A new and growing urban legend in contemporary Adventism is the claim that the doctrinal authority of the Ellen G. White writings was not accepted by Ellen White herself while she lived, but was instead fabricated after her death by so-called “fundamentalists” in the church. Speaking of the creation of the 1926 index to the writings of Ellen White, one contemporary author has written:
This approach prioritized her writings as a lens through which to interpret the Bible. It focused on a proof-text methodology and ultimately codified a canon of her writings after her death [1].
Another author affirms this same point:
Before bringing this chapter to a conclusion, it should be noted that perspectives on Ellen White’s writings being a divine, infallible, inspired commentary on the Bible also saw clarification and emphasis in the period extending from her death in 1915 up through the 1960s [2].
A number of issues arise from the above statements, such as the definition of terms like “canon” and “proof text methodology.” But the principal focus of this article is the “afterlife” argument—the notion that Ellen White didn’t view her writings as an authoritative clarifier of doctrine or as an inspired interpreter of the Bible, but that overzealous apologists for her writings invented this status for them, one Ellen White herself would supposedly have disapproved. One of the above authors is especially dogmatic in his claim that Ellen White didn’t see such a role as part of her prophetic responsibilities. He states quite emphatically, and without qualification, that “Ellen White disapproved the usage of her writings to settle theological issues” [3].
Few assumptions carry quite the intrigue, even the aura of conspiracy, as the theory that the most devout of one’s defenders might in fact be one’s worst enemies. Is this in fact the case regarding those who have long held the writings of Ellen White to possess the authority to interpret the Bible and to clarify doctrine?
Ellen White On Her Doctrinal Role
There were times, to be sure, when Ellen White did disapprove the use of her writings to settle doctrinal controversies, as regarding the debate over the “daily” in the book of Daniel, concerning which she stated that “I have had no instruction on the point under discussion” [4]. Obviously, without such instruction from the Lord, she possessed no more authority than anyone else in the church.
But such categorical denials as those of the afore-quoted author, relative to Ellen White’s doctrinal authority, stand in sharp contrast with Ellen White’s own affirmation of her corrective doctrinal role in such statements as the following:
I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth [5].
Besides the instruction in His Word, the Lord has given special testimonies to His people, not as a new revelation, but that He may set before us the plain lessons of His Word, that errors may be corrected, that the right way may be pointed out, that every soul may be without excuse [6].
The Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and 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 [7].
My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the Bible, were only according to their opinion of the Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory [8].
Serious errors in doctrine and practice were cherished. . . . God revealed these errors to me in vision and sent me to His erring children to declare them [9].
How many have read carefully Patriarchs and Prophets, The Great Controversy, and The Desire of Ages? I wish all to understand that my confidence in the light that God has given stands firm, because I know that the Holy Spirit’s power magnified the truth, and made it honorable, saying, “This is the way; walk ye in it.” In my books the truth is stated, barricaded by a “Thus saith the Lord.” The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God upon the tables of stone [10].
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. . . . The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error [11].
Many are familiar with Ellen White’s statement that “little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light” [12]. Some in contemporary Adventism want us to believe this statement implies a lesser degree of authority and reliability on the part of Ellen White’s writings in relation to the Bible. But one would have a hard time proving from the Bible that prophets whose writings were later canonized by the church were somehow more authoritative or reliable in their day than the writings or testimonies of prophets whose writings were not later canonized. The witness of such as Deborah, Nathan, Elijah, and John the Baptist comes across in the Sacred Narrative as every bit as authoritative as that of such prophetic witnesses as Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the apostle Paul. God does not have junior prophets.
The difference between the respective roles of the Bible and the writings of Ellen White is one of function, not authority. The Bible is the Source, which is what makes it the Greater Light. Ellen White’s writings expound and elaborate on the truths which originate with the Bible, much as Elijah and John the Baptist expounded and elaborated on the truths given by canonical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. In Ellen White’s words, regarding her writings:
Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given [13].
All of the above statements were written by Ellen White, and span the full length of her prophetic ministry. Whether or not one chooses to accept Ellen White’s prophetic authority, or her role in the interpretation of the Bible and the clarification of doctrinal issues, it is simply not credible to claim Ellen White’s authority in such matters to be the creature of overzealous “fundamentalists” once she passed from the scene.
Sobering Statements
The following statements from Ellen White’s pen make it especially clear that from Ellen White’s perspective, acceptance or rejection of her prophetic counsel is not merely discretionary so far as one’s spiritual prosperity and eternal destiny are concerned:
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 [14].
God is either teaching His people, reproving their wrongs, and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work . . . bears the stamp of God, or the stamp of the enemy. There is no half-way work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil [15].
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 [16].
In these letters which I write, in the 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 [17].
You have talked over matters as you viewed them, that the communications from Sister White are not all from the Lord, but a portion is her own mind, her own judgment, which is no better than anybody else’s judgment and ideas. This is one of Satan’s hooks to hang your doubts upon to deceive your soul and the souls of others who will dare to draw the line in this matter and say, This portion which pleases me is from God, but that portion which points out and condemns my course of conduct is from Sister White alone, and bears not the holy signet. You have in this way virtually rejected the whole of the messages, which God in His tender, pitying love has sent to you to save you from moral ruin [18].
In the testimonies sent to Battle Creek, I have given you the light God has given to me. In no case have I given my own judgment or opinion. I have enough to write of what has been shown me, without falling back on my own opinions [19].
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 [20].
What reserve power has the Lord with which to reach those who have cast aside His warnings and reproofs, and have accredited the testimonies of the Spirit of God to no higher source than human wisdom? In the judgment, what can you do who have done this, offer as an excuse for turning from the evidences He has given you that God was in the work? [21].
With even greater solemnity, the prophet warns:
The testimonies I have borne you have in truth been presented to me by the Lord. . . . It is not I whom you are betraying. It is not I against whom you are so embittered. It is the Lord, who has given me a message to bear to you [22].
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 [23].
Let’s be clear about one thing. Ellen White is not an authoritative prophet of God merely because she says so. Everyone from Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jeane Dixon, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, and a host of other charlatans would qualify as prophets on that basis. But what is clear beyond misunderstanding, on the basis of the statements cited in this article, is that those claiming Biblically interpretive and corrective doctrinal authority for the Ellen G. White writings are not claiming for these writings anything which they themselves do not claim. Any notion that persons after her death should be held responsible for asserting and establishing such authority for her writings is not supported by the facts.
Apologists for the Christian faith have rightly noted that when the claims of Jesus are taken at face value, He must regarded either as “Lord, liar, or lunatic.” Taking the above Ellen White statements at face value, she must either be regarded as a deliberate deceiver, as delusional, or as a divinely inspired, authoritative messenger, speaking with prophetic authority to God’s end-time church.
Conclusion
No one in Bible times who set aside a prophet’s counsel ever fared well afterward, spiritually or otherwise. Prophets are the mouthpiece of the God of the universe, not the source of merely another set of fallible opinions. Those wishing for the “freedom to differ” with Ellen White’s counsel while still accepting her as a true prophet had best be reminded how such Biblical kings as Saul, Ahab, Zedekiah, and Herod Antipas closed their earthly pilgrimage.
Finally, from the inspired pen:
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 [24].
Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established: believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper (II Chron. 20:20).
REFERENCES
1. Michael W. Campbell, 1922: The Rise of Adventist Fundamentalism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1922), p. 77.
2. George R. Knight, Ellen White’s Afterlife: Delightful Fictions, Troubling Facts, Enlightening Research (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2019), p. 34.
3. ----End-Time Events and the Last Generation: The Explosive 1950s (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), p. 105.
4. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 164.
5. ----Early Writings, p. 78.
6. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 31.
7. Ibid, p. 32.
8. ----Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98-99.
9. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655-656.
10. ----Colporteur Ministry, p. 126.
11. ----Gospel Workers, p. 302.
12. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30.
13. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
14. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 68.
15. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 671.
16. Ibid, p. 64.
17. Ibid, p. 67.
18. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 68-69.
19. Ibid, p. 70.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid, p. 84.
23. Ibid.
24. 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