What About Ellen White?
by Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.
Copr. 2005
Readers ask why I generally do not cite Ellen G.
White in the lessons. The primary reason is that the
lessons posted on this web site are copied from the
originals posted at GoBible.org. The GoBible web site
follows the Adventist Adult Sabbath School lesson
quarterly, but is aimed at Bible students from all
denominations. My son/webmaster, Blake, and I believe
that a large percentage of the GoBible readers are not
Seventh-day Adventists.
Since the quarterly cites Ellen White extensively,
those Adventists who read the quarterly and the lessons
at GoBible.org or SabbathSchoolLessons.com already have
the benefit of Ellen White’s insight. Citing her is not
necessary for Adventists.
Those who are not Adventists may stop reading the
lessons if they see regular citations to Ellen White.
Thus, not citing her does no damage to Adventists and
avoids problems with members of other churches.
The secondary reason for not citing Ellen White in
these lessons involves a much more complex and important
problem and discussion.
The Problem:
The secondary reason why the teaching outlines
generally do not cite Ellen White reflects a concern
about the misuse of her writings. Over the years I often
been troubled when I visited Sabbath School classes in
other Seventh-day Adventist churches. What I frequently
found was that class members have their quarterlies open
on their laps and their Bibles closed. When they respond
to questions given by the teacher, most often they
recite their own views or what they think they can
recall from Ellen White. I believe the primary source
for every Sabbath School question and every Sabbath
School answer should be the Bible.
The Bible is not very long; about 1,100 pages. A
number of popular contemporary novels are about the same
length. It should not be “heavy lifting” for someone who
wants to know about God to purchase a contemporary
translation of the Bible, such as the New Living
Translation, and read God’s word from cover to
cover. (For young eyes, the NLT is only 730 pages long,
for old eyes (large print) it is 1,406 pages long.)
According to the Ellen G. White Estate, Ellen White’s
writings are contained in 50,000 pages of manuscript as
reflected in her published books and articles. Since
many Sabbath School students do not seem particularly
well versed in their Bible, my guess is that their
effective knowledge of what Ellen White has written is
close to nonexistent. After all, in contrast with the
Bible, there are 49,000 more pages of her works to read!
Worse, it has been my experience that when Adventist
students are in a Sabbath School class discussing the
Bible lesson, if anyone “authoritatively” cites what
Ellen White said on the subject, the discussion ends.
After all, who is bold enough to dispute the prophet?
Especially, many Adventists believe that Ellen White is
“authoritative” (meaning “conclusive”) commentary on
disputes over Bible interpretation.
[What then about
church leaders who make statements in support of
revolution, and persist and persist in doing this?
Should the discussions end about this matter WHILE THEY
ARE YET PUSHING THESE MOVEMENTS ON US AS WE'RE ARGUING?
***Friends, THE
ARGUMENTS WERE ALREADY OVER ON THESE ISSUES WITH THEM!
THEY PUSHED THESE MOVEMENTS ALREADY UNANNOUNCED UPON THE
ADVENTIST PEOPLE! THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN
ARGUING OR DEBATING ABOUT ANYTHING THEY DECREED!***
Aren't you
supposed to understand they are showing you the
discussion on these movements have already ended even
before you ever heard about these new movements?
They were pushed silently and unannounced before even
all the friction that has resulted since--even before
anyone knew about the movement. Why did discussion
figuratively already end well before the subject of
Ellen White commenting about these movements ever
developed?
The question
would be whether or not discussion (or confusion) ends
with statements from Ellen White, or ends with
statements from the new wave of leadership who
"tolerantly" cannot accept NO to their devices and
imaginations? DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD QUOTE OR
LISTEN TO OUR LEADERS LESS? In every case in point
here, the simple solution would be to consider the
option to the authority of Ellen White. People who
want authority should not gain it by trying in any way
to dilute or mute the authority of Ellen White. In
every case where they challenge ever so slightly the
authority of Ellen White, you are to compare the issue
with their own authority they have or are seeking for.
If you had to accept the authority of one or the other
(our contemporary leaders pushing relentless change,
using debate as a cover but never accepting no for an
answer, compared to the authority of Ellen White), which
would you choose for the church?
If you refuse
their movements, they will not stop. They will
continue to claim we must accept what they are pushing,
or that we must argue about the issues WHILE THEY ARE
PUSHING THESE MOVEMENTS ANYWAY till we do accept what
they are pushing. Since they keep pushing these
praise and worship services, are all the arguments
against what they're doing over with? or should they
keep making the changes WHILE WE'RE ARGUING, showing
that the arguments are mere stunts leading to us having
to accept what they're pushing anyway: THEY ARE
INTOLERANT, YET POSING AS TOLERANT, AND YET MORE,
ACCUSING LOYAL ADVENTISTS OF BEING INTOLERANT FOR NOT
ACCEPTING WHAT THEY'VE DECREED EVERYONE ELSE MUST
ACCEPT. They didn't inform us about the changes
they decreed MUST COME before they have been pushing
them for years already. If Ellen White can't END
any arguments, why couldn't they wait till arguments for
whether or not to accept these things they're pushing
ended BEFORE THEY PUSHED THEM?]
Since many (most?) Adventists are not well acquainted
with Ellen White’s writings, my belief is that the
“authoritative” Ellen White citation which ends the
class discussion most likely reflects what the speaker
thinks - and is unlikely to be an accurate quote from
Ellen White, much less an accurate distillation of all
of her writings on the subject. Those of you who know
what I’m talking about, ask yourself the last time that
you heard someone quote Ellen White and actually give
the name of the book in which the statement was supposed
to have appeared? (To say nothing about a citation to
chapter or page numbers!)
The terrible tragedy that results is that God’s
authoritative word, the Bible, is not seriously studied
and debated. Instead, the opinion of some self-important
person, parading as the view of Ellen White, ends the
discussion. This is an outrage and nothing other than a
disaster for understanding the Word of God.
The Solution:
There are a number of solutions to this problem. One
solution is to simply avoid citing Ellen White - which
is what the GoBible.org/SabbathSchoolLessons.com
teaching outlines do for other reasons (as explained in
the first paragraphs of this article). Another solution
for Bible classes is to prohibit a citation to Ellen
White unless the speaker can at least recite the book
where the statement was supposedly found. (I have
wondered if there should be a rule that the speaker
citing Ellen White be required to bring the exact
citation to Sabbath School the next Sabbath.)
The best solution, however, the solution that goes to
the root of the problem, is a proper understanding of
the relationship between the writings of Ellen White and
the Bible. The 18th of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church is this:
18. The Gift of Prophecy: One of
the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift
is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was
manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As
the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing
and authoritative source of truth which provide for
the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and
correction. They also make clear that the Bible is
the standard by which all teaching and experience
must be tested.
A very important part of this belief is the statement
that Ellen White “makes clear” that the Bible is the
standard by which her teachings are to be tested. The
Church’s first fundamental belief is this:
1. The Holy Scriptures: The Holy
Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written
Word of God, given by divine inspiration through
holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has
committed to man the knowledge necessary for
salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible
revelation of His will. They are the standard of
character, the test of experience, the authoritative
revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of
God's acts in history.
The lesson to be drawn from these two statements of
fundamental belief is that Ellen White is to be tested
by the Bible, and not the other way around. Accepting
this makes it totally inappropriate to end a discussion
of the Bible based on what someone says (or knows) that
Ellen White wrote.
How Authoritative is Ellen White?
You may have noticed that Fundamental Belief 18
refers to Ellen White as an “authoritative source of
truth.” Just how authoritative is she? On that subject
there is a great deal of debate among Seventh-day
Adventists. One definition of “authoritative” is “highly
reliable.” That is not the same as “always right.” Was
the intent of Fundamental Belief 18 to convey the idea
that Ellen White is not always right?
If two Bible students are debating what a text of the
Bible means, if Ellen White sides with one of the
debaters, is that the end of the matter? Does she
“authoritatively” resolve all disputable Bible issues? I
do not believe that position is consistent with the text
of Fundamental Belief 18, the Bible or with the facts
about Ellen White’s writings.
There are a number of facts about Ellen White’s
writings which are acknowledged by the Church, but not
well known by the general membership - at least not
before the advent of the Internet. One reason for this
is because some very irresponsible claims about Ellen
White’s authority have been published by Adventist
thought leaders over the years. For example, I have
often read in Adventist literature that the test of Old
Testament prophets, contained in Deuteronomy 18:20-22,
should be applied to Ellen White because she passes that
test. Here is what Deuteronomy 18:20-22 says:
20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name
anything I have not commanded him to say, or a
prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must
be put to death."
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know
when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" 22
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD
does not take place or come true, that is a message
the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (NIV)
Do you see the logical flow of this text? God says
that death is appropriate for any prophet who claims the
authority of God for anything God has not commanded that
prophet to say. How do we know when this has happened?
The Bible says you have adequate proof for the
death-penalty when what the prophet says does not come
true or does not take place.
If this is the test that should be applied to Ellen
White, this is a very harsh standard. Although Ellen
White’s death almost a hundred years ago makes the
“death penalty” issue moot, the “don’t be afraid” of
that prophet remedy would still apply.
The question now is the same as then, how do we know
if the messages written by Ellen White were “spoken by
the Lord?” Should we use this harsh and terrible
standard to judge her writings?
A particularly important aspect of this Old Testament
prophet test is that it applies to the person, not
individual messages. Once an Old Testament prophet even
once fails the test, that person is never again to be
considered to be a true prophet. (This, of course, would
also be the practical result if the “prophet” were put
to death!)
While Ellen White’s critics claim that she is a false
prophet and never spoke the words of God, the reader may
be surprised to find that material distributed by the
official Ellen G. White Estate (“Estate”) admits that
there are some serious problems.
A big issue among the critics of Ellen White is that
she copied her writings from other sources. I do not
think that anyone in the Church who is knowledgeable
(and intellectually honest) on the topic, disputes the
fact that Ellen White copied the writings of others.
About twenty years ago the Church commissioned a
study on the extent to which Ellen White was “dependant”
(a polite term for copying) on the writings of other
authors. The commissioned study was done by Dr. Fred
Veltman. His goal was to determine what percentage of
the Desire of Ages, one of Ellen White’s most
prominent books, was copied (dependant) to one degree or
another from the writings of others.
The Veltman study is a little over 900 pages long.
His conclusion was that 31% of the Desire of Ages
"measured some degree of dependency" and 61% "registered
independence." (p. 941. The rest represented the use of
Scripture.)
The Veltman study is a very complex work. I have read
only the 100 page “summary and conclusions.” Thus, I
have done it an injustice by reciting its conclusions in
one sentence. However, the Veltman study finds that a
substantial percentage of the Desire of Ages
came not from the mouth of God, but rather from the
writings of other humans to one degree or another.
The Veltman study is available from the Church. It
(or the 100 page summary) can be obtained from the Ellen
G. White Estate (Ellen G. White Estate, Inc., Loma Linda
Branch, Loma Linda University Library, Loma Linda, CA
92350) or
on line at the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists web site in the document archive section.
I have read that Dr. Fred Veltman should not be
trusted because he had some liberal tendencies. As a
lawyer, I consider that to be nonsense. One of the
things I do for a living is to cross-examine experts.
Bias is an important weapon of cross-examination. If the
issue of Ellen White’s copying were put before a court,
and Dr. Veltman were to testify on her behalf, I would
have an easy time undercutting his testimony based on
the fact that he is an Adventist, thus the study was
done by an Adventist who believed in Ellen White as a
prophet, and the work was “bought and paid for by the
Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
A study free from bias would have been done by a
scholar who had nothing to do with Ellen White or the
Church, and had no feelings about her one way or the
other. If a Church commissioned study by a prominent
Adventist scholar finds that 31% of the Desire of
Ages is “dependant,” then according to the normal
judicial standards of proof, that number is either
exactly right or understated.
Not only is it clear that not all of Ellen White’s
written words came from God, but, a reasonable reading
of a publication of the Estate indicates that Ellen
White does not pass the Deuteronomy 22 test. Recall that
this test states in part: “If what a prophet proclaims
in the name of the LORD does not take place or come
true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That
prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of
him.”
The Ellen G. White Estate distributes a publication
titled 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen
White (1981) which admits (p. 58) that EGW
"misinterpreted" a vision about the "Shut Door." (She
said God showed her the door of salvation was shut - and
reproved in the name of God another "prophet" who said
otherwise.)
The 101 Questions booklet was put together
by Robert W. Olson, who was formerly in charge of the
Estate. Bob Olson is a very smart and sincere Christian.
He was and is a strong supporter of the Church and Ellen
White. (I have had the wonderful opportunity to talk
with Bob within the last few years about some of these
issues.) He certainly is no critic of Ellen White. Yet,
his 101 Questions booklet is quite candid.
In addition, you can find on the Internet
Robert Olson’s The Shut Door Documents.
This includes the statements of Ellen White about the
“Shut Door.”
For those of you wondering why a prophet would care
about doors being open or shut, let me explain. Ellen
White was among a group of Christians (called
“Millerites”) who believed the Bible-derived teaching of
William Miller that Jesus’ Second Coming would be in
1844. Jesus did not come in 1844 or at anytime within
the next 100 years. Undisputedly, William Miller was
wrong.
At the time however, the disappointed group of
believers decided that perhaps Jesus had just left
heaven at the appointed day in 1844, and that He was
making His journey to earth with the heavenly host.
Since no one knows the distance between heaven and
earth, and because Daniel 10:2-12 suggests that it might
be a three-week journey for a single traveler who runs
into problems (see, Daniel 10:12-13), it was reasonable
to believe that God might have a little “travel time” in
the Second Coming.
Do you remember Jesus’ parable of the Ten Virgins
found in Matthew 25:1-13? It is a parable about Jesus’
Second Coming where He is compared to a bridegroom who
is delayed coming to his wedding. The “midnight cry”
(Matthew 25:6) goes out when the tardy bridegroom comes.
The virgins who are waiting and prepared enter into the
wedding feast with the bridegroom, while the unprepared
virgins go to buy more oil for their lamps. After the
prepared virgins enter into the building where the
wedding banquet is being held, “the door was shut”
(Matthew 25:10). The story goes on to indicate that the
unprepared virgins were never able to enter through that
shut door. Thus, Jesus warns believers who want to enter
into eternal life that they should always be prepared
for Jesus’ Second Coming.
The believers in the 1844 return date found this
parable to be very important. At some time the door to
salvation would “shut,” and all who were “outside” would
be forever lost. Since they believed that Jesus was
traveling from heaven to earth, they determined that
during the “travel time,” it was unnecessary and even
useless to try to convert others to Christianity because
the time for salvation had passed. (See, Revelation
22:11). As in the parable of the ten virgins, the “door”
to salvation had “shut.”
If all of these assumptions were correct, this makes
perfect logical sense. The problem is that none of these
assumptions were correct - as we now know beyond any
doubt. Jesus had not left heaven for earth. Jesus and
the heavenly host were not traveling to earth for the
Second Coming. Therefore, the door to salvation could
not be shut based on those assumptions.
If you read Bob Olson’s 101 Questions and
his compilation of what Ellen White wrote in the
Shut Door Documents, I believe the conclusion is
inescapable that she wrote and spoke in support of the
door being “shut.” She conveyed this as the word of God,
and she was wrong. As I mentioned above, Bob Olson
writes in his 101 Questions booklet (p. 58)
that Ellen White declared the door was “shut” because
she “misinterpreted” the vision. Whatever the source of
the error, the bottom line is that she was wrong, and
she presented the wrong information as coming from God.
It is hard for me to imagine a court or jury would come
to a different conclusion based on these documents
written by Ellen White’s supporters, not her critics.
After reading through all of Bob Olson’s compiled
documents on the Internet about what Ellen White wrote
on the “shut door” through about 1849 (a five year
period), I agree with him that what she meant by the
term “shut door” changed over these years. However, if
you carefully read the collected statements on the web
site, Ellen White (at best) seems to be ultimately
saying that those who rejected the 1844 message faced
the “shut door.”
If I had been alive during those times, I believe
that I would have accepted Miller’s argument about Jesus
coming in 1844. Even now I think the Biblical evidence
he argued is quite good. But, I would have been
incontrovertibly wrong. Christians who lived during that
time period and rejected William Miller’s message were
incontrovertibly right. Jesus did not come then. If
these Christians were right, and Ellen White (along with
all of the other Millerites) was wrong, how can she be
correct in saying that the door to salvation “shut” on
those Christians who had it right? Simple logic bars me
from that conclusion. This means that whatever the
evolving definition over the five years of those who
faced the “shut door,” Ellen White was wrong. If you
believe that the Deuteronomy 22 test should apply to
Ellen White, then Ellen White has a serious problem in
the prophet department. Recall that this test states in
part: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the
LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message
the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”
As I have written above, Robert Olson’s job was to
promote Ellen White. He is no enemy of hers. He is just
setting out what she has written. I invite you to read
these documents to come up with your own conclusion as
to whether Ellen White was wrong about the “shut door”
and whether she was presenting this as God’s word.
If, after studying these documents, you reach the
conclusion that Ellen White was in error in portraying
God’s will, I see only two logical choices: Ellen White
is either discarded as a prophet, or the Adventist
writers who argued that the Deuteronomy 22 test should
apply to her are wrong.
I think the writers are wrong.
Wayne Grudem has written a very interesting book
entitled The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament
and Today (Crossway Books 1988) (“Gift of
Prophecy”). Grudem’s book powerfully argues that
there are substantial differences between “Old
Testament” and “New Testament” prophets. The prediction
in Joel 2:28-29 that the gift of prophecy will be
widespread among believers in the last days is a
description of “New Testament” prophets. Indeed, the
following verses in Joel (Joel 2:30-31) describe events
which Adventists have traditionally keyed to last day
events.
The reader should study Grudem’s book to completely
and properly understand his argument. Professor Grudem
relies on texts like I Corinthians 14:29 (“Two or three
prophets should speak, and the others should weigh
carefully what is said”(NIV)) and 1 Thessalonians 5:19
22 (“Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat
prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to
the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.”(NIV)). He
concludes in his book that these texts mean that
statements of “New Testament” prophets are tested and
weighed by the listener against the writings of the
Bible. The good is to be sorted out and retained, the
not-so-good discarded. (Gift of Prophecy, pp.
74-114)
If Grudem is correct in his distinction between “Old
Testament” and “New Testament” prophets, then clearly
the Old Testament prophet test of Deuteronomy 22 would
not apply to Ellen White. In no way would it diminish
her gift as a New Testament prophet to be wrong once,
twice or, for that matter, be confused on one specific
issue over a five year period. Copying the writings of
others and passing them off as her own (or worse, as
God’s), while not laudatory, is hardly fatal to the
gift. New Testament prophets are not expected to be
perfect, nor are they expected to be right all the time.
What is expected of them is that they believe they are
sharing God’s views.
What is expected of us is to “test” the views of “New
Testament” prophets against Scripture. Consider 1 John
4:1-3:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test
the spirits to see whether they are from God,
because many false prophets have gone out into the
world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of
God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but
every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist,
which you have heard is coming and even now is
already in the world. (NIV)
Did you catch this important point? The test for “New
Testament” prophets is whether they acknowledge Jesus is
God. Very clearly, Ellen White does that! 100% accuracy
is no longer the test.
However Ellen White acquired the material she
presented in the Desire of Ages, no
intellectually honest Christian can doubt that she was
inspired by the Holy Spirit in the final product. The
Desire of Ages is a very strong affirmation of
the Lordship of Jesus. Walter Martin, in his book
The Kingdom of the Cults (Bethany House October
2003), states this about Ellen White:
After reading ... almost all of the writings of
Ellen White, including her Testimonies, the writer
believes White was truly a regenerate Christian
woman who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and dedicated
herself unstintingly to the task of bearing witness
for Him as she felt led. Id. at 572.
Walter Martin has no bias in favor of Ellen White.
Instead, his statement is simply an honest reaction to
reading the writings of one who obviously “loved the
Lord Jesus Christ and dedicated herself ... to bearing
witness for Him.” That means she meets the 1 John 4:1-3
test for “New Testament” prophets.
Instead of the extreme position of the critics that
Ellen White is a tool of Satan and she should be
completely ignored, or the other extreme position that
she is an inerrant “Old Testament” prophet, her gift as
a New Testament prophet should be recognized for what it
is and only for what it is.
This means her writings are to be tested by the
Bible, the inerrant Word of God. Her writings are
authoritative to the extent they are consistent with the
Bible. This reasonable, Biblical, view of Ellen White
brings us squarely back to the purpose of GoBible.org
and SabbathSchoolLessons.com: to encourage the reading
and discussion of God’s will as revealed in the Bible.
Once the student has a proper understanding of the
relationship between the authority of the Word of God
and the authority of New Testament prophets, then Ellen
White is a welcome addition (when properly cited) to
studies and discussions intended to unravel the will of
God.
One of the things I love about the Bible is that God
does not “shade” the truth about His leaders. We are
plainly told David is an adulterer, Abraham a liar,
Moses a killer. None of the readers of this note can
begin to fill the shoes of those great heroes of God.
Those who would “shade” the truth about Ellen White to
“protect” her should just stop. The truth is completely
consistent with her office as a New Testament prophet.
Fundamental Beliefs 1 & 18 can comfortably hold hands
with both the unvarnished facts about Ellen White and
the belief that she is one of God’s New Testament
prophets.
Now that we have that resolved, let’s get back to our
primary work: studying the Bible, God’s inerrant Word
for His people!
