Ellen White's growth theologically is a fascinating journey to trace. Take, for example, her understanding on
the meaning of the law in Galatians. In the 1850s J H Waggoner had written a book in which he took the
position that the law in Galatians was the moral law. Stephen Pierce opposed him arguing that it was the law
system including the ceremonial law. She opposed Waggoner and supported Pierce. Later the denominational
position accepted that the law in Galatians was the ceremonial law alone. She supported this position. She
published this view in her book Sketches from the Life of Paul.

At the time of the debate over the subject at Minneapolis in 1888 she began to doubt the position she had held
that it was the ceremonial law. When hearing E J Waggoner, "For the first time I began to think it might be we
did not hold correct views, after all upon the law in Galatians." It seems she did change her position again later
when Acts of the Apostles was published in 1911. She wrote of the moral law as the schoolmaster. (Some
scholars today would say this position is incorrect and would contend that the law referred to in Galatians
means the Torah as a covenant and national system.)

In the context of the debate over the law in Galatians around 1888 she came out with statements like: "We have
many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that
they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be
disappointed."201

This illustrates well that we find her changing her position on the basis of others pointing out a more correct
position from the Bible. She was prepared to change her own previously published position on a basis of further
Bible study.202 She also refused to let her writings be the final arbiter in the matter; instead she requested that
the matter be resolved from the Bible alone.

This was also her way of handling the controversy over the "Daily" which raged for decades in Adventism. She
had previously written that the pioneer position was correct. The pioneer position was that the Daily mentioned
in Daniel chapter 8 represented Pagan Rome.203 A new position was put forward that it represented the Papacy
in their counterfeit of the work of Christ through the mass. The new view was opposed by old stalwarts who
appealed to the statement in Early Writings as having settled the matter forever. Ellen White eventually took
herself out of the contest by declaring that she had no special light on the matter and that they should work it
out from the Bible and not her writings.204

We find that she could also change her position on: The proper time to open and close Sabbath. She, for a time,
felt it should be kept from 6 pm to 6 pm. However others convinced her it was more biblical to observe the
Sabbath from sunset to sunset.205 At first she felt it was acceptable to eat pork and proclaimed it to be "a healthy
and nourishing food." Later, when it was pointed out to her that this was not the case, she changed her
position.206 Some have criticised her for requesting oysters in a letter she wrote to her daughter-in-law in 1882,
but they fail to understand that the distinction between clean and unclean foods was largely an undeveloped
concept in Adventism in the nineteenth century.207

Early Adventists had in their copy of the Bible the books of the Apocrypha. Most Christians in her era probably
thought that although the Apocrypha did not rate on the same level as the Bible yet these books did contain
some wisdom and truth. Today Protestants have these books removed from their Bibles and they are usually
found only in Roman Catholic Bibles. It comes as a surprise to some Adventists to see in her writings, such as
"A Word to the Little Flock," references to 2 Esdras. These references were added by James White in the
footnotes. That she would refer to the language used by an Apocryphal book would not appear strange or wrong
to her, her husband or early Adventists. The later writings of Ellen White do not contain such allusions or

79
references. She, along with the rest of the Protestant world, gradually saw a clearer distinction between these
books and the Bible.208

These points are important. To fail to detect her theological growth means you may be able to see
inconsistencies within her writings. You can pit the early Ellen White against the later; but that would be unfair
and constitute a failure to see what really was one of her strengths—her ability to grow in her understanding.
But in seeing her strengths we must also acknowledge her weaknesses. As an ordinary human being, we must
let her be what she was and honestly accept that. At times she does not always appear to be consistent in what
she says.

The importance of context

It is true that she encouraged openness to finding out more from the Bible. But there are times when she seems
to put the dampener on more investigation and growth. The following few examples demonstrate this. First a
sampling of the statements which seem to invite open inquiry: "Our brethren should be willing to investigate in
a candid way every point of controversy. . . . We should all know what is being taught among us; for if it is the
truth, we need it. . . . If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it. .
. . We must study the truth for ourselves. No living man should be relied upon to think for us. . . ."209

On the other hand she wrote: "As a people we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has
withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. . . . No line of truth that has made the
Seventh-day Adventist people what they are, is to be weakened. We have the old landmarks of truth. . . . Woe
to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. . . . Not one pin is to be removed from that which
the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary.
This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where will we find safety unless it
be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years?"210

In Adventist history, whenever the church is about to look at some new point of view from the Scriptures, both
types of statements are appealed to. Usually those who are for the new ideas will quote the former and those
who are against the new ideas will quote the latter. So, which is the real Ellen White?

Generally speaking, the statements she makes appealing for openness are dated around the 1880s and 1890s.
This was during the discussions over the meaning of the word "law" in Galatians. It was a time when the gospel
news was about to make a greater impact on Adventism. At this time she stood with those advocating uplifting
Jesus. She is saying to the old vanguard to open up their minds and allow this uplifting of Jesus to bring us back
into a more balanced position. She did this even though it would appear that not all they were saying was
correct—for instance, recent studies indicate that both Jones and Waggoner were advocating a form of sinless
perfectionism.211

On the other hand the statements that appear to close the door against new understandings come at the end of
the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. This was the era of Kellogg and his teachings. Kellogg's
teachings were coming close to pantheism. If he was right, then it would lead to the teaching that there was no
sanctuary in heaven. These new ideas would have brought confusion to the Adventist movement. She
personally stood against them and saved the church from being shipwrecked.

There were other times when she used her prophetic office to put people down and effectively end discussion.
Such was the case with A F Ballenger and his ideas on the sanctuary. She said that he had gathered together a
mass of Scripture and his application of these passages was misleading. She appears not to have attempted to
show where he was wrong from the Bible rather she defended the traditional views on a basis of "the
remarkable beginnings and the long history of the doctrine, and the confirmation of the doctrine given to her in
her own visions."212 It is significant that she does not even try to exegete the passages of Scripture used by
Ballenger rather she says this truth had been "sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle
working power from the Lord."213 It is to her visions that she makes the final court of appeal.214
80
In 1906 she wrote to an evangelist W. W. Simpson: "The visions that the Lord has given me are so remarkable
that we know that what we have accepted is the truth. . . . The power of God would come on me, and I was
enabled clearly to define what is truth, and what is error. . . . under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I
would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given to me. . . . All these truths are immortalized in
my writings. . . . I am thankful that the instruction contained in my books establishes present truth for this time.
These books were written under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit."215

She also wrote in a letter to her son Willie, "For there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It
is the light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little. This is now to
come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors and to specify what is truth"216
(emphasis added).

These statements have serious implications. She appeals to her experiences as the final authority for the
teachings of the church. If this is true then the experiences of the church through her prophetic gift becomes the
final authority for Adventist doctrines. If that is so then the church may be said to have another authority
outside of the Scriptures. This is not consistent with what she says elsewhere. It could be that when she sees the
future of the church at stake and threatened, she sees the need to use the full weight of her prophetic authority to
keep everything in place.

But, there are those other statements where, in many other places she says we are not to use her writings to
settle doctrinal issues. For instance, "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 their
positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point the claim as truth from the revealed Word of God."217
And "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. . . . Before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain
'Thus saith the Lord in its support."218

Indeed she seems condemned by her own counsel when she says, "But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever
been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. 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.219

There is an inconsistency in these statements. And in this we find a revelation of her humanity. What human
can pass the test of always being consistent in what we say and what we live—now stretch that over a 60-year
ministry. However, that does not invalidate the fact that she has been genuinely used of God. Remember, earlier
we discovered that some of the great men, used in the Bible by God, were not always consistent either. She
certainly was using all her prophetic authority to protect Adventism against what she perceived to be
threatening teachings, in doing this she may not have always been consistent with her often made statements
regarding the importance of recognising no other authority than the Bible.

The issue of Ellen White's authority

There are some important principles at stake here. Are Seventh-day Adventists truly Protestants as they claim?
If so then we are to have no other authority in doctrine outside the Bible. Fundamental Belief number one
states: "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 church's first baptismal vows states: "Do you believe that the Bible is the full, sufficient and only basic rule
of faith and practice for the Christian?" Do new converts have to give assent to this only to be told later that
they must bow their judgment to Ellen White?

When asked to explain further the authority of Ellen White, the General Conference put out a statement of
"Affirmations and Denials." Here are a few: "We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final
81
authority in all matters of doctrine and practice." "We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function
as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture." "We do not believe that the writings
of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine." And, "We do not believe that Scripture can be understood
only through the writings of Ellen White."220

It is important to note that what is at stake is not her inspiration, but her authority. At the present time there is
going on in the church widespread discussion among members that take into account issues such as:

What if she is not always totally original? She did borrow from others, who can sort out what is borrowed and
what has been shown to her?

What if she is not always totally accurate? We know she did not always use the best sources available or use
them correctly.

What about the fact that she lived in a world so different to us today? That was a world when Adventism was
mainly in North America. She only lived fifteen years into the 20th century and never saw most of the big
issues we have to face today.

Then, in what way is she an authority for the church today? Authority today is not something that can be
claimed it must be earned. We have a division of opinion at the present time to these questions. While some
will say she is an authority and we must not question her right to prescribe to us, there is a growing number
(particularly among the younger generation) who would say she has no relevance today. This discussion has
been going on in the homes and hearts of thousands of Adventists since the early 1980s.

So what is Ellen White's function? This is a question we will continue to wrestle with here, in this book, and in
other places. A lot is at stake. The question must be asked, Are we a free people? Free to grow in our
understanding of the Bible? Free to disagree with what she has written in the areas of science, health, history,
prophecy and education, etc. What should a person do if they find they have come to some other conclusion
than what she has written? Do they surrender their private judgment? These questions are crucial to the future
of Adventism.

Here again we must keep before us the statement in Scripture telling us the purpose of prophecy. This passage
is the only place in the New Testament that defines the purpose of prophecy. "But everyone who prophecies
speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement, and comfort"(1 Corinthians 14: 3).

There can be no doubt that she earned tremendous respect from her contemporaries in Adventism as they found
her able to give advice and counsel that was so often correct and timely. When a person is in close contact with
God over so long a period of time, as she was, their abilities in the area of wisdom and discernment can be
sharpened. She herself was conscious of this when she wrote to her critics, "For the last forty-five years the
Lord has been revealing to me the needs of His cause and the cases of individuals in every phase of experience,
showing where and how they have failed to perfect Christian character. The history of hundreds of cases has
been presented to me, and that which God approves, and that which He condemns, has been plainly set before
me. . . .

With the light communicated through the study of His word, with the special knowledge given of individual
cases among His people under all circumstances and in every phase of experience, can I now be in the same
ignorance, the same mental uncertainty and spiritual blindness, as at the beginning of this experience? Will my
brethren say that Sister White has been so dull a scholar that her judgment in this direction is no better than
before she entered Christ's school, to be trained and disciplined for a special work? Am I no more intelligent in
regard to the duties and perils of God's people than are those before whom these things have never been
presented? I would not dishonor my Maker by admitting that all this light, all the display of His mighty power
in my work and experience, has been valueless, that it has not educated my judgment or better fitted me for His
work."221
82
She earned the respect of her contemporaries and, in turn, they gave her authority. She was established, in their
minds, with prophetic authority because of her wise counsel. However, an umpire in sport can have authority
even when they make a wrong decision. Today we can see that, in hindsight, she did at times make some wrong
calls. But that does not rob her of her prophetic authority anymore than Nathan lost his when he gave the wrong
advice to David regarding the building of the temple. Or when John the Baptist got it wrong regarding the
nature of the kingdom that Christ was setting up.

So what sort of authority does she have with the Adventist community? We know that some would want to give
her formal authority. That is, her words are always taken to be true simply because she says so. To them she is
the last word on the sciences of biology, geology and history, as well as theology. They would say she can tell
you how tall was Adam, how old is the earth and what causes earthquakes. But that type of authority is now
gone forever as more Adventists become aware of her sources in some of those areas. No longer can she speak
outside of her culture as a timeless voice of authority.

Many others in Adventism would say that they prefer to give her "internal authority." That is when she speaks
we will listen to what she has to say and treat her words with respect as one so often used by God. However,
when she speaks, they declare that they will weigh up the "intrinsic truthfulness" of what she has to say. They
are saying that they will have to be convinced by the strength of argument that she presents. As such they are
wittingly or unwittingly following Paul's counsel of 1 Corinthians 14: 29 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 21 where Paul
admonishes believers to "judge" or "test" the ideas that come from prophets.

In doing this they also follow the counsel of Ellen White herself who when rebuking those who took an
inflexible approach to what she had previously written concerning the age children should commence school,
said, "That is how it is, and my mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the idea, 'Why, Sister White has said
so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.' God wants us all to
have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions.
Circumstances change the relation of things."222

Accepting her prophetic authority does not involve laying aside our mind or personal judgment. It means that
we will listen carefully to what she has to say and, guided by the same Spirit who gave her a prophetic ministry,
we will make valued judgments as to the wisdom of the counsel as Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 14:29 and
1 Thessalonians 5:21.

____________________

201 CWE, p. 37. [back]

202 For further study on this point read: Ellen White's Role In The Resolution of Conflicts in Adventist History,
by Ron Graybill of the White Estate. Also "The Law And The Prophet. Ellen White's struggle to understand the
law in Galatians." A four part series in Adventist Review by Tim Crosby commencing May 8, 1986. For
understanding her refusal to allow her writings to be used as an authority to settle the differences in 1888 over
the law see Ministry, February, 1991, pp. 6-11. Crisis In Authority, by George Knight. [back]

203 EW, pp. 74-75. [back]

204 1SM, pp. 164-165. [back]

205 For an excellent understanding of how she changed her mind on the time to open and close Sabbath see
Herbert Douglas, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press,
1998), pp.157-158. [back]

206 "The Development Of Adventist Thinking On Clean And Unclean Meats," Ron Graybill, Ellen G. White
Estate, June 10, 1981. p. 1. [back]
83
207 Ibid., pp. 2-3.[back]

208 An excellent account of Ellen White's relationship with the Apocrypha is found in "Sixty-six Books—or
Eighty one? Did Ellen White Recommend the Apocrypha?" By Denis Fortin. Adventist Review, March 28,
2002, pp. 9-12. [back]

209 CWE, pp. 43-45 [back]

210 Ibid., pp. 52-53. [back]

211 See papers by Kerry Hortop and Milton Hook in Towards Righteousness by Faith, Arthur Ferch, Editor,
(Warburton Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 1988). [back]

212 Graybill. Ellen White's Role in the Resolution of Conflicts, p. 11. [back]

213 Manuscript 44, 1905. It is interesting to note that although she opposed Ballenger on the meaning of
"within the veil" as mentioned in Hebrews 6:19; yet the Seventh-day Adventist Church's "Glacier View
Consensus Document" of 1980 accepted Ballenger's position that the expression did apply to the second veil;
not the first as we have traditionally taught. See "Christ in the heavenly Sanctuary," Ministry, October 1980, p
17. "The symbolic language of the Most Holy Place, 'within the veil,' is used to assure us of our full direct, and
free access to God (chaps. 6:19-20; 9:24-28; 10: 1-4). [back]

214 Ron Graybill comments "She seems not to have sensed that such arguments contradicted her own rule that
no authority outside Scripture should have any weight in deciding what the Bible taught. Ballenger, undeterred
rejected her arguments. To accept them, he said, would place the thousands upon thousands of pages of your
writings in books and periodicals between the child of God and God's book. If this position be true, no noble
Berean dare believe any truth, however clearly it may seem to be taught in the Scriptures, until he first consults
your writings to see whether it harmonizes with your interpretation. "The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White
and the Women Religious Founders of the Nineteenth Century," Degree draft by Ron Graybill, University
Microfilms International, 1983, p. 128. [back]

215 Letter 50, 1906, as found in MR. 760, pp. 22-23, " The Integrity of the Sanctuary Truth," White Estate,
March 12, 1981. [back]

216 Ellen White to W. C. White, November 22, 1910. [back]

217 Letter 12, 1890. [back]

218 GC, p. 595. [back]

219 5T, pp. 706-707. [back]

220 "The inspiration and authority of Ellen G. White's writings—A statement of present understanding,"
Ministry, February, 1983. p. 24. [back]

221 5T, pp. 685-6. [back]

222 3SM, p. 217. For a more complete understanding of her statement consult George Knight, Myths In
Adventism, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1985). chapter one "The Myths of the Inflexible Prophet."
and of particular helpful and valuable counsel is Knight's later book, Reading Ellen White, (Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald, 1997), in his chapter, "Use Common Sense". [back]

84
Chapter Seventeen

Ellen White and the end times

Almost 20 years ago Donald Casebolt in Spectrum challenged Ellen White's interpretations of biblical
prophecy. He wrote, "Early Adventist leaders were convinced that a great many of the end-time prophecies
were being fulfilled very rapidly. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755, the Dark Day of 1780, the captivity of Pope
Pius V1 in 1798, and the falling of the stars in 1833 had all taken place within recent memory. Even more
striking, however, was the fact that Turkey had lapsed into impotency in 1840, apparently on the exact day that
Josiah Litch had predicted, according to his interpretation of Revelation 9. . . . prophecy seemed to be
unerringly homing in on the world-like successive cannon blasts, with the next shot due to explode at the
climax of earth's history."245

Casebolt then attacks the understanding early Adventist leaders and Ellen White had regarding these
prophecies. He shows how the date Litch set had both exegetical and historical problems. He claims that "the
hour, day, month, and a year of Revelation 9:15 refer to a point of time rather than a period of time. . . .
Furthermore, Turkey still exists as a modern state, never having lost its independence."246

Casebolt also shows how the supposed "Dark Day of May 19, 1780 was caused by smoke from huge forest fires
burning in the New England states combining with a dark storm front passing through the area."247 He then
shows how the supposed "Falling of the stars" in 1833 is a regular occurring event which is the shower caused
by the tail of the Leonid meteor as it passes by the earth every 33 1/3 years with records going back to 902 AD.
He also gives evidence that the 1966 shower was 2 1/2 times greater than the shower of 1833.248 Casebolt
claims regarding the early Adventists, "Their lack of knowledge concerning the nature of meteor showers and
weather inversions led then to ascribe these 'strange events' to a supernatural cause, much like primitive peoples
think of solar eclipses."249

Since Casebolt wrote his article other voices have also challenged the traditional interpretation of the Dark Day
and Falling of the Stars. One such person was Hans LaRondelle who stresses that these events occur not prior to
but at the actual coming of Jesus to this earth again. He quotes other Adventist scholars as supporting him, "A
number of contemporary Adventist expositors admit the exegetical problems with the old interpretation of the
cosmic signs. . . . (See Marvin Moore, The Crisis of the End Time . . . S. Bacchiocchi, The Advent Hope for
Human Hopelessness) . . . these books no longer articulate the traditional application of the cosmic signs."250

He then quotes George Knight's exposition of Matthew 24 from his Matthew commentary: "The pattern of
Matthew 24 appears to be that the real signs are not signs of nearness but signs of coming."251 Knight is correct
in what he says, for anyone reading a modern translation will find the Greek text clearly translated in such a
way as to forbid the interpretation that the cosmic events could be anything other than what occurs at the actual
coming of Jesus. For example, after listing the sun being darkened and the falling of the stars, the NIV renders
Matthew 24:30: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. . . ." (emphasis added).

It would appear from Matthew 24:30 that these cosmic signs accompany the personal, visible coming of Christ
with His angels causing the nations on earth to mourn. In addition natural reading of Revelation 6:12-17
suggests that the cosmic signs accompany the coming of Christ. We appear to be forcing the issue to fit in a gap
of hundreds of years between verses 13 and 14.

LaRondelle challenges the significance of the Lisbon earthquake: "Throughout the centuries earthquakes have
killed 'on average some 15,000 people every year.' Before 1755, three earthquakes were of even greater
intensity; the 1456 earthquake of Naples, Italy (30,000 dead) the 156, the 1556 Shensu earthquake in China
(820,000 dead); the 1737 earthquake of Calcutta ( 300,000 dead). After 1755, the Tokyo quake took 200,000
lives in 1803; in 1920 the quake of Kansu, left 180,000 dead in China; and the 1923 quake of Kwanto, Japan,
killed 140,000. In 1976 earthquakes caused 650,000 deaths in China alone."252
85
 139

Today you would be hard pressed to convince people that Jesus is coming soon on the basis of the 1755 Lisbon
earthquake, the 1790 dark day and the 1833 falling of the stars. To our pioneers it appeared these were the signs
that Jesus had spoken to indicate His soon return. This had an effect upon them for good to build and nourish
the Advent hope. And there is no doubt that Ellen White endorsed the traditional view of the early Adventists in
her book The Great Controversy (see pp. 305-308, 334). Today, few, if any, Adventist scholars would support
her on these points. Casebolt declares, "She did err in borrowing mistaken prophetic expositions."253

At the same time, she encouraged further study, particularly in the books of Daniel and Revelation. One
wonders if her gift is not being misused when her understanding of end-time events is used to hold back further
growth in understanding of the books of Daniel and Revelation. It could be ironic to think that she called for
more study and growth in our understanding of these books declaring that when we do we will have a revival;
yet all the while her writings are being used to stifle further growth in understanding.254

In The Great Controversy, the interpretation of Revelation chapter 11 focuses upon the French Revolution and
the war upon the Bible—by having it banned. Today there are several problems upholding this the traditional
view of this chapter. The French Revolution has no longer the same impact upon we who live 200 years after
the event as it did our forefathers. We also know that the Bible was not banned for 3 1/2 years as applied to the
prophecy in The Great Controversy. However, the more closely we study chapter 11 the more we see
similarities between this chapter and chapter 13. There may be some important points for us to learn from this
chapter when it is better understood, that will benefit God's people in the end time. How tragic if she, who was
so forward looking in the search for truth, should be used as one who holds back our growth in the
understanding of God's Word.

If we keep in mind the reason she wrote the book which was to win people to Christ using the prevailing ideas
among Adventists of her era, we have no problem with this. The real problem emerges only if we try to use the
book as a type of textbook to lock us into the interpretations she upholds. The Great Controversy was meant to
be an evangelistic tool to win people to Christ and Adventism.255 And it uses the ideas in Adventism accepted
at the time of its writing. As already noted, Ellen White borrows much of her prophetic material from Uriah
Smith and J. N. Andrews.256

Her borrowing was primarily in the areas of theology and prophecy. When she applies lessons spiritually she is
basically working by herself. She takes prophecy and doctrine to apply them to the lives of the believer. This is
the work of prophets as outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:3. In doing this she helps us to see the real purpose of
prophecy. Jon Paulien supports this idea of prophecy, "Although our human curiosity is God-given, the central
purpose of prophecy is not to satisfy our curiosity about the future but to teach us how to live today"257
(emphasis added).

She revised The Great Controversy when she was given advice from scholars in 1911. If she were alive today
there is every reason to suggest we would still be open to revise it again. She was ever open to receive more
light, and encouraged more study on the books of Daniel and Revelation.258

The Adventist Church and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy

There can be no question that every generation must be, in a certain sense, a first generation. That is, each
generation must feel free to study the Bible for themselves to discover "present truth" in order to keep the
Advent hope alive and fresh. By insisting on events that impressed our forefathers many generations ago as
being the fulfillment of prophecy may indeed have a counter effect and serve to deaden the Advent hope rather
than nourish it.

A study of the history of the Christian Church over two millenniums indicates that each generation was able to
look at current events and see in them fulfillment of prophecy. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
86
makes this observation regarding the fulfillment of biblical prophecy: "That a single prophetic passage may
embrace more than one fulfillment is evident (see on Deut 18:15). Some such prophecies have both an
immediate and a more remote fulfillment, and in addition contain principles that are generally applicable at all
times. Furthermore, 'it should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional'
(EGW MS 4, 1883)."259

In his book, End Time, Jon Paulien shows how end time events can undergo adjustments as time goes on and
new situations arise. He illustrates this by comparing the end time expectations of: Noah, Abraham, Israe,
before after the captivity, Jewish Apocalyptic writings between the Testaments; Jesus, Paul, and John the
Revelator.260

Thus, it would seem, we have a biblical model set before us on the need to adjust our expectations of the
fulfillment of prophecy appropriate to the age in which we live. God's purposes will be fulfilled; but how and
when can undergo development and change.

Other voices may also be heard in Adventism calling for the need to reinterpret biblical prophecies in harmony
with the present age. One such voice is Alden Thompson: "A direct corollary exists between the concept of
delay and that of re-application. With increasing delay, the need for re-application of the imagery becomes
more pressing as a means of maintaining a sense of imminence. As culture changes, the symbols must be
reapplied.

"In North American Adventism, however, an Essene-style approach to Adventist mission tends to postpone the
felt need for re-interpretation. Adventists who know only Adventists and who live in their own American sub-
culture do not concern themselves with relevance and adaptation. They are convinced that their interpretation of
Adventist eschatology has been God's plan from the foundation of the earth. . . . the delay of the Advent means
re-interpretation with a vengeance. . . . Israel's history should inform us that if we delay long enough, a radical
re-ordering could be in order."261

Tim Crosby writes regarding the need to see truth as having a moment in time when it becomes relevant and
may be termed "present truth." He builds upon a statement made by Ellen White and applies the principle of
reinterpretation to theology, prophecy and Christian standards of living. He takes seriously the principle stated
by Ellen White in one of her sermons at Minneapolis where some people were upset that she appeared to be
taking a different understanding on the use of the term "law" in Galatians. The statement she made is, "That
which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it
is God's message for this time."262

This does not mean that we shall act as some, during World War I and II, by running with every wind of
political event and seeing in them the fulfillment of prophecy. It does mean that we should keep in mind that
there is a moral purpose in prophecy. It was given to help us maintain our hold on Christ.263 Correctly
understood and interpreted it leads us to trust in Christ and understand His purpose for our lives.

Seventh-day Adventism was born in the early 19th century with a message relevant to the needs of the world.
Many streams of theological thought fed into Adventism. Considering there was not one trained scholar among
them it is amazing how they arrived at some of the key theological concepts such as: The Sabbath; the nature of
humankind in death; the great controversy theme; and the coming of Christ before the millennium.

They saw themselves raised up by God to preach these and other great truths in relationship to the times in
which they lived. To them the French Revolution had been an earth-shaking event. They saw prophecy fulfilled
in this event and events surrounding it. They lived in the United States of America at a time when there was an
immigration wave of Catholics threatening to overthrow the Protestant heritage of the country. The hard-
drinking Catholic laborers were coming in droves and threatening to unsettle city life and the observance of
Sunday. In response the Protestant world of their day was trying to bring in laws to maintain the Puritan ideas
within Protestantism.
87
Jonathan Butler describes how Ellen White related to the situation of her age: "Within her own lifetime, Mrs
White allowed for the conditional nature of prophecy. Christ might have come 'long ere this,' she remarked. He
might have come in the Civil War era when slavery was the sign of a failing democracy and an imminent
Second Coming. He might have come about 1888 when a beleaguered Adventist minority in Tennessee chain
gangs and jails indicated America's doom and the world's demise. In both cases, the prophetess spoke
eschatologically with one eye on the morning newspaper. She inspired a sense of relevance or 'present truth.'
Like other prophets before her, Mrs White implied the conditional nature of earlier prophecies my making more
current applications. This continual reapplication of Adventism of new times and places was vital to her
prophetic ministry, and remains absolutely essential to the life of the movement since her time. This is the way
the 'Spirit of prophecy' operates in every era.

One hopes that David Stannard's provocative analysis of the decline of Puritanism will not apply to Seventh-
day Adventism: '. . . if in a given situation social structure continues to change without complementary changes
in a particular group's cultural life, that group in time becomes anachronistic, its cultural institutions lose their
potency, and a sense of profound loss may well set in.' There must be an on-going interaction between the
Adventist community and the changing social order for Adventism to remain viable. The prophetess stimulated
this interactive process in her own time. It would be only sadly ironic if her writings were now used to stultify
the creative process they once stimulated. This would be to retain the 'letter' while losing the 'Spirit of
prophecy.' . . . An apocalyptic people—to remain Adventist—must prophesy the end of the present world, not a
past era or a remotely future one. . . . By insisting on only the 'sign of the times' of an earlier Adventism, one
may actually weaken belief in an imminent end of our time."264 (emphasis added).

To see how prophetic interpretations can undergo development with time one only needs to compare Ellen
White's description of the coming of Christ in Early Writings with that found in The Great Controversy. In
Early Writings she pictures slaves and their masters. This description is not matched in The Great Controversy.
Slaves are no longer mentioned because the Civil War has been fought and slavery in North American has
ended by the time The Great Controversy was written.

Robert Johnston gives an excellent summary of the true spirit of Adventism with a description of openness to
grow in understanding and expression of the faith with changing times: "So the young faith continually
advanced, not only in numbers but also in understanding. It changed its ideas about organization and the
ministry, deepened its understanding of the third angel's message of Revelation 14, and revised its
interpretations of prophecy. It corrected its understanding of Christ and the Trinity, reclaimed the great truth of
salvation through faith, and found much else to learn or to unlearn. But while it corrected, amplified, and
reclaimed, it never lost touch with its roots, the 'waymarks.' . . .

"This, then, is how the Lord led Seventh-day Adventists in the past. They are still pilgrims on a doctrinal
journey who do not repudiate the waymarks, but neither do they remain stopped at any one of them. . . . They
realize that tradition can be a useful servant but a dreadful master, so they shun traditionalism, ever eager to
learn present truth and perform present duty."265

It is important that we bear in mind what Johnston had said regarding the true spirit and genius of Adventism,
particularly when we think of how different our world today is to that of Ellen White's. In her day some of the
great issues were:

Slavery and the Civil War, which divided the nation.

Catholic immigration came like a deluge into North America. Sunday laws were aimed at the Catholics because
of their relaxed attitude towards the observance of Sunday. This was seen as a threat against the Protestant way
of life in North America. Adventists were caught up in a cross-fire primarily aimed at the Catholics.

The Catholics also brought with them "grog shops." Protestants saw their stand upon temperance as vital to the
welfare of the nation.
88
The growing influence of trade unions as the rise of urban-industrialised America developed. The influence of
the hard-drinking Catholic laborers was an unsettling influence in city life.

The impact of the French Revolution in its revolt against religion and the bloodshed that followed was still very
fresh in the minds of those who lived in the 19th century.266

In Ellen White's day Adventism was confined almost entirely to North America. It would be natural for
Adventists to think in terms of Bible prophecy being fulfilled largely in their country. Adventists were caught
up in the spirit of their country, for they saw North America in terms of a type of Israel. They saw their country
as one giving new hope to the world. Not surprising, then, that they would see Bible prophecy being primarily
fulfilled in their nation just as it was to be for Israel, when it was God's chosen nation. A discerning reader will
notice how often in The Great Controversy Ellen White writes of the end times in the present tense. The end
times, to her, were primarily focused on the immediate future in North America.

Adventists were worried, as were other Protestants, that the purity of the nation and its destiny was being lost.
They, along with others, saw their nation gone astray as the second beast power coming up out of the earth.
Gordon Balharrie shows that this concept was first developed by the Baptist historian Isaac Backus (1724-
1806). It was later taken up by Adventist leaders including James White and John Andrews.267 From Andrews
the idea became a part of The Great Controversy.

Bringing "end times" to our times

Our 21st century world is vastly different to that of Ellen White: The North American continent has changed
from being dominated by Protestantism, into a society, which can be termed multicultural. It is a society fast
becoming secular and post-modern. Only some 10 per cent of Adventism is found on the North American
continent. The new centres for Christianity and Adventism are to be found in Central and South America,
Africa and Asia. Just as early Christianity had to move away from Jerusalem and adapt to the Gentile world
(see Acts 15 where this important decision was made) so Adventism needs to adapt to the world outside North
America.

It is important that Adventist eschatology be meaningful to the vast numbers of Adventists living in all
countries of the world. What is believable to Adventists living in North America is not so believable if you live
in Russia, India or even Europe. Today the challenge is not Catholic immigration, but Eastern mysticism, which
is invading the West. The rise of Islam in its fundamentalist form is also a threat to the stability of the world.
Today's issues are dominated by threats to the environment such as pollution and overpopulation. Humankind is
concerned at the threat of global terrorism using nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. World-
wide, end-time events must also today be able to embrace meaning when one considers one billion followers of
Islam and one billion Chinese.

John Stott's recent New Issues Facing Christians Today outlines some of the dominant issues we face in the
21st century. They seem so foreign to the world of Ellen White in 19th century North America. Stott
summarises them: "There is a massive dearth of leaders in the contemporary world. Massive problems confront
us, some of which we have looked at in this book. Globally there are still the terrifying size of nuclear arsenals,
the widespread violations of human rights, the environmental and energy crisis, and the North-South
economic inequality. Socially, there are the tragedy of long-term unemployment, the continuance of conflict in
industrial relations, and the outbreaks of racial violence. Morally, Christians are disturbed by the forces which
are undermining the stability of marriage and the family, the challenges of sexual mores and sexual roles, and
the scandal of what is virtually abortion on demand. Spiritually, I might add, there are the spread of materialism
and the corresponding loss of any sense of transcendent reality. Many people are warning us that the world is
heading for disaster; few are offering us advice on how to avert it. Technical know-how abounds, but wisdom is
in short supply. People feel confused, bewildered, alienated. To borrow the metaphors of Jesus, we seem to be
like 'sheep without a shepherd', while our leaders seem to be 'blind leaders of the blind"268

89
Some issues dominating the church have come to be: The role of women in ministry; acceptance or rejection of
homosexuality; the morality of cloning and genetic engineering; ecology; is there a case for a "just war"; The
wealth of developed nations compared to undeveloped nations and The challenge of Fundamentalist Islam.

Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University states in his new book
The Next Christendom, about the present and future state of the Christian world with the following
observations:

"Over the past five centuries or so, the story of Christianity has been inextricably bound up with that of Europe
and the European-derived civilizations overseas, above all in North America....Over the past century, however,
the center of gravity in the Christian world has shifted inexorably southward to Africa, Asia and Latin
America...If we want to visualize a 'typical' contemporary Christian, we should think of a woman living in a
village in Nigeria or in a Brazilian favela."269

He goes on to show the numbers of Christians now found in developing countries. Africa has 360 million (42%
of its population). Latin America 480 million. Asia 313 million. He states that in some of these countries
Christianity is mutating as it embraces tribal religions and extreme forms of Pentecostalism. In some nations the
form of Christianity developed has been made a state religion. In many nations of Africa, Asia and the Middle
East Christianity and Islam are at each other's throats in on going conflicts." He concludes that by 2025, 50% of
the Christian population will be in Africa and Latin America and another 17% will be in Asia. He sees a split
dividing Christians in developed countries from those in the developing world. This split he says will be as
significant as the split caused by the Protestant Reformation.

There can be no doubt to the fact that we can see emerging today a Christian world very different from that of
19th century North America. Ingemar Linden offers his observation on the book The Great Controversy as
follows : "The reader notices how the scene for the cosmic struggle gradually moves west in Great Controversy,
from the Orient to the Continent and England, to end up in North America. The focus on the United States is so
characteristic that the description is difficult to comprehend for readers lacking adequate knowledge of
American history. It is evident that EGW wrote primarily for Americans in her own time, with a provincial
perspective, or emphasis on domestic problems, which meant the 'world' to many readers in America."270

It is important that Adventism take its message to the present world in relevant terms; or else it will finish up
becoming a 19th century North American relic. The central ideas of Adventism271 must be presented in a
meaningful way to the present generation of Adventists to give them a sense of mission to their world and
culture. While not losing contact with our roots, we must stand on the shoulders of early Adventists and see
things they were not able to see. In this sense we must be a first generation and be free to go to the Word of
God to find present truth relevant in our world. If we fail to do this then we may find the Adventism of our day
going through its own "Great Disappointment."

Fritz Guy speaks of people who have chosen to leave the Adventist Church with the following observations: "In
previous generations those who left the Adventist Church tended to be careless, rebellious, or embittered. Now
they are often serious and thoughtful women and men whose personal pilgrimage leads them away from
Adventism.

"Previously, when people gave up Adventism they usually gave up Christianity along with it. Now, however,
more and more young people give up only their Adventism, and remain seriously Christian—as Baptists,
Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics. Some express appreciation for their Adventist heritage,
even as they leave it. . . . we certainly ought to be interested in the reason. From observations and
conversations, I have identified several that I consider significant.

"1. They think that Adventism is not entirely believable. For one thing, Adventism has been talking about
the soon coming for more than 140 years. After all this time, it is not clear what soon means. The prophetic
time periods and "signs" plausible in the mid-1800s don't seem to matter much to them in the late 1900s.
90
"For another thing, some people who leave the church are convinced that literalistic interpretations of the Bible
are no longer viable. Such interpretations, they believe, are contradicted by an overwhelming weight of
scientific evidence. Adventism has always understood itself as being committed to the truth, but some of our
sons and daughters think that is no longer the case. For them Adventism is not credible.

"2. They think that Adventism is not relevant to today's world. On the one hand, it seems stuck in the past,
trying to preserve the culture of another century and perpetuate the thinking of an earlier generation. On the
other hand, Adventism doesn't seem to have anything to say or do about the current problems of the world. . .
."272

More recently Guy made even stronger observations: "One hundred fifty-five years after the 'great
disappointment' of 1844, an essential task of Adventist theologians—and of all Adventists who think
theologically—is to face as honestly and creatively as we can the question of whether an Adventist vision of the
future can be sustained in and for the twenty-first century. . . . We are not, and cannot be, Adventist in exactly
the same way as were our spiritual and theological great-great-grandparents a century and a half ago. . . . Our
world is different—technologically, culturally, religiously—and so are its inhabitants (including us). Not only
has it become a global village in a way that was unimaginable in he mid-nineteenth century, but it has also
become increasingly obsessed with nonstop, seven-days-a-week consumerism. Furthermore, since the Second
Vatican Council (1963-1965) everything previously written about the character of Roman Catholicism has to be
re-examined. . . .

"Our Advent hope is historically realistic. It recognizes, for example, not only that the expectations and
predictions of Millerite Adventists before the 'disappointment' were not fulfilled; but also that neither were the
expectations and predictions of Sabbatarian Adventists after the 'disappointment.' . . . There is something
paradoxical about celebrating for more than 150 years the successive anniversaries of the beginning of a
movement that proclaims, 'Jesus is coming soon. . . .'

"Our hope recognizes, for example, that the Greek words ton loipon (Rev 12:17), translated 'the remnant' in the
King James Version, mean simply, 'the others' or, collectively, 'the rest'—of the offspring of the woman
symbolizing the Christian community of faith. The words carry no necessary implication of chronological
posterity or even numerical minority.

More broadly, our hope sees with increasing clarity that the Book of Revelation is largely a right-brain, holistic
composition to which many people have insisted on giving a left-brain, reductionistic interpretation. . . . The
Book of Revelation is not a piece of encryption to be decoded, but a song of hope by which to be captivated, an
epic poem by which to be inspired and energized. . . .

"With this insight into the nature of biblical apocalyptic, our hope can sit more lightly on interpretations and
applications of specific periods of time, whether half an hour (Rev 8:1) or forty-two months (11:2; 13:5) or a
thousand years (20:2-3). . . . but the Advent hope is not gnostic, claiming secret, inside knowledge about the
future. Prophecy is not 'history written in advance' (a misconception which goes back more than three
centuries). People of hope know that the future belongs to God; but about exactly what is going to happen
tomorrow, next week, or next century, they know no more than anyone else. . . . Our Advent hope does not
predict the future, but looks forward to it eagerly (which is spiritually more important); for it knows that the
future is, in the most profound sense, God's future, that what is coming is the activity and presence of God, and
that in everything God will be working for good. (Romans 8:28)"273

Jon Paulien perceives that changes have already begun to happen in the Adventist approach to the Book of
Revelation. He summarises what has been happening since the death of Ellen White with the following
observations: "In spite of the lack of exegetical rigor, unity of understanding was largely maintained as long as
Ellen White was alive. By the time of the 1919 Bible Conference, however, concerns were being expressed as
to how the Bible should be handled in the absence of a living prophet. The problem with a dead prophet is that
the prophet's work becomes subject to interpretation just as much as the biblical materials do. . . .
91
The material in the Our Firm Foundation volumes (1953) indicates that the Adventist Church arrived at this
half of the century with essentially the same approach to Revelation as the 19th century pioneers. The
assumption was made (but never argued) that the sevenfold sequences of the churches, seals, and trumpets
represented stages of history from NT times to the second coming. The method of study was systematic and
text-selective rather than exegetical. The goal seemed to be conclusions compatible with the church's traditional
positions rather than fidelity to the text of Revelation itself.

As the 1950's wore on. . . . the traditional Adventist consensus for Revelation was also beginning to break
down. There remained a consensus regarding the historicist approach to interpretation, but various individuals
were becoming more and more creative in their use of the Bible and Ellen White to offer interpretations that
differed from those of Uriah Smith.

Meanwhile more and more individuals seeking academic degrees were seeing value in subjecting Adventist
evangelistic and theological use of the Bible to the standards of exegetical procedures. The approaches to
Revelation taught and utilized in societies like SBL and SNTS were greeted with various levels of interest.

The fragmentation that was feared in 1919 and began to be discernable in the 1950s has reached full-blown
maturity as we approach the new millennium. Today, there are perhaps a dozen or more different versions of
Adventism. It is now clear to most Adventist scholars, at least, that in the absence of a living prophet, the
traditional Adventist hermeneutic cannot do the job.274

To understand what Paulien is saying we must now go back and retrace Adventist history for most of the past
century to understand more clearly the present situation.

_______________________

245 Donald Casebolt, "Is Ellen White's Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy Final?", Spectrum, Vol.12, No.4, p.
2. [back]

246 Ibid., pp. 5-6. In addition, Litch himself is pictured as having acknowledged his errors in applying this
prophecy. He later wrote "Perhaps that which has gained for itself the largest number of adherents among the
advocates of an historical interpretation of this book is, that these locusts symbolize the Mohammedan invasion
of Europe and other lands...there are points of coincidence which have given a certain coloring of plausibility to
the theory; but it can bear no searching analysis. "Josiah Litch: Herald Of "The Advent Near". A paper
presented in partial fulfillment of the course CH570, History of the SDA Church, Andrews University,
Theological Seminary, May 1973, p. 31. Held in EGW Research Centre, Cooranbong NSW, Aust. DF332.

Ronald Numbers comments "Litch offered a specific commentary on the sixth trumpet in an 1873 work entitled
A Complete Harmony of Daniel and the Apocalypse. No longer did he read deep secret meanings in Revelation
9:15. . . . Neither the oblivion to which Litch eventually condemned August 11, 1840, nor the triumph
Loughborough bestowed upon the day accurately reflects the actual events relating to Litch's prophecy.
Contemporary accounts preserve certain awkward details about this paradoxical day, helping to explain the
mentality of the Millerite movement. The Disappointed, Ronald Numbers, Jonathan Butler, (Bloomingotn; IN:
University Press, 1987). p. 81.

Kai Arasola writes "In spite of the fact that later judgment has failed to single out the Millerite dates as
outstanding for the history of Turkey or Islam, the Millerites experienced this "fulfillment" as a boost for their
morale and it certainly proved an effective means of creating interest in prophetic timekeeping.....It would be a
mistake to regard this interpretation as one which converted thousands to Millerism. This idea would not
explain Litch's dismay over people's reluctance to accept the events of August 11 as a "convincing sign from
heaven". Kai Arasola ,The End of Historicism, Revised edition of an earlier mimeographed dissertation
submitted to the Theological Faculty of the University of Uppsala for the degree of Doctor of Theology. 1989.
p 143. [back]
92
247 Ibid., p. 7. He finds support from articles by Merton E. Sprengel in the Adventist Review, May 22, 29, and
June 5, 1980 which makes this point very clear and explains how many Adventists got the idea it was
something that was unexplained by natural phenomena. [back]

248 The next year in the Adventist Review there was an article supporting Casebolt's assertions regarding the
1833 display by Harold Wright. 24, November, 1983, pp. 4-6. [back]

249 Casebolt, p. 7. [back]

250 Hans LaRondelle, Ministry, September, 1998, p. 27. [back]

251 Ibid., [back]

252 Ibid., [back]

253 Casebolt, p 9. [back]

254 She wrote this a few years after Uriah Smith had finished his work on the book Daniel and Revelation.
"When the books of Daniel and Revelation are better understood, believers will have an entirely different
religious experience." TM, p. 114. [back]

255 I first heard this expressed at pastor's meetings in Canberra National Church by the then Secretary of the
White Estate, Dr. Robert Olsen. The meetings were open for all local members to attend along with the Pastors
of South NSW Conference. [back]

256 Jon Paulien observes that "62% of the text [in Uriah Smith's "Daniel and Revelation"] is in quotation
marks, being culled from earlier historicist writers. This leads to the suspicion that Brother Smith himself never
did any serious work in the text. Jon Paulien, "The Book Of Revelation At The Crossroads: Where we've Been
And Where We're Going", ASRS, Annual Meeting Papers. 1999. p. 30.

In her introduction to The Great Controversy she claims that she is making use of material "well known and
universally acknowledged by the Protestant world" [p. xi] She also goes on to state how she has made use of
contemporary Adventist writers with the following words "In narrating the experience and views of those
carrying forward the work of reform in our time, similar use has been made of their published works." [p. xii]
[back]

257 Jon Paulien, What The Bible Says About The End Time, ( Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing
Assn, 1994). p. 92. [back]

258 She wrote "When we as a people understand what this book [Revelation] means to us, there will be seen
among us a great revival. . . . There is need of a much closer study of the word of God; especially should Daniel
and Revelation have attention as never before in the history of our work. We may have less to say in some
lines, in regard to the Roman power and the papacy . . . study Revelation in connection with Daniel, for history
will be repeated. . . .We, with all our religious advantages, ought to know far more today than we do know."
TM, pp. 113, 112, 116. [back]

259 7SDABC, p. 726. [back]

260 Jon Paulien, pp. 41-105. Here Paulien goes to great length to explain the unfolding and changing
expectations of the end time over the milleniums. Paulien shows how God's ultimate plan was never changed.
That is, His plan to have this planet inhabited by a holy people. However the details of how that plan was to
eventuate did significantly change with the passing of time. It went from the descendants of Abraham to the
Christian Church, from the land of Israel to the whole world. [back]
93
261 Alden Thompson, "Old Testament Apocalyptic And Adventist Eschatology." An address given at the West
Coast Bible Teacher's Conference, May 1, 1982, p. 7. [back]

262 Ms. 8a, 1888 and 1888 Material, p. 133. Quoted in A Study in the Dynamics of Present Truth, by Tim
Crosby, p. 46. [back]

263 Revelation 16:15. [back]

264 Jonathan Butler, "The World of E.G. White And the End of the World", Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 11.
[back]

265 Adventist Review, p. 7, "A Search for Truth" by Robert Johnston. [back]

266 See Gary Land, The World of Ellen G. White, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987). [back]

267 Gordon Balharrie, A Study Of The Contribution Made To The Seventh-day Adventist Movement By John
Nevins Andrews. MA Thesis. SDA Theological Seminary Washington, DC: 1949, pp. 33-40. [back]

268 John Stott. New Issues Facing Christians Today, (London: Marshall Pickering, 1999), p. 421. [back]

269 Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, (Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press, 2002), pp. 1-2. Jenkins also shows that if the present trends continue" By the 2050, only
about one-fifth of the world's 3 billion Christians will be non-Hispanic Whites. (p. 3). He sees by current trends
that by 2050 there will be one billion Pentecostal believers. That is as many as the number of Hindus and twice
as many as Buddhists. (p. 8). He also berates Christian writers for neglecting these facts as they project the
future "In North America at least, most visions of the coming century are based firmly on extrapolating familiar
domestic conditions. The imagined future looks more like the American present. . . ." p. 5. [back]

270 The Last Trump, p. 233 [back]

271 Ideas such as:

The gospel
The law of God
The Sabbath as a memorial of creation
The Great Controversy theme
The soon return of Jesus Christ
The nature of mankind in death
The emphasis on health [back]

272 Fritz Guy, "We're Majoring in Minors" Adventist Review, June 19, 1986, p. 9. [back]

273 Fritz Guy, "How We Are Adventist As We Enter the Twenty-First Century (Or What Would I say To
Uriah Smith On The Way To The Airport?)" Adventist Society For Religious Studies, Annual meeting papers,
November 18-20, 1999. p. 101-105. [back]

274 Jon Paulien, "The Book Of Revelation At The Crossroads: Where We've Been And Where We're Going."
ASRS 1999, pp. 30-31. [back]

94
Chapter Sixteen

Ellen White and her culture

Prophets may be ahead of their times in what God reveals to them, but what God has not revealed still leaves
them a product of the times in which they live. God meets people where they are to give to them the good news
about His Son. This can be seen in the writings of Ellen White from the following examples:

Education

George Knight, in Myths in Adventism, lists as one of the myths to be demolished the idea that Ellen White was
one hundred years ahead of her time in the area of education. He states, "It is extremely important to realize that
Ellen White never made such claims about her educational (or other) writings. The responsibility for the myth
lies with some of her misinformed followers who have mistakenly thought they were doing her a service. . . .
Other nineteenth-century educators also espoused Ellen White's educational reform concepts. . . . Ellen White
knew she was in harmony with the educational reform ideas of her age. For example, her writings on the role of
physiology in education and on proper ventilation and lighting in the classroom resemble some of the ideas in
Horace Mann's annual reports. But then, why shouldn't they, since both Mann and Mrs. White were fighting the
same health-destroying educational abuses. . . . Mrs. White never pretended to be unfamiliar with Mann's work.
On the contrary, some of his material was published along with hers in Health: or How to Live in 1865. . . .
What is special about Ellen White's contribution to educational reform is the total salvation package in which
she couched it.223 (emphasis added).

Knight's observation is in harmony with what we have so far established from Scripture: the Gift of Prophecy in
the New Testament is primarily concerned with the spiritual life of the recipients.

Health

Much of the material she gathered on health came from current health reformers of her age. When Ronald
Numbers first published his book Prophetess of Health224 he demonstrated this point. He went even further by
showing that her ideas were not always correct and that she had to undergo some development in her ideas. At
the time the book was published (1976) it caused a great stir within the ranks of Adventism. Numbers was
treated as an outcast; however, time has shown that much of what he was saying in regard to her ideas on health
were correct.225

Up until this time books such as Prophet of Destiny by Rene Noorbergen226 and The Story of Our Health
Message by D. E. Robinson227 had given the impression that she had received her messages on health by
visions and that the information given was a hundred years ahead of the times.

Some of the ideas she had on health (even if not original with her) were excellent and would still be upheld
today by modern medical science. People interested in health should be encouraged to read The Ministry of
Healing as an excellent source of general health principles. It would be a pity if people seized upon the
mistakes she made (which are not many in comparison to the amount of material she wrote) and ignore the fact
that she was far more right than wrong in an age when orthodox medicine was in the wilderness.

Don McMahon's research is of interest. Being a physician, he wanted to test her statements on health when
compared to her contemporaries. He did this by measuring the correctness of her statements and gave a
percentage both to her and her contemporaries. He found she was twice as correct as the next best and three
times more correct than most. For example she was 87 per cent correct while Kellogg was 43 per cent. She was
uneducated in medicine while Kellogg was considered to be an outstanding medical man of the times.228

95
It must also be acknowledged that some of the ideas she adopted would not be looked upon with favour today.
Some of the ideas she published include: Support of phrenology, the study of the bumps on the head as a guide
to intelligence.229 She opposed the wearing of the current fashionable wigs, which were massive and made up of
bunches of curled hair, cotton, sea grass and wool. She claimed that they covered the base of the brain, causing
heat and excited the spinal nerves centering in the brain. This caused recklessness in morals, "the animal organs
are excited and the morals are enfeebled".230 She also wrote that the use of swine's flesh, under certain
circumstances, can cause leprosy.231 She indicated that self-abuse (masturbation) could cause imbecility232

Such ideas fit in well to the prevailing views of the 19th century, but they have been discounted by modern
science. God does not take a prophet out of their culture. He meets them where they are. For the most part her
ideas on health were sound, with evidence for this found in the many surveys made on Seventh-day Adventists
showing that they have longer life expectancy when they live out the principles of health given to them through
her gift.233 What is important is the reason she wrote on health. Good health keeps the mind clear and the spirit
in good condition—it is linked to our spiritual well being. This, as we have seen, is the main function of a
prophet's work according to 1 Corinthians 14:3.

Genetics

A statement she once made, which has caused much comment over the years in Adventism, is: "But if there was
one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by flood, it was the base crime of
amalgamation of man with beast which defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere. . . . The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the
flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless
varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men"234 (Emphasis added).

With scientific progress made over recent years we can see that it is possible to mix the genes of animals and
mankind. So she would not be out of harmony with modern science on that account. However, it is the
statement made about the mixture giving us certain races that creates a problem. It was commonly believed in
her day that there were certain races as a result of this amalgamation—for instance, the wild Bushmen of
Africa.235

Chronology

Warren Johns236 wrestles with statements Ellen White made regarding chronology. He notes that her statements
are inconsistent. She uses two different time periods for the time Israel spent in Egypt before the Exodus. He
also notes the loose way she can refer to 6000 years for Creation. For instance, she can say for "over 6000
years" and on another occasion "for nearly" 6000 years. He also notes: "The function is not to establish a date
for Creation, but to show the extent and intensity of the great controversy between good and evil. . . ."237 In this
observation he is in harmony with the work of prophets as expressed in 1 Corinthians 14:3.

He also notes that she uses Ussher's chronology, which has long been discredited. He concludes, "If Ellen
White were alive today, she would no doubt advocate that chronology that holds the closest fidelity to the
scriptural record."238 He might well have also added the material cited from Willie White, where he states his
mother did not consider herself an authority in the area of dates and chronology. This concept has not always
been clearly understood in Adventism. However it has widespread ramifications not only in Adventism, but
also the more conservative elements of the Christian world.

For example, Ronald Numbers in The Creationists239 shows how up until the mid-20th century most
conservative Christians did not think they needed to defend the 6000 years since creation concept. But with the
work of George McCready Price, an Adventist, the idea took hold and remains in conservative Christian circles.
Numbers shows how Price felt he had to believe what Ellen White had said and, in doing so, influenced many
others. 240 Price accepted her chronology of 6000 years and succeeded in bringing it in as something to be
defended in the conservative Christian world.
96
 135

Gerhard Pfandl in his paper prepared for the 2002 Faith and Science Conference finds a clear link between
Ellen White and the cultural setting of her times when he comments on her statements regarding the age of the
earth: "There is no indication that she was ever told in vision that the earth is only six thousand years old. Why
then six and not eight or ten thousand years? The explanation is most likely found in the fact that whenever she
opened her King James Bible she saw on every page in the margins Ussher's dates. On the first page of the
Bible next to the creation account she, like every Bible believing Christian at that time, read the date 4004 BC.
Short of a revelation from heaven, why should she have used any other date?

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the history of man upon earth was actually ten thousand years,
could we really expect God to have revealed this fact to Ellen White and had her incorporate this figure into her
writings? How would this have been accepted in the nineteenth century by Bible believing Christians who, with
their backs to the wall, fought off the attack of 'infidel geologists' and the rising tide of liberal theologians? . . .
Could we expect Ellen White to come out with something different and demolish what was for them an
important pillar in their defense of the Bible?"241

Geology

Numbers also shows how Price accepted White's ideas regarding buried coal beds that occasionally ignited to
produce earthquakes, and volcanoes242 This concept was largely believed in her day but now has no credibility.

Astronomy

Alden Thompson in Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers gives a classic example of how God works
within the cultural concepts of the day when giving His revelations. In the early years of Ellen White's ministry,
Joseph Bates was undecided regarding her manifestations. One evening in his presence she went into vision and
began to describe what she saw regarding some of the planets. She said "I see four moons." Bates, who knew
something about astronomy, said, "She is describing Jupiter!" She then continued to describe other parts of
space and gave a description of beautiful belts and rings and said "I see seven moons." Bates said, "She is
seeing Saturn." Then came a description of Uranus with its six moons. This description convinced Bates of her
contact with God in her visions.

Thompson then tells us that the number of moons she was describing for the different planets was in harmony
with the number known to exist in her day. Today we know that each of these planets have more moons than
what she described. Thompson lists the number of moons of some of these planets and how the number grew as
more powerful telescopes were able to detect them. 243 The point he makes is valid. God meets people where
they are. If she had been given the number we know to be more correct today, Bates would never have accepted
her and her messages as from God.

Thompson explains, "The limitations of time and circumstances, culture and human knowledge, set certain
boundaries within which revelation can be effective. If Jesus the supreme revelation, took humanity 'in order to
reach man where he is' (1SM, p.20), would not the same principle apply to all lesser revelations as well? That
means that while we cannot claim absolute scientific validity for prophetic messages, their practical value is
significantly enhanced. Good teaching always involves effective illustrations, illustrations that are concrete,
understandable, adapted to the needs of the learner. They point to the truth but should not be mistaken for the
truth itself."244

When dealing with the above listed subjects we must be careful not to give a wrong impression of her work.
The danger is that when we talk of some erroneous concepts where she reflects her culture we may forget that
this is not generally true of her work. Much time could easily be given to consideration of how she could as a
relatively uneducated person in the 19th century be so right when her contemporaries were wrong. This we
have done in part in quoting from the McMahon report in the area of health.
97
________________

223 George R. Knight, Myths in Adventism, (Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1985), pp.
34-36. [back]

224 Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White, (New York: Harper and Row, 1976).
[back]

225 For more on this point read Jonathan Butler, "The Historian As Heretic", Spectrum, Vol. 23, No 2, pp. 43-
64. Butler shows how there was a "Holy War" between Numbers and the White Estate who felt threatened by
his book. [back]

226 Rene Noorbergen, Ellen White: Prophet of Destiny. (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publ.Co., 1972). After the
revelations of Walter Rea and others, Noorbergen wrote a stringing letter of rebuke regarding the White Estate
accusing them of not giving him accurate information and stating he would never have written his book as he
did if he had been more accurate information. [back]

227 D. E. Robinson, The Story of Our Health Message, (Nashville, TN: Southern Publ. Assn, 1943). [back]

228 Dr. Don McMahon, "Ahead of Her Time: A Critical Analysis of Ministry of Healing. A book by Ellen G.
White," May 2001. Unpublished document. [McMahon has now published his book, Acquired or Inspired,
(Signs Publishing Company, Warburton, Australia and Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2005.)]
[back]

229 She wrote "Phrenology and mesmerism are very much exalted. They are good in their place, but they are
seized upon by Satan as his most powerful agents to deceive and destroy souls" 1T, p. 296. She wrote that in
1862 and in 1864 she took her sons Willie and Edson to a phrenologist to have the bumps in their heads
examined. [back]

230 Ellen White, Words to Christian Mothers, Health Reformer, October, 1871, p. 121. We have previously
stated the belief that while working as a sub-editor of this magazine she was not working as a prophet but
exercising other spiritual gifts. [back]

231 2SM, p. 417. [back]

232 Appeal to Mothers, p. 62. [back]

233 Gary Fraser, Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University states regarding
his research that ". . . a non-smoking, relatively thin Adventist who emphasises fruit and vegetables and
exercises moderately may reasonably expect an extra 10 to 12 years of life as compared to a relatively obese,
non-exercising, high fat/meat consuming Adventist." SCOPE, July-September, 1991, p. 52. The former
mentioned Adventist who lives longer is following the counsels on health given by Ellen White. [back]

234 3SG, pp. 64, 75. [back]

235 For a more complete discussion on this subject see "Amalgamation of Man and Beast," Gordon Shigley,
Spectrum, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 10-19. [back]

236 Ministry, April 1984, pp. 20-23. [back]

237 Ibid., p. 22 [back]

238 Ibid., p. 23. [back]

98
239 Ronald Numbers, The Creationists, (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1993). [back]

240 Ibid., pp. xi, 72-101. [back]

241 International Faith and Science Conference. Sponsored by the General Conference of SDA, August 23-29,
2002. Ogden, Utah. "Ellen G. White and Earth Science." A paper prepared by Gerhard Pfandl, p. 18. [back]

242 Ibid., p. 74. [back]

243 Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
1991), p 296. Even Thompson's figures are now behind the times. Today it is recognized that Jupiter has 52
moons, Saturn 30, Uranus 21 and Neptune 11. Central Coast Herald, Wednesday, March 21. 2003. p. 29.
Article "Astronomer's discovery brings Jupiter's moons up to 52". [back]

244 Ibid., p. 297. [back]

99
Chapter Eighteen

The 1919 Bible Conference and its aftermath275

The death of the founder of any movement is often of great significance. This was certainly true for the
Seventh-day Adventist Church with the death of Ellen White, in 1915. History shows that when this has
happened to other movements of the past the tendency is for the next generation to "pull down the shutters" and
strive towards conserving rather than exploring. Bull and Lockhart maintain that this also happened to the
Seventh-day Adventist Church.

"At the turn of the twentieth century, Adventism underwent significant change. Ellen White died in 1915, and
the church was robbed of its chief means of authorizing innovation. The liveliness and flexibility that had
characterized the Adventist theological debate in the nineteenth century evaporated. The church became more
cautious. . . . Consolidation rather than experimentation was the order of the day. . . . The intellectually
disciplined theological debates that had filled the pages of The Review now disappeared. . . . They were also
accepting new ideas, usually without arguing them out in the way their forebears would have done. . . . The
writings of Ellen White and the Bible now functioned not as a source of new ideas but as a compendium of
truths to be expounded and memorised. . . . Adventist theology has developed in parallel with that of the
mainstream. It was at its most distinctive during a period of great diversity; it became fundamentalist in the era
of fundamentalism; and softened with the rise of evangelicalism"276 (emphasis added).

The history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reflects many eras of change. Bull and Lockhart have
correctly observed that after the death of Ellen White there were forces at work in society that pushed the
movement into an unnatural Protestant fundamentalist stance.

Later, the forces in society would also push it back toward what many would claim to be its more natural
position, that of Evangelicalism. These same forces were also at work in the Protestant world and affected other
denominations in a similar way.

The 1919 Bible Conference

Little was known of the 1919 Bible Conference until December 6, 1974, when Donald Yost, the senior archivist
at the General Conference headquarters in Washington, DC was setting up the newly formed archives. He
accidentally discovered two packets of papers containing some 2400 pages of typewritten material that were
stenographic notes taken at the Bible Conference held in Takoma Park, Maryland, in July 1919. The subsequent
publication of those minutes in Spectrum277 gave Adventists a unique opportunity to see how some of the
contemporaries of Ellen White viewed her function and authority. This was a world of thought that few, if any,
of even the best-informed Seventh-day Adventists knew existed.

We will not focus on the conference itself, but on a smaller after meeting called The Bible and History
Teachers Council attended by 22 delegates, some of them prominent church leaders, including:

A. G. Daniells, president of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference.

G. B. Thompson, field secretary of the General Conference.

F. M. Wilcox, editor of the Review and Herald, later Adventist Review, the major church magazine.

M. E. Kern, formerly president of the Foreign Missionary Seminary in Washington DC—later to become
Columbia Union College.

W. W. Prescott, former editor of Review and Herald and then a field secretary of the General Conference.

100
H. C. Lacey, religion teacher at the Foreign Mission Seminary.

W. E. Howell, editor of The Christian Educator, a journal produced by the church for the benefit of parents and
teachers.

