We have seen that there once existed an almost symbiotic relationship between the writings of Ellen White and the writings of our church leaders, lasting through the major portion of our church's history. What she wrote they believed. They internalized it, appropriated it, and expressed it anew in their own writings. There was a voice among them that was more than human, they were convinced. It transmitted messages sent to them in infinite mercy from the living, loving God. They rejoiced that the voice was among them. They happily recounted the trials of the church that the voice had led them safely through. They considered themselves the most privileged of all religious groups, because the voice was among them.
They did not misunderstand the cautions about the use of spiritual gifts. They recognized that counsels from the Spirit of Prophecy would be meaningless to those who did not understand the Bible doctrine of spiritual gifts, but they used the counsels freely as an aid to understanding their own theology.
As I finish the preparation of this manuscript for publication, I have just returned to the " States" from a term of service overseas, and I have been privileged to view a videotape of an earlier discussion between Dr. Walter Martin and Dr. William Johnson on the Ankerberg program. Two distinct impressions have remained with me: First, I was again forcibly reminded of the principle that debates are won by tricks, not by evidence. I hope to find time to write more on that subject later. Second, I was made very sad by the spectacle of a theologian making an issue of the question,
Do you believe that Ellen White is infallible?
and repeatedly demanding an answer.
Can it be possible that there could be a theologian anywhere on earth who would not know that the term infallible can be properly applied to God alone? No human being who has ever lived upon this earth has been infallible. No human being will ever be infallible. If any inspired messenger of either the Old or the New Testament eras were challenged with the question, "Are you infallible?", they could only answer, "No." And to base our acceptance or rejection of their messages on their answer to that question would be to establish a new level of absurdity.
The important and relevant question is whether the Bible prophets and/or Ellen White told the truth when they reported that God had given them information to be shared with the rest of us. I believe that there is abundant evidence to prove that both the Bible prophets and Ellen White did tell the truth. Let others challenge them with the question, "Are you infallible?" if they wish. I would prefer to have no part in such absurdities.
When I was a growing boy my father at times sent messages to me which were delivered by my older sister. On a few occasions I responded somewhat recklessly by asking my sister the challenging question, "Are you the boss?"
She would look at me thoughtfully and say, "We'll see about that." In this way I learned certain things: (1) My father did not take kindly to the suggestion that if he had something to say to me he should deliver the message to me personally. He seemed to feel that it was within the limits of his prerogatives to make use of a messenger if he chose to do so. (2) My father was even less sympathetic with my challenging question to the messenger, "Are you the boss?" He had a word for this. A "Smart-Alec" question, he called it. He strongly discouraged the asking of such questions.
I deemed it prudent to heed his counsel.
I also deem it prudent to heed what God chooses to tell me through a chosen messenger. I will not question His right to use a messenger, nor will I attempt to restrict Him in regard to the subject matter of the messages. These are His prerogatives, not mine. And I will certainly not challenge the messenger with the altogether inappropriate "Smart-Alec" question, "Are you infallible?"
There are valid questions to ask messengers. It is proper to expect all messengers who carry important messages to have credentials, by which they are "certified" to us as God's messengers. These would include: (1) Lack of contradiction with other messages of previously certified messengers; (2) Ethical and moral purity; (3) Evidence of supernatural influences; (4) Consistency; (5) Accuracy of prediction, etc.
The list could be extended, but it has already become quite limiting. Few, if any, of the self-proclaimed messengers of our era could meet even these qualifications.
Ellen White could and did. The early Adventists concerned themselves first about her credentials, her certification as a messenger of God. When they were satisfied that she was an authentic messenger, they accepted with gratitude the information she passed on to them, seeing it as light from the better world.
They did not attempt, as some would do today, to draw a line between matters of faith and matters of procedure. Nor did they presume to tell God on what subjects He might send information to them and on what subjects He should not. They left that to His discretion.
Neither did they invent inplausible doctrines regarding degrees of inspiration or partial inspiration which defy all attempts at definition. How might we read a partially inspired message? Should we regard alternate paragraphs as inspired and uninspired? Or alternate sentences, or alternate words? Are all of the odd-numbered words in a sentence perchance inspired and all of the even numbered words not inspired? Or vice versa? Should we divide each word with a horizontal line and regard the upper portion as inspired and the lower portion as uninspired? Or, are those portions of the message that agree with my thinking inspired, and the other portions not inspired?
I have not yet met a person who was able to set forth anything like a lucid definition of partial inspiration. Have you?
Ellen White properly scorned all such futile endeavors. "This work is of God or it is not," she said. "The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God or of the Devil."[1] Thus she firmly ruled out the possibility that they might be the product of her own mind.
I can understand how inspired persons can be given different assignments. Isaiah was not sent to Ninevah. Jeremiah was not assigned the task of building an ark. Ellen White, along with the prophets Gad and Iddo and the daughters of Phillip the evangelist, (and others) were not assigned the task of adding portions to the Bible. But each had his or her own assignment, and each in the fulfillment of that assignment shared equally in the gift of inspiration. This I can understand. Partial inspiration I can neither define nor understand.
The early Adventists accepted the information that God sent to them through His chosen messenger and were benefitted enormously through using it. So may we be. It is perhaps not only a coincidence that the areas of the world where our church is weakest today are also the areas where the messages of Ellen White are held in least respect. The early Adventists held the writings of Ellen White in great respect.
But in our time continuing demands for advanced education have brought changes. More and more use is made of the thinking of theologians, less and less of the inspired counsels of God's chosen messenger to the remnant church. It is not unusual today, in the halls of our higher educational institutions, to hear the protest made:
Ellen White was not a theologian!
The validity of this statement would perhaps depend on one's definition of a theologian.
Do we say that she was not a theologian because she did not attend any theological seminaries?
Neither did Jesus Christ, the apostles, or the prophets.
Because she did not earn any theological degrees?
Neither did Jesus Christ, the apostles, or the prophets.
Because she did not discuss religion in learned, abstract, or philosophical terms?
Neither did Jesus Christ, the apostles,[2] or the prophets.
Because she was not accepted as one of their kind by the theologians of her time?
Neither were Jesus Christ, the apostles, or the prophets.
How many, might we suppose, of the men who wrote the Scriptures would be admitted as members of their select fraternity by the theologians of modern times?
Moses, Isaiah, and Paul? Probably. Daniel, John? Possibly. Certainly not Mark. Probably not Matthew or Luke. Peter? Well--maybe yes, maybe no. Amos, Hosea, Joel? You must be kidding.
But they told the truth about God. And so did Ellen White. Her understanding of God's will and purpose for His people was unexcelled. Her knowledge of scripture was profound.
As far as I am concerned, Ellen White is the best theologian the world has seen this side of the apostle Paul, for the simple reason that she is the first inspired theologian that the world has seen this side of the apostle Paul. Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc., made their great contributions and their equally great mistakes. She somehow avoided their errors and gave witness only to the purity of truth.
A weakness of compilations, such as this one, is their brevity. The student who will take the time to examine the quotations presented here in their context will find them supported by a large and insightful use of scripture . Ellen White's Christological views were not extra-biblical. They were emphatically rooted and grounded in scripture.
She herself was warned, and passed the warning on to us, that
The very last deception of Satan, will be to make of none effect the testimony of the spirit of God.[3]
I invite the student to compare the use being made of her writings by those who are promoting Calvinistic doctrines among us with the above statement and draw his own conclusions.
There has been a voice among us, and that voice may still be heard, if not as clearly as it once was. If we will but listen, that gentle, persistent voice may yet lead us out of the wilderness of confusion in which we presently find ourselves.
The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, the Son of God, and the Son of man.[4]
Notes: