A recent online article recycles a number of old attacks on Ellen White’s theological credibility [1]. For the sake of those in whose minds these challenges might raise questions, it is important that credible answers be provided.

The inspired text, be it Scripture or the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, is the anchor of our faith as Seventh-day Adventist Christians. Without this anchor, the believer is adrift on a shoreless ocean of cultural trends, scholarly speculation, and the vagaries of experience. The Bible declares, “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). That Word is the objective, transcendent measure of all things spiritual.

Those who deliver this inspired testimony, commonly called prophets, are not consulted for their personal opinions, but rather, for the Word of the living God. When King Zedekiah summoned Jeremiah into the courtyard of the prison in Jerusalem, the latter was asked, “Is there any word from the Lord?” (Jer. 37:17), not, “Sir, what’s your best assessment of the current situation?” In the Bible story, when a prophet misspoke, God corrected the misunderstanding immediately (I Sam. 7:2-17; I Chron. 17:1-15); when a prophet disobeyed divine instruction, he was summarily slain (Num. 31:8; I Kings 13:24-30). No divine gift in the Sacred Record is so meticulously guarded from misguidance as this one.

To those among us who keep insisting on the fallibility of prophetic counsel, we ask, When in sacred history have God’s people ever prospered when they set aside the instructions and warnings of a prophet? The answer: Never. (The record of such as the people of Noah’s day, together with kings like Jeroboam, Ahab, Zedekiah, and Herod Antipas bears painful witness to this fact.)

It can’t be stated often enough: the Bible makes no distinction between the authority of those prophets whose writings were later canonized by the church, and the authority of those prophets whose writings were not later canonized. The only reason the Bible is identified by Ellen White as the “greater Light” and her own writings as the “lesser light” [##2|Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30.##] is because she states, speaking of her writings: “Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given” [##3|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.##]. Every doctrinal and moral principle in the writings of Ellen White is first articulated in Scripture. While her writings elaborate on those original principles, they do so with the same inspired authority.

The relationship of the Bible to Ellen White is simple: different function, same authority. God does not have junior prophets. The testimonies of such as Nathan, Elijah, Huldah, and John the Baptist give no evidence in the Biblical text of having any less claim on the conscience of the faith community as the testimonies of such as Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or the apostle Paul. A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is first canonical. Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is first authoritative.

With these principles in mind, let us consider the recycled attacks on Ellen White’s authority in the article noted above.

Does God Love Bad Children?

The article in question cites two Ellen White statements purporting, on the surface, to teach that God lacks compassion for wicked children [4]. The article cites only snippets of these statements, with many ellipses, but while these were originally contained in letters to her sons Edson and Willie, they can both be found in an 80-page pamphlet titled, An Appeal to Youth, published in 1864 and still available from the Ellen White Estate:

The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and He has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for He only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there. One fretful, disobedient child, would spoil all the harmony of heaven. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you [##5|White, An Appeal to Youth, p. 61.##].

The fact that portions of the letters in question were later published in a pamphlet is proof, according to the article’s author, that we can’t “let her off the hook” for these apparently unloving sentiments toward the disobedient [6]. The author then claims Ellen White eventually “got her theology correct” [7] in a later statement from the Signs of the Times:

Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach them that He loves them so that it grieves His tender Spirit to see them in transgression [##8|White, Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1892.##].

The fact that this later statement was written after 1888 is often used by various revisionists to prove the theory voiced by certain ones that Ellen White’s theology supposedly became less law-focused and more “grace-oriented” as she grew older, in particular during the years after the 1888 General Conference session and its emphasis on righteousness by faith.

But there is no need to see a contradiction between the two above statements, once we realize that inspired words can mean different things in different settings. Ellen White makes this clear when she writes, regarding inspired language: “Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea” [##9|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 20.##]. We see this in the Bible as well as in the writings of Ellen White.

For example, we all know the words of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Yet in another New Testament book by the same author, we find this admonition: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I John 2:15).

On the surface, as with the two Ellen White statements cited earlier about God’s attitude toward disobedient children, the above two verses seem contradictory. One says God the Father loved the world so much that He gave His Son to be its Savior. Yet the other says that if we ourselves love the world, the love of God the Father isn’t in us.

The difference, quite obviously, is in the definition of “world” in one verse as distinct from in the other. John 3:16 is speaking of the world as individuals, while I John 2:15 is speaking of the world’s forbidden preoccupations and pleasures (see verse 16).