W. G. Wirth, a religion teacher at Pacific Union College, the church's major institution of learning on the West
Coast of North America.

M. C. Wilcox, book editor for the Pacific Press, the church's major 153 press situated on the West Coast of
North America.

Added to this were others who held prominent administrative, educational and publishing responsibilities.

It is surprising to read of these respected leaders and scholars, making statements like those shown in the
following extracts: "Every Christian is therefore in duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and
duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the scriptures for the whole truth, and
for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts."278

"Well, now, as I understand it, Sister White. She never claimed to be an authority on history, and never claimed
to be a dogmatic teacher on theology, like Mrs Eddy's book on teaching. She just gave out fragmentary
statements, but left the pastors and evangelists and preachers to work out all these problems of scripture and of
theology and of history."279

"Those who have not heard you, as we have here, and are taking the other side of the question—some of them
are deliberately saying that neither you nor Professor Prescott believe the Testimonies."280

"In our estimate of the spirit of prophecy, isn't its value to us more in the spiritual light it throws into our own
hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy in historical and theological matters. Ought we not take those
writings as the voice of the Spirit of our hearts, instead of the voice of the teacher to our heads? And isn't the
final proof of the spirit of prophecy its spiritual value rather that its historical accuracy?"281

"Wouldn't it be a splendid thing if a little pamphlet were written setting forth in plain, simple, straight-forward
style the facts as we have them—simple, sacred facts—so that we could put them into the hands of inquiring
students?

"Voice: Our enemies would publish it everywhere."282

"Really, that is my biggest problem. I shall certainly be discredited if I go back and give this view. I would like
to see some published statement given out by those who lead this work so that if that thing should come up
there would be some authority back of it, because I am in for a lot of trouble on that thing. I would like to see
something done, because that education is going right on, and our students are being sent out with the idea that
the Testimonies are verbally inspired, and woe be to the man out where I am that does not line up to that. . .
."283

"Is it well to let our people in general go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the testimonies? When we do
that, aren't we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day?"284

"If we had always taught the truth on this question, we would not have any trouble or shock in the
denomination now. But the shock is because we have not taught the truth, and have put the testimonies on a
plane where she says they do not stand. We have claimed more for them than she did.285

To the reader of these minutes it is obvious that the leaders of the church, along with the Bible teachers present,
did not feel comfortable in presenting what they knew to be the truth regarding the subject of the inspiration of
101
Ellen White's writings to the laity of the church. Although most present at the conference were pleased with the
open and frank discussion about some sensitive issues regarding inspiration, the subsequent reaction by some
who were also present shows that not all were in agreement with presenters like Daniells, Prescott and Lacey.

Among those not pleased with the conference, two stand out in particular: J. S. Washburn, a well-known
preacher; and C. E. Holmes who was the Washington correspondent for the denomination's Southern
Watchman magazine. Although Holmes was present he did not openly challenge the General Conference
president in the discussions for, if he had, it would have become obvious that he was out of his depth. Daniells
had been dealing with these issues for many years and had personal contact with Ellen White, and could draw
from these experiences.

Willie White, although invited to the conference, chose not to do so because of his heavy involvement in
compiling the book Counsels on Medical Work. If he had attended, the evidence suggests he would have
supported what those like Daniells were saying.286 His letters of response to questions asked by Leroy Froom,
as recorded in the appendices of Selected Messages Vol. 3, show his views of inspiration and indicate that he
saw the role and function of his mother similar to that of Daniells.287

Even though opponents of the views being openly expressed did not challenge them during the conference, they
certainly did afterwards. Washburn produced a tract written to Holmes entitled The Startling Omega and Its
True Genealogy. In it he labels the ideas expressed at the conference as "the new theology" and states that he
and others were going to "stand by the old landmarks."288 He also sees as part of "this deadly heresy" the issue
over the Daily in Daniel chapter 8 as being part of this new theology in as much as it was challenging the old
view of the pioneers as endorsed by Ellen White in her first book, Early Writings. Washburn continued his
allegations by saying that changing a point of teaching so vital in the area of prophetic interpretation is to open
the flood gate for all sorts of new ideas and undermine the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy. This, he
continued, surely was the "Omega of Apostasy that Ellen White had warned against."289

In "An open letter to Elder A G Daniells," Washburn claimed that the ideas expressed at the Bible Conference
were part of the Omega apostasy as forewarned by Ellen White: "In one of the most terrible warnings that God
has ever sent to this people through the Spirit of Prophecy, on p. 211, Vol. 4, of the Testimonies, 'Satan's chief
work is at the headquarters of our faith.' Then the Omega must develop in Washington, for that is the
headquarters of our faith. The Alpha centered and developed in Battle Creek, the old headquarters. The Omega
must centre in the new headquarters, Washington, DC, the logical centre, in harmony with the prophecy of
Revelation 13th chapter, for the last struggle for truth and liberty. The Omega will develop and centre in
Washington, DC."290

He called the 1919 Bible Conference a "diet of doubts" and claimed the work of higher criticism was being
applied to the writings of Ellen White.291 He continually used this term "higher criticism" when talking of what
he calls the new theology. In doing this, he played on the fears that many loyal Seventh-day Adventists of the
time would have heard about the inroads being made into Protestantism by the more liberal churches that had
tried to reconcile Darwinism with their faith. This was a subtle ploy used by Washburn and Holmes that, when
used in a Seventh-day Adventist setting, was sure to strike a chord of response considering the religious and
political climate of the day.

As a result of what was shared at the Bible Conference in 1919, Holmes wrote a tract to Washburn and had it
published. In it he stated: "There is a dangerous doctrine that is rapidly permeating the ranks of our people. I
feel that it ought to be met and met squarely. It is this: that Sister White is not an authority on history. Some, as
you know,go even further, and claim that she is not an authority on doctrine or health reform: That was
practically the position taken last summer, and stands as a sort of unwritten law. During the Bible Conference in
the summer of 1919 I heard it stated again and again by a number of our Bible and history teachers that Sister
White is not an authority on history. If it were to go no further than these persons it would be bad enough, but
think of the possibilities for evil when these men stand as teachers. These erroneous views will be poured into

102
the receptive minds of our young people to undermine their faith in the Spirit of Prophecy and this
message."292

Those who had spoken so freely of their convictions at the 1919 Bible Conference, particularly Daniells, were
targeted. This would come to a head at the 1922 General Conference session. Those who opposed them had the
advantage of the social, economic, political and religious climate of the day. In addition, their views of
inspiration probably reflected the majority view in Adventism, and this they could use to their advantage.

The social, political, economic and religious climate of the 1920s

The 1920s were a time of cultural instability in North America. Since their founding days by the Pilgrim
Fathers, North Americans had a sense of destiny that God was using them to set up a new Israel. The United
States of America would be a truly Christian nation and perhaps the world's last hope. Their early society had
been dominated by white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants—WASPS. Seventh-day Adventists shared this heritage and
reflected closely this American dream.293 However, the 1920s saw many different forces threatening to destroy
this dream.

Prominent among concerns conservative Christians shared at the time were the effects of Darwinism. Although
Darwin had begun to publish his works on evolution in the 1850s, it took several decades for the full
implications of what he was teaching to take effect. A new school of thought takes time to work its way through
the universities to colleges, high schools and on to the arts and sciences. This was certainly true of Darwin's
ideas and, eventually, they began to challenge the religious scene. The thought that humans had evolved from a
lower order of species and could control his own evolution gained new impetus from the ending of World War
One. A spirit of optimism arose that this was the "war to end all wars." It was believed that humankind had
learned its lesson and a better world would develop.

This philosophy became attractive to those churches who decided to adjust their faith to incorporate the "new
Darwinism." This impacted particularly on mainline churches, which became "liberal" or "modernistic." They
felt the Christian faith and its understanding of the Bible should be adjusted to incorporate the latest teachings
of science. It led them to question many supernatural aspects of the Bible story, especially the creation account.
Some set about to demythologize the Bible. Foremost were the German scholars who utilised the techniques of
"scientific history" to picture the Bible merely as a compilation of various types of literature gathered over a
period of one thousand years.

Others saw this as selling-out the Christian faith and firmly resisted it. An alleged example of the fruitage of
Darwinism was seen in the 1917 Russian Bolshevik revolution, with its slaughter and opposition to the
Christian faith. Many conservative Protestants believed these new ideas must be firmly resisted or else they
would erode the Christian heritage of the nation and pave the way for Communism to take hold in North
America.

In addition, one million immigrants were pouring into the country each year. Large numbers of them were
Roman Catholics and Jews. This alarmed many WASPS into thinking that the USA was losing its Protestant
identity. At the same time rapid urbanisation and industrialisation was changing the face of what had been rural
North America. With this came problems of an increase in crime, poverty and secularism—another cause for
concern among the WASPS.

Against this background, arose a Fundamentalist movement among WASPS that gained great appeal from the
fact that it was attempting to preserve the American dream. For 40 years this movement had been developing,
but in the 1920s their battle against the liberals reached new heights. The New Dictionary of Theology describes
early USA Fundamentalism in this way: "Many Fundamentalist groups had lists of fundamental doctrines,
though no list was ever standard. The commonest points were the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, his
virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, and his second coming.

103
"During the 1920s Fundamentalists fought hard against modernist gains in the major northern Presbyterian and
Baptist denominations. Smaller Fundamentalist controversies occurred in other denominations, and parallel
splits between conservatives and liberals took place in a number of churches in the United States and Canada.
Meanwhile, Fundamentalists took on a cultural as well as an ecclesiastical dimension as they attacked aspects
of moral erosion after world war 1 [sic]. . . . The spread of evolutionary teaching was seen as undermining the
authority of the Bible in American life and fostering moral relativism. Marxism, Romanism, alcohol, tobacco,
dancing, card playing and theatre attendance were other major targets for Fundamentalist attacks."294

George M. Marsden adds: "Between 1917 and the early 1920s American conservative evangelicals underwent a
dramatic transformation . . . after 1920 conservative evangelical councils were dominated by 'fundamentalists'
engaged in holy warfare to drive the scourge of modernism out of church and culture. . . . After 1920,
fundamentalism became conspicuously associated with a major component of social and political alarm—most
evident in the effort to save American civilisation from the dangers of evolutionism. This perception of cultural
crisis, in turn, appears to have created a greater sense of theological urgency."295

The militant Fundamentalists of this era crusaded against a wide range of ills, including: alcohol; tobacco;
immodesty; the wearing of jewellery; labour unions; dancing; attendance at movie theatres; bowling; card
playing; and gambling.296 It is obvious that so much of what Fundamentalists were pushing would find a ready
response in Adventist ranks. It was as if a choice had to be made between two camps—Liberalism and
Fundamentalism were the only two alternatives. There was no middle ground. (See Appendix B for an example
of how this was illustrated at that time.)

That Seventh-day Adventists should readily identify with the Fundamentalists of their day would be expected,
particularly when you consider that Fundamentalists were defending the Bible account of Creation against the
liberals.297 To lose the Bible account of Creation would mean to lose the Sabbath. The issue over creation
versus evolution was of great significance in helping to align Seventh-day Adventists to the Fundamentalist
mode, particularly as they had a prominent champion fighting the creationist cause in George McCready
Price.298 He, in fact, became the most frequently-quoted name when Fundamentalists were pressed to give
scientific evidence for their creationist ideas. As well, Fundamentalists upheld Christian standards almost as
much as Seventh-day Adventists, liberals were changing them to the apparent spiritual hurt of their
congregations.299 (See also appendix C which is extra material on fundamentalism etc.)

An examination of Seventh-day Adventist periodicals of this era, until the 1950s, reveals constant quotations
from Fundamentalists, and distancing themselves, with horror, from what was happening in denominations with
liberal leanings.300 Sympathy toward Fundamentalism was greatly strengthened in the Seventh-day Adventist
church during this period leading up to the early 1920s. The moment of truth arrived for Seventh-day
Adventists at the 1922 General Conference Session. At that time a conservative thrust effected an alignment of
Seventh-day Adventism with Fundamentalism.

The issue of inspiration

Through much of its history, Seventh-day Adventism has been a sub-culture of American Protestantism.
Coming out of conservative Protestant denominations and having a leadership that was not usually highly
educated, there was a natural tendency toward the anti-intellectualism of Fundamentalism. Most Seventh-day
Adventist members held a view of inspiration closely aligned to that of the Protestant Fundamentalists, namely,
verbal dictation and inerrancy.

Evidence for this is seen early, when church leaders set about to revise Ellen White's Testimonies in 1883. The
reaction was strongly negative.301 Compared to the comments of the well-informed church leaders at the 1919
Bible Conference, most church members were not well-informed and few were willing to inform them for fear
of being misunderstood. At the time, the indications are that there was an inner group who understood the
nature of inspiration correctly (mainly through their contact with Ellen White) but they did not feel free to share
what they know with the community at large, perhaps for fear of career reprisals. If it had not been for the
104
influence of Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventists would probably have always been the strictest of
Fundamentalists. However, the availability of some of the original copies of her writings, plus what she has
written on the subject of inspiration has been an influence on the church. While the rest of the Protestant world
has struggled with issues of inspiration, Seventh-day Adventists have struggled with the subject as it applies to
the inspiration of Ellen White.

A long list can be cited by those who have endeavoured to understand her concept of inspiration, with a variety
of understandings.302 Others, like Prescott, Daniells and Willie White, were helped by associating with her in
her writing and had a realistic view of the subject. But they were never really willing or able to educate the rest
of the Seventh-day Adventist community. Undoubtedly there was polarisation in the church over this subject,
and over issues such as: What was the exact nature of her inspiration? What was her function and authority?
These issues have been fought inside Seventh-day Adventism since the earliest days and carry on to this present
time.303

It became a central issue at the 1922 General Conference Session when conservative (it may be even more
correct to say Fundamentalist) forces worked to have Daniells removed from the General Conference
presidency. It seems there were a variety of reasons why Daniells was removed, including the fact that he had
been in office for some 20 years and he had alienated some union conference presidents and the Columbia
Union Conference.

But more significant was the pressure applied at the conference by leading conservative forces working through
Washburn and Holmes. Both these men had actively attempted to discredit the leadership of the church centred
in Washington since the 1919 Bible Conference. They tried to associate the leadership with the higher critics of
the more liberal Protestant churches and felt it their God-given duty to preserve the religion of the Seventh-day
Adventist pioneers by purging out the corrupt influences. They, and others, were writing letters that were freely
circulated to expose and embarrass church leadership.

Holmes had previously been dismissed from church employment because he stole letters from the General
Conference vault addressed to Prescott and Daniells from Ellen White. He had then used extracts from them to
destroy the reputations of both men in the pamphlets he published.304 In his We Have an Infallible Spirit of
Prophecy tract—dated April 1, 1920—addressed to Washburn, but widely circulated, Holmes claimed that
although Ellen White had not learned at the great schools of the world, yet she had knowledge directly from
God and as such was always accurate in any subject on which she wrote whether it be astronomy, geology,
dietetics, theology, medicine or history. He accused the leaders and teachers present at the 1919 Bible
Conference of destroying confidence in her works.305

Within a few days Washburn published his thirty six page tract, The Startling Omega and Its True Genealogy.
In it he mentions that Washington College had become "a nest of Higher Criticism." He mentions students by
name who had almost had their faith destroyed at the college and rejoices that Albertsworth, Lacey, Sorenson
and Field had been removed. He blames all the theological problems on Daniells and Prescott and claims that
they along with all the other higher critics are the Omega heresy that Ellen White had spoken of in 1904.306

During the 1922 General Conference session in San Francisco, both men circulated open letters to the
delegates. Washburn's letter attacked Prescott and Daniells declaring that their new theology was part of the
"Waggoner theology." It was also the "deadly heresy" and Omega apostasy that Ellen White had warned would
come to the church. Because of this he challenged Daniells to meet him on this issue at the next General
Conference session.307 Holmes's letter lists twelve areas where he believes Daniells has gone against and
undermined the counsel of Ellen White. He concludes: "I firmly believe that the deplorable conditions found in
the church today are due largely to the course you have followed. In all seriousness I ask: Should men be
leaders in our work year after year who neglect to follow God's counsel and persist in following their own
ways."308 Daniells and Prescott were clearly at a disadvantage. Holmes and Washburn had an unrealistic
understanding of the role and function of Ellen White and did not have knowledge sufficient to match Prescott
and Daniells who had developed their concepts by direct association with Ellen White herself. However the
105
vews held by Holmes and Washburn were the prevailing views held by most church members at the time. A
price was about to be paid for not informing the rank-and-file membership of what they knew to be the truth as
they had expressed it at the 1919 Bible Conference.What took place at the session is not known in detail
because the minutes are not to be found in the General Conference archives. In fact, Daniells' files from 1920
through to 1925 are strangely missing. Some references are available in letters written after the event by W. A.
Spicer, but more informative still are San Francisco newspaper reports. These show Daniells emotionally
defending his leadership against the bitter attacks being made against him while holding a handful of
documents he claimed showed the charges were wrongfully laid. The San Francisco Bulletin reported:
"William A Spicer, former secretary, will succeed A G Daniels [sic] as president of the Seventh Day Adventist
Church [sic] and Daniells will become secretary of the organization, an office which Spicer has held for the last
twenty years. Spicer's election came as a compromise following a struggle between opposing factions of the
church. . . . Much criticism and bitter denunciation of 'dirty politics' followed by resolutions condemning 'all
un-christian propaganda, vilification and false charges,' preceding the selection of the candidates."309

Washburn considered his open letter had indeed saved the church from higher critics.310 The newspapers show
Daniells greatly distressed and moved to tears and withdrawing from the nomination for presidency and
pledging to work for the church to the best of his ability. They seem to show Spicer reluctant to take over as his
successor. These men were close friends. However, at the urging of the delegates Spicer agreed in order to
attempt to bring unity. It would be doubtful if this move entirely pleased the Washburn and Holmes camp
because Spicer's ideas in regard to Ellen White were not too different from those of Daniells.311

So the roles of the two men were reversed with Daniells the secretary of the General Conference, and Spicer the
president. Removing Daniells was a turning point in the denomination. Daniells operated as secretary in name
only and began to occupy himself in other areas such as the newly-formed Ministerial Association, and writing.
Possibly because of the recent trouble, and the prevailing climate in the religious world of North America
against liberal tendencies, neither Spicer or others tackled contentious topics as had been freely discussed at the
1919 Bible Conference. Seventh-day Adventism was being pushed in the direction of the Fundamentalism,
particularly in the area of the inspiration of both Ellen White and the Bible.

Bull and Lockhart summarise their convictions regarding this era of Seventh-day Adventist history in this
manner: "The crucial issue of the First World War and the 1920s was the Fundamentalist-modernist
controversy. Many mainstream churches were divided, and smaller independent groups like the Adventists
usually gave their support to the fundamentalist cause. In the nineteenth century, the primary concern had been
to find a space and to stake out theological boundaries. At the dawn of the twentieth century, most religiously
minded Americans felt compelled to take sides for or against evolution, biblical criticism, and secular
liberalism. Adventists were no exception, and they placed themselves firmly in the Fundamentalist camp. . . .
But it would be wrong to equate this stabilization with an increase in Adventist intellectualism. Quite the
reverse. The intellectually disciplined theological debates that had filled the pages of the Review now
disappeared. . . . They were also accepting new ideas, usually without arguing them out in the way their
forebears would have done. Adventists, like the fundamentalists with whom they now identified themselves,
quietly accepted Trinitarianism: took a stronger line on inerrancy of the Bible; accepted, in line with the penal-
substitutionary theory that the cross was a place of atonement; and re-affirmed their belief in human
perfectibility in less mystical terms than had been current in the 1890s. . . .

"A misleading picture of Adventist history can be derived from concentrating solely on the changes that have
taken place since the Second World War. It can appear that the central dynamic of Adventist development has
been the move away from historic certainties toward accommodation with the mainstream of American
religion. But what many authors take to be historic Adventism is in fact the creation of the twentieth century—a
synthesis that took place in the 1920s and remained dominant till the 1960s. It was, moreover, a synthesis that
in itself represented an accommodation to the newly formed fundamentalist movement 312(emphasis added).

During the next few decades other factors would combine to cause conservative reactions. One such force was
the great depression. History shows that in times of hardship or uncertainty society tends to become reactionary.
106
The Christian Church tends to reflect its culture and this certainly was the case with Adventism. The presidents
who followed

Daniels and Spicer tended to be more conservative. Possibly they felt a greater responsibility to preserve the
church now that Ellen White was dead, especially since other denominations were being eroded by modernism.
Her death brought about a period of consolidation where the primary focus was not the exploration of anything
new, but a time of solidification of the ideas that are already in place and well accepted.

__________________

275 This and the next chapter is a condensation of my fuller work, In the Shadow of Ellen White. Readers
wishing to have more information should consult the original work. [back]

276 Malcolm Bull, and Keith Lockhart, Seeking A Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American
Dream, (New York: Harper and Row, 1989), pp. 88-89. [back]

277 Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 1, May, 1979; "The 1919 Bible Conference. [back]

278 Ibid., 33. F. M. Wilcox quoting James White from Review and Herald, April 21, 1851. [back]

279 Ibid., 34. A. G. Daniels. [back]

280 Ibid., 37. H. C. Lacey to A. G. Daniels. [back]

281 Ibid., 38. H, C. Lacey to A. G. Daniels. [back]

282 Ibid., 38. H. C. Lacey. [back]

283 Ibid., 40. W. G. Wirth. [back]

284 Ibid., 46. J. N. Anderson. [back]

285 Ibid., 49. G. B. Thompson. [back]

286 This conclusion is supported by "A Response to Two Explanations of W. W. Prescott's 1915 Letter" by
Gilbert Valentine. Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI. June 1981. At the same time it could be argued
that he was a mixed person on this issue. The material that has come out in the appendix of 3SM seems to
suggest he had a clear understanding of her function and authority. However at the same time it must be
admitted he did not share this with the Adventist community at large. He chose to do it privately with certain
individuals. This seems to apparent in Prescott's letter of complaint to him. He also chose not to release the
material she wrote on her inspiration in 1SM. [back]

287 3SM, Appendix A, B, and C. [back]

288 J. S. Washburn, Tract, The Startling Omega And Its True Genealogy, April 18, 1920. [back]

289 The statement he refers to is found in Special Testimonies, Series B, No.7, p 57. Readers today may finds
the statement in 1SM, pp. 93-208. On p. 203 it can be clearly seen that she was talking of the Kellogg apostasy
as being both the Alpha and Omega. However Washburn and Holmes like so many
others since their time have seen their theological opponents as being the Omega that she spoke of. For further
study on this point see The Sanctuary And The Atonement prepared by the Biblical Research Committee of the
Gen. Conference of SDA, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald 1981), pp. 533-537. [back]

107
290 J. S. Washburn "An Open Letter to Elder A. G. Daniels and an appeal to the General Conference", May 1,
1922. pp. 26-27. [back]

291 Ibid., p. 29. [back]

292 Claude E. Holmes, "Have We An Infallible Spirit Of Prophecy" Tract written to J. S. Washburn, April 1,
1920. p. 1. [back]

293 Bull and Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary, develop this theme extensively throughout their book. [back]

294 Sinclair B. Ferguson, and David F. Wright, New dictionary of Theology, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1988), article Fundamentalism. [back]

295 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, (Oxford: Oxford Uni Press, 1980) p. 142.
[back]

296 Ibid., pp.156-163. [back]

297 It must be recognized that there was still considerable difference between SDAs and other fundamentalists
in the 1920s over how to interpret "the biblical account of creation". Among non-SDAs the doctrine of the
Sabbath was not necessarily connected with a literal six-day creation. [back]

298 Although many non-SDAs did not accept his account of earth's history regarding the flood geology. [back]

299 Gary Land gives a summary of the reasons why SDAs were more inclined to sympathise with
Fundamentalists than modernists. ". . . Seventh-day Adventist gave short shrift to modernism, as they called
liberal Christianity . . . . Rather than accept higher criticism, Adventist affirmed strongly the inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible. As an editor of the Review put it: 'when we stop to consider it, it is a terrible charge
which the critics have brought against God in the declaration that his word is inspired but not infallible. That
would make God the inspirer of that which is fallible, faulty, false, for it is only the infallible that is certain and
true.'

Seventh-day Adventists also allied themselves with Fundamentalism on a nontheological issue—prohibition. . .

.

"Despite their agreement on such issues as the inspiration of the Bible, evolution, and prohibition, however
when it came to the Fundamentalist movement itself, Adventists spoke both approvingly and critically. On the
one hand, the church affirmed that it was fundamentalist, with Francis Wilcox saying that Adventists 'should
count themselves the chief of Fundamentalists today'. Adventists also gave the Fundamentalist movement one
of its leading antievolution writers in the person of George McCready Price, who according to one scholar,
moved Fundamentalists towards the affirmation of the six-day creation, universal deluge, and six-thousand year
old earth....the Adventist Church also had to distinguish itself clearly from the Fundamentalist movement in
order to maintain its identity. Therefore, Adventist writers attacked Fundamentalism on the issue of God's law. .
. . By aligning themselves with fundamentalism, yet maintaining their individuality through their emphasis on
the Sabbath, Seventh-day Adventists continued to believe that they had indeed a unique purpose in God's plan."
Gary Land, Adventism in America, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 167-169.[back]

300 Ministry, July 1928, 16, a report is given on the world Fundamentalist congress. It shows how they highly
regarded McCready Price.

Ibid., Oct. 1933, 3, Branson shows how SDA's are fundamentalists of the fundamentalists.

108
Ibid., July 1939, 38 McCready Price fights against the traditional attitude of fundamentalists towards education
by saying we ought not to be afraid to train our youth in advanced science as all true science is in harmony with
the Bible and quotes Spirit of Prophecy for support.

Ibid., Feb 1941, 7, Thiele makes a plea for higher learning. He claims that higher critics are more willing to
study than us and makes a plea for us to be intelligent critics.

Ibid., Index 1928 to 1947 shows a large number of articles on Modernism but nothing from 1947 to 1961.

Ibid., April 1965, 16, article by Wilbur Nelson "Are Adventists Fundamentalist? He shows how
fundamentalism has changed and we ought not to use this term to describe SDA's. This article is significant as
after a long silence it shows a new departure in our attitudes to Fundamentalists. I will endeavour to show later
that it is not so much a change in Fundamentalists as a change in SDA's in the 1950s which has caused us to
write this way.

In these Ministry articles we can detect a transition taking place in Adventism from naive primitive
fundamentalism in the early 1920's to considering education during the 1940's. This trend towards education
will eventually be embraced and lead the church along with other Protestant churches out of fundamentalism [in
the 1950's] to a more middle of the road approach. There is not too much to comment on in the Review and
Herald regarding this subject which would seem to indicate that the SDA church as a whole was looking from a
considerable distance at what was happening at the other churches and not getting too involved. [back]

301 Alden Thompson has a lengthy discussion of what took place when the Testimonies were revised. He
outlines the shock of the Adventist community, the criticism of Adventist enemies and the attitude of Ellen
White. Adventist Review, September 12, 1985, p. 14. [back]

302 Men such as D. N. Canright, A. T. Jones, A. F. Ballenger, and J. H. Kellogg, etc. [back]

303 Issues over the "Daily", the "Law in Galatians", the 1888 controversy over righteousness by faith, right up
to this present era with issues over the date 1844 for the commencement of the Investigative Judgment were
basically over the roll and function of Ellen G White in relationship to scripture. The issue being for the most
part as to whether Seventh-day Adventists are to accept her as the final word on interpreting the Bible or
whether they are free to differ with her. [back]

304 Gilbert Murray. Valentine, "W. W. Prescott: Seventh-Day Adventist Educator" (PHD. dissertation,
Andrews University School of Graduate Studies, Aug 1982), 481. [back]

305 Holmes, Infallible, p. 5. [back]

306 Washburn, Omega, pp. 1, 6. [back]

307 "Personally I have nothing against Prof. Prescott. But I do know that many will agree with me that his
influence is a menace to this denomination and that he is perpetuating the ruinous theories of Dr. E. J
.Waggoner, in part at least . . the core, the root, the seed theory of all our modern Washington new thought, and
Adventist new theology, that is the new doctrine of the Daily. . . . The new doctrine of the Daily and the
Prescott new theology. . . . This "deadly heresy" will change the original truth, and it is a startling fact that the
new Daily doctrine moves "Personally I have nothing against Prof. Prescott. But I do know that many will
agree with me that his influence is a menace to this denomination and that he is perpetuating the ruinous
theories of Dr E J Waggoner, in part at least...the core, the root, the seed theory of all our modern Washington
new thought, and Adventist new theology, that is the new doctrine of the Daily... The new doctrine of the Daily
and the Prescott new theology... This "deadly heresy" will change the original truth, and it is a startling fact that
the new Daily doctrine moves nearly all our prophetic dates, and opens the way for other theories that draw
men forever away from all the message of 1844.
109
On page 53 this testimony further states: `Living Temple contains the Alpha of these theories. I knew that the
Omega would follow in a little while, and I trembled for our people' ...are a few among many other startling
indications that this awful prophecy is fulfilling in Washington today...the Omega will be of a most startling
nature. The Omega has startled me and my friends beyond expression...because I have forever renounced the
Waggoner theology, a part of which you are defending today. You were my true and faithful friend until the
Waggoner theology of the Daily gripped you, and you were in the coils of the Omega... In my veins flows the
blood of those who knew the Advent movement from its infancy. On my father's and mother's side, the
Washburns and Butlers, not only father and mother, but both grandfathers and grandmothers were pioneer
Seventh Day [sic] Adventists. I will by the grace of God go through with this people to the kingdom of God.
You nor any committee can ever take away my credentials or stop my work. I stand just where my sturdy old
warrior uncle, George I Butler stood. If he were to rise from the dead he would stand with me against you and
Prescott. I know that he feared that you and those who were following the Waggoner and Prescott theology
were leading the work over the precipice to ruin... I challenge investigation, not before a small committee, but
before the whole General Conference... I am not at all afraid that the representatives of our people will turn me
down or out for standing for the original message and the Spirit of Prophecy. You tried me before a small
committee. I will gladly meet you before the whole General Conference..." Washburn, Open Letter, pp. 23-
34.[back]

308 Holmes to Daniels, May 1, 1922, "Open Letter." 8, RG33; Inactive Sustentation files, J. S. Washburn
Folder. Quoted in Bert Haloviak and Gary Land's paper "Ellen White and Doctrinal Conflict: Context of the
1919 Bible Conference", Spectrum, Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 31 . [back]

309 The Bulletin (San Francisco), May 23, 1922, p. 2. [back]

310 Washburn to F. M. Wilcox, November 27, 1931. [back]

311 W. A. Spicer to L. R. Conradi, November 30, 1914. Here he explains to Conradi his convictions that there
was need to put in the revised edition of Great Controversy an explanation of how the book was put together.
He blames the bookmakers for not making enough changes in areas where he still feels the book needs
improving. [back]

312 Bull and Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary, pp. 89-91. [back]

110
Chapter Nineteen

Building an inerrant Ellen White

Don McAdams describes this occurrence the following way: "It is the task of the second generation leaders to
hold the movement together without the charisma and prestige of the founding fathers. Faced with the
possibility of disintegration, the second-generation leaders elevate the symbol of the movement on to a lofty
pedestal and claim great virtue, wisdom and authority for the now dead founder. Nothing gives the second
generation leaders more authority than to claim all wisdom for the founder and claim for themselves the
exclusive right to interpret his legacy."313

Increasing authority for Ellen White's work

It is possible also that they were still living too near the point of time to the criticisms of Ellen White made by
men like A. T. Jones and J. H. Kellogg. Perhaps they saw how the church, having recently escaped from
pantheism, was now facing another attack from higher criticism, which was undermining not only the Bible but
also Ellen White. They could see the eroding influences of higher criticism in mainline churches and were
determined not to allow this to come into the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Gary Land describes the attitudes of church leaders toward Ellen White in the period just prior to and after her
death: "Besides criticizing the ideas of Jones and the Kellogg circle, church leaders over the next few years
began to instruct readers through the pages of The Review about Ellen White's role in the church. Comparing
Jones's criticism of Mrs. White with 'higher criticism of the Bible' implied equating White's writings with the
Bible. Church leaders fought against this implication; yet their fear that these testimonies might be taken lightly
moved them, however unconsciously, toward regarding the statements of the Bible and those of Ellen White as
of equal force. The protests that Seventh-day Adventists did not regard Ellen White's writings as equal to the
Bible were many. In replying to Jones, The Review stated that 'we do not place the Testimonies above the
Bible.' (emphasis mine in bold print) "To explain the phenomenon of this modern prophet more clearly, Daniel
H Kress compared the work and message of Ellen White with that of John the Baptist. Other writers said much
the same thing: that Ellen White only 'magnifies the truths of the Bible' and confirms 'believers in conclusions
they had already reached from a study of the scripture'.

Francis M. Wilcox played a significant role in defining the Adventist position on Ellen White. During his
Review and Herald editorship of thirty-three years, he wrote many articles and editorials affirming the prophet's
inspiration and role in the church. Wilcox argued that White served God the way, Samuel, Elijah, and John the
Baptist did. She was a woman, he said, 'whose work has been to point mankind to Christ, the Saviour of men, to
lead them to search the scriptures of Truth with greater diligence.' "Furthermore, her writings 'constitute a
spiritual commentary upon the scripture, a divine illumination of the word.'

"Despite the protests against equating Mrs White's writings with the Bible, many statements implied
otherwise—or said otherwise straight out. Roscoe Porter wrote that 'the Testimonies sent are God's word.'
Many published statements admonished church members "to study the written word and the spirit of
prophecy."

"Although these writers probably did not realise it, they implied by their arguments that the Bible alone is
insufficient to guide the believer into all truth. In their effort to defend Ellen White's work from criticism, they
began to emphasise her work to a degree considerably greater than in previous years. Although it is difficult to
document precisely, the years after 1906—as reflected in the contents of The Review—show rapid increase not
only in the number of articles about the spirit of prophecy but also in the number of times the magazine's
writers referred to White for support of their arguments on theological issues of all kinds.

111
"When Ellen White died in 1915, it appears that many church members wondered whether God would choose
another prophet for His people. . . . In her absence, Wilcox advised, the church should continue to follow the
Bible and her writings.

"Four years after her death, the debate, begun publicly by Alonzo T. Jones in 1906, came to a close. In the
summer of 1919, the church called its leading ministers and college teachers together for a Bible conference. . .
. On the second day, however despite their apparent agreement in rejecting both the verbal inspiration and
infallibility of Ellen White, the participants backed off from taking any concerted action. Fearing that the
membership would be shaken, they concluded that caution was advisable . . . . as a result, the discussion
remained essentially unknown. . . . Thus the 1919 conference ended the public discussion that Jones had
initiated. The debate closed ambiguously, however, and Jones' questions were left dangling, unsatisfactorily
answered. Nevertheless, Adventist leaders affirmed their belief in Ellen White's prophetic gift and placed
increasing emphasis on her writings. Although they made the Testimonies theoretically subordinate to the Bible,
they also considered them indispensable to Seventh-day Adventists. As a result, Ellen White continued to gain
greater theological authority within the church." 314(emphasis added).

Herold Weiss agrees: "After Ellen White died, her son W C White took over the production of her books,
continuing to do what she had done before her death. Her own books had been compilations of paragraphs from
testimonies, letters and articles; the only thing now missing was the approval of the final draft by Mrs White
herself. But another very significant change took place as well. The demand for her authoritative word began to
come from a new quarter. She had produced her books to meet the demands of the general reading public. Now
they were being produced to meet the demands of a General Conference committee that had decided the church
needed something about a particular subject, such as stewardship or parenting. Now others were handling the
formal authority Mrs White had formerly employed for herself. Those who needed an objective authority had
found one in her.

"During the 1920s and the 1930s many of those who had worked with Mrs. White in the production of her
books were still alive. But with the death of that generation the claims made on her behalf gained new heights"
315
(emphasis added).

The discussions on inspiration at the 1919 Bible Conference are almost buried and forgotten for the next few
decades. Daniells had been so upset by the conservative reactions to the conference he did not even circulate
the minutes. They were lost amidst a multitude of other documents in the General Conference. Those who knew
the most on the subject were intimidated into going quiet. In fact the whole denomination appears to have been
dominated by Fundamentalist thinking during this time. With this came an anti-higher education attitude.

Terrie Aamodt's history of Walla Walla College records the suppression of theological faculty members who
were viewed with suspicion because they had outside doctoral degrees. She shows how difficult it was for many
to accept that the church may need to go outside its own ranks in order to receive an education. It is obvious
from what she records that Fundamentalist minds dominated the thinking of others during this time. This was
particularly true regarding the subject of inspiration and the function and authority of Ellen White.316

M. L. Andreason describes the attitudes of the ministry in 1942 in a letter to the General Conference: "If my
experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our
ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They
believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never
been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that
the question is not vital—and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the
background. . . . The ever present question of the position which Sister White should hold among us is a prolific
cause of difficulty"317 (emphasis added).

Richard Hammil once stated that he was taught "thought inspiration" by 0. Schilling while at Walla Walla at a
time when verbal inspiration was commonly taught in the denomination. "Inerrancy was not discussed by
112
Schilling; but everyone thought inerrancy was correct. However because of the troubles, teachers like Schilling
were forced to 'clam up.' It was dangerous to teach thought inspiration during the 1930s. Although other issues
dominated the scene at the time such as the Daily, Armageddon, and the identity of the king of the north.
Verbal inspiration and inerrancy were the ideas commonly held."318 Raymond C. Cottrell states "After the
removal of Daniells from the General Conference presidency the church also moved away from his position on
inspiration. The material that Ellen White had written on inspiration found in Selected Messages, Vol. 1, 15-21
was not available. For years the White Estate would not release it. Not even when it was requested to be made
available for printing in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary series." It was only in the late 1950s,
Cottrell stated, that the manuscripts were finally released.319

Robert Olsen, retired secretary of the Ellen White Estate, states that "the two leaders who contributed heavily
towards a Seventh-day Adventist view of verbal inspiration and inerrancy for EGW were S. N. Haskell and J.
N. Loughborough, both well respected and living till the early 1920s. Each had experienced the days of EGW
and were looked upon as authorities. During the 1930s and 1940s there were many who did believe as did
Daniells, but they dared not raise their voices. In 1935, D. E. Robinson and W. C. White wanted to get a
pamphlet out and tell the Seventh-day Adventist people the truth about the subject, but it was squashed by the
incumbent administration because it was so different from what was generally believed."320

H. M. S. Richards recalls another side

There is evidence that some pastors in North America did remember the 1919 conference and retained a clearer
understanding of Ellen White's work. Such a person is the highly respected H. M. S. Richards. In his
biographical account of Richards, Robert Edwards (once a member of the Voice of Prophecy Quartet) states,
"Although the writings and the character of Ellen White powerfully influenced him, he also had common sense
enough to know she was a fallible human being, that she made mistakes.

"When all the furore over the accusations that she had plagiarized from other authors shook many in the church
some years ago, Richards remained unperturbed. 'They haven't discovered anything new,' he said. 'All those
charges are old. I heard them all 40 years ago. They were all discussed at the 1919 Bible Conference.'. . . In
addition, they examined Ellen White's statements on history and science, some of which had been shown to be
incorrect. They referred to Willie White's statement in which he said, 'regarding Mother's writings and their use
as an authority on points of history and chronology Mother has never wished our brethren to treat them as
authority regarding details of history or historical dates.' . . .

"Elder Arthur Daniells wanted to bring these things out in the open, but some of the more conservative leaders
were afraid if would shake the faith of the people. Against the advice of Daniells, the General Conference
president, they elected to keep the whole issue quiet (a decision Richards always thought was wrong. It was his
view that the Adventist people have a lot of common sense and can be trusted with the truth). 'If they had
opened the issue up in 1919, much of the trouble that plagued the church in the 60s would have been avoided,'
he said."321

"Not long after the 1919 Bible Conference, the next General Conference session voted Elder Daniels [sic] out
as General Conference president. Many think it was at least partly because of the stand he took at the 1919
Bible Conference. Richards recognized that Ellen White was a human being, subject to human frailties and
mistakes. Even in her writings she sometimes made errors.

"He was aware that Ellen White read history and science books widely, and that she sometimes quoted passages
that were incorrect. . . . And it didn't shake his faith in her prophetic gift that she didn't understand the
underground workings of volcanoes. . . . He recognized that she used material from those books in an intelligent
way to form a bed on which she presented God's messages to her.

"He applauded F. D. Nichol's 1951 book on Ellen G. White and her critics, but felt it was not necessary to try
and show that she never erred. . . . H. M. S. Richards accepted her for what she was and what she herself
113
claimed to be. It protected him from the disappointments some men and women experienced who held an
unreal view of what a prophet and prophecy should be."322

Ellen White's position is clear

How many others believed as Richards and could remember the 1919 conference we have no way of knowing.
It would be difficult to believe that there were none, but the prevailing view of the conservatives certainly held
sway over the denomination. It is amazing indeed that Daniells was removed partly for his views on the subject
of inspiration which in reality were very similar to that of Ellen White's. She had written, "The Bible is not
given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible
must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed
by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. . . .

"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity.
God as a writer is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put
Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penman, not
His pen. Look at the different writers.

"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the
man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued
with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The
divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of
God."323

Tragically, this material did not become generally available until Selected Messages was printed in 1958. More
was released with the printing of the third volume in 1980. Although some significant material regarding her
views on inspiration are found in the introduction to The Great Controversy and, as such, has long been freely
available, up until recent years the other material has gone relatively unnoticed.324

Her views on this subject are very important for Seventh-day Adventists. She places herself neither in the camp
of the liberals or fundamentalists of her day. She likens the process of inspiration to that of the incarnation of
Jesus: that is, God condescends to reveal His thoughts through fallible human minds and methods of
expression. She also has a balance between faith and reason and never tries to depreciate one against the other.
We are still to use our minds; while we must realise that there will still be some things in God's word that will
always remain a mystery to us.

Roy Graham states some important concepts as he summarises her attitudes toward the Bible, particularly as it
relates to her own function. "The early SDAs were sensitive to some of the problems created by their
acceptance of EGW as one who received visions, and thus, through this means, what she and they considered as
counsel from God. They had to deal especially with the question, 'How can you maintain your avowed position
of "the Bible and the Bible alone" while you give EGW's writings a significant place in your faith?'

"Their response was to reaffirm their stand on 'the Bible and the Bible alone as our rule of faith and duty,' and
then to emphasize the following points. First, the EGW writings were not placed above the Scriptures but were
in fact to be tested by them. 'Every Christian, declared James White, 'should pray fervently to be aided by the
Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn
from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts.' . . . Third, there was no intention that spiritual gifts, and
thus in their evaluation the writings of EGW, should take the place of initiative and personal Bible study. . . .

"A careful study of her writings indicates that throughout her life she maintained this position. The Bible is
supreme. 'The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are
the standard of character, the revealer of doctrine, and the test of experience . . . the spirit was not given—nor

114
can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible;' she declared, 'for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word
of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.' . . ."325

Jerry Hoyle states that the subject of the inspiration of the Bible is not one that has had a lot of treatment in
Adventist circles over the years. Apart from Ellen White and G I Butler no one else seems to have paid much
attention to it. The inspiration of the Bible has always been assumed, but never spelt out in detail. Possibly
because it has tended to be "overshadowed by other more pressing issues."326

In 1926 a significant book appeared in which, for the first time, Seventh-day Adventism began to give a
treatment of the subject in detail. The book, edited by Benjamin L. House, included contributions by H. S.
Bunch, J. N. Anderson, Meade McGuire, C. A. Burman, E. H. Emmerson and others who were part of the
General Conference

Education Department. This publication, Analytical Studies in Bible Doctrines for SDA Colleges. A Course in
Biblical Theology was sponsored by the General Conference Education Department and was destined to have a
moulding effect upon the thinking of large numbers of Seventh-day Adventist ministers in the twentieth
century.327

House rejects the idea of dictation inspiration as well as the other idea of thought inspiration (the view of Ellen
White as referred to previously in this manuscript) and settles on what he terms verbal inspiration. By this he
means, "This view, sometimes called verbal inspiration holds that all scripture is inspired, 2 Tim.3:16, that the
selection of the very words of scripture in the original languages was overruled by the Holy Spirit. . . . (He then
quotes from Great Doctrines of the Bible by William Evans.) We may therefore, safely say that in a very real
sense the words as well as the thoughts have been given . . . that infallible guidance was given to those who
wrote it, so as to preserve them free from error in the statement of facts . . . that God in the fullest sense is
responsible for every word. . . ."328 (emphasis added). In the 1928 edition he claims that Seventh-day Adventists
do not believe in thought inspiration.329

There is not much to go on by way of denominational material in print during this time and college lecturers do
not usually print their class notes. However, one gains the impression what is in print and from comments by
older, retired pastors that the position taken by House was generally accepted. Ministry,330 the magazine for
Adventist clergy, ran one article in 1931 under the monthly feature "Valuable quotations from reliable sources,"
which was printed without comment from the editors: "[The Bible] is a book of divine information concerning
the way of salvation, and without a flaw or error in the documents as written by the inspiration of the Spirit. Not
only is every word of the document true, but there is also no mistake in the historical data offered nor in any
point of divine human knowledge."321

_____________________

313 Donald R. McAdams, "Shifting Views of Inspiration, Ellen G. White Studies in the 1970's", Spectrum, Vol.
10, No. 4, p. 27. [back]

314 Gary Land, Adventism in America. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 158-161. [back]

315 Herold Weiss, "Formative Authority, Yes; Cannonization, No," Spectrum Vol. 16, No. 3. p. 9. [back]

316 Terrie Dopp Aamodt, in her book Bold Venture; A History of Walla Walla College. (Walla Walla, WA:
Walla Walla College Publication. 1992). Has an extensive account of the trials of the theology faculty of the
college in chapter 6 "Keeping the Faith". The suspicions raised against some men on the theological faculty
simply because they had advanced doctoral degrees from outside universities shows a mind set against
advanced education which is typical of many Fundamentalists of the day. Harold Bass, Frederick Schilling and
William Landeen are interesting case studies. While we would hesitate to judge each case from such a distance
yet it is interesting to note the mind set of one board member of the college Lemuel Esteb who said to Harold
115
Bass. "Harold, if Mrs. White had written that your black hat is white, it would be white to me". "Lem", I
answered, "God gave me eyes to see things white and things black and things in between, and as long as I am
normal I will not substitute the word of Mrs. White or anyone else for what my eyes tell me. If I do not use the
senses with which I am equipped, I cease to function as a man." p. 104. [back]

317 M. L. Andreason letter to J. L. McElhany and W. H.. Branson, December 25, 1942. Andrews University
Heritage Room, Andreason file 5. [back]

318 Interview the writer had with Richard Hammill March 1993. He also stated the difficulty so many of our
theology lecturers had in getting approval to take doctoral degrees in outside Universities. Most tended to get
degrees in history or archaeology. Edward Heppenstall was one of the few to get a doctoral degree which
involved theology. The actual degree was in the area of religious education. [back]

319 Interview the writer had with Raymond C. Cottrell, March 1993. Cottrell was one of the editors of the SDA
Commentary series. [back]

320 Interview the writer had with Robert Olsen, March 1993. [back]

321 Richards no doubt is referring to the theological issues over the sinful nature of Christ and the teaching of
sinless perfection and the special experience available to believers since 1844 as was being promulgated by an
Australian Robert Brinsmead. Brinsmead's main thrusts were built upon key Ellen White statements. [back]

322 Robert E. Edwards, H.M.S. Richards, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998), pp. 35-37. [back]

323 2SM, pp. 20-21. [back]

324 Ellen G White, in The Great Controversy states in the introduction, pp. v-vii. "The Bible points to God as
its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the
characteristics of the several writers...The Ten commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written
by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths
expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the
nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ,
that `the word was made flesh and dwelt among us.' (John 1:14).

God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by human agencies, and He Himself, by His Holy
Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak
and what to write. The treasure was entrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, nonetheless, from heaven. The
testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language, yet it is the testimony of God. . . ."
[back]

325 Roy Graham, E. G. White Co-Founder of the SDA Church, (Peter Lang, NY: American Uni Studies, 1985)
140-151, The attitude of Ellen White towards this subject is well summarised by Roy Graham in these pages.
[back]

326 Jerry Hoyle, "An Historical Study Of The Development Of The Doctrine Of Inspiration In The Seventh-
Day Adventist Church. 1869 -1966". This project towards an M.A. Degree Loma Linda Uni; La Sierra Campus
May 1973 is a worthwhile document to read as he shows how over our history we have not given much
attention to this subject. Because of this, we have often produced conflicting positions in our publications. On
page 42 he states that we did not have an official statement until 1966 when in our SDA Encyclopedia we
rejected verbal inspiration and upheld thought inspiration. [back]

327 B. L. House [ed.], Bible Doctrines for Seventh-day Adventist Colleges (Washington, DC: General
Conference Dept. of Education, 1926). [back]
116
328 Ibid., p. 66-67. [back]

329 Ibid., 1928 edition, p. 71. [back]

330 Olsen interview. He stated that he graduated from PUC in 1943 and Walter Rae in 1944. Both were taught
verbal inspiration and inerrancy by W. R. French who was also an Arian and had great influence. Not until the
1960s did Robert Olsen begin to understand the subject of inspiration differently. [back]

331 Ministry, (Washington, DC: General Conf. Min. Assn., June 1931), pp. 20-21. "F. M. Wilcox also has a
statement which echoes the conviction of many regarding EGW. "The writings of Ellen White constitutes a
great commentary on the scriptures. . . they are inspired commentaries, motivated by the promptings of the
Holy Spirit, and this places them in a separate and distinct class, far above all other commentaries." Review and
Herald, June 9, 1946. p. 62.

No doubt for many years the influence of Haskell's Bible Handbook which clearly reveals a verbal view of
inspiration was also having an effect. [back]

117
Chapter Twenty

Post War Adventism

While Seventh-day Adventism was moved from its more natural Evangelical stance by the political and
religious climate of the 1920s, toward Fundamentalist positions on the inspiration of the Bible—and on Ellen
White—other more pressing external subjects332 occupied their attention. At the same time, forces within and
outside eventually caused the church to come back to the more balanced approach to inspiration, as expressed
by Ellen White and the 1919 Bible Conference participants.

1. After the Great Depression and World War II, society became more open and progressive in this era of
economic revitalisation. After the war the United States became increasingly active in world affairs and began
to move into the role of being the world's policeman. The Seventh-day Adventist Church also became more
conscious of global issues, rejoicing in the new freedom gained since the end of the war, and finding good
success in countries where America's influence was strong.

2. Broader communications and travel greatly enhanced Seventh-day Adventists global consciousness. Further,
non-Americans began to take prominent positions in leadership. One significant appointment, that of W. R.
Beach to the position of secretary of the General Conference, during the time of the presidency of R. R. Fighur
(1954-1966) is generally looked upon as developing an era of openness and progress.333 The appointment of R.
A. Anderson, an Australian, as secretary of the General Conference Ministerial Association would also prove to
be of great significance. Anderson's influence was felt also when he was able to arrange for his good friend
Edward Heppenstall, an Englishman, to have a denominational teaching position in the United States.334

3. The accreditation of Seventh-day Adventist educational institutions became a powerful influence in

extricating the church out of its Fundamentalist mould. Fundamentalism is often (but not always) suspicious of
higher education. Since the 1930s there had been strong differences over whether the church should apply for
accreditation. To a large degree the issue involved the College of Medical Evangelists in California (later to
become Loma Linda University). The question arose as to whether the church should seek accreditation for this
institution and train doctors of medicine with fully recognised degrees. This was important to enable the church
to have a reputable university with different schools of medicine. With the denominational health message
described as the "right arm of the message," the church's commitment to overseas medical evangelism, together
with the counsel of Ellen White, regarding the need for higher education, it was inevitable that those who were
in favour of accreditation would win.335

Once it was agreed that the college would seek accreditation, it followed that they needed to have students from
other accredited church institutions. These students in turn would have to be taught by well-qualified teachers.
The door was opened for higher education and the Seventh-day Adventist church began to make contact with
the wider world of learning. The founding of The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary meant that the
church would have better academic education for its ministry.

Up until the presidency of R. R. Fighur it was usual to find that anyone who had a doctoral degree from a non
Seventh-day Adventist institution, and who taught Seventh-day Adventist theology students, generally had the
degree in an area like archaeology (for instance S. H. Horn) or Semitic languages (for instance W. G. C.
Murdoch). In the 1940s R. F. Cottrell, while teaching Bible at the denomination's Pacific Union College,
applied five times for permission to study toward a doctorate, but was refused and told that his Master's degree
was sufficient for church teaching needs.336 Edward Heppenstall was one of the first to earn a doctorate in
religious education from a non Seventh-day Adventist institution.4. The influence of Edward Heppenstall
became significant. As Andreasen had been the giant in Seventh-day Adventist theology in the 1940s and
1950s; so Edward Heppenstall became the dominant figure at the seminary and in the theological world of
Adventism from the mid-1950s onwards. His ideas, in significant areas of theology, differed from those of
Andreasen. During my interview with him I was conscious that he was 92 years old and suffering from

118
Alzheimer's disease. However, I found him on an exceptionally good day. His wife, who is 12 years younger,
still had an excellent, clear mind and responded well to many of my questions.337 She was exceptionally
helpful, and willing to supplement her husband's answers to my questions.

Like Andreason, Heppenstall authored many significant books, including: Our High Priest (1972); Salvation
Unlimited (1974); and The Man Who Is God (1977). In these volumes, as well as in his teaching at the
seminary, Heppenstall was aware that he was taking different positions from those of Andreasen (see the next
chapter), especially in areas such as: The sinless nature of Christ, and the impossibility of sinless perfectionism
being found amongst God's people just before the return of Jesus.

During the interview he repeatedly stated, "Andreasen was overboard on this. Sinless perfectionism! The idea
just does not hold up. We can't be sinless before Christ comes. A man coming to Christ just a week or two
before Jesus returns can't do it. His relationship to Christ, that is what matters. We must be total in our
relationship to Christ. If you commit yourself to Christ you are saved. If a man dies and has committed himself
to Christ he will be saved even if he has not kept Seventh-day Adventist doctrines. Some of the great preachers
of today are genuine Christians." He kept repeating, "Christ has got to be central, He is the supreme person."

Judged from his writings, Heppenstall appears to have a more realistic approach to the use of the writings of
Ellen White. He summarises his convictions in the following words, "Ellen White calls upon us to make sure
that all the truths we hold are firmly established upon the scriptures. Therefore we deplore the idea that
anything else should have prior authority over the Bible. Let her writings be our guide but not our jailer, our
shield but not our straightjacket. The scriptures comprise God's final word to us"338 (emphasis added).
Heppenstall had an advantage over Andreasen in that he lived to see more evidence released of how Ellen
White actually did her work before he wrote this article.

5. The 1952 Bible Conference. With the Second World War finished, church leaders were anxious to know if
the effects of the war and the isolation had made differences to the beliefs of church members. The 1952 Bible
Conference was to be the first Bible Conference held since 1919. Some also suspect it was Branson's intention
as president of the General Conference to use this conference to settle the Armageddon issue, which had been
causing some division. An additional reason was, no doubt, that the church felt a need to respond to the
perceived threat of Weiland and Short's submissions on righteousness by faith. The fact that Seventh-day
Adventists could once again hold a Bible Conference where ideas could be openly shared was a step forward.

"Compared with the one in 1919, this conference put greater emphasis on the doctrines of salvation and the
nature and work of God's Remnant and less emphasis on the specifics of prophetic interpretations of history. . . .
The General Conference afterward appointed a standing committee for biblical study and research [sic], 'to
encourage, organise and coordinate . . . Biblical exegesis and research and then to function as a body of counsel
to give guidance to those who in any part of the world field make what to them appears to be significant
discoveries of truth.'"339

The subject regarding the inspiration and authority of Ellen White does not seem to have been of great priority
in this conference. The topic was covered by D. E. Rebok who, while denying the verbal inspiration and
infallibility of Ellen White, is obviously unaware of the type of material and discussions that had taken place at
the 1919 Bible Conference.340

6. The Printing of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Series. Seven volumes of a Bible
Commentary series, comprising some seven thousand pages, were produced by the denomination between 1953
and 1957. It was the largest single publishing project in the history of the church. The set received surprising
acceptance from a wide range of Seventh-day Adventists. It was a step forward in that it recognised that, in
some areas, there was room for differences of opinion. One such example was the fact that there could be an
acknowledgement of more than one view regarding the nature of Armageddon.

119
Developments in the Protestant world

Meanwhile in the wider Protestant world significant changes were also taking place under the influence of
Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism and Liberalism. For the purposes of this book I define these terms as applying
to the Protestant world in the following ways: Liberalism as an attempt to account for the Bible as the product
of merely human sources. Fundamentalism as an attempt to account for the Bible as the product of purely
Divine sources and Evangelicalism as an attempt to account for the Bible as the product of both human and
divine sources.

Many claim that evangelical theology dates back to the early Christian church or at least to the Protestant
Reformation and that it was only in the late nineteenth century, as a reaction to liberalising tendencies of some
Protestants that Fundamentalism arose a defence.341 John R Rice, a leading Fundamentalist, describes
fundamentalism as "a vigorous defence of the faith, active soul winning, great New Testament type churches
going abroad to save multitudes, having fervent love for all God's people and earnestly avoiding compromise in
doctrine or yoking up with unbelievers . . . all true Fundamentalists today affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and
the premillennial return of Christ, and deny all biological evolution. . . ."342

He describes its two most distinguishing features as militant defense of the faith and soul winning. George
Marsden says of Fundamentalists: "They were conservative evangelicals, dedicated to soul winning and
conscious of a need for militancy for defending the faith . . . almost all nineteenth-century American Protestants
had been evangelical, that is, part of a coalition reflecting a merger of Pietists and Reformed heritages and
growing out of the eighteenth and nineteenth century awakenings in America. . . . All Fundamentalists wanted
to preserve this nineteenth century heritage, and so all Fundamentalists were evangelicals . . . [on the other
hand] many who still called themselves evangelicals were liberals or modernists who had abandoned most of
the distinctive emphases of the awakening; so the term evangelical had lost its usefulness. Fundamentalists
nonetheless thought of themselves simply as preserving the evangelical heritage. . . . A Fundamentalist is ready
to stand up and fight for the faith. . . . Central to being a Fundamentalist is perceiving oneself to be in the midst
of religious war. . . . Spiritually enlightened Christians can tell who the enemy is. In such a war, there can be no
compromise. . . . Fundamentalists universally see the war as primarily a war over the Bible. To this extent,
they would agree with outside observers who claim that fundamentalism is, in its distinctive aspect, a modern
movement. Though Fundamentalists see this battle for the Bible as recent, they insist that their inerrancy
doctrine is the historic position of the church.

For Fundamentalists, the battle for the Bible almost always has two fronts. They are fighting against modern
interpretations of the Bible that they see are destroying most American civilization, which they see as founded
on the Bible. . . . The way of getting at this point that has become virtually universal for Fundamentalists is to
assert that the Bible is 'inerrant.' For Fundamentalists, this means that the Bible not only is an infallible
authority in matters of faith and practise, but also is accurate in all its historical and scientific assertions."
(emphasis added).343

Marsden talks further of the two points that would traditionally separate Fundamentalists from the rest of the
Protestant world—inerrancy of Scripture and the premillenial hope of the return of Jesus. Talking about
inerrancy of scripture as a test of faith was rare before the late nineteenth century, though most earlier
Protestants probably assumed it.

Fundamentalism in North America had relative success and strength up until the "Scopes Trial," of 1925 when
they were nationally discredited as the evidence given at the trial was made public. "After that year,
fundamentalism steadily lost its national influence in America and began to retreat into separatist sectarian
minorities which became increasingly isolated from the mainstream of society."344

Because of this setback, the late 1920s saw the Fundamentalist movement reorganising itself. They had been
discredited inside mainline denominations. Two schools of thought developed as to how they could regain their
strength. One group said that "they should simply continue to champion their cause within the major
120
denominations, building individual Fundamentalist congregations that could resist liberal influences of
denominational leadership. Other Fundamentalists increasingly concluded that the movement should form its
own separate institutions, which could be freed from corrupting entanglements with the major denominations.
Dispensationalists especially were inclined in this separatists direction, since one of the dispensationalists
teachings was that the major churches of this age would become apostate. Many, though not all,
dispensationalists carried this teaching to the conclusion that Christians must separate themselves from any
such apostasy. . . ."345

The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia states: "To a considerable extent, Fundamentalists have ignored or
rejected the valid findings of Biblical scholarship, a feature of the movement deplored by its more well
informed leaders. Furthermore, there seems to be a predisposition, especially among the more radical
fundamentalist groups, to take an obscurantist, irrational attitude on various matters. . . . Since about 1940 a
group of fundamentalist scholars has arisen calling for a more enlightened attitude towards modern culture,
especially in the areas of science and sound Biblical scholarship. Those sympathetic to this trend call
themselves Evangelicals. . . ." [Emphasis added].346

Among some of the more important catalysts to cause this new evangelical movement were in the 1950s were:
first, the influence of Billy Graham, who started out in the fundamentalist camp, but gradually moved away to
work with a more broad based group of churches. Second, Carl F. Henry and his work as founding editor of
Christianity Today. This publication became the most influential magazine in the new evangelical movement.
The founding of Fuller Theological Seminary. This was destined to become the catalyst of mission for the
evangelical world.

Early Evangelicals attempted to distance themselves from the extremes of the Fundamentalists and they did this
in many areas such as: (a) opposing liberal theologies; (b) de-emphasising some of the strict prohibitions of the
fundamentalist moral code; (c) abandoning separatism; and (d) dropping dispensationalism, while remaining
premillenialists.

However, there was one important issue, they could not agree on, which was to cause serious rifts. Dayton and
Johnston state: "The question of Biblical inerrancy soon split neo-evangelicals themselves into two major
camps. Progressives thought inerrancy too narrow a way to define Biblical authority; more fundamentalistic
neo-evangelicals insisted on inerrancy as a test of faith. Fuller Theological Seminary, the leading neo-
evangelical educational centre, split over this question and fell into the hands of the progressives. More
fundamentalistic neo-evangelicals, usually supported by Graham and Christianity Today, took the lead in
promoting the inerrancy test for as much of the evangelicalism as possible. Most influential in these campaigns
was Harold Lindsell, editor of Christianity Today from 1968 to 1978, whose Battle For The Bible, published in
1976, was the Uncle Tom's Cabin of the inerrancy movement . . . .fundamentalist influences remained strong."
(emphasis mine).347

George Marsden describes evangelicalism in the following way: "While fundamentalism has become a fairly
precise designation for a particular type of Protestant militant, it should be apparent that evangelicalism
describes a much more diverse coalition. Roughly speaking, evangelicalism today includes any Christians
traditional enough to affirm the basic beliefs of the nineteenth-century evangelical consensus. The essential
evangelical beliefs include:

1. The Reformation doctrine of the final authority of the Bible.

2. The real historical character of God's saving work recorded in Scripture.

3. Salvation to eternal life based on the redemptive work of Christ.

4. The importance of evangelism and missions.

121
5. The importance of a spiritually transformed life."348

There can be no doubt that Seventh-day Adventists could subscribe to the above definition. However, those
who have a proper understanding of Seventh-day Adventism belong more with the progressive evangelicals,
particularly in the area of Scriptural inerrancy. Russell Staples of Andrews University arrives at a "yes" and
"no" answer while noting, "An extremely high value of Scripture is held by both, but evangelicalism tends to
accept verbal inspiration and inerrancy—although perhaps a more flexible view is held by some. Adventists
adhere to a more dynamic view. . . . Evangelicals appear to be moving away from dispensationalist
fundamentalism, and the differences between Adventist and evangelical eschatology appear to be narrower than
previously. Both are faced with the challenge of maintaining a sense of expectancy. . . ."349

Seventh-day Adventism lives in the same world as the rest of the Christian church. It faces similar issues and
pressures. As other Christian churches respond, so does the Seventh-day Adventist Church, although usually a
little later in time. Today there are militant, fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventists who are quick to point out
the changes that have taken place in Seventh-day Adventism since the end of World War Two. However, they
seem unaware of the changes that also took place in the 1920s. Bull and Lockhart are quick to point this out:
"The changes that have taken place in Adventism since the Second World War have been far more self
conscious than those at the start of the century. In consequence these developments have received a
disproportionate amount of attention. But in fact the changes have been less dramatic than those of the earlier
period, involving a dilution rather than a transformation of Adventist belief. . . .

"A misleading picture of Adventist history can be derived from concentrating solely on the changes that have
taken place since the second world war. It can appear that the central dynamic of Adventist development has
been the move away from historic certainties toward accommodation with the mainstream American religion.
But what many authors take to be historic Adventism is in fact a creation of the twentieth century—a synthesis
that took place in the 1920s and remained dominant until the 1960s. It was, moreover, a synthesis that in itself
represented an accommodation to the newly formed fundamentalist movement. . . .

"Adventist theology has developed in parallel with that of the mainstream. It was at its most distinctive during a
period of great diversity; it became fundamentalist in the era of fundamentalism; and it softened with the rise of
evangelicalism. Throughout this process Adventist theology has served as a barrier between the church and its
opponents. The nature of the competition has changed—from rival sects to liberal Christianity to secular
humanism—and Adventist theology has adjusted accordingly. But the changes have served to maintain the
distance between Adventism and the most threatening ideological formations of the day. . . .350(emphasis
added).

__________________

332 Adventism in America, Chapter 6 is written by Keld J. Reynolds and entitled "The Church under Stress,
1931-1960". Reynolds states, "Whereas the troubles of earlier days had been primarily internal, the ones the
denomination faced after 1930 were largely external. International economic depression, a truly worldwide war,
and a rapidly changing postwar world strained Seventh-day Adventism to the utmost. . . . Although not all the
problems were resolved, the events of these years broadened the Seventh-day Adventist conception of mission
in a more humanitarian direction and to some degree broke down its sectarian exclusiveness." p. 170. [back]

333 On this point there was general agreement among those who I interviewed in March 1993. [back]

334 Interview with Mrs. R. A. Anderson. March 1993. who stated that they were good friends, and tended to
agree theologically and spent a lot of time together. [back]

335 Terrie A. Aamodt, in Bold Venture, chapter 6 has some reference to the struggle over accreditation during
this period and the suspicions against anyone who had an outside doctoral degree. [back]

122
336 Interview with R. F. Cottrell 21/3/93. [back]

337 Interview with Dr. and Mrs. Heppenstall at their home March 1993. [back]

338 Edward Heppenstall's article "The Inspired Witness of Ellen White" From Adventist Heritage Centre,
James White Library. Andrews University. The unpublished article is undated, however the fact that it
introduces him as now retired as well as the fact that he has written it to answer the plagiarism charges currently
being made prominent would suggest that he is writing it during the early 1980s when Walter Rae is making
allegations against Ellen Whites borrowings of the writings of others. [back]

339 Gary Land, Adventism in America, p. 184. [back]

340 Our Firm Foundation. Vol. 1, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald. 1953). Article, "The Spirit of
Prophecy in the Remnant Church" by D. E. Rebok. [back]

341 Ferguson and Wright, New dictionary of Theology. The article "Evangelical Theology" has an excellent
discussion on this point. [back]

342 Donald Dayton, and Robert K. Johnston, The variety of American Evangelicalism. (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP. 1991), pp. 22-23. Quote from Rice on this point. [back]

343 Ibid., pp. 23-27. [back]

344 John Scopes was a young biology teacher teaching in Dayton, Tennessee who faced a court trial in 1925
because he taught Darwinism in a public school. The Scopes trial [often called the "Monkey Trial] became a
debate between an agnostic, named Clarence Darrow who defended him and a well known orator named
William Jennings Bryan who was the prosecutor. Scopes was eventually found guilty but the decision was
reversed on a technicality. However it was perceived by many that the real winner was Scopes and the material
used by Darrow to defend him. The ideas used by Bryan to prosecute Scopes was perceived to be very
inadequate when put through the process of the court procedures. An excellent account of this is found in Steve
Daily's How Readest Thou. (M. A. Thesis. Loma Linda Uni, 1982), pp. 30-31. [back]

345 Dayton and Johnston, American Evangelicalism, p. 28. [back]

346 SDA Encyclopedia, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1966), Article "Fundamentalism". [back]

347 Dayton and Johnston. American Evangelicalism, pp. 30-31. [back]

348 George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
1991), p. 4. Recommended reading under this topic is an excellent article by A. Patrick. "An Adventist and an
Evangelical in Australia. The case of Ellen White in Australia." Lucas number 12. Dec 1991. He suggests that
EGW was indeed an evangelical because of her positions on primitive Christianity, the Scriptures, the Cross,
righteousness by faith, and activism. [back]

349 Dayton and Johnston, American Evangelicalism, p. 68. [back]

350 Bull and Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary, pp. 90-91. [back]

123
Chapter Twenty One

Evangelicals and Adventists meet

With changes taking place in both Evangelical Protestantism and Seventh-day Adventism it is not surprising
that when a meeting between both groups took place in the mid-1950s many were surprised, from both sides, at
the amount of agreement to be found. These meetings took place commencing in the North American spring of
1955 and continued until the summer of 1956. Those present were: T. E. Unruh, Conference President of East
Pennsylvania who made the initial contact; D. G. Barnhouse; a Presbyterian pastor and editor of an evangelical
magazine called Eternity, and W. R. Martin; a Southern Baptist research writer on American cults and member
of the editorial staff of Eternity.

Martin was in the process of writing a book about Adventists and had a desire to be accurate and fair in what he
published; LeRoy E. Froom, author and former director of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference
Ministerial Association and editor of Ministry for 22 years, Walter E. Read, Seventh-day Adventist General
Conference field secretary and chairman of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Biblical Research
Committee; and Roy A. Anderson, an experienced evangelist and the director of the Seventh-day Adventist
Ministerial Association, and editor of Ministry magazine.

After the conference, Barnhouse wrote in Eternity: "In the past two years several evangelical leaders have come
to a new attitude towards the Seventh-day Adventist church. The change is a remarkable one since it consists in
moving the Seventh-day Adventists, in our opinion, out of the list of anti-christian and non Christian cults into
the group of those who are brethren in Christ; although they must still be classified, in our opinion, as holding
two or three very unorthodox and in one case peculiar doctrines."351 It was obvious that until this time their
information about Adventists had come from those who had left the church, such as D. M. Canright, E. S.
Ballenger, L. R. Conradi and E. B. Jones. 186

Martin and Barnhouse presented forty-eight questions to the Seventh-day Adventist leaders at the conference.
In the answers that they were giving Martin and Barnhouse could see that they were upholding: The gospel and
not legalism; salvation only through Christ, and not by observing the Sabbath; the Seventh-day Adventist stand
on assurance before God was solely on a basis of Christ's imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not
possible this side of heaven; and the sinless nature of Christ and His full deity.

Keld J. Reynolds notes: "These 1955-56 dialogues were of considerable historical importance, because they
forced the Adventists to sort out their beliefs: a first basic category that they shared with conservative
Christians of all ages, a second category in which Adventists shared with some Christian bodies but not with
others, and a third category representing Seventh-day Adventists alone and justifying their separate
denominational existence. The dialogues drew from the participating Evangelicals an unreserved
acknowledgement that Adventists who believed as those with whom they had talked were indeed
Christians."352

While noting some areas of agreement and disagreement Barnhouse records that in regard to the role and
function of Ellen White, "The Adventist leadership proclaims that the writings of Ellen G White, the great
counsellor of the Adventist movement, are not on parity with the Scripture. While the Adventist church claims
to have received great blessing from the ministry of Mrs White, they admit her writings are not infallible, but in
all fairness do revere her writings as special counsels from God to their movement."353

Martin and Barnhouse noted that there were some Adventist books still being sold in Seventh-day Adventist
book shops that were saying some things different to what they were being told. Froom, Anderson, and Read
replied that this was because the church does give some measure of freedom of expression and that what they
had shared was held by all except a "lunatic fringe". This was a serious misrepresentation, although the answers
given were generally held by Seventh-day Adventists.354 Yet there were a significant number of Seventh-day

124
Adventists who did not hold to the positions that were presented. Both the Evangelicals and the Adventists
involved in the discussions were aware that what they were doing was destined to cause controversy within
their own ranks.

The Influence Of M. L. Andreasen

Adventist history shows that, for the most part, theological divisions and conflicts have arisen over the misuse
of and misunderstanding of Ellen White's writings. These conflicts show an unbiblical understanding and abuse
of her prophetic role. The church has paid a heavy price over the wrangling and multiplying of quotations to
prove a point instead of settling the issues from the Bible. The church is still divided and the theology mapped
out by M. L. Andreasen is a good example of the improper use of her writings.

Andreasen was undoubtedly a pre-eminent Bible scholar and a devout follower of the writings of Ellen White
during the 1930s and 1940s. As an author of some 15 books, he had a profound effect on the thinking of many
Seventh-day Adventist ministers during this period and into the 1950s and 1960s. Although he had a deep
conviction that Seventh-day Adventists were to be truly Protestant in their approach to developing theology
from the Bible only, his writings show no evidence that he had correctly understood inspiration from the Bible
or Ellen White's writings.355

Andreason developed a final-generation theology based, to a large degree, upon a statement found in Christ
Object Lessons.356 His "harvest theology," developed in the 1930s, emphasising four main points:

1. The cleansing of the soul temple is an experience available in the antitypical Day of Atonement since 1844.

2. Ellen White indicates in her book The Great Controversy, in p. 614, how the final generation is to go through
the "Time of Trouble" without an intercessor.

3. Ellen White states in Christ Object Lessons, p. 69, that Christ will not come until His character is fully
reflected in His people.

4. Revelation 14:12 shows how at the end there will be a final demonstration to the universe of a people who
will keep the commandments of God.357 In The Sanctuary Service he develops this theme further as he shows
the process of how he believes the final generation of Christians may become victorious over each sin in turn
until they are ready for translation.358

Regarding the nature of Christ—whether He had a nature like Adam before or after the fall—Andreason made
no comment in his publications during the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s. Possibly this is because the sinful
nature of Christ—being like Adam after the fall and thus being like us today, in a poor sinful state—was an
assumed tenet and thus was not an issue. It was not to become a contentious issue until the late 1950s with the
printing of the book Questions on Doctrine.359

In his volume The Book of Hebrews Andreasen divides the atonement up into three phases: The perfect life
lived on earth by Jesus; Gethsemane and Calvary where Jesus became our sin bearer; and the final
demonstration when other saints show that they can achieve what Jesus achieved with the same help. He
claimed that this final phase of the atonement was in the act of being carried on now in the Sanctuary above and
that it was up to each Christian to cleanse their own soul temple so that Jesus could come.360

His line of reasoning had many weaknesses, for example: It held an inadequate and non-biblical view of the
nature of sin. He read too much into some Ellen White statements while ignoring the context and other
statements that say something different. And he ignored the fact that the Bible has little to say on the subject
while giving too much pre-eminence to Ellen White.

125
One cannot help but wonder whether Andreasen would have gone the same route in his eschatology if he had
been aware of the 1919 Bible Conference discussion about the role and function of Ellen White. During the
years of his greatest influence, little was being said in Seventh-day Adventism which reflected the ideas
expressed at the 1919 Bible Conference.

Many of the ideas of Andreasen were later taken to their logical conclusion by an Australian, Robert
Brinsmead, who caused havoc and division in the church during the 1960s. The battles were largely fought with
both sides lining up statements and counter statements from Ellen White. Both sides assumed you could do
your theology through her writings and that she would always be found to be consistent in her theological
expressions. Now the evidence is that she was not always consistent and that she did, along with the rest of us,
make significant theological advancement during her lifetime. Failure to understand this means you can, at
times, use the older Ellen White statements against the younger Ellen White. Trying to use her writings to do
theology then becomes a wilderness of quotes and counter-quotes and shows a lack of understanding regarding
the biblical purpose of the gift.

The frustrating fact was that both sides found powerful quotes to confront the opposition. Theology became a
matter of trying to match Ellen White quote with Ellen White counter quote. However, those who were most
successful in countering Brinsmead did so by asking him to prove his positions from the Bible alone.361 This,
we have seen, is the only safe way to do theology and is in harmony with her counsel for us.

Little was understood about how indebted she was to others in the thoughts and words she used to express her
ideas. Later the White Estate released a document showing that she had used a significant amount of material
from Henry Melville. He was her favorite preacher. She had a well-marked book of his sermons from which she
drew ideas and expressions. In the document an effort is made to explain what Henry Melville meant by such
expressions as "fallen human nature." This was seen as a way of trying to understand what Ellen White meant
by the term.362 Once this front was opened up, Adventist theology became a complicated mix of not only trying
to understand the mind of Ellen White, but also of those she used as sources.

Andreason first became concerned about the dialogue between Adventists and Evangelicals with the printing of
the answers in the book Questions on Doctrine. Published by the Ministerial Department of the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, this was the official recording of the answers given to the questions.
Andreasen had not been invited to join the consulting group, or even given a copy of the draft of the intended
book as were some 250 scholars and administrators. There were some reasons for this: He was 83 years of age
and well into retirement. He had recently written a Sabbath school lesson study guide on the book of Isaiah,
which had not been published. He was upset and demanded compensation for his efforts. This was granted and
he was paid $3000. However, it left some hard feelings between him and some of the church leaders. And, it
was possibly perceived that he would not have agreed to the answers. He was not theologically in harmony with
the rest of the consulting group and so was put on the sideline. He could have been one of those described as
being on the lunatic fringe.

Bypassing Andreasen proved to be a great mistake. When he read Questions on Doctrines, he printed a series of
tracts entitled "Letters to the Churches" in which he claimed that the leaders of the church, in order to please the
Evangelicals, had sold the church out. The two main theological areas of his concern were: First, the nature of
Christ. He claimed church leaders had departed from the historic position where Christ is like ourselves—one
who had a sinful, moral nature. Second, the atonement. Questions on Doctrine said it took place at the cross and
Christ thereafter applied for us the benefits in the heavenly sanctuary. maintained that the atonement was a
process still going on in the heavenly sanctuary and it depended upon a final generation to bring it to
completion.

Andreason stated, "The Spirit of Prophecy makes it clear that Christ was not exempt from the temptations and
passions that afflict men. Whoever accepts the new theology must reject The Testimonies. There is no other
choice" [emphasis added].363 He argued that the: Seventh-day Adventist church had a body of doctrine which
could not be altered because it had been authenticated by the writings of Ellen White. Part of this body of
126
doctrine teaches that Christ came to earth to be just like us with sinful passions. Furthermore as He overcame
them, so can His followers, and there must be a final demonstration of this victorious living before Jesus can
return. He added that there will be an apostasy from the truth in the last days, as Ellen White foretold, and his
church's swing towards Evangelicalism was that apostasy. These apostates, he continued, would downgrade the
sanctuary and Ellen White and must be removed from the church.

Changing of doctrinal positions

From the discussions, then, had the Seventh-day Adventist church changed its teachings in these areas? Martin
and Barnhouse said yes. Some evangelicals who were angry with them said, No this church still teaches
legalism and is a cult. R. R. Fighur, president of the General Conference said, No, the church has still
maintained its distinctive theology and has not compromised. Andreasen said, Yes, the church has changed and
this is apostasy.

The truth was that the church had changed some of its teachings, but these changes had been developing over a
longer time period than many realised. Martin and Barnhouse had been relying on old sources going back to D.
N. Canright who accused Seventh-day Adventists of legalism. There was some truth to that allegation then.
However, since 1888, with the help of Ellen White, the church had developed a more Christ-centered theology.
Other evangelical Christians, not aware of this, had continued to rely on Canright. The church had changed
from its ideas on the nature of Christ, sinless perfectionism and the atonement due largely to the teachings of
Heppenstall. A true understanding of Seventh-day Adventism allowed for this growth in understanding which
has been going on throughout its history.364

Although Froom, Anderson and Read were anxious to impress the evangelicals it was not with the idea of
watering down the faith, but rather that they might open the door to bring the Seventh-day Adventist message to
the evangelical world.365 Unfortunately, Barnhouse and Martin, it would seem, belonged to those evangelicals
who had a fundamentalist approach to inspiration and this clouded their appreciation of Ellen White.366

Once again, in theological debates, the role of Ellen White would come to the fore. There was a vast difference
between the answers as given in Questions on Doctrine about her role and function in contrast to what
Andreasen fought to defend. Froom, Anderson, Reid and Heppenstall were much closer to the position taken by
Daniells and Prescott at the 1919 Bible Conference. On the other hand, Andreasen, held a view closer to that of
Washburn and Holmes in their tracts against Daniells and Prescott. There has been and continues to be within
Seventh-day Adventism two distinctly different approaches in understanding theology and Ellen White. The
Evangelical line comes through 1919 Bible Conference presenters like Daniells and Prescott who overlap with,
and continue on through, Froom.

Froom feels convicted that Daniells, after his defeat in 1922, placed his mantle on him as the one who would
restore Evangelicalism. In the introduction to his book Movement of Destiny he states: "Back in the spring of
1930 Arthur G Daniells, for more than twenty years president of the General Conference, told me he believed
that, at a later time I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption—its principles,
provisions, and divine Personalities—as they unfolded to our view as a Movement. . . . Elder Daniels
recognised the serious problems involved, and sensed almost prophetically certain difficulties that would
confront [sic]. He knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes to
modify on the part of some. Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of
action before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth. He likewise envisioned the vast toil and time
involved. He pressed me to lay long-range plans to that end, and never to give up. Such was his solemn charge
in 1930."367

In context, Froom is talking of the righteousness by faith issues commencing in the late 19th century within
Seventh-day Adventism. However, that he should also absorb from Daniells, a man he admired, a true concept
of how Ellen White's inspiration worked, should also be reasonably expected. In fact, he seems to show

127
evidence of this in his book when he labours the tenet that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice and
that we must not let Ellen White come to the fore, ahead of the Bible.368

When I was in the General Conference archives (March, 1993) researching this topic the assistant archivist,
Bert Haloviak, went to some cartons of papers that had belonged to Froom (they had been placed there many
years ago by his son Frenton) and found additional notes on the 1919 Bible Conference that had been
overlooked. They appear to be notes taken by some unknown scribe of Daniells' talk at the conference.
Haloviak feels they were taken by Prescott and later typed by a secretary. It is as if the typist does not always
understand the words and, at times, there are blank spaces. It is possible to take the Bible Conference minutes
and place them by the side of these notes and see they do follow the same address. The title at the top is "Use of
Spirit of Prophecy." What it does show is an overlapping from Daniells to Froom regarding knowledge of how
Ellen White's writings were to be used. Although the 1919 minutes were lost, or suppressed, Froom was aware
of what was said. This is reflected in his book Movement of Destiny and to some extent and in the book
Questions on Doctrine, to which he contributed. It would be difficult to believe that Daniells had not taken him
aside on occasions and explained to him of how he, along with others, had associated with Ellen White in
preparing her books for publication. Most likely he and many others struggled with how this knowledge should
be shared, given the mood of the church and the high expectancy placed upon her writings by so many sincere
Christians.

It seems that every time a theological controversy erupts in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the basic issue
of the use of Ellen White's writings comes to the fore. Until this is settled there can be no progress toward unity.
The issues raised in the objections against Questions on Doctrine still remain. However, in the 1970s some
momentous events occurred to help provide some solutions.

Eventually Martin became painfully aware that there were serious divisions within Seventh-day Adventism
between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. In retrospect he wrote, "After I started doing the research, I saw
definite division in Adventist theology. There were the people who really were believers and held to the
foundations of the Gospel. Then there were those who were downright legalists—worshippers of Ellen G
White—who had exalted her beyond the role that she ever claimed for herself, and, in effect were the loud
voice that the evangelical world was always hearing."369

No one should be surprised that Seventh-day Adventism should have two wings: Evangelicals and
Fundamentalists, for almost all Christian churches face this situation to varying degrees. However, in the case
of Seventh-day Adventism, throughout the history of the church this division has been partly over the function
and authority of the writings of Ellen White. There has consistently been a group that has a more enlightened
understanding of her role but they have not felt free to share what they know with the larger body of believers.
This has always put them at a disadvantage because they do not want to be accused of doubting the inspiration
of Ellen White. For this reason, many in the church were content to allow things to drift on up until the 1970s.
Then events forced the hands of the leaders to confront again issues addressed at the 1919 Bible Conference.

______________________

351 D. G. Barnhouse, "Are Seventh-day Adventist Christians?" Eternity Magazine, September, 1956, p. 6.
[back]

352 Gary Land, Adventism in America, p. 186. [back]

353 Barnhouse, Eternity, September, 1956, p. 7. [back]

354 A draft copy of the 55 questions was sent to 250 leaders in North America and around the world. "A
committee of fourteen with Rueben R. Fighur, President of the General conference, as chairman supervised the
distribution of these documents and an evaluation of the replies, which demonstrated a substantial consensus."

128
Raymond F. Cottrell, unpublished manuscript. "Questions On Doctrine: A Historical-Critical Evaluation", p. 9.
[back]

355 M. L. Andreason, in his book A Faith To Live By, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1943), talks
affirmingly of his visit with EGW and how he was able to spend many days reading the original manuscripts
yet nowhere does he show evidence of his knowledge of her borrowings or how her book keepers helped her.
For example he says; "She wrote nothing that was cheap or questionable, but only the purest of wheat,
throughly winnowed. Mature counsel, earnest exhortation, pure morality, sound theology, correct and
authoritative information, are all imparted in correct and beautiful English. Viewed purely as literary
productions apart from any divine or spiritual gift, Mrs White's writings deserve and are given a place among
the best religious literature." p. 268.

In fact knowing what we now know of the way her writings were put together by way of borrowing from others
and the part played by Marion Davis and others in producing the final product it sounds a little ironic to read
what he said in a chapel talk at Loma Linda 30/11/1948. (To be found in the MLA file in the Andrews
University Heritage room. After reading Desire of Ages, he declared "I found there a beauty of expression that
caught my attention, and I said to myself, `I do not see how Sister White could ever have written that; she was a
woman of but little education, and hence would be unable to produce such a work. I said to myself again and
again `she never wrote that'." [back]

356 Ellen White. Christ Object Lessons. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn, 1941). On p. 69, she
states "Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character
of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own." Standing as
it does alone as I have quoted it this statement can give the impression as though Christ is waiting for a sinless
generation to be produced before He can come again to gather up His people. However a reading of the context
shows that sinless perfection is not the subject being discussed rather the producing in the life the "fruits of the
Spirit". [back]

357 These four points are taken from my [MA Andrews University] class notes made in a lecture given by Dr.
George Knight, January, 1991. [back]

358 M. L. Andreason, in his book The Sanctuary Service. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1947), p. 302
states, "Many a man who has been a slave to the tobacco habit has gained the victory over the habit. . . . On that
point he is sanctified. As he has been victorious over one besetment, so he is to become victorious over every
sin. When the work is completed, when he has gained the victory over pride, ambition, love of the world—over
all evil—he is ready for translation. . . .

"Thus it shall be with the last generation of men living on the earth. Through them God's final demonstration of
what he can do with humanity will be given. He will take the weakest of the weak, those bearing the sins of
their forefathers, and in them show the power of God. They will be subjected to every temptation, but will not
yield. They will demonstrate that it is possible to live without sin. . . ."

This teaching seems to have its roots in Adventism from the 1890s when A. T. Jones along with Anna Rice
(claiming to be a prophetess) spoke of the final generation theology. In the years 1899 and 1900 MLA was a
student of A. T. Jones at Battle Creek according to his autobiographical manuscript quoted in Without Fear or
Favour by Virginia Steinweg, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald 1979), 29, Andreason states his regard
towards Jones: "I immediately fastened myself to him. While not impressed with Uriah Smith who was one
who "knew all things, and that others knew very little if anything." [back]

359 Further evidence on this is found that Ralph Larson in his book The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred
Years of Adventist Christology 1852-1952. (Cherry Valley, CA: Cherrystone Press, 1986), has listed all the
statements he can find on SDA comments regarding the subject but apparently cannot find any from Andreason
as there are none listed. [back]
129
360 From M. L. Andreasen, in his book The Book of Hebrews (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1948), pp
59-60. I have paraphrased the thoughts. [back]

361 Pastor Frank Basham was one such pastor who did this successfully and advised the writer (as a young
pastor) that this was the only way to meet Brinsmead's followers. [back]

<P362 Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in Literary and Theological Relationships. Assembled by
Ron Graybill, Warren Johns, and Tim Poirier. Ellen G. White Estate, Washington, DC. May, 1982. See also,
Sources Clarify Ellen White's Christology by Tim Poirier, Ministry, December, 1989, pp. 7-9. [back]

Should there be brackets in the above footnote?

363 M. L. Andreason, Letters to the Churches, Series A. No 1. p. 16. [back]

364 Robert Johnston describes the progress made in Adventism with the following words. "So the young faith
continually advanced, not only in understanding. It changed its ideas about organisation and ministry, deepened
its understanding of the third angel's message of Revelation 14, and revised its interpretation of Christ and the
Trinity, reclaimed the truth of salvation by grace through faith, and found much else to learn or unlearn. But
while it corrected, amplified, and reclaimed, it never lost touch with its roots, 'the waymarks'. . . . Without
repudiating the past leading of the Lord, it seeks ever to understand better what that leading was. It is always
open to learn—to seek for truth as for hid treasure." "A Search for Truth", Adventist Review, Friendship edition,
undated. See also Graeme S. Bradford, "Advancing in the Light," Record, March 5, 1994, pp. 6-7 [back]

365 Interview with Mrs. R. A. Anderson March 1993 at Loma Linda. She expressed the idea that her husband
intended that QOD would become a missionary tool. She also said that later on MLA apologised to R.A.A. for
the trouble he had caused him. [back]

366 Evidence for this statement comes from the fact that in his book (which he writes later on) he dwells
heavily upon the fact that she borrows so much from other authors and dwells also upon her errors. He shows
no evidence for having a view of the inspiration of prophets in harmony with what we find in the Scriptures
themselves. The reader is invited to compare the evidence from Scripture with how Martin writes in his book
The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960), chapter 4 "Ellen White and the
Spirit Of Prophecy." [back]

367 LeRoy E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, (Washington., DC: Review and Herald,. 1971), pp.17-18. [back]

368 Ibid., chapter 5, "The Bible: Sole Rule of Faith and Practice". [back]

369 Douglas Hackelman, "Interview with Walter Martin, Adventist Currents, July 1983, p. 17. [back]

130
Chapter Twenty Two

Adventist historians come of age

The accreditation of Seventh-day Adventist universities and colleges, led to trained historians in
denominational ranks for the first time. In the early 1970s they were beginning to do their work. Don
McAdams, as seen earlier, tells of how the first generation of a religious movement establish the group, the
second generation's task is to hold it together and "inevitably, a third generation arises—a generation that has
been reared in what is no longer a young and struggling movement, but a well-established and apparently
indestructible party, nation or church. Secure in the stability and strength of the organization, the third
generation will commence the critical examination of the movement's origin. If this paradigm is even a little
accurate, by 1970 the time had come for Adventists to conduct a critical examination of Ellen White's spiritual
gift."370

McAdams explains how these historians were educated in the 1950s and 1960s unaware of the long history of
past criticisms of Ellen White and her writings, and certainly not aware of the events of the 1919 Bible
Conference. They first acted as true believers trying to reconcile what appeared to be historical inaccuracies in
her writings. From their own study they became aware of her borrowings. This problem was destined for
resurrection as one that was going to continue to haunt Adventism. McAdams continues, "William S. Peterson's
article, 'A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White's Account of the French Revolution' was the first article
to examine critically Ellen White's sources. . . . He concluded that all were anti-Catholic and anti-Democratic,
strong on moral fervor and weak on factual evidence . . . she used them carelessly, sometimes simply
misreading them, other times exaggerating them, and occasionally leaving out crucial facts, thereby distorting
the significance of the event. . . .

"The ironic aftermath to the entire Peterson affair was an article by Ron Graybill, a research assistant at the
White Estate. . . . Graybill undermined crucial aspects of Peterson's hypothesis and made irrelevant many of the
criticisms put forth by John Wood and others. A study of the notes left by Clarence C. Crisler, Ellen White's
secretary when the 1911 revision of The Great Controversy was being prepared disclosed that the literary
source for the chapter on the French Revolution was not a collection of historians, whether good ones or poor
ones, but primarily one writer, Uriah Smith. His Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation was the basic source for
the chapter. One discovers, wrote Graybill, that Ellen White . . . used nothing from Scott, Gleig, Theirs, or
Alison that Smith did not have. Every time Smith deleted material, she deleted the same material. So it was not
Ellen White who selected poor historians and misread or distorted the evidence found in them. It was Uriah
Smith!" (emphasis added).371

This was a new era in the study of Adventist history. In the past the authorities on Ellen White such as
Loughborough, Willie White, F. D. Nichol and Arthur White were not trained historians. They tended to be
more apologists than historians. When Arthur White tried to discredit the findings of the 1919 Bible Conference
minutes, Gilbert Valentine defended the findings and demonstrated the differences between an apologist, and
that of being an objective historian. And it must be admitted, the fact that Willie White and Arthur White were
descendants of Ellen White added to their subjectivity.

Gary Land noted a further important development: "The next major contribution came from a historian of
medicine and science, Ronald L. Numbers, whose Prophetess of Health: a Study of Ellen G. White re-examined
the development of Mrs. White as a health reformer. In his preface, Numbers noticed that he was parting from
traditional Adventist scholarship in that he did not presuppose inspiration or ignore witnesses who rejected
Ellen White as inspired. . . . First he argued that Ellen White drew upon the ideas of health reformers such as
James C. Jackson and R. T. Trall, although she had consistently denied any relationship of that sort. Second he
pointed out that Ellen White had changed her ideas on whether an Adventist should consult physicians, don
'reform' clothing, or adopt a two meal a day plan among other matters. Her historic function, he concluded, had
been to make

131
 197

a religion out of health reform. Even before its publication, Numbers' book aroused a storm of controversy. . .
."372

Following Number's publication, McAdams researched parts of Ellen White's book The Great Controversy. He
recalls his experience: "During the summer of 1973, while reading letters and documents in the White Estate on
the history of the Adventist publishing work, I became acquainted with several Ellen White manuscript
fragments that appeared to be portions of the first half of the 1888 The Great Controversy. The longest
manuscript . . . turned out to be the rough draft for the half chapter on John Huss. . . . I was now able to present
in a revised paper in one column James A Wylie's account of Huss from the History of Protestantism, in a
second column Ellen White's rough draft, and in a third column her account as published in The Great
Controversy. . . ."

"Ellen White was not just borrowing paragraphs here and there that she ran across in her reading, but was in
fact following the historians page after page, leaving out much material, but using their sequence. . . . The hand-
written manuscript on John Huss follows the historian so closely that it does not even seem to have gone
through an intermediary stage, but rather from the historian's printed page to Mrs White's manuscript, including
historical errors and moral exhortations. . . .

"Study of the Huss manuscript also revealed that Mrs. White's literary assistant, Miss Marion Davis, not only
improved Mrs. White's English usage but also played a very significant role in deleting a large amount of
original material dealing with the spiritual significance of events and adding additional material from
Wylie."373

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to record comprehensively the work of all Seventh-day Adventists
historians as they revised the early history of Seventh-day Adventism. For those who wish a concise summary I
have included in appendix A, a paper by Arthur Patrick. Some significant work was done by Jonathan Butler,
associate professor of church history at Loma Linda University who produced an important paper "The World
of Ellen G. White and the End of the World" published in Spectrum. Butler suggests that Ellen White's
understanding of Bible prophecy about last day events was a reflection of her knowledge of religious currents
in nineteenth century America. Implicit, but not explicit, in his article was the conclusion that Ellen White's
apocalyptic views were not based only on visions and need to be revised by contemporary Adventists.374 The
reader who wishes to pursue this subject further should read the articles by Benjamin McArthur in Spectrum.375

Raymond F. Cottrell maintains that during this period the church leadership and the White Estate were given
six opportunities to face up to the evidence and handle it in a manner that would not cause serious disruption.
However, these opportunities were not taken.376 The openness of the Fighur administration had been replaced
by a more conservative reactionary administration.377

During this period, when the White Estate was responding to the trained historians, a church pastor began to
discover the borrowings of Ellen White. Walter Rea, pastor of the church at Long Beach, California, discovered
that not only had Ellen White borrowed material for The Great Controversy, but also the other books in the
Conflict of the Ages series. Having a verbal and inerrant understanding of inspiration, this devout follower of
Ellen White's writings was seriously disturbed. Several times he reported his findings to the White Estate and
each time he was assured that they would follow it up and make sure that the subject was handled openly and
honestly. When it appeared to him that this was not happening as promised he began to take matters into his
own hands and went public on the issue.378

The effect of what he revealed devastated many in Adventism. Eventually the General Conference president,
Neal C. Wilson, wrote in the Adventist Review, "In her writing Ellen White used sources more extensively than
we have heretofore been aware of or recognized."379 The discoveries of historians and the work of Walter Rae

132
led to a response from the church in convening an International Prophetic Guidance Workshop sponsored by
the White Estate in Washington DC on April 11-12, 1982.

____________

370 McAdams, "Shifting Views of Inspiration", Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 27. [back]

371 Ibid., pp. 29-31. [back]

372 Gary Land, "From Apologetics to History: The Professionalization of Adventist Historians, Spectrum, Vol.
4, No. 10, pp. 93-94. See also an excellent summary account in "The Historian As Heretic" by Jonathan Butler
in Prophetess of Health, Ellen G. White and the Origins of Seventh-day Adventist Health Reform, rev. ed.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992, pp. xxv-xviii by Ronald Numbers. Butler outlines the fierce
opposition encountered by Ronald Numbers and others as they tried to objectively uncover the work of Ellen
White from history. In the end they were somewhat vindicated by the discovery of the 1919 Bible Conference
minutes and even Numbers' own father [who had previously been ashamed of his son] after having read them,
was reconciled as to what his son had been trying to do. [back]

373 McAdams, Shifting Views, p. 34. [back]

374 Ibid., p. 38. See also Butler's article "The World of E. G. White And the End of the World", Spectrum, Vol.
10, No. 2. where he states "Within her own lifetime, Mrs White allowed for the conditional nature of prophecy.
Christ might have come `long ere this', she remarked. He might have come in the civil war era when slavery
was the sign of a failing democracy. . . . He might have come about 1888 when a beleagured Adventist minority
in Tennessee chain gangs and jails indicated America's doom and the world's demise. In both cases, the
prophetess spoke eschatologically with one eye on the morning newspaper. . . . This continual reapplication of
Adventism of new times and places was vital to her prophetic ministry, and remains absolutely essential to the
life of the movement since her time. . .

. . .The prophetess stimulated this interactive process in her own time. It would be only sadly ironic if her
writings were now used to stultify the creative process they once stimulated. . . .

. . .The Adventist prophetess did not look forward to another decade for the end to materialize. Her own decade
held all the ingredients of the Apocalypse. In our time, Adventists embody the spirit of Ellen White's message
by preserving her sense of urgency. . . . An Apocalyptic people—to remain Adventist—must prophesy the end
of the present world, not a past era or a remotely future one. . . . By insisting on only the "signs of the times" of
an earlier Adventism, one may actually weaken belief in an imminent end in our time. . . .

Since Ellen White provided an eschatological perspective for her own time, in her spirit it is now up to us to
provide one for our time." [back]

375 Spectrum, "Where are Historians Taking the Church"? Vol. 10, No. 3. and A "New Look at the Old Days:
Adventist History comes of Age". Vol. 18, Number 3. A recent article by Jonathan Butler "The Historian As
Heretic" also gives a concise summary of the progress made by Seventh-day Adventist historians who
eventually find that the discussions recorded at the 1919 Bible Conference are facing the same questions that
they are pondering. Butler shows the difficult times faced by the historians. Some of them were treated so
poorly that they left they church. Spectrum, Vol. 23, No 2. [back]

376 Raymond F. Cottrell. unpublished manuscript: "Architects of Crisis; A decade of Obscurantism." pp. 18-
21. [back]

377 Elder Pierson graduated from southern Junior College in 1933. . . . In 1936 he responded to a call to service
overseas...but his lifetime of service overseas proved to be a severe handicap when he returned to the United
133
States as President of the General Conference . . . . For most of his life out of touch with the church in North
America he was not aware of, and experienced considerable difficulty in understanding and relating to changes
that had taken place during his absence. . . he considered it his duty to restore to the status quo ante 1936. Ibid.,
23. "During the time of Fighur scholars and administrators could talk openly and freely about their convictions.
But that all changed when R. H. Pierson became General conference President" Interview with Raymond F.
Cottrell March 1993. Gary Land has also an account of this in detail and is worth consulting; Adventism in
America. pp. 225-228. [back]

378 Walter Rea gives his account of his pilgrimage and experiences in his book, The White Lie, (Turlock, CA:
M and R Publications, 1982). [back]

379 Neal Wilson, "This I Believe About Ellen G. White" Adventist Review, March 20, 1980, p. 8. [back]

134
Chapter Twenty Three

The 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop

This workshop was sponsored by the Trustees of the E G White Estate to help work through a response to the
new data coming to notice through the historians of the church, and the challenges of Walter Rae. Space forbids
giving a detailed account of the presentations made at that conference and the discussions that took place. With
so much material now available to challenge the traditional understanding of Ellen White's work, particularly as
held by Fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventism, this workshop represented a high point in the church's attempt
to honestly come to grips with the new information. The audio tapes reveal frank discussion among leaders in
the White Estate regarding the borrowings of Ellen White and her mistakes in the area of history, science and
theology.380 It was agreed that this material did not negate her inspiration, but would certainly affect her
function and authority. It was also agreed that this material should be shared with the church membership at
large381

Tragically this was not to be. As with the 1919 situation, it was felt that Seventh-day Adventist church members
would not be able to adjust to the new information because it was so different to what they were accustomed to
hearing.

Where are we today in Seventh-day Adventism?

Recently one leading Seventh-day Adventist administrator, upon reading the 1919 Bible Conference minutes,
said, "Those fellows are just where we are today." This observation is true. Their problems are still our
problems. The inspiration of Ellen White is not so much under question as is the nature and function of her
authority. Also in question is how prophetic inspiration actually functions. These questions will not go away.
As Edward Heppenstall once said, "The most troublesome thing is suppressed truth. It will not stay
suppressed."382

It is obvious that there have always been two schools of thought in Seventh-day Adventism. On the one hand
are those progressives like the Daniells-Prescott group who expressed themselves freely at the 1919 Bible
Conference. They are opposed by the fundamentalist mind set such as the Holmes-Washburn group who
eventually succeeded in removing Daniells from the presidency and ushered in a period where no one could
express themselves freely about the issue of inspiration, function or authority of Ellen White. At stake is how
Seventh-day Adventists should use Ellen White's writings? Is Seventh-day Adventism truly a Protestant church
that recognises the Bible as their sole authority in matters of doctrine? Are church members free to hold some
positions different to Ellen White in their understanding of the Scripture?

Currently there are many divisive voices within Adventism. Some cry out that in the 1950s the church went into
apostasy when it printed Questions on Doctrine and moved away from some traditional Seventh-day Adventist
positions. Such a one is Ralph Larson, who states, "We consider historic Adventism as pre-1957."383

Part of the purpose of this book is to show that the Seventh-day Adventist Church received a setback in the
1920s when it succumbed to the influences that were operating in the Protestant Fundamentalist world.
However, when a more healthy approach to education came in the late 1940s the church began to correct itself
toward a more Evangelical stance with the openness of the 1950s. In this they reflected more the original
Seventh-day Adventists who above all else wanted openness and honesty. They also reflected Ellen White who
said, "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."384

After the 1920s diversion into Fundamentalism it was the understanding of Ellen White's commitment to
education that led to accreditation of the church's educational institutions. Part of the fruitage of this move
135
influenced the church to come back more toward an Evangelical stance, particularly in the area of inspiration.
In fact, the material she left the church about how her inspiration functioned could have spared the church from
this diversion. If only this material had been made available before 1958 in Selected Messages, Vol.1, and
before 1980 when more was published in Selected Messages, Vol. 3. If only the letter that W. C. White wrote to
S. N. Haskell, and endorsed by Ellen White, had been made freely available. This letter sets out some of her
limitations.385 If only Seventh-day Adventists had been shown the letter that W. W. Prescott wrote to W. C.
White where he complains that our people were not being told the truth about how Ellen White's books were
being put together?386

Well-meaning church leaders may have, over the years, felt it unwise to tell church members these things. But
in failing to communicate the truth regarding Ellen White's writings to the membership they have by default
caused irreparable damage in the minds of many sincere Seventh-day Adventist people in regards to her
ministry.

As it was in Seventh-day Adventism in 1922 with the demise of Daniells and others so it was again in the early
1980s. Some who were well informed in regards to how her inspiration operated were perceived to be out of
harmony with the teachings of Ellen White and suffered accordingly. The problem they faced was how they
could explain their convictions regarding her inspiration in a few sentences and correctly inform those who had
held incorrect views for most of their lives. Subsequent research and publications were to show that many of
these people were better informed than their accusers. M. L. Andreason once gave words of advice to people in
his day who were prone to accuse others of not believing in the inspiration of Ellen White when he said, "Never
say that because someone disagrees with you that he does not believe the Testimonies. He may not believe your
interpretation of them, but he may believe them as fully as you do, and have a more balanced view"387

Failure to have a correct understanding of the role and function of Ellen White has caused large numbers to
leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Many others, while still remaining in the church, have become
nominal Adventists. A survey in the South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists revealed there is
absolute confusion over this subject.388 Many good books have come off denominational presses that reflect
recent research, yet few are read by the average church member.389 And because the average Seventh-day
Adventist is barely aware of what has been learned over recent decades, they continue to have a more
fundamentalist approach to the subject of inspiration of the Bible and Ellen White. Many would have sympathy
with the position stated by Russell Standish: "The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are without error in their
original manuscripts."390

Theological controversy continues within the Adventist church. Some Fundamentalist voices cry out that in the
1950s the church leadership took the church into apostasy, and today's leadership carries on the apostasy. Most
of the theological controversy could be settled if the contestants would discuss the differences from the
Scripture only and so be truly Protestant in their approach. However, this is not the case. Many believe they
must justify their position from Ellen White. And yet, this is quite contrary to her counsel: "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 of God. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every
point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God."391

The big issue here is, "Are Seventh-day Adventists a free people? Are they free to go to the Scriptures and seek
truth as did their founding fathers? Or are they locked into the traditional teachings of their past? With all the
knowledge they have now at their disposal the current generation of Seventh-day Adventists have lost their
innocence. Heppenstall has said, "Freedom belongs to man on religious grounds. Freedom is the gift of God. . .
. The most troublesome thing is suppressed truth. It will not stay suppressed. . . . Religion that is afraid of
investigation and scholarship tends towards superstition and emotionalism. . . . Blind credulity as to the truth
one holds is the refuge of sluggish minds. It relieves the individual from real study of God's word. It settles all
differences by silencing all opposing voices and denying the right to ask questions. This takes the meaning out
of religion, leaving it ignorant, superficial, intolerant. . . . The Christian possess both love of the truth and love
of his neighbour. As the man who is sure of his wife is free from jealously, so the man who is sure of the truth
136
he holds can afford to be courteous and tolerant with others. . . . It is easier to abuse a man by charging him
with error and wrong motives than to take time to find out what he actually does believe."392

The theological battles taking place between Fundamentalist and Evangelical Seventh-day Adventists in the
1950s, and again in the 1970s and on, is in reality Seventh-day Adventism striving to re-align itself into its
more natural position of Evangelicalism after its slide into Fundamentalism in the 1920s. Original Adventism,
as it was meant to be is best personified in the writings of Ellen White. Both she and the movement she founded
are by nature Evangelical and not Fundamentalist.393

Seventh-day Adventism was meant to be a free, open, living, dynamic movement. While Ellen White was alive
she fought for this, but the church slipped into the narrowness of Fundamentalism after her death. Her legacy,
with the setting up of an education system, caused the church to become better educated and return closer to
Evangelicalism. The struggle taking place inside Seventh-day Adventism today is caused by a movement
striving to be what God always wanted it to be. The great issues of the Protestant Reformation are still being
fought within Seventh-day Adventism. That is, the battle for freedom to go directly to the Bible and the Bible
alone for doctrine and teaching. Only as the Seventh-day Adventist church consistently takes an evangelical
stance toward the nature of the inspiration and function of Ellen White can this be possible.

Church growth expert Carl George was invited to study the strengths and weaknesses of the Adventist Church
by the Columbia Union Conference Executive Committee in January 1987. He stated in his published report
these words of advice to the Seventh-day Adventist Church: "Your movement has to make a decision about
Ellen White. I know this is a very, very difficult and touchy area, but sooner or later your movement has got to
make a decision about the character of the ministry of Ellen G. White. . . . The dilemma facing Adventist in the
days ahead is how you will value Ellen G. White and her contribution to the founding of your movement. She is
indisputably a witness to Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. How much more than this should be imposed upon
her will take a generation of scholarly debate to sort out. Adventism has nothing to fear from a close
examination of its origin, its writings, its founders, because Adventism does not hang or fall with Ellen G.
White. It hangs or falls with faithfulness to Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour."394

_____________

380 International Prophetic Guidance Workshop audio tapes available but currently banned from duplication
from the EGW Research Centre, Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW 2265, Australia. [back]

381 International Prophetic Guidance Workshop paper presented by Roger W. Coon Entitled "Continuing
Education of Church Members and Providing Bases of Confidence." Available from the White Research
Centre. Some of the points he stresses are that most Seventh-day Adventists have a seriously impaired view of
how inspiration works and that we need to admit our mistakes in the past regarding the function of EGW's
inspiration. [back]

382 Edward Heppenstall, "Academic Freedom and the Quest for Truth", Spectrum, winter, 1972, p 36. [back]

383 Ralph Larson, "Issues: the Real Issue, the Side Issues and the Pseudo Issues", (Steps to Life, 1992), p. 39.
Response to NAD book Issues. Russell Standish also takes a similar position in The Remnant Herald, June
1993, Number 5. Under the title "Historic Truth Number 27." He claims that "The SDA truth was upheld in
general prior to 1956. Since then many truths have been destroyed." [back]

384 CWE, p. 35, The reader is encouraged to read the counsels given in pp. 28-54 of this book. Also the
writer's article in The Record, March 1993. "Increasing Light". [back]

385 Letter W. C. White to S. N. Haskell. October 31, 1912. In this letter W. C. White sets how that his mother
is not an authority on history etc. The letter is particularly valuable in that it is endorsed by EGW. [back]

137
386 Letter W. W. Prescott to W. C. White, April 6, 1915. "The way your mother's writings have been handled
and the false impression concerning them which is still fostered among the people, have brought great
perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has
been practised in making some of her books, and that no serious effort has been made to disabuse the minds of
the people of what was known to be their wrong view concerning her writings. But it is no use to go into these
matters. I have talked with you for years about them but it brings no change. I think, however that we are
drifting towards a crisis which will come sooner or later and perhaps sooner." [back]

387 Chapel talk at Loma Linda University 30/11/1948 by MLA. To be found in the MLA file at the Heritage
Centre, Andrews University, Michigan, U.S.A. [back]

388 "Ellen G. White And Contemporary Adventism In The South Pacific Division." Eleanor M. Scale.
Unpublished paper presented to the 1989 year end Executive Committee of the SPD. In this she shows that of
those involved in her survey of 1721 people:
21% of the youth still believe that EGW writings are equal to the Bible.
45% of the youth still believe that EGW writings can be used to prove doctrines.
50% of the youth still feel that EGW cannot be mistaken when speaking in the area of History, Prophecy and
Theology. This number rises to 66% for the over 66 age group.

She goes on to conclude "These people are at risk if they become aware of difficulties and are unable to discuss
their problems with mature members or ministers. Perhaps as church leaders, we should accept a portion of the
responsibility for some of the problems that still exist in this area. Whether consciously or unconsciously many
have, at times, made claims for and demands on Ellen White's writings that far exceed those made on the
writings of Bible Prophets." [back]

389 Books such as: Martin Webber, Some Call it Heresy. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn.,
1985) chapter 15 "A Nonprophet Organization?" Tim Crosby, Is Your God Real? (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald Pub. Assn., 1988). George W. Reid, A Sound of Trumpets. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald
Pub. Assn., 1982) George E. Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist? (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1983). Alden
Thompson, Inspiration. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn, 1991). George Knight, Reading
Ellen White, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald. 1997). Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord.
(Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1998). [back]

390 Russell Standish. The Remnant Herald June 1993, Number 5. No publisher stated. under article entitled,
Historic Truth No. 8, The Nature of Inspiration. [back]

391 EV, p. 256. [back]

392 Edward Heppenstall. "Academic freedom and the Quest for Truth," Spectrum, Winter 1972. 34-38. For
more reading on Ellen Whites relationship to Evangelicalism see, A. N. Patrick's article "An Adventist and an
Evangelical in Australia? The case of Ellen White In The 1890s". Lucas, no.12, December 1991, pp. 42-
49.[back]

393 For further reading regarding Seventh-day Adventism's relationship to Fundamentalism see W. G.
Johnsson's editorial "Are Adventists Fundamentalists" in Review, January 8, 1981, p.14.[back]

394 Carl George, Empty Pews, Empty Streets. (Columbia, MD: Columbia Union Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists Publications, 1988), pp. 63, 68. [back]

138
Chapter Twenty Four

Ellen White and the Bible

Many gifts are given to the church to help keep unity and protect against heresy: "It was he who gave some to
be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's
people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in
the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by waves, and blown here and there by every wind of
teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming" (Ephesians 4: 11-14).

When Ellen White spoke out against errors that would confuse the church and cause harm to the relationship
members had to Christ, she was doing what prophets are called upon to do. However, the same can be said for
other gifts such as the gift of being an evangelist, a pastor and a teacher. It is important to remember that these
and the teachings from these gifts must be in harmony with God's final revelation in Christ as found in the
Scriptures. The final court of appeal must always be the Bible.

This was the strong conviction of her husband James White who wrote: "There is a class of persons who are
determined to have it that the Review and its conductors make the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and
Christian fellowship. . . . What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its
columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures.

No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as authority on any point. . . . It's motto has been, 'The Bible,
and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.'. . .

"Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as the perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray
fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty.
He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he
does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position."395

He could see that, very early in Adventism, some were inclined to give her writings an authority over and above
the Scriptural authority for the work of a prophet. "They conclude that if it be true that God is reviving some of
the gifts, 'for the comfort of his people, and correct those who err from Bible truth.' That all errors would at
once be corrected by these gifts, and the church be saved the trouble of searching the Word for truth to expose
error. . . . They would put the gifts where they do not belong. . . . The revival of any, or all of the gifts, will
never supersede the necessity of searching the Word to learn the truth."396

The Bible is the Foundation of Faith and Practice

His comments highlight an important principle—the Bible is its own interpreter and every Christian is free to
study the Bible (guided by the Holy Spirit) to find truth for themselves. The following points support James
White in his stand:

1. Jesus left a promise to His Church. "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counsellor, the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I
have said to you." ( John 14:25-26)

2. Recognising this point and practicing it is part of being Protestant. The Catholic Church tried to impose upon
Christians the role of the pope as the infallible interpreter of Scripture. This concept was rejected by
Protestants, because it violated the principle of Sola Scriptura. Besides, once you have any external authority
telling you what the Bible means, you make that authority more powerful than the Bible itself.

139
 207

3.The Bible is a completed book. Hebrews 1:1 gives the reason for this, "In the past God spoke to our
forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us
by his Son. . . . " The generation of Jesus' day were taught by Christ and individuals wrote down what they had
learned. Jesus was the fullest, most complete revelation of God. Nothing that comes after Him will ever add to
or eclipse the revelation of God in Him. All that comes after will be but a reflection of the light that shone
through Him. Therefore the work of prophets is to call people back to study and obey that final, complete,
revelation in Jesus. The work of prophets is to point out duties already revealed and neglected.

It is the position of Ellen White herself: "Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every
point they claim from the revealed Word of God."397 To the delegates of the General Conference in 1901, she
said, "Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never [sic] quote my words again as
long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your
meat, and your drink, and you make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know
better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you
today. And don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White Said' [sic]—'Sister White said this,' and 'Sister
White said that,' and 'Sister White said the other thing'. But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.'398

5. This is the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as stated in what the church affirms and
denies about the authority of Ellen White's writings. Notice a few significant points from the 10 affirmations
and the 10 denials on our position regarding the authority and function of Ellen White's writings.

"Affirmations.

"3. We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and
practice.

"Denials.

"3. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of
Christian faith as does Scripture.

"4. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.

"6. We do not believe that the Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.

"7. We do not believer that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture."399

Fritz Guy is clear on this point: "The ministry of Ellen White does not define, control, or restrict an Adventist
understanding of scripture. That is, what she wrote does not determine in advance the results of Adventist
scriptural exegesis; nor did she ever intend her work to be so used. She did not suppose that scripture needed
her explanation to make it intelligible; and she did not claim that her understanding was the definitive
interpretation of the canonical text. She never said, 'Let me tell you what the Bible means.' She never claimed
that her articles and books constituted the definitive commentary on scripture.'. . . A prerequisite to any serious
exegesis is the recognition that one does not already know ahead of time what the text is going to say; and no
Adventist should be embarrassed if a fresh, careful listening to scripture discloses something different from
what it said to Ellen White a hundred years ago" (emphasis added).400

Ellen White Used Scripture Homiletically, not Exegetically

6. Ellen White's use of Scripture is usually that of an evangelist or homiletician, not an exegete. She can use the
same text of Scripture at times in harmony with the context and intended meaning of the writer. At other times
140
she can use the same text out of context with a different meaning to the intention of the biblical writer. Robert
Olsen gives the following two examples:401 Ecclesiastes 7:2. In harmony with the context and meaning, she
wrote, "God made man upright; He gave him noble traits of character, with no bias toward evil. He endowed
him with high intellectual power. . . ."402 Out of harmony with the context and original meaning of the writer
she wrote, "Among the first things to be aimed at should be a correct position, both in sitting and in standing.
God made man upright, and He desires him to possess not only the physical but the mental and moral benefit,
the grace and dignity and self-possession, the courage and self-reliance, which an erect bearing so greatly tends
to promote."403

Nahum 1: 9. "The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter
extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to the angels and dishonor to God, will now
vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe. Never will evil again be manifest. Says the
Word of God: 'Affliction shall not rise up the second time.404 (Emphasis added). An astute reader will recognize
that this passage from Nahum is talking of the destruction of Nineveh and not with the final disposition of sin
from the universe.

There is no evidence to suggest that when she was commenting on a passage of Scripture that the meaning she
was giving was the one and only true meaning. To the examples of Olsen we may add her use of the parable of
the ten virgins as found in Matthew 25:1-13. In Christ Object Lessons she interprets it as meeting its application
when Christ returns.405 However in The Great Controversy she applies it to the time just before the 1844
disappointment and states that it illustrates the experience of the Adventist people.

She is not using 1 Corinthians 2:9 correctly when she applies it to the glories of the new earth. "Paul had a view
of heaven, and in the discoursing on the glories there, the very best thing he could do was to not try to describe
them. He tells us that eye had not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man the things
which God hath prepared for those that love Him. So you may put your imagination to the stretch, you may try
to the very best of your abilities to take in and consider the eternal weight of glory, and yet your finite senses,
faint and weary with the effort, cannot grasp it, for there is an infinity beyond."406

The next verse states, "but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit." The verse in context is talking about a
present experience in the life of the believer whereby they are able to know and better understand God and his
purposes, than the person who does not know God. The point being made is that the spiritual person
understands, but the unspiritual cannot understand through their natural senses. The subject of the new earth is
not Paul's point in this passage.

In the hand written notes taken at the 1919 Bible Conference after meeting (most likely by Prescott. Haloviak
thinks this on a basis they were found in the Froom box of papers and Froom was known to be a friend of
Prescott) a statement is made by someone as follows, "Sister White is not a biblical exegete. Her gift is not the
gift of exegesis. She would be the last person to go to. Are we to allow our conclusions of the Bible to be
blocked?"407 (emphasis added). Bearing in mind that she had asked some of these men (Prescott and Daniells,
for instance) and her helpers to assist her in putting together her books through some difficult parts of the Bible,
the statement may come from first hand experience.

Alden Thompson believes that Ellen White frequently used methods of biblical application that were commonly
used among early Adventist writers. Perhaps this could explain why she used expressions from the Apocrapha
in Early Writings. This would be readily accepted by her contemporary Adventist community, to whom she was
writing.408 This is also in harmony with her comment that inspired writings do not put God on "trial" in thought
or "word" or "logic"409

Jon Paulien talks of Ellen White as an interpreter of the Bible in this way, "While more study needs to be done
on this question, it is my opinion that Ellen White rarely uses Scripture exegetically (i.e. being primarily
concerned with the biblical writer's intent). As was the case with the classical prophets of the OT, her main
concern was to speak to her contemporary situation. This would generally cause her to use Scripture
141
theologically and homiletically rather than exegetically. To say this is not to limit her authority. Her intention in
a given statement should be taken with utmost seriousness. At the same time we must be careful not to limit the
authority of the biblical writer, denying that writer's intention on the basis of a homiletical statement that Ellen
White never intended to exhaust the meaning of the biblical text."410

The main thrust of Paulien's paper is that we must not take an "echo" reference of Ellen White's and make it the
standard interpretation of a passage. By "echo" passage Paulien means when she, as a homiletician, uses a
biblical word or two out of context to apply a spiritual truth. An example of this could be where in Ministry of
Healing she states, "In relation to tea, and coffee, tobacco, and alcoholic drinks, the only safe course is to touch
not, taste not, handle not."411 The italicised section, from Colossians 2:21, is certainly not the true meaning of
the text where Paul warns against the asceticism of the gnostics. The basic principle behind what she is saying
can be seen, but it is not the exegetical meaning of the passage. She uses the language of Paul to press home an
important point regarding temperance.

Herbert Douglass adds: "When she commented on the Bible, how reliable was she? Understanding the
limitations of finite human nature, one would expect some discrepancies. Not to have made a few mistakes
would have been a first for prophets! For that reason, she never expected anyone to consider her the Bible's
infallible commentator or interpreter."412

If then she mostly comments as a homelitician and not an exegete, it is perilous to use her as an inspired Bible
commentator. It also shows the weakness producing a Bible with her comments in the margin.413

Ellen White Grew in Her Understanding of Scripture

7. Ellen White grew in her knowledge of the purposes of God and in her understanding of Scripture. We have
previously seen how she could change her mind in theological areas and was open for and sought advice from
others. This being the case it is possible to take some of the early Ellen White and compare the latter Ellen
White statements and make it appear that she contradicts herself. Failure to allow her to grow has caused her
enemies to unfairly play upon apparent contradictions in her writings. However, for those who would try to use
her as a biblical commentator we ask "Which Ellen White are you going to quote? The early Ellen White or the
latter?

7. None of the seven points cause problems if she is seen in her true role as a Christian prophet. If we use the
"Bible alone" for our source of doctrine and teachings. Fritz Guy has expressed the matter well,

"She called attention to the word. . . .

"She urged obedience to the Bible. . . .

"She showed the application of the Bible to her own time, encouraging people to be faithful. . . .

"She certainly did not claim that her own understanding was the final word, the definitive interpretation. On the
contrary, she urged every person to listen to the Bible for himself . . . she insisted that 'there is no excuse for
anyone in taking the position . . . that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error.' No one need feel
uncomfortable if in serious, careful listening to the Bible he discovers that it says something a little different
from what it said to Ellen White."414

_____________________

395 James White article "A Test", Review and Herald, October 16, 1855, as reprinted in The Pioneers And The
Spirit of Prophecy, which is a reprint of early Review and Herald articles Published by N.E. Legaspi, for the
students of the Far Eastern Division, Manila, Philippines. 1956. p. 13. [back]

142
396 The Gifts: Their Objects, p. 27. [back]

397 Ev, p. 256. [back]

398 Verbatim report of remarks of Mrs. E. G. White, at a meeting held in Battle Creek College library, April at
the General Conference of 1901, p. 167. [back]

399 "The Inspiration and authority of the Ellen G. White writings: A statement of present understanding."
Ministry, February, 1983, p. 24. The preface to the statement by the Biblical Research Institute states "Although
it is not a voted statement, we believe that the worldwide participation in its development makes it a reflection
of the views of the church on the topic it addresses." [back]

400 Fritz Guy, Thinking Theologically, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999), pp. 123-124.
[back]

401 Taken from Robert Olsen's article Hermeneutics, p. 7. Ellen White Estate document, June 1, 1986. [back]

402 PP, p. 49. [back]

403 Ed, p. 198. [back]

404 GC, p. 504. [back]

405 COL, 405-421 [back]

406 6SDABC, p. 1107. [back]

407 "Use of Spirit of Prophecy," typed from some handwritten notes. [back]

408 Alden Thompson, Old Testament Apocalyptic and Adventist Eschatology. A paper presented at West Coast
Bible Teacher's Conference, May 1, 1982, pp. 10-11. [back]

409 1SM, 21. [back]

410 Unpublished paper by Jon Paulien, "Ellen White and the Interpretation of Revelation". [back]

411 MH, p. 335. [back]

412 Douglass, p. 19. [back]

413 The producing of these Bibles gives the impression she is the final word on the meaning of the text. It also
assumes authority on behalf of the compiler in being able to select the appropriate Ellen White statement.
Particularly when we realize she can comment on the same passage giving entirely different meanings. Even
more serious is the Clear Word Bible by Jack Blanko, (Review and Herald, 1994) which puts her extra
comments in the text itself. [back]

414 Fritz Guy, "A Frank Look At Ellen White," Adventist Review, 1986, pp. 9-10. (the date cannot be read and
will need to be searched out) [back]

143
Chapter Twenty Five

Implications for the future

It may be Adventists will one day thank those who opposed them on the internet and put out videos attacking
our faith. Often the Christian church makes best progress when facing challenges that oppose them for it forces
the church out of its complacency and makes it think more seriously about its faith.

This is what Ellen White seems to be saying when she states, "Whenever the people of God are growing in
grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. . . . This has been true in the
history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has
ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. 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.

"The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive
evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly
discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures,
when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure
that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship
they know not what."415

Re-education of church members needed

In the 1982 International Prophetic Guidance Workshop, Roger Coon presented a paper that called for the re-
education of church membership in understanding the function of Ellen White's writings.

The first part of the paper sets out the problems listed, in part, here

A. The Crisis in Hermeneutic

1. Most Seventh-day Adventists probably have a seriously impaired view of inspiration/revelation.

a. Bias toward strictly verbal (mechanical dictation) position.

2. Danger when they discover factual data contrary to their view:

a. Instead of adjusting their theory to fit demonstrated facts, [sic]

b. Discard prophet [sic] instead of bad theory (throw out baby with bathwater)

B. The Crisis in Credibility:

2. Danger to Church member who hears the charges:

a. Credibility of EGW challenged

b. Credibility of high church leaders (past/present) challenged.

C. Methodological Approaches That Tend To Build Credibility:

1. Openness: total honesty/candor

144
a. Admit the honestly made mistakes of the past:

1. Putting EGW upon pedestal above Bible writers

2. Misuse of some statements ("the words that I speak . . . " etc.)

(a) Demonstrate her personal fallibility

(b) Demonstrate her personal vulnerability

a. Honestly face controversial issues; don't duck them:

2. b. Deal openly with the existence of some things "hard to be understood".416

The workshop where this paper and others were presented was a high point in the church's attempt to come to
grips with the reality of the problems regarding Ellen White and her function and authority. Unfortunately, what
Coon and others were advocating was not really taken up. As in the 1919 conference so in the 1982 conference.
In both cases there was a determination to share the material with the membership at large, but in both cases the
material was assigned to the too hard basket with the feeling that the membership could not handle the new
information. So the bulk of the Adventist membership has little knowledge of the information that has come to
hand over the past two decades and are left vulnerable when forced to face the evidence placed before them in a
negative way.

This book has sought to show that not only are most Adventists unaware of the biblical expectations of a
prophet, but those who share the information in a negative way are also, for the most part, lacking a true
biblical understanding of the subject. If they were more aware of the biblical data they would see that their
attacks could also demolish David, Paul and Peter.

Ellen White meets the biblical expectations of a true prophet. That is, she calls for holy living and obedience to
God's Word. She upholds the good news about Jesus Christ and gives people a clearer understanding of what it
means to accept and follow Him.

But she is also still, to some degree, a product of her culture. The general direction she led the church during its
formative years was the right direction, but she was not infallible. She could make statements that were in
harmony with the culture of her times, but were later shown to be incorrect. This should not cause concern if
her role is seen as one in harmony with the statement made by Paul as to the function of prophets: "But
everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" (1 Corinthians
14:3). Her gift can never have the authority of an apostle like Paul. The church must take seriously the counsel
of Paul that a prophet must speak in harmony with his writings. (verses 36-38).

The church must also exercise the gift of discernment encouraged by Paul in verse 29, where they are told to
"weigh carefully what the prophet says." Many will see this as providing a biblical basis for what is happening
already. For many years now it has been recognised that the church cannot follow all of her counsel. This is
demonstrated in the fact that her counsel on managing hospitals and colleges is almost financially impossible to
follow in the 21st century. The church has for many decades followed Paul's advice—and not given her formal
authority—that which comes with the office of the person. Instead she has been given intrinsic authority—that
which comes because of the inner, compelling, logic of what is stated. The church needs to consider what she
has written. The statements she makes need to be taken seriously. But in the end, the gift of discernment must
be used to see if the advice is practical given today's circumstances.

This is in harmony with her counsel. An excellent example of how she understood her writings should be used
is found in her statements made at a school board meeting. Previously she had made a statement that "the only
teachers of their children until they have reached eight or ten years of age" should be the parents.417 Some at
145
the board argued in favour of maintaining that stance. Others felt the need of classes for smaller children. Ellen
White seemed to go against her own counsel when she stated: "Mothers should be able to instruct their little
ones wisely during the earlier years of childhood. If every mother were capable of doing this, and would take
time to teach her children the lessons they should learn in early life, then all children could be kept in the home
school until they are eight, or nine, or ten years old.

"But many who enter the marriage relation fail of realising all the sacred responsibilities. . . . God desires us to
deal with these problems sensibly. . . . That is how it is, and my mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the
idea, 'Why, Sister White has said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going
right up to it.'

"God wants us all to have commonsense, and He wants us to reason from commonsense. Circumstances alter
conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things. . . . if there is a family that has not the capabilities of
educating, nor discipline and government over children, requiring obedience, the very best thing is to put them
in some place where they will obey" (emphasis added).418 In saying this declares what Paul admonished in 1
Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 where believers are admonished to "test" and "weigh" the
counsel given by prophets.

It is important to recognize that God does continually impart spiritual gifts to His church. Paul teaches us in 1
Corinthians 12 that all the gifts are necessary if we are to have a healthy functioning church body. Willie White
pled that this not be forgotten when the church tended to lean too heavily on his mother's gifts. He said, "I have
several times said to our brethren who were giving Bible studies on the spirit of prophecy, that I thought that
subject could not be perfectly understood without a better understanding of all the other gifts in the church . . .
for a long time I have been praying the Lord to take the burden that for years has rested upon Mother, and place
it upon the seventy elders. . . . I wish you to assure our brethren. . . . they will have my sympathy and my
prayers in their efforts to build up and strengthen the apostolic gift, and all the other gifts in the
church"419 (emphasis added).

Moving toward a truly biblical position

There is grave danger that Seventh-day Adventists may so exalt the gifts of one individual and, in so doing,
ignore and stifle the many other gifts that God has and is giving His church. This does not lead to a healthy,
growing body. Paul declares that all the gifts are needed, even those we do not seem to hold in high esteem.

One cannot help but wonder at the cost to the church over the years when so many were told to forget their
convictions in the area of expertise. Experts in the areas of history, theology, science and education were told to
put aside what they believed and taught because it was seen to be contrary to what Ellen White had written
some 100 years before. A few years ago extracts from the diaries of Seigfried Horn were written up in
Spectrum. This man was held in high esteem in the scholarly world, within and outside the church. Yet the
diaries reveal his inner conflict with trying to be loyal to Ellen White (for whom he had much respect) and what
he knew to be true from his area of expertise.420

Another highly respected biblical scholar within Adventism, Hans LaRondelle also tells of his struggle: "As my
knowledge of Scripture increased, I gradually awakened to my responsibility and duty to test Ellen White's
interpretations and applications of Scripture by the norm of 'Sola Scriptura.' Over time this caused some re-
evaluations of my unlimited confidence in her as the final interpreter of Scripture. I was forced to redefine the
God-appointed function of her gift of prophecy. As Adventists, we do not stress any limitation to her prophetic
gift. The result is that all her writings are easily taken as infallible, verbal inspiration by God for the remnant
church, on equal level of authority as the Bible itself. . . . as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. . . . Never once
did she suggest that her mission was part of the canonical 'testimony of Jesus' mentioned six times in the book
of Revelation (1:2,9; 6:9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4)!"421

146
The dilemma faced by LaRondelle should not have been necessary if a true biblical understanding of the gift
had been understood. Adventism has allowed one gift to overwhelm and suppress the many other gifts God has
given the body. The danger is that instead of strengthening the body, a misuse of this one gift may actually be
detrimental to the health and growth of the body.

Alvin Kwiram sees a growing problem within Adventism with the numbers of intellectuals leaving the church:
"My own experience indicated that our home-grown intellectuals are leaving the church in alarming numbers
(especially those who are not employed by the church). Surprisingly, however they are not leaving because the
church imposes too many restrictions; instead, it is because they feel that the church fails the test of relevancy. .
. . "422

There is a grave risk that an unrealistic understanding of the function and purpose of Ellen White's gift of
prophecy may lock the church in a 19th century time warp. Many of the issues she is concerned with in 19th
century North American Adventism are not the same issues that face 21st century global Adventism.

A. G. Daniells wrestling with the problem of authority said "the question is to what extent men are free to
pursue an original investigation of the Scripture, and to follow the honest conclusions at which they arrive. I
personally stand for liberty. . . . it looks to me as though we have another question to settle, and that is whether
we are a free people, in the matter of biblical research, and in the matter of following the light that comes to us
from such research"423 (emphasis added).

Edward Heppenstall wrote, "Ellen White calls upon us to make sure that all the truths we hold are firmly
established upon the Scriptures. Therefore we deplore the idea that anything else should have prior authority
over the Bible. Let her writings be our guide but not our jailer, our shield but not our straightjacket. The
Scriptures comprise God's final word to us424 (emphasis added).

It is ironic to think the Seventh-day Adventist Church should ever use her writings to determine who is
orthodox in their teaching, when she wrote, "The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be bestowed—to
supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching
and experience must be tested" (GC vii). And, "The doctrine that God has committed to the church, the right to
control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors" (GC,
293).

Fred Veltman was asked by the church to study The Desire of Ages and come up with some conclusions as to
the nature of and extent of Ellen White's use of other sources. After taking seven years to do his work, he wrote
in his last paragraph of his report: "If there is one general conclusion generated from my countless hours spent
in reading and studying her writings over the past seven years, it is this. Ellen White was above all a practical
believing Christian. Her writings were written to inform and to build personal faith in and personal obedience to
God's will.... We may wish with all our hearts that she could serve us today as scientist or psychologist, as
technician or theologian, or as conference or college president, but that is not to be. My firm conviction is that
she was not, nor can be any one of these for us. She was rather a woman of God, drawn by His Spirit to call us
back to Himself, to His word and His ways, that living under the name of Christ we might glorify Him before
those who know Him not."425

In saying what he has, Veltman shows that Ellen White does meet the biblical expectations of a true prophet of
God.

Ingemar Linden pays tribute to her in the following ways, "Though so far practically unknown to the world at
large, and even among ecclesiastical specialists, EGW nevertheless qualifies as one of America's great religious
leaders. There are so many facets of excellence in this charismatic leader that we have only been able to touch
on some of her more outstanding contributions, for example as counsellor, spiritual leader, devotional writer
and public speaker. . . . For most often EGW then functioned as a great realist, who inspired her denomination
and helped keep the organization firmly united. It is more-over obvious that America's charismatic leaders in
147
the 19th century were dynamic leaders, who possessed the ability of renewing religion and try new measures,
most often at the right time."426

My good friend Arthur Patrick has often illustrated the function of Ellen White in the following way: "When I
was a little boy, I used to ask my mother questions. The answers she gave me as a little boy satisfied me.
However now that I have grown up I find that many of the answers she gave me are not quite so satisfying." His
illustration does not negate the vital part played by his mother, but there comes a time when the answers given
by a mother are no longer sufficient."

It is also important to follow the Scripture and acknowledge that the gift of prophecy did not die in 1915. God
still speaks to His church today through other prophetic voices. The gifts of the Spirit remain in the church until
Jesus returns. All are necessary for the healthy development and growth of the body. It is important that we do
not give Ellen White the authority of an apostle—she would never claim to have the authority of someone like
Paul or Peter. Among her many gifts was that of a prophet. Her work was to call the infant Adventist church to
obedience to the will of God as expressed in Scripture. Her work must also be judged by that same Word.

The Adventist Church must be careful not to be as Israel in the 1st century AD. They glorified prophetic voices
of the past, but rejected prophetic voices in the present. This was true of Ellen White who, in her lifetime, often
had her message discounted. Many did not want to listen to her voice. They resented her messages. We must be
grateful to her for the work she has done and the courage she manifested. At the same time we must have
realistic expectations of her function in harmony with Scriptural expectations.

The 1990 General Conference Session paid tribute to Ellen White's work, which also gives a clear
understanding of her function as expressed in 1 Corinthians 14:3: "Her inspired writings have been invaluable
to the church throughout the world in countless ways—exalting the Bible as the inspired Word of God;
encouraging Bible study; establishing the faith of God's people in it's promises; promoting a spirit of devotion
and sacrifice; aiding in the development and organisation of an international body of believers; expanding
world outreach; providing guiding principles for the operation of publishing, medical and educational
institutions; and guarding and unifying the church.

"Above all, her writings point to Christ's great sacrifice on the cross which leads people to become citizens of
the kingdom of grace that His atonement has made possible and which prepares them to meet the Saviour in
peace at His second advent."427

______________________

415 CWE, pp. 33-39. [back]

416 Continuing Education Of Church Members And Providing Bases Of Confidence, paper presented by Roger
Coon, International Prophetic Guidance Workshop, Washington, DC: April 11-15, 1982. [back]

417 3T, 137. [back]

418 Counsel On Age Of School Entrance, MR #405, Report of an interview, January 14, 1904. pp. 1, 2, 3, 5.
For a more complete understanding of how to use her writings today see George Knight's book Reading Ellen
White—How to Understand and Apply Her Writings, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997). [back]

419 W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, December 31, 1913, WCW bk 46, p. 1912-13—Daniells, A. G. as quoted
by Bert Haloviak in his Sligo Series talks, October 22 and 29, 1980, p. 38-39. [back]

420 Horn's diaries reveal that he was concerned that he might lose his job because he could not agree with Ellen
White's statements that the earth was 6,000 years old. He wrote "I would not be surprised if they would require
us either to teach the 6,000 year age of the world in the future, or get out. It can happen under the
148
administration of ill-trained and narrow-minded men, as we have a few in high places. . . . Bishop Ussher's date
for the age of the earth—4004 BC as Creation date-based on genealogical figures of the Hebrew Bible, is of no
value whatsoever, and it is evident that Ellen White was influenced by Ussher's dates which in his lifetime were
still printed in the margins of the English Bibles . . . if every one of her chronological statements would have to
be accepted as divinely inspired gospel truth we would indeed be in deep trouble, because she sometimes makes
gross chronological errors and contradicts herself. . . ."

Horn goes on to show sympathy for Larry Geraty who was castigated by W. Hackett in a letter he received.
Horn quotes from the letter "I was a little surprised, . . . that as a teacher in our Seminary you would deal with
this sensitive and controversial issue through Spectrum. I am sure you are aware of the fact that the
constituency of this church wishes its Seminary to be theologically and Spirit-of-Prophecy teaching and that
rightly or wrongly the presentation of chronology in the framework of your article puts one in the category of
one who questions certain Spirit of Prophecy statements on the subject you have dealt with."

Horn goes on to discuss a meeting of the Seminary Faculty which met in 1970 to discuss Bill Petersen's study
of the French Revolution as expressed in Great Controversy. He writes "The trouble is that our leaders have put
Ellen White on such a high pedestal as authority on history, chronology, science, diet, health, social life, . . . .
they feel that they would wreck the church if they would dare to admit that she was wrong in any of these
disciplines. So they go on muddling until a catastrophe occurs, hoping that the good Lord will soon come to
solve all their problems, which for them are unsolvable. A real revolution could come one of these days."
Lawrence Geraty, "Siefried H. Horn: A Voice from the Dust Heaps." Spectrum, Vol. 27, Issue 2, Spring 1999,
pp. 10-12. [back]

421 Hans LaRondelle, My Journey Of Discoveries In apocalyptic Eschatology, ASRS, 1999, p. 99. [back]

422 Alvin Kwiram, "Can Intellectuals Be at Home In the Church?" Spectrum, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 37. [back]

423 Letter from A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, August 4, 1910. [back]

424 Edward Heppenstall. "The Inspired Witness of Ellen White," Unpublished, undated, paper. [back]

425 Fred Veltman, Life of Christ Research Project , Vol. 3, pp. 957-958. [back]

426 The Last Trump, p. 292. [back]

427 "Resolution on Spirit of Prophecy", Record, February 9, 1991, p. 9. [back]

149
Chapter Twenty Six

The Place of the Adventist Church in the larger Christian world.

Looking back through history we can see how God's hand was at work. We can see how He prepared the world
for the first coming of Christ. In Galatians 4:4 Paul tells us how in due time God sent His Son. At this time
there was a loss of faith in pagan religions. All over the world men and women were looking for something
better. Roman peace made it possible for the apostles to travel from country to country. There was a common
Greek language which enabled men and women from different cultures to communicate with each other. The
stage was set for God to send forth His Son.

In the 16th century the stage was set again for the great Protestant Reformation. There was political unrest in
Germany and much of Europe. Princes and rulers were upset that money from the sale of indulgences was
leaving their country and going to Rome. The recent invention of the printing press made if possible for the
Bible to be printed in the language of the people. It also made it possible to print the tracts of Luther and other
reformers. The work of Erasmus as a critic of the Papacy is said to have "laid the egg that Luther hatched".

The 19th Century Setting

Once again in the early 19th century the stage was set by God to raise up a special message to prepare His
people for the events which were to unfold and prepare His people for the coming of Christ. It was in this
century that Darwin produced his book The Origin of the Species. This book proved to be one of the most
significant books ever written in modern times in that it challenged long held ideas on the creation story as
expressed in the Bible. It also helped to give life to a radical form of biblical criticism. It was also during this
century that Marx and Engels wrote their book, The Communist Manifesto. This book was to produce some
"earth shattering" political upheavals during the 20th century and cause many governments to go to war against
the Christian church. It was during this century that the Fox sisters heard the rappings in their home in
Hydesville NY which were to give birth to the modern form of spiritism. The 19th century also commences the
writings of the Existential writers denying the adequacy of any system of beliefs and a revolt against
rationalism. This system was to lead into the "Death of God" theology of the 20th century.

The 19th century was also a time when the Christian church as a whole lost its emphasis on the nearness of the
second coming of Christ. This was due in part to the prevailing idea that the coming of Christ was to be
preceded by a 1000 years of peace on earth.

God Raised a Movement with a Special Purpose

It was in the 19th century that God raised up a movement which would have a special message to give to both
the Christian and non-Christian world. It would emphasize:

The everlasting gospel as the only way to find peace and salvation in a troubled world.

The Sabbath as God's memorial of creation. The Genesis story of creation reminds us that we are not orphans.
We are sons and daughters of God. Life has meaning and purpose.

The soon coming of Christ as a "blessed hope" and the way out of all the troubles the world faces.

That we only have immortality through Christ which is bestowed at His second coming.

The Relevance of Adventism

150
The core teachings of this movement are as relevant to the modern era as air to lungs, as seed to the soil. The
main ideas of movement would, if correctly understood, meet the needs of the world as it faces the end time.

It would answer atheistic evolution. There is a creator and we know this andm show it by keeping His Sabbath
day of rest. If you tell people you keep the Sabbath you make clear many other things you believe. It means you
believe in the Genesis story of creation. You believe God is there caring for this world. Life has meaning and
purpose. We were put here to care for this world and we are not doing it too well.

It would answer spiritualism, occultism, and new age movements by declaring that we are not immortal and
only have life in Christ.

In an age of falling morality and anarchy it would point to the law of God.

It would point to the Great Controversy theme to give meaning to life and suffering.

But at the heart of it all was to be the everlasting gospel. Without this nothing else has meaning or even a place.
All else works out from this. If it not in its rightful place then we finish up with legalism, the religion of the
Pharisees.

Amazing Origin of Adventis

When I look at the founding of Adventism I cannot help but be amazed. Many streams of theological thought
fed into the river. Methodists, Baptists, Christian Connectionists, etc.

The Founders of Adventism lived through the great disappointment. They were mostly young people. There
was not one professionally trained Bible scholar among them. About all that they had were their Bibles and a
concordance. Sometimes they are naive.

They are self -taught and often use terrible arguments to prove a point. They grew up in a primeval soup of
theological thought. It is amazing that they came out as well as they did with the key teachings which today are
so central to Adventism. In part they came out as well as they did because the Gift of Prophecy was manifested
among them in a remarkable way in the person of Ellen White.

She told them that they had "many things to learn and unlearn" and that they had "but the faintest gleanings of
the light which was yet to come". It was true, as she had often told them, that they did not get everything right.
But whoever does? God can still be with people even if they do not get everything right. If He had to find
people who had a correct understanding on everything, who could He ever use?

God Works with Ordinary People

Remember Luther told the princes to "stab them, hang them" at the time of the peasant's revolt.

The great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist and preached eternal hell.

John Wesley developed second blessing theology which today is central to the Pentecostal movement. He also
makes an eloquent defense of infant baptism.

God has to work with ordinary human beings. No one person or movement is ever wholly right or wholly
wrong. Our acceptance before God does not depend upon our being right in every area of theological thought.
However God does expect His people and His church to be open and honest in their attitude towards truth.

It should not surprise us that a new generation is going to see some things different and express them
differently. This has been happening all through history. It has also been happening in Adventism. We have
151
shed some terrible arguments used in defending the law and the Sabbath. We have changed our views on
prophecy and Armageddon.

Amazing Adventist Truths

The thing that amazes me is how they got so much right. And how much we have been able to retain.

The Great Controversy theme helps us to understand that God in control even when we see so much suffering
around us.

As law and order and anarchy set in and relativism dominates culture the world in which we live needs to know
that there is a Creator God who has told us what is right and wrong. He has given us His law. There is objective
right and wrong. It is a sin to break that law.

The Second Coming of Jesus gives hope to a world very short on hope. Where will we all be in the future? Will
we be just another civilization buried? Will we blow ourselves up? Choke in our own garbage? Or will we be
walking the streets of the New Jerusalem?

Advents Relevance for Today

The main ideas of Adventism are relevant. We do have a message that the world needs to hear. And that
message will be heard and it will be successful, providing we keep one idea central. That is the good news
about Jesus Christ.

Why would you keep the Sabbath? Only because you want to honor the One who died for you on Calvary. The
Creator of Genesis is the Christ of Calvary.

I only have life in Him. He who has the Son has life. I want to honor Him in the way I treat my body. He who
made us in the beginning is coming back again to take us home.

If we leave out the gospel we have missed the heart of Adventism. Correct doctrine without the gospel just
makes a lot of legalistic Pharisees.

The gospel will always be relevant in any age and in any culture. Because men and women are always lost
sinners needing a Saviour.

We cannot hope to stay back in a world that no longer exists. To insist on a Signs of the Times of a world that is
no longer with us may actually weaken belief in the soon coming of Jesus. It may preserve the letter; but miss
the spirit of what Adventism was meant to be. As they were relevant in their culture so we must be in our
culture. It was the open spirit they had after the disappointment which caused them to open their minds to the
leading of the Spirit. They never wanted to lock the movement into a creed. They wanted to be open to God's
leading in the future.

The Place of Adventism in Today's World

We are better educated than they were. We have trained scholars. We have gone out after education. EGW
urged us to teach the youth to be thinkers not mere reflectors of other men's opinions. And that is what has
happened. So we do need to expect that some new thoughts will be arriving on the scene. But to have this is still
to have the essential essence of what Adventist was always meant to be.

The tree is not just its roots. If it is alive it bears fruit because it maintains contact with its roots and produces
fruit because of that. But it must not become root bound. So what is our place in the religious world? Do we
matter at all? We are so small and insignificant.
152
Jack Provonsha sees the Adventist movement acting as a catalyst as it preaches at the end time. The preaching
of this message under the power of the Holy Spirit ignites last day events. Just exactly how that will happen
will be best understood at the time.

Luther was the catalyst for igniting the Reformation. It just took one man to make a stand and all rallied around
him. The stage had been set and then it happened

The great truths which we preach are a message from God to prepare a people for the coming of Jesus. This
message has been planted around the world ready to be used as a catalyst. The stage is set. We will be amazed
at how and when God will ignite it all.

153
Chapter Twenty Seven

Why be a Seventh-day Adventist? - Some Reasons

There are many troubled hearts in Adventism today in Australia and New Zealand. We wish that our Church
was progressing more like we see in the island fields and around the world. Instead we are conscious of the fact
that we worship in a church that has many serious divisions over procedure, belief and worship which are
causing discouragement. At such a time as this, it can be wise for all of us to re-examine the question "Why be
a Seventh-day Adventist?"

We live at a time when society as a whole is undergoing great changes. More change takes place now in one
year than would normally have taken place in centuries. It has been estimated that the decade before the year
2000 is seeing more social, political, economic and religious change than has taken place since Abraham came
out of Ur of the Chaldees. While the church would not want in anyway to compromise its message to the world,
there is yet increasing pressure on the church to be relevant in its culture.

A rapidly changing culture also causes a quick succession of generational differences. We are conscious of the
Survivor, Baby Boomer, Baby Buster and Generation X differences. All have different perspectives of what
they expect from the church. Along with this is the fact that the church has followed the counsel of Ellen G.
White and gone wholeheartedly after Christian education.

It was she who told us to teach the youth to be "thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men's thought". This
we are doing, and as a consequence the youth are thinking different ideas from their parents. Christian
education if it is working correctly does produce people who think creatively, critically and with discernment.
We should expect some new thoughts to be part of the fruitage of a successful educational system.

We belong to a church that originally refused to write up a creed. It was our founding fathers who decided there
must be room left for advancement in our understanding of Bible truth. They decided that this church was not
going to fall into the trap of other great movements led of God in the past by cutting themselves off from
walking in the light. In developing this attitude they received clear counsel from the pen of Ellen White.428 If it
was true as she suggested, then we have but the faintest gleanings of the light which is yet to come. The great
challenge is then, how can we all grow together and not apart? Some will grow faster than others. Some will not
want to grow at all. It is not easy for a church to stay together as they search for more light from God's Word.

It would seem that in our day we have inherited within Adventism many of the unresolved theological
differences of our forefathers. Differences that have lain around unresolved for decades have arisen to divide
our church today.429

As many become aware of the above tensions they become discouraged. Therefore it is important for us to look
again at the questions "Why be a Seventh-day Adventist?" "What do we have to offer the world, both Christian
and non Christian?" "Does God have a special work for us to do?" and "Can God still be with us even though
we do have these differences and tensions?" I want to share with you a few of my personal convictions as the
why I am a Seventh-day Adventist.

Why I am a Seventh-day Adventist

The Everlasting Gospel

The first reason I am a Seventh-day Adventist is because of the gospel. The essence of all true Seventh-day
Adventist preaching is found in the everlasting gospel as expressed in Revelation 14:6. It is the same gospel
that Jesus said would be preached in all the world (Matthew 24:14). This is the hub of which Adventism is all
about. All other teachings and doctrines must be related to this one great truth.
154
Christian churches (including our own) are often found guilty of fighting about ideas that do not affect salvation
in Christ. Many debates major in minor matters. I have come to the conclusion that unless the teaching is
directly linked to the gospel then it is probably not worth all the fuss and attention that many give to it.

The discerning Christian will always be zealous to contend for the purity of the gospel. We must not become
discouraged as we see conflict in our church regarding this issue. Even the apostolic church had conflict in this
area.430 It has been the centre of controversy all through church history and probably will remain an issue until
Jesus returns. The gospel is always relevant to any culture. It gives hope to a world which desperately needs
some "good news".

Conditional Immortality

A second reason I am a Seventh-day Adventist is because of our view of the nature of mankind in death.
Almost the whole world, both Christian and non Christian, have accepted the Devil's lie found in Genesis 3:4
regarding the fact that death is not really death. We believe that we have life only in Christ. It is because of our
belief in Christ that God will one day change our vile bodies and we will "put on immortality" (1 Corinthians
15:51-55)

In our day the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is paving the way for spirits of devils to impersonate the
dead and deceive many. This same doctrine is a basic teaching of the "New Age Movement" as it brings
Eastern Mysticism to the West. It paves the way for the acceptance of reincarnation and the idea of developing
the godlike qualities within you as taught by The New Age. Only as we understand the Bible teaching on this
subject are we able to effectively warn men and women concerning the deceptions of spirits of devils working
miracles and impersonating the dead. The belief in the non-immortality of the soul is also crucial for the correct
understanding of the nature of the return of Christ and the Millenium.

It is interesting to note that in recent years some prominent biblical scholars who are not Seventh-day
Adventists have come to realise the truth of what we preach on this subject.431

Annihilation of Unbelievers

Linked with the teaching of the immortality of the soul is the doctrine of eternal torment. The teaching that God
will for all eternity burn people in hell has caused many to walk away from Christianity with a hatred for a God
who could be so cruel. Traditionally most of Christendom has taught the doctrine of eternal torment however
over more recent times some prominent scholars have began to question this teaching also.432

The Validity and Value of the Sabbath

A third reason I am a Seventh-day Adventist is because the Bible clearly teaches that the seventh day is the
Sabbath of God. It amazes me that so many other Christian denominations go on record as upholding the Ten
Commandments yet do not honour God's Sabbath, the seventh day. We know that many centuries ago part of
the "falling away" was to take the first day of the week, Sunday, and use it to replace the Sabbath. Fewer
subjects are clearer in the Bible than the fact that the Seventh day is the Sabbath. Many years ago when I came
to understand how the change took place and why it took place, I determined to honour God by observing His
memorial of creation. Since Samuel Bacchiocchi wrote his book "From Sabbath to Sunday" many prominent
scholars have come to admit the truthfulness of what his book said.433

In a world that is searching for meaning, the Sabbath reminds us that we have lost our Eden home. It also
reminds us that one day God will give it back to us again. Our rushing and restless society needs the rest that
God so graciously gave us. The observance of the Sabbath is linked with our rest in Christ and a means of
preserving family life at a time when so many families are breaking up. It also provides a weekly revival of
physical, mental and spiritual health and wellbeing.

155
Today there are very few real Sunday keepers. Churches are lamenting the fact that many of their constituents
go to the football stadium or the beaches instead of going to church. Some churches are trying to lure people
back to church by having church on Saturday night or during the week. However for Seventh-day Adventists
the Sabbath is nor a weekly hour of worship at the convenience of time, but the twenty-four hours of the
seventh day, when we give priority to God in our thinking and living.

Holistic Lifestyle

A fourth reason I am a Seventh-day Adventist is because of the holistic lifestyle the church advocates which is
linked to our view of the nature of mankind. Time and surveys have vindicated the benefits of Adventist
lifestyle.434 I do not believe there is another Christian body today that has so much to offer in this area, although
some have come to take more note of the subject of health in more recent years. It is important to see the health
principles advocated by our church, not as rules or regulations, but as benefits to our health given by our
Creator because of His care for us.

Prophetic Message

A fifth reason I am a Seventh-day Adventist is because I believe that God has given a prophetic message to this
church to proclaim to both Christian and non-Christian alike. The Three Angel's Messages are to be proclaimed
to the world to prepare a people to meet Jesus.

There is to be a conflict between the church and the Beast and its image at the end of time as described in
Revelation chapter 13. As I read this chapter I find that the deciding issue is to be over worship. Who is to be
worshipped? How is worship to take place? When is worship to take place? I can see in this chapter, the first
four commandments of the decalogue are central to this issue.

Prophecy is best understood "when" it comes to pass.435 We may be surprised at the time of fulfillment as to
how some of the finer details work out. Never the less, Seventh-day Adventists have a sense of mission to
prepare a people to face this last great crisis between the church and the forces of Antichrist.

Some teachings we have which help us to understand the prophecies of Revelation are:

The reality of the heavenly sanctuary. Other Christian churches have not given adequate attention to this key
subject. Each vision of Revelation begins with a scene of what is happening in the heavenly sanctuary before it
pictures what is happening on earth.

The Great Controversy theme. An understanding of this theme is unique to Adventists. It gives an overall
view of why God allows sin and suffering to remain. It helps us to see the reason for the judgement scenes in
Revelation. It gives meaning as to why God respects human freedom and punishes sin in the lake of fire at the
end of the millennium.

Our prophetic message calls for men and women to accept Jesus prior to His appearing at His second coming.
We do this on the basis of the preaching of the Three Angel's messages (Revelation 14:6-11) taking place
before the appearing of Jesus (verse 14). These messages warn against worshipping the beast and its image and
call for people to worship the God who "made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Verse
7) 436

Dispensational Prophetic Scenario

Today most Christians who preach about end time prophecies believe that prior to the end the church of true
believers will be raptured home to heaven and so escape the tribulation. This event will supposedly commence
the 70th week of Daniel 9:25-27. During this time 144,000 Jews will be converted and rebuild the temple at
Jerusalem. These Jews will get on with the preaching of the gospel to all the world. They believe that the beast
156
power will appear. After 3½ years of keeping a covenant with the Jews, the beast will break the covenant and
commence 3½ years of persecution on the Jews and their converts. Then there will be a third coming of Jesus to
end it all and Jesus will rescue His people.

It can be shown from history that this school of prophetic interpretation was developed by a Spanish Jesuit by
the name of Lucanza as a counter measure to the Protestant Reformation which had identified the Papacy as the
Antichrist. Later it was made popular by the Brethren Movement and The Scofield Bible. In more recent times
it has become the prevailing view of Evangelical churches. This teaching has many serious differences with our
prophetic teaching. Some of the major flaws of the dispensational scenario are:

A. There is second chance to believe in Jesus after His second coming.

B. The Antichrist appears after the church age, that is after the church is raptured.

C. End time prophecies call for the re-establishment of the State of Israel and the rebulding of the Jewish
temple.

The Adventist Response

The commission to preach the three angels messages therefore makes our ministry different to that of other
churches. In our preaching, we respond to their views by pointing out the following:

A. Beyond the coming of Jesus there is no opportunity to accept Christ. We believe their teaching is a Devil's
lullaby and will cause many to fail to follow Christ now and be lost eternally. The gospel and its preaching
which challenges men and women to accept Christ now is central to this issue.

B. The Antichrist is operating in the church now and has been for many centuries. The Beast power is Papal
Rome who along with other powers is to arise and work at the end time just as she has through the centuries.

C. There is no significance to the Jews as a nation fulfilling Bible prophecy. The New Testament teaches that
the Christian church is true Israel.437 The end time battle will be fought all over the world, wherever God's
people are to be found. Whether the Jews rebuild a temple in Jerusalem is of no significance as the true temple
of God is to be found in heaven.438 Our prophetic message does make us different from other churches. It is
interesting to note that over more recent years there has been a moving away from the teachings of futurism by
many prominent scholars and the movement has been more towards our position.439

This is by no means a complete list of reasons why I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I could add more on our
Sanctuary message and the writings of Ellen White whom I see as an inspired messenger given to us by God. I
am also proud of the work our church does to help the under privileged through ADRA and ADCARE

We would never claim we possess all the light that God wishes to impart to His people. Nor would we claim
that we are better than Christians in other churches. We believe that God has true followers and believers in
every Christian congregation.440 However we do believe that God has commissioned us to preach some great
truths to both Christians and non-Christians alike to prepare men and women to meet Jesus when He returns.

God Works With Ordinary People

Church history testifies to the fact that God has to work with ordinary humans who are prone to misunderstand
and let Him down. The apostolic church had to get away from its "shut door" mentality of thinking that the
gospel was only for the Jews.441 The church in Corinth was riddled with problems yet God was still working
patiently with them.442

Calvin was caught up in his teaching of predestination which closed the door on those who were not the elect.
157
Luther refused to change his view on transubstantiation and gave his blessing to the ruthless putting down of
the peasant revolts.

Wesley was caught up with his view of perfectionism and instantaneous sanctification.

Spurgeon insisted on clinging to the idea of an ever burning hell.

Division Within Churches

Today most denominations are divided by many issues and personality clashes. The Baptists are divided over
inerrancy, creation, the charismatics, pretribulation and postribulation. etc. The Roman Catholics are divided
over the authority of the Pope, the changes brought in by Vatican Two, etc. The Anglicans and the Uniting
Church are divided over homosexuality and women in ministry, etc. The Charismatics frequently divide over
the personality of the pastor.

Where can a Christian go without finding some infighting and divisions? The truth is that through some 2000
years of the history of the Christian church there have always been differences between and within
denominations. Jesus has never promised us a perfect church free from problems. Look at the parables of the
"sheep and the goats"; the net that dragged in all kinds of fish; the sower; the wheat and the tares etc.

God Has Given Timely Truths to the Adventist Church

I see in Adventism some things and people which disappoint me at times. There are times when I get angry at
what I consider to be the stupidity of people, and frustrated at the slowness of progress. I wish we could
streamline our organisation faster than is happening. Then I come back to the point where I ask myself "Why
am I a Seventh-day Adventist?" Despite all that I see which annoys me I am convicted that God has given this
church some vital truths to share with the world. Despite the annoyances and disappointments, there are many
people who do encourage me and whom I consider to be true Israelites.

Most of all, I think of Jesus and what He has done for me. He was let down badly by His church but that did not
stop Him from going ahead and making His sacrifice on Calvary. It is only a passionate love for Jesus and
conviction from the Bible that God has given us some wonderful truths to share, that keep me and others in the
Seventh-day Adventist church.

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:11.

_______________

428 CWE, p. 35. "MANY GEMS YET TO BE DISCOVERED.—New light will ever be revealed on the word
of God to him who is in living connection with the Sun of Righteousness. Let no one come to the conclusion
that there is no more truth to be revealed. The diligent, prayerful seeker for truth will find precious rays of light
yet to shine forth from the word of God. Many gems are yet scattered that are to be gathered together to become
the property of the remnant people of God." Counsels on Sabbath School Work, p. 34. (1892.) The whole
section, p. 33-55, is worth reading. [back]

429 Issues such as the role and function of Ellen White, the nature of Christ as it relates to a correct
understanding of the gospel. [back]

430 Galatians 1:8-9. [back]

431 Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the soul or Resurrection of the Dead? Epworth Press, 1962. Steven H.
Travis, I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, Hodder and Stoughton 1990. John Stott, possibly the most
prominent Evangelical scholar today has also accepted the view of the non immortality of the soul. [back]
158
432 See Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, Forward by F. F. Bruce, Providential Press, 1982. [back]

433 Their comments are mentioned in his book which can still be purchased from the ABC. [back]

434 Our Health Department directors are loaded with material from reports of surveys, many in which Seventh-
day Adventists have been surveyed and recognised as living longer and being free of many diseases which are
striking down the population in general. [back]

435 John 14:29. [back]

436 A discerning reader will note that this is a strong correlation here to the wording of the fourth
commandment as expressed in Exodus 20:8-11. [back]

437 Galatians 3:26-29. [back]

438 Hebrews 8:1-2. [back]

439 In his book, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's, 1975), George Eldon Ladd has made a
significant contribution to move many scholars away from Futurism. Many other publications of significance
have followed. I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, by Stephen Travis, is one such publication which
reflects a strong move towards many of our positions by prominent scholars. It is to be expected that it will take
many years before this effect is seen amongst congregations and more popular publications. [back]

440 See 28 Fundamentals #13— The Remnant and its Mission "The universal church is composed of all who
truly believe in Christ. . . ." [back]

441 Acts 10:9-48. [back]

442 In 1 Corinthians, almost every chapter is addressing some issue which divided them. They had infighting
and were divided into their clicks. People were taking each other to court, others were tolerating immorality in
their church. There were marriage problems, some were criticising Paul's ministry, many were abusing the
Lord's Supper, there was widespread disorderly conduct in worship, a few were denying the resurrection of
Christ, etc. Paul faced constant criticism from "false bretheren" and churches that he himself had founded. See
2 Corinthians 11:16-29. [back]

159
 Appendix A

The Question of Inerrancy in Inspired Writings

by

Robert W. Olson

Are there discrepancies in the Holy Scriptures? The answer is, yes. Some of the problems of accuracy or
inaccuracy confronting Bible scholars may be cataloged as follows:

1. Historical Uncertainties—Did David kill 40,000 horsemen (2 San. 10:18) or 40,000 footmen (1 Chron.
19:18)? Did Jesus heal blind Bartimaeus as He approached the city of Jericho (Luke 18:35) or as He left it
(Mark 10:46)? Was Hobab Moses' brother-in-law (Num. 10:29) or father-in-law (Judges 4:11)? Did the cock
crow once when Peter denied the Lord (Matt. 26:34, 69-75) or twice (Mark 14:66-72)? Does Cainan (Luke
3:36) belong between Salah and Arphaxad or not (Gen. 11:12)?

2. Numerical and Chronological Problems—Did 24,000 die in the plague as in Numbers 25:9, or was it 23,000
as in 1 Cor. 10:8? Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (I Kings 4:25) or was it 4,000 (2 Chron. 9:25)?
Was Jehoachin eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) or eight (2 Chron. 36:9) when he began to reign? Did Ahaziah come to
the throne at the age of 22 ( 2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chron. 22:2)? Was David the eighth son of Jesse (1 Sam.
16:10,11) or the seventh son (1 Chron. 2:15)? Was the period of the judges 450 years in length (Acts 13:20) or
about 350 years, as would be necessary if 1 Kings 6:1 is correct.

3. Inaccurate Citations by New Testament Authors—Matthew quotes from Zechariah 11:13, but gives Jeremiah
the credit (Matt. 27:9). The author of Hebrews gives a substantially different description of the dedication of the
old covenant (Heb. 9:19-21) from that given by Moses (Ex. 24:5-8).

4. Use of Scripture Out of Context—According to Hosea 11:1 God called His Son—Israel—out of Egypt.
Matthew says this was a prophecy that the child Jesus would be called out of Egypt (Matt. 2:15). Matthew also
declares that the promised sign to Ahaz was really a prediction of the virgin birth of Christ.. The "young
woman" of Isaiah 7:14 became a "virgin in Matthew 1:23.

5. Grammatical Imperfections—Roger Nicole states:

The biblical writers appear to have been permitted to express themselves in the idiom which was natural to
them without receiving a supernatural help that would preclude expressions or turns of phrase that would offend
a purist. It is therefore no disrespect to the Word of God to say that the author of Revelation in that book has
used a form of Greek which is heavily colored by Hebraisms, expressions that would be rated incorrect in terms
of standard Greek grammar. To give only one example, Revelation 1:4 has, which would be equivalent to "from
he who is"!—Roger R. Nicole and J. Rausay Michaels, Inerrancy and Common Sense (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1980), p. 82.

6. Discrepancies in the Original Manuscripts—Douglas Stuart states:

There is no chapter of the Bible for which all ancient manuscripts have exactly the same wording. Many
chapters, in fact, display textual, problems in virtually every verse.—Ibid., p. 98.

160
How should we deal with these problems? Should we simply ignore them and hope that somehow they will go
away? Should we acknowledge them and allow that an inspired record may contain within itself some flaws in
unimportant matters? Or are there other explanations?

The last two of the six categories mentioned above do not pose any serious problems to most evangelical
scholars. Grammatical imperfections are accepted even by those who advocate a doctrine of inerrancy. As far as
discrepancies in the original manuscripts are concerned, most textual critics would probably agree with Douglas
Stuart when he says:

The verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression
with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading to those now serving as the
basis for current English translations. In fact, absolutely nothing essential to the major doctrines of the Bible
would be affected by any responsible decision in the area of textual criticism.—Ibid., p. 98.

The other examples of discrepancies in Scripture are not so easily dealt with. Augustine, the famous bishop of
Hippo, had three possible explanations for these problems. He stated:

I have learned to yield such respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture; of these do I most
firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by
anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty,
or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it—cited by
Richard Lovelace in Nicole and Michaels, p. 20.

Martin Luther echoes Augustine when he states:

"The Scriptures have never erred." "The Scriptures cannot err." "It is certain that Scripture cannot disagree with
itself. It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself, only that it so appears to the senseless and
obstinate hypocrites."—Cited by Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1976), p. 57.

John Calvin's position, according to Presbyterian scholar Edward Dowey, Jr., was essentially that of Augustine
and Luther. Dowey states that although Calvin

does admit an undeniable error of grammar or of fact, without exception he attributes it to copyists, never to the
inspired writer. . . . It is always to the text before him, never to the original text of Scripture, that Calvin
attributes such errors as his exegesis discovers. . . To Calvin the theologian an error in Scripture is unthinkable.
Hence the endless harmonizing, the explaining and interpreting of passages that seem to contradict or to be
inaccurate. . . If he betrays his position at all, it is apparently in assuming a priori that no errors can be allowed
to reflect upon the inerrancy of the original documents—Ibid., pp. 59-60.

A typical example of how Calvin handles discrepancies is found in his commentary on Matthew 27:9 where he
says:

How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know, nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire.
The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of
Zechariah.—cited in Nicole and Michaels, pp. 90-91

John Wesley took the same stance as his illustrious predecessors. He believed the maxim "False in one, false in
all," assuming that nothing in Scripture could be trusted if even one error could be found there. He states:
161
If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it
did not come from the God of truth.—cited by Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 220.

Harold Lindsell no doubt speaks for many twentieth century Christians when he says:

The Bible in all of its parts constitutes the written Word of God to men. This Word is free from all error in its
original autographs. op. cit., p. 30.

Lindsell does not regard all discrepancies as copyists' errors. He attempts to harmonize some apparent
contradictions. For example, he solves the cock-crowing problem by having Peter deny Christ six times instead
of three (op. cit., pp. 174-176). Rather than resort to such artificial explanations we think it is much more
sensible to simply acknowledge that inspired writings may contain flaws in unimportant matters.

While assertions of inerrancy in the original manuscripts sound comfortable and soul—satisfying, these
pronouncements are not based on known fact. No one living today has ever seen any of the autographs of the
Scriptures. In fact, the autographs may all have been lost before the end of the first century A.D. To insist on
inerrancy for those documents is to take a position which can be neither proved nor disproved. It should be
clearly understood that the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy is an a priori assumption and is based entirely on
faith.

In our opinion, it is not necessary to advocate a doctrine of inerrancy in the autographs in order to preserve a
high view of Scripture. Copyists errors in existing manuscripts do not destroy the inspiration of the Bible as we
have it.

Then why should original error destroy the inspiration of the Bible as it was first given? Note the following
facts:

(1) The Word of God was given to make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim.3:15).

(2) The Scriptures have been supernaturally preserved from destruction during the past 2,000 years.

(3) God could have preserved the Bible for us completely free from copyists' or other errors if He had chosen to
do so.

(4) The sacred record as we have it contains some unimportant flaws.

In light of these facts, we conclude:

(1) That it is not necessary for us to have an inerrant Bible in order for God's purposes for us to be
accomplished.

(2) That it was therefore likewise not necessary for the first-century Christians to have an inerrant Bible, and

(3) That some of the discrepancies found in Scripture may have been penned by the Scripture-writers
themselves.

Not everyone can accept these conclusions easily. There are those who say, in effect, “God wouldn't do that to
us; He just would not give the world an errant Bible.” But it is not our place to lay down conditions which God
must meet before we will accept the Bible as His Word.

In addition to the discrepancies enumerated above, the Scriptures contain “problem texts” of a different nature
which also confront students of the Word. These include the imprecatory psalms (Ps. 39:23,24; 109:10-12;
162
131:8,9), the hanging of seven men to end a famine (2 Sam. 21), the story of Jephthah and his daughter (Judges
11), the slaying of innocent children (1 Sam. 15:2,3), Ezekiel's temple that was never built, etc.

Having acknowledged these difficulties, we must underscore the fact that they do not relate in any way to
doctrine, morals, or behavior. They occur in insignificant areas of technical detail only. In no way do they dilute
the inspiration of the Scriptures or detract from its authority. Christ treated the Old Testament as a totally
trustworthy document. He repeatedly settled arguments with His opponents by quoting Scripture (e.g. Matt.
4:10; 19:3-5). In spite of imperfections in matters not essential to its purpose, the Bible still furnishes us a safe
and sufficient guide to truth and salvation.

Turning now to the writings of Ellen G. White, we ask, are there any discrepancies in her letters, articles, and
books? The answer is, Yes. Mrs. White herself allowed for the possibility of mistakes when she wrote, "In
regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness,
or shadow of turning" (lSM 31).

If in the 773,000 words of the Bible a series of human imperfections can be found, we would expect to find an
even larger number in the approximately ten million published words of Ellen G. White. The marvel is that the
errors are so few, and that they are not related to matters of any consequence. They may be cataloged as
follows:

1. Inaccurate Descriptions of Biblical Events—In 3SG, 301, Ellen White placed the tower of Babel before the
flood. In 2SP 183-184, she states that John the Baptist was dead when the events of Matthew 4:18-22 occurred,
while in DA 245, she indicates that John was “languishing alone in the dungeon” at the time. In PP 134, she
says that Chedorlaomer had four allies, while Genesis 14:1,9, states that he had only three allies. In 1SG 58,
Ellen White has the nails crashing through Christ's “bone and muscle," but in DA 744 the nails are driven only
through His flesh, in harmony with John 19:36.

2. Errors in Dates and Years—Ellen White said that Solomon's temple stood for more than four centuries, (PK
149), a statement in harmony with Ussher's chronology and the date printed in many Bibles. However, we are
told that the correct figure is now known to be 384 years, from 970 B.C. to 586 B.C. In 2SG 12 and 14, she
located William Miller's two visits to Portland, Maine, in 1839 and 1841, whereas in lT 14 and 21, she gave the
years as 1840 and 1842. (In 2SG 296, she had requested “that if any find incorrect statements in this book they
will immediately inform me.”)

3. Application of Scripture Out of Context—In PP 686, Ellen White states that Christ would come "after" the
working of Satan (2 Thess. 2:9). She uses the word "after" in a temporal sense, which was clearly not Paul's
intent. In 8T 226 she quotes 2 Thessalonians 2:9 in harmony with its true meaning.

4. Erroneous Attribution of a Quoted Work—Ellen White wrote in the Review and Herald of October 30, 1913,
"The love of Christ constraineth us, the apostle Peter declared." Actually, it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote
those words in 2 Corinthians 5:14.

5. Grammatical Imperfections—Ellen White once lamented, "I an not a scholar. I cannot prepare my own
writings for the press. . . . I an not a grammarian" (3SM 90). W. C. White states, “Mother's copyists are
entrusted with the work of correcting grammatical errors, of eliminating unnecessary repetitions, and of
grouping paragraphs and sections in their best order” (W. C. White to 6. A. Irwin, May 7, 1900).

6. Historical Discrepancies—In 1888 Ellen White wrote that the pope "styles himself" Lord God the Pope (GC
50), whereas in 1911 she changed the passage to read, he has "been styled Lord God the Pope". In 1888 she
wrote that "the Waldenses were the first of all the people of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy
Scriptures" (GC 65). Upon being informed that at least one

163
other group had the Scriptures in their own language before the Waldenses did, she changed the sentence in
1911 to read, "The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy
Scriptures."

Ellen White made no pretense of writing a textbook on history when she wrote The Great Controversy. Rather,
her purpose was to “use valuable illustrations to make plain important spiritual truths” (see One Hundred and
One Questions, p. 49). W. C. White wrote, "When Controversy was written, Mother never thought that the
readers would take it as authority on historical dates or use it to settle controversy regarding details of history,
and she does not now feel that it should be used in that way" (3SM 447).

In addition to this inventory of some of the discrepancies to be found in Ellen White's writings, there are other
problems which do not have an easy solution. For example, she wrote that the use of swine's flesh, under
certain circumstances, can cause leprosy (2514 417). She linked the wearing of wigs with moral behavior
(Health Reformer, Oct. 1871, p. 121), and indicated that self abuse (masturbation) could cause imbecility
(Appeal to Mothers, p. 62). Although the accuracy of these and a few other statements is disputed by medical
scientists today, it would be well to remember that Ellen White's teachings on pre-natal influence, cancerous
germs, and the malignant nature of tobacco, while once thought to be erroneous, are no longer challenged.

On the masturbation issue, Carl C. Pfeiffer, M.D., Ph.D., recently wrote:

We hate to say it, but in a zinc-deficient adolescent, sexual excitement and excessive masturbation might
precipitate insanity—Zinc and Other Micro-Nutrients, (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing, Inc. 1978), p. 45.

We might ask why the Lord did not protect His messages so that they would have come to us without any
shortcomings. One answer to that question is that "Faith grows by conflicts with doubts" (SD, 191). Ellen
White states:

It is God's plan to give sufficient evidence of the divine character of His work to convince all who honestly
desire to know the truth. But He never removes all opportunity for doubt. All who desire to question and cavil
will find occasion.—l SM 72.

We should not "lament that these difficulties exist, but accept then as permitted by the wisdom of God" (5T
706).

And so, while we today freely admit that the frailties of humanity have entered into the writing of the Bible and
the books we lovingly label as the "Spirit of Prophecy," we should not use these imperfections as excuses for
questioning or rejecting the counsels of the Lord to us. If we do, we are the losers.

God has spoken. He has spoken through vessels of clay. The divine oracles bear the marks of the human
channel through which they have come to us. But these messages, both ancient and modern, also bear within
them compelling evidence of their heavenly source. Let us listen.

Ellen G. White Estate

Washington, D. C.
April 12, 1982

164
 Appendix C

[Additional material relative to fundamentalism assembled by Graeme Bradford, as referenced on page 159]

"Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism"

John R Rice, a leading Fundamentalist, describes fundamentalism as "a vigorous defence of the faith, active
soul winning, great New Testament type churches going abroad to save multitudes, having fervent love for all
God's people and earnestly avoiding compromise in doctrine or yoking up with unbelievers . . . all true
Fundamentalists today affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and the premillennial return of Christ, and deny all
biological evolution. . . ."1

Some would say that the two most distinguishing features of Fundamentalism are a militant defence of the faith
and soul winning. George Marsden says of Fundamentalists: "A Fundamentalist is ready to stand up and fight
for the faith. . . . Central to being a Fundamentalist is perceiving oneself to be in the midst of religious war. . . .
Spiritually enlightened Christians can tell who the enemy is. In such a war, there can be no compromise . . . .
Fundamentalists universally see the war as primarily a war over the Bible. To this extent, they would agree
with outside observers who claim that fundamentalism is, in its distinctive aspect, a modern movement. Though
Fundamentalists see this battle for the Bible as recent, they insist that their inerrancy doctrine is the historic
position of the church. For Fundamentalists, the battle for the Bible almost always has two fronts. They are
fighting against modern interpretations of the Bible that they see are destroying most American civilization,
which they see as founded on the Bible. . . . The way of getting at this point that has become virtually universal
for Fundamentalists is to assert that the Bible is 'inerrant.' For Fundamentalists, this means that the Bible not
only is an infallible authority in matters of faith and practice, but also is accurate in all its historical and
scientific assertions" (emphasis added).2

Marsden talks further of the two points that would traditionally separate Fundamentalists from the rest of the
Protestant world—inerrancy of Scripture and the premillennial hope of the return of Jesus. Talking about
inerrancy of scripture as a test of faith was rare before the late nineteenth century, although earlier Protestants
probably assumed it.

Fundamentalism in North America had some success and strength up until the Scopes Trial, of 1925; however
at the trial they were nationally discredited as the evidence given at the trial was made public. "After that year,
fundamentalism steadily lost its national influence in America and began to retreat into separatist sectarian
minorities which became increasingly isolated from the mainstream of society.";3

Because of this setback, the late 1920s saw the Fundamentalist movement re-organising itself. They had been
discredited inside mainline denominations. Two schools of thought developed as to how they could regain their
strength. One group said that "they should simply continue to champion their cause within the major
denominations, building individual Fundamentalist congregations that could resist liberal influences of
denominational leadership. Other Fundamentalists increasingly concluded that the movement should form its
own separate institutions, which could be freed from corrupting entanglements with the major denominations.
Dispensationalists especially were inclined toward this separationist direction, since one of the
dispensationalists teachings was that the major churches of this age would become apostate. Many, though not
all, Dispensationalists carried this teaching to the conclusion that Christians must separate themselves from any
such apostasy. . . .";4

The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia states: "To a considerable extent, Fundamentalists have ignored or
rejected the valid findings of Biblical scholarship, a feature of the movement deplored by its more well-
informed leaders. Furthermore, there seems to be a predisposition, especially among the more radical
fundamentalist groups, to take an obscurantist, irrational attitude on various matters. . . . Since about 1940 a
group of fundamentalist scholars has arisen calling for a more enlightened attitude towards modern culture,

165
especially in the areas of science and sound Biblical scholarship. Those sympathetic to this trend call
themselves Evangelicals. . . ." [Emphasis added].;5

Among some of the more important catalysts to cause this new evangelical movement in the 1950s were: first,
the influence of Billy Graham who started out in the Fundamentalist camp, but gradually moved away to work
with a more broad-based group of churches. Second, Carl F Henry and his work as founding editor of
Christianity Today. This publication became the most influential magazine in the new evangelical movement.
The founding of Fuller Theological Seminary was destined to become the catalyst of mission for the
evangelical world.

Early Evangelicals attempted to distance themselves from the extremes of the Fundamentalists and they did this
in many areas such as: (a) opposing liberal theologies; (b) de-emphasising some of the strict prohibitions of the
fundamentalist moral code; (c) abandoning separatism; and (d) dropping dispensationalism, while remaining
premillenialists.

However, there was one important issue, they could not agree on, which was to cause serious rifts. Dayton and
Johnston state: "The question of Biblical inerrancy soon split neo-evangelicals themselves into two major
camps. Progressives thought inerrancy too narrow a way to define Biblical authority; more fundamentalistic
neo-evangelicals insisted on inerrancy as a test of faith. Fuller Theological Seminary, the leading neo-
evangelical educational centre, split over this question and fell into the hands of the progressives. More
fundamentalistic neo-evangelicals, usually supported by Graham and Christianity Today, took the lead in
promoting the inerrancy test for as much of the evangelicalism as possible. Most influential in these campaigns
was Harold Lindsell, editor of Christianity Today from 1968 to 1978, whose Battle for the Bible, published in
1976, was the Uncle Tom's Cabin of the inerrancy movement. . . ." (emphasis added).;6

Marsden describes evangelicalism in the following way: "While fundamentalism has become a fairly precise
designation for a particular type of Protestant militant, it should be apparent that evangelicalism describes a
much more diverse coalition. Roughly speaking, evangelicalism today includes any Christian traditional enough
to affirm the basic beliefs of the nineteenth-century evangelical consensus. The essential evangelical beliefs
include:

1. The Reformation doctrine of the final authority of the Bible.

2. The real historical character of God's saving work recorded in Scripture.

3. Salvation to eternal life based on the redemptive work of Christ.

4. The importance of evangelism and missions.

5. The importance of a spiritually transformed life.";7

There can be no doubt that Seventh-day Adventists could subscribe to the above definition. However, those
who have a proper understanding of Seventh-day Adventism belong more with the progressive evangelicals,
particularly in the area of Scriptural inerrancy. Russell Staples of Andrews University, arrives at a "yes" and
"no" answer while noting "an extremely high value of Scripture is held by both, but evangelicalism tends to
accept verbal inspiration and inerrancy—although perhaps a more flexible view is held by some. Adventists
adhere to a more dynamic view. . . . Evangelicals appear to be moving away from dispensationalist
fundamentalism, and the differences between Adventist and evangelical eschatology appear to be narrower than
previously. Both are faced with the challenge of maintaining a sense of expectancy. . . .";8

Seventh-day Adventism lives in the same world as the rest of the Christian church. It faces similar issues and
pressures. As other Christian churches respond, so does the Seventh-day Adventist Church, although usually a
little later in time. Today there are militant, Fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventists who are quick to point out
166
the changes that have taken place in Seventh-day Adventism since the end of World War II. However, they
seem unaware of the changes that also took place in the 1920s. Bull and Lockhart are quick to point this out:
"The changes that have taken place in Adventism since the Second World War have been far more self
conscious than those at the start of the century. In consequence these developments have received a
disproportionate amount of attention. But in fact the changes have been less dramatic than those of the earlier
period, involving a dilution rather than a transformation of Adventist belief. . . .

"A misleading picture of Adventist history can be derived from concentrating solely on the changes that have
taken place since the Second World War. It can appear that the central dynamic of Adventist development has
been the move away from historic certainties toward accommodation with the mainstream American religion.
But what many authors take to be historic Adventism is in fact a creation of the twentieth century—a synthesis
that took place in the 1920s and remained dominant until the 1960s. It was, moreover, a synthesis that in itself
represented an accommodation to the newly formed fundamentalist movement. . . .

"Adventist theology has developed in parallel with that of the mainstream. It was at its most distinctive during a
period of great diversity; it became fundamentalist in the era of fundamentalism; and it softened with the rise of
evangelicalism. Throughout this process Adventist theology has served as a barrier between the church and its
opponents. The nature of the competition has changed—from rival sects to liberal Christianity to secular
humanism—and Adventist theology has adjusted accordingly. But the changes have served to maintain the
distance between Adventism and the most threatening idealogical formations of the day. . . ." (emphasis
added).;9

_____________

1 Donald Dayton, and Robert K. Johnston, The variety of American Evangelicalism, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
1991), pp. 22-23. Quote from Rice on this point. [back]

2 Ibid., pp. 23-27. [back]

3 John Scopes was a young biology teacher teaching in Dayton, Tennessee who faced a court trial in 1925
because he taught Darwinism in a public school. The Scopes trial [often called the "Monkey Trial] became a
debate between an agnostic, named Clarence Darrow who defended him and a well-known orator named
William Jennings Bryan who was the prosecutor. Scopes was eventually found guilty but the decision was
reversed on a technicality. However, it was perceived by many that the real winner was Scopes and the material
used by Darrow to defend him. The ideas used by Bryan to prosecute Scopes were perceived to be very
inadequate when put through the process of the court procedures. The result was that Fundamentalism was
discredited at first by those who had followed the ideas presented closely: gradually in the years to follow,
society in general began to follow.

4 Dayton and Johnston, American Evangelicalism, 28. [back]

5 SDA Encyclopedia. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald.1966), Article "Fundamentalism". [back]

6 Dayton and Johnston, American Evangelicalism, pp. 30-31. [back]

7 George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
1991). p. 4.

Recommended reading under this topic is an excellent article by A. Patrick, "An Adventist and an Evangelical
in Australia"? The case of Ellen G. White in Australia. Lucas n.12. Dec 1991. He suggests that ELLEN WHITE
was indeed an evangelical because of her positions on primitive Christianity, the Scriptures, the Cross,
righteousness by faith, and activism. [back]

167
8 Dayton and Johnston. American Evangelicalism, p. 68. [back]

9 Bull and Lockhart. Seeking a Sanctuary, pp. 90-91. [back]

168
 Fundamentalist, Liberals, Evangelicals—Where do Adventists fit in?
"Are Adventists Fundamentalists?"

Review editorial by William Johnsson Jan 8, 1981. Page 1

Roy Graham takes the following position in regards to Adventism "The SDA position on revelation-inspiration
is not a unique one. If one is to use labels the SDAs are left of centre as far as the "conservative evangelical" is
concerned, but to the right as far as a "liberal" would evaluate." Roy E. Graham E G. White Co-Founder of the
SDA Church. American University Studies. Peter Lang NY. 1985.

Arthur Patrick puts forth a case to consider Ellen White as an evangelical in Lucas with the following summary
statement.

"Was Ellen White Evangelical? If to be Evangelical is to be motivated and restrained by a sense of faith and
duty similar to Luther, Wesley and the Evangelical Party in Anglicanism, the answer must be yes. Her doctrine
of Scripture, her analysis of the sinful nature of humankind, her idea of righteousness by faith, her methodical
attempts to express the implications of the gospel in word and deed-all bear stronger testimony than do any
countervailing factors. Arthur Patrick Lucas n. 12, Dec 1991, page 48.

169
 Appendix B

This front cover picture of the book by Carlyle B Haynes, well known Adventist evangelist and
author, entitled Christianity at the Crossroads shows the view at that time that there was no middle
ground. People were seen either as modernists who denied the basic concepts of miracles in the
Bible or they were seen as fundamentalists who held to the full inspiration of the Bible without any
errors on any subject. Illustrations and cartoons of the time effectively presented the concept that
there was no choice other than these two

170