A similar variance on the meaning of love can be found in Romans 9:13, where God is quoted as saying, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Does this mean God’s compassion and grace were withheld from Esau, and that he had no chance for salvation so far as God was concerned? Obviously not, as the New Testament declares elsewhere that God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9), and that “whosoever” fulfills the divine conditions for salvation can in fact be saved (John 3:16-17; Rom. 10:13; Rev. 22:17). Love and hatred, therefore, as depicted in Romans 9:13, refer respectively to divine acceptance and rejection based on the individual’s response to God’s gracious initiatives.

By the same token, the difference between the two Ellen White statements about God’s love (or lack thereof) for disobedient children is in Ellen White’s definition of “love” in these respective statements. In the first statement, love is a synonym for divine acceptance and salvation, as evidenced by its reference in context to the unfitness of wicked children to inhabit the courts of heaven. But in the second statement, love is not a reference to divine acceptance and salvation, but rather, to divine compassion and grief on behalf of the wayward. As with Scripture, Ellen White’s language must be compared with itself in order to ascertain its true meaning.

When we consider the consensus of Ellen White’s early writings, one can hardly make the case that she believed at any time that God lacked compassion for sinners. Consider the following statement, written in 1858 (two years before the above-cited counsel to Willie and Edson), in which she describes the scene in heaven when the Father and the Son agreed to the plan of salvation:

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and the world that God created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man [##10|——Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 22-23.##].

In short, there was never a time in Ellen White’s prophetic ministry when she disputed God’s compassion for the disobedient. What we see in the letters Ellen White wrote to Edson and Willie—as with John 3:16 and First John 2:15, as with Romans 9:13 and Second Peter 3:9—is simply a difference in the way inspired language is used.

Amalgamation

Controversy has raged for some time regarding a couple of Ellen White’s statements regarding what she calls the amalgamation of man and beast, both before and after the Genesis Flood. Here are the statements in question, which the article in question cites without quoting their actual words [11]:

Every species of animals which God had created were preserved in the ark. 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 [##12|White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75.##].

But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God proposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him [##13|——Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.##].

The article in question then cites some comments by Uriah Smith which sought to defend Ellen White’s above statements, claiming that certain primitive tribes in Africa and North America (e.g. African Bushmen, Digger Indians) demonstrated alleged proof of cross-breeding between animals and humans [14]. No support was given, to be sure, for Ellen White’s alleged agreement with Smith on this point. The article in question includes the following, entirely speculative statement on the author’s part:

Who would know better what she meant—her contemporary Smith, who wrote just four years after her statements, or Nichol, who claimed to know what she should have written more than 80 years afterward? [15].

The fact is that neither Smith nor Nichol holds the final word on Ellen White’s meaning. She herself does, since like the Bible (II Peter 1:20-21; I Cor. 2:12-14; Isa. 28:9-10), her writings are self-explanatory. In her words:

The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture [##16|White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.##].

And no one need assume that Ellen White believed a certain way merely because of the opinions of her pioneer colleagues, even her husband. Ellen White was known to disagree with all of them at times; only Scripture and corroborating divine revelation served as her final authority.

The author cites Francis D. Nichol’s claim, in the book Ellen G. White and Her Critics, that the amalgamation statements in question refer, not to humans and animals cross-breeding, but rather, to animals breeding with different kinds of animals and humans breeding with different kinds (different races presumably) of humans [17]. All things considered, the wording of the inspired text clearly gravitates toward concluding that she was talking—at least primarily—about amalgamation of man with beast. This does not rule out, of course, that cross-breeding between humans and between animals might in fact be part of what the first of the above statements is describing, especially since it speaks of the endless varieties of animal species [##18|White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75.##].

But to conclude that the amalgamation of man and beast described by Ellen White—which God condemned so strongly that it merited global destruction [##19|——Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.##]—refers to humans cross-breeding with each other and animals doing the same, raises other implications both unwarranted and dangerous. Certainly nothing, in either Scripture or Ellen White, could sustain such a conclusion. Those cautions voiced by Ellen White regarding interracial marriage refer plainly, in context, to various social circumstances and obstacles which might result from such relationships, not from any moral prohibition by God against them [##20|——Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 343-344.##].

In short, while the amalgamation of animals with humans can rightly be seen as a corrupt defacing of the image of God, nothing anywhere in the writings of Inspiration comes close to saying that intermarriage between different races involves such corruption.

Some have assumed that the cross-breeding of animals with humans is an idea both absurd and impossible, presumably making Ellen White’s amalgamation statements laughable if understood in this way. Such would do well to hold their laughter; the last laugh may well be on them. At least one scientific ethicist, featured in April 1998 on an episode of ABC’s “Good Morning America,” has written a book in which he warns of the likelihood, within a few decades, of cloning technology reaching the point where the crossing of animals with humans will be attempted [##21|Jeremy Rifkin, The Bio-Tech Century (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998), pp. 99-102.##].

When we consider the level of human genius existing in those living but scant generations from the tree of life, it is hard to dismiss so quickly the possibility that humans with such intelligence could experiment in this manner with the basics of biology. If nothing else, one observes in recent bio-tech developments and speculation yet more evidence that the world is coming full-circle to its condition in the days of Noah, just prior to its destruction by the flood (Luke 17:26).

One more point, of course, deserves absolute clarification in this context. Nowhere, in any statement whatsoever, do the writings of Ellen White identify any particular race of humans as the product of amalgamation with animals, nor is there the slightest hint in those writings that because of such origins, certain races should be treated as subhuman. Whatever races of humanity might have originated in this manner was either not revealed to Ellen White by the Lord, or was deliberately left unsaid through divinely imparted wisdom. To reveal such a fact would have only created confusion—much like the pre-Flood amalgamation itself [##22|White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.##]—very likely conveying the notion that different races were therefore deserving of different treatment. For anyone to even remotely imply Ellen White’s support of such a concept is to fly in the face of her uniformly-consistent declarations that all races of humanity stand equal before God, equally entitled to the blessings of the gospel and to just treatment by the laws of society.

The Two Oars

The article in question cites a number of Ellen White statements where she speaks of faith and works as two metaphorical “oars” in the Christian life [##23|——Manuscript 2, 1875; Gospel Health, Jan. 1, 1889; Australasian Union Conference Record, Oct. 15, 1905.##], one of which states that “faith and works are two oars which we must use equally if we would press our way up the stream against the current of unbelief” [##24|——Review and Herald, June 11, 1901, also in Welfare Ministry, p. 316.##]. But the article’s author seems to think Ellen White contradicted herself where she seems to equate both oars with faith, declaring—in a passage I haven’t been able to locate through the White Estate website—“Take the [oars] of faith and row for your life” [##25|——Letter 120a, 1898.##].

Assuming the wording of this last statement is in fact accurate, this hardly proves any sort of contradiction in Ellen White’s thinking regarding the respective, cooperative roles of faith and works in the Christian life. At times the Bible itself uses metaphors in opposite ways, even though the teachings conveyed are entirely consistent. The symbol of leaven, for example, is used by Jesus to describe both sin and righteousness (Matt. 13:33; 16:6; Mark 8:15; Luke 13:21). The symbol of a lion is used to represent both Satan and Christ (I Peter 5:8: Rev. 5:5). In John chapter 10 Jesus describes Himself both as the Good Shepherd (verses 12,14) and as the door of the sheepfold (verses 7,9).

Ellen White is certainly at liberty, in light of the above, to use the symbol of a rowboat’s oars to represent both faith and/or the obedience faith makes possible. The article in question, like much of contemporary Adventist theology in certain circles, makes no distinction between the self-generated “works” excluded in Scripture from the saving process (e.g. Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9) and the practical obedience identified by Scripture as the condition of salvation (e.g. Matt. 7:21; 19:16-26; Luke 10:25-28; Rom. 2:6-10; 8:13; Heb. 5:9). The author confuses the issue badly when he writes:

Paul made works subsequent to and not equal with faith. Christian theology has, since the first century, differentiated between the significance of faith and works. Faith comes first; behavior follows. They are not coequal [26].

But they are in fact co-equal, provided we are speaking of faith alongside the obedience faith produces, as distinct from the latter two in contrast with the works of the unregenerate heart. Both faith and the obedience it facilitates are divine gifts, part of the sanctifying righteousness which Scripture identifies with the means of our salvation (II Thess. 2:13). The apostle Paul clearly distinguishes the unregenerate works that can save no one from the Holy Spirit’s transformation which in fact is a part of our salvation. In his words:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5).

The article in question vacillates regarding the issue of whether Ellen White’s pre- and post-1888 understandings of faith, works, and the gospel differ one from the other. But in fact there is no need to vacillate on this point, as Ellen White’s teachings on this subject are entirely consistent throughout her ministry. She is just as clear prior to 1888 as afterward that only through heaven’s imparted grace can the obedience required by the law be rendered [##27|White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 705; vol. 2, pp. 81,561; Signs of the Times, Nov. 24, 1887.##], and she is just as clear after 1888 as before that this Spirit-empowered obedience remains the unalterable condition for receiving eternal life [##28|——Acts of the Apostles, p. 482; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 920,972; Signs of the Times, Nov. 15, 1899; Review and Herald, June 26, 1900.##].

“Home Alone”

Referencing the 1990 movie by this name, the article in question claims Ellen White’s portrayal of the great time of trouble after probation’s close “has sent chills up and down the spines of even mature men and women,” for the alleged fear of “being ‘home alone’ on Planet Earth, without the mediatorial work of Jesus” [29].

The article quotes the following Ellen White statement which affirms the Biblical teaching that Christ’s mediation comes to a close before His second coming—which, contrary to the author’s claim [30}, is not based on the “single prooftext” of Revelation 22:11, but also on Revelation 8:3-5, which speaks of the censer containing the prayers of God’s people being at last thrown down, just as Ellen White says [##31|White, Early Writings, p. 279.##]. The statement quoted by the article reads as follows:

Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a Mediator [##32|——The Great Controversy, p. 425.##].

But neither the above statement, its context, nor any other in the writings of Ellen White teaches that the saints will be on their own, without the power of divine grace, during the time in question. The only thing the saints will live without during this time is the continuous availability of forgiveness, which is no longer needed because they are fully victorious over every sin in their lives [##33|——The Great Controversy, p. 623; Early Writings, p. 71; Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 187; vol. 2, p. 355; vol. 5, pp. 214,216; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 18-19,506-507; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, pp. 1055,1118; vol. 7, p. 978; Evangelism, p. 702.##].

This is not just an Ellen White teaching; it is a Biblical teaching also. Despite rampant hostility to this teaching in certain circles of contemporary Adventism, both Old and New Testaments speak of a final generation of Christians whose lives have been fully purified from sin before Jesus returns (Zeph. 3:13; I Thess. 5:23; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 3:2-3; Rev. 3:21; 14:12). But at no time, even after probation closes, are they “alone” in their struggle against sin. Ellen White is clear on this point in the following statement from The Great Controversy:

Though God’s people will be surrounded by enemies who are bent upon their destruction, yet the anguish which they suffer is not a dread of persecution for the truth’s sake; they fear that every sin has not been repented of, and that through some fault in themselves they will fail to realize the fulfillment of the Saviour’s promise: I “will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world.” Revelation 3:10 [##34|——The Great Controversy, p. 619.##].

No one, therefore, can fairly accuse Ellen White of teaching this “home alone” hypothesis regarding the saints following the close of probation. Yes, they will live without the continuous availability of forgiveness. Like a laundromat that closes because no more dirty laundry is coming in, Jesus can safely close His mediatorial work because His people have fully claimed His power to cease from sin. But the saints will still have access to His empowering grace to continue their resistance to temptation.

The article in question is again very confusing when the author writes as follows:

Scripture assures us that Jesus our Mediator “always lives [Greek: pantote] to intercede” (Hebrews 7:25, NET). No need for paranoia on our part! Jesus continues his role not only as long as we live but also as long as he lives! That puts no time limit on our Lord’s work for us. No need, therefore, to be fearful about being “home alone.”

Third, the passage occurs in the very last chapter of Revelation, after all of the end-time events are assumed to be concluded and the saints are safely on the new earth. It cannot be with integrity be made to comment on something that happens near their beginning [35].

First of all, the close of probation doesn’t happen “near the beginning” of the events of the last days, but rather, just before Jesus returns. Many of the events described in Revelation (e.g. the sealing of the end-time saints, the test between the seal of God and the mark of the beast, the proclamation of God’s final message to the world) take place before probation ends. Moreover, the claim that Christ supposedly never ceases His mediation on the basis of Hebrews 7:25 is contradicted by the author’s own claim that because the statement about the unjust, the filthy, the righteous, and the holy remaining as they are (Rev. 22:11) takes place in the middle of a description of the saints in the new earth, that Christ’s mediation is thus no longer needed.

Which is it? Does our Lord’s mediation continue forever, with the righteous still sinning for eternity? One way or the other, the inspired text is clear that mediation eventually ceases. As in Noah’s day, when the door of the ark eventually closed and the unrighteous were left outside, the time comes when the cases of the impenitent become hopeless. Otherwise, when Jesus comes, they wouldn’t be calling for the rocks and mountains to fall on them (Rev. 6:15-17).

Conclusion

The article closes with more confusion, as the author writes:

As insightful as White’s voluminous writings have been, even as an inspired writer, she sometimes missed the mark. As she said of herself, only God is infallible (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 37). “In regard to infallibility,” she wrote in a letter to her nephew, “I never claimed it” [36].

But the author’s logic collapses under careful scrutiny. If the statement that “God alone is infallible” [##37|White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37.##] is meant to exclude the inspired writings from this designation, that means the Bible isn’t infallible either. Yet Ellen White writes elsewhere:

The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience [##38|——The Great Controversy, p. vii.##].

In the statement cited at the close of the article in question, she writes:

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 [##39|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37.##].

No inspired writer, canonical or otherwise, has ever claimed infallibility. But the absence of such a claim on Ellen White’s part hardly means her counsel can be safely disregarded. In more than one statement Ellen White declared that God’s Word was revealed through her:

As you now hold the testimonies, should one be given crossing your track, correcting your errors, would you feel at perfect liberty to accept or reject any part, or the whole? That which you will be least inclined to receive, is the very part most needed. God and Satan never work in co-partnership. The testimonies either bear the signet of God or that of Satan. A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. By their fruit ye shall know them. God has spoken. Who has trembled at His word? [##40|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 98.##].

In reading the Testimonies, be sure not to mix in your filling of words; for this makes it impossible for the hearers to distinguish between the word of the Lord to them and your words [##41|——Testimonies, vol. 6, pp. 122-123.##].

In another statement she writes what no uninspired author could ever safely claim:

There is one straight chain of truth, without one heretical sentence in that which I have written [##42|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 52.##].

Elsewhere she warns strongly against picking and choosing what in her writings is from God and what is the expression of mere human wisdom:

Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.

If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White’s human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human—Sister’s White’s opinion. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition [##43|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 68.##].

I have my work to do, to meet the misconceptions of those who suppose themselves able to say what is testimony from God and what is human production. If those who have done this work continue in this course, satanic agencies will choose for them.

Those who have helped souls to feel at liberty to specify what is of God in the Testimonies and what are the uninspired words of Sister White, will find that they were helping the devil in his work of deception ##[4|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 70.##4].

Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God [##45|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 64.##].

No one but an inspired or a delusional soul would dare to write statements like the above. In another statement she is clear that what she wrote is from God, and contains none of her own ideas:

In these letters which I write, in these testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne [##46|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67.##].

The following statements simply do not allow Seventh-day Adventists to take a neutral stance regarding the authority of the Ellen G. White writings, or to accept a less-than-fully-authoritative perspective regarding them:

One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan’s banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God’s Spirit [##47|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 84.##].

Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth; but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come in these last days [##48|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.##].

The logic behind claims of internal contradiction in the writings of Ellen White is all too easy to understand. If those writings are inconsistent with themselves, they can safely be disregarded, and the authority of uninspired humans elevated above them. But these claims of contradiction consistently fall apart when faced by the facts. The admonition of King Jehoshaphat of old still rings true:

Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established: believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper (II Chron. 20:20).

REFERENCES

1. Richard Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

2. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30.

3. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.

4. Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

5. White, An Appeal to Youth, p. 61.

6. Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

7. Ibid.

8. White, Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1892.

9. ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 20.

10. ----Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 22-23.

11. Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

12. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75.

13. Ibid, p. 64.

14. Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

15. Ibid.

16. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.

17. Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 306-322, quoted by Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

18. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75.

19. Ibid, p. 64.

20. ----Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 343-344.

21. Jeremy Rifkin, The Bio-Tech Century (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998), pp. 99-102.

22. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.

23. ----Manuscript 2, 1875; Gospel Health, Jan. 1, 1889; Australasian Union Conference Record, Oct. 15, 1905.

24. ----Review and Herald, June 11, 1901, also in Welfare Ministry, p. 316.

25. ----Letter 120a, 1898.

26. Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

27. White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 705; vol. 2, pp. 81,561; Signs of the Times, Nov. 24, 1887.

28. ----Acts of the Apostles, p. 482; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 920,972; Signs of the Times, Nov. 15, 1899; Review and Herald, June 26, 1900.

29. Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

30. Ibid.

31. White, Early Writings, p. 279.

32. ----The Great Controversy, p. 425.

33. Ibid, p. 623; Early Writings, p. 71; Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 355; vol. 5, pp. 214,216; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 506-507; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, pp. 1055; 1118; vol. 7, p. 978; Evangelism, p. 702.

34. ----The Great Controversy, p. 619.

35. Coffen, “Was Ellen White an Infallible Theologian?” Adventist Today, Aug. 6, 2022 https://atoday.org/was-ellen-white-an-infallible-theologian/

36. Ibid.

37. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37.

38. ----The Great Controversy, p. vii.

39. ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37.

40. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 98.

41. Ibid, vol. 6, pp. 122-123.

42. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 52.

43. Ibid, p. 68.

44. Ibid, p. 70.

45. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 64.

46. Ibid, p. 67.

47. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 84.

48. Ibid, pp. 83-84.

Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan