In his 1977 book The Shaking of Adventism, Anglican scholar Geoffrey Paxton made this observation regarding the use of the writings of Ellen White in the modern Seventh-day Adventist controversy over righteousness by faith and related topics:
She has a wax nose. She is turned this way, and then that way, and then this way again. If Adventists wish to bring Mrs. White to the place where she has no authority at all in their movement, let them keep using her writings as a source for point-scoring in their intra-church squabbles. The final end of being made to take all positions is to take no position at all! [1].
However, a closer look at the use of—and attitudes toward—the writings of Ellen White within the two leading theological camps in modern Adventism relative to the cluster of salvation-related issues, reveals a decided difference across the last half of the twentieth century and beyond. And that is because the consensus of Ellen White’s teachings on the topics in question are nowhere as ambiguous as Geoffrey Paxton thought.
Earlier in his book Paxton stated, regarding Ellen White’s views on character perfection in this life: “There is some disagreement over Mrs. White’s position on perfectionism. Yet this writer does not think that one is forced to read perfectionism in her work” [2]. It should be noted that in Paxton’s view, as with others who deny character perfection to be possible for earthly believers even through divine aid, the noxious word “perfectionism” refers to the Bible-based, Ellen White-affirmed belief that through heaven’s power men and women can live perfectly sinless lives this side of the second coming of Christ.
I am not sure just how much of Ellen White’s writings Paxton had actually read prior to penning the above statement. Little doubt exists in my mind that had he read those writings extensively and proceeded to represent them honestly, he would have been far less charitable to Ellen White in defining her views on this subject.
Discomfort With Ellen White On One Side of the Debate
If a source of authority is truly ambiguous in the context of controversy, one can fairly expect that both sides in a given dispute would recognize this, and thus limit if not discontinue their use of the source in question when articulating their position. But such has not been the case with the use of Ellen White in the modern Adventist salvation controversy. The fact is that in this controversy, those in the camp generally identified with what has come to be called Last Generation Theology have fully embraced Ellen White’s doctrinal authority, while those in the other camp have shown marked discomfort with that authority across the decades.
As far back as M.L. Andreasen and the Questions on Doctrine controversy, evidence was surfacing among evangelical Adventists—those supporting the QOD perspective on the humanity of Christ and the atonement—as to their need to downgrade Ellen White’s authority as a way of winning the church to their side [3]. At least twice, at the Palmdale Conference on righteousness by faith held in 1976, Desmond Ford indicated his unease with a fully authoritative use of Ellen White’s writings [4].
But it was when he publicly broke with the doctrine of the investigative judgment in 1979 that Ford became clearest in his rejection of Ellen White’s doctrinal authority. In his lecture to the Adventist Forum at Pacific Union College on October 27 of that year, he stated:
We’ve said Ellen White is not omniscient, not inerrant. Neither is she a divine commentary on the Scripture, and bang goes a very cherished heirloom. Ellen White nowhere claims to be the inspired commentary on the Scripture, my friends [5].
In his 991-page defense of his views on the investigative judgment, presented to the Sanctuary Review Committee at Glacier View in August 1980, Ford went further in his effort to remove the Ellen G. White writings from an authoritative role in the consideration of his views on the sanctuary doctrine:
In matters of scriptural debate where good men were ranged on both sides, it was not Ellen White’s practice to decide doctrinal issues. . . . Repeatedly, her writings have been misused to prevent progress in understanding Bible truth. Against this she vigorously protested. See Selected Messages 1:164 [6].
Responding to Ford’s effort to reduce Ellen White’s authority in doctrinal matters, the Glacier View consensus statement of 1980 affirmed that the authority of the Ellen G. White writings “transcends that of all noninspired interpreters” [7].
To briefly digress, it should be noted that the above reference cited by Ford does not say what he alleges. In this passage Ellen White counseled her brethren not to use her writings to settle the controversy over the “daily” in Daniel 8, but not because doctrinal guidance wasn’t a part of her prophetic duties. She explains exactly why her writings weren’t to be used relative to the “daily” issue on the very page Ford cites. Here is what she says:
I entreat of Elders H, I, J, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of “the daily.”
It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken in settling this matter. The true meaning of “the daily” is not to be made a test question.
I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question [“the daily”]; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy [8].
Why, then, did Ellen White not desire her writings to be used to settle the “daily” issue? Simple. God hadn’t given her light on the subject. And without direct divine instruction of the sort prophets receive, she didn’t know any more than anyone else.
One of the most prominent opponents of Last Generation Theology has consistently and publicly taken the same position as Ford in denying an authoritative doctrinal role to the writings of Ellen White. In one of his books, describing the controversy during the 1888 era over the scope of the law in Galatians, he says of those in the “traditionalist” camp:
They wanted her to function as a theological policewoman or an exegetical referee. That, significantly enough, is exactly what she refused to do [9].
To briefly digress again, it should be noted that the above statement is a half-truth which conveys the effect of an untruth. For reasons I have explained in another article on this site [10], it is true that for a time Ellen White refused to take an authoritative position on the law in Galatians in the setting of the 1888 controversy. However, once that controversy had settled down, and both sides had had the chance to consider the Biblical evidence, she did in fact take a definitive position, as recorded in the following statement:
I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments [11].
To my knowledge, the above statement has effectively settled this dispute in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a dispute which appears never to have troubled the denomination again at any time since.
The same opponent of Last Generation Theology has more recently reaffirmed his reduced understanding of the role of Ellen White in the church, insisting that “Ellen White disapproved the usage of her writings to settle theological issues” [12]. We will see in a moment that Ellen White took a very different position with regard to her role in settling such differences.
Rare Candor from the Ellen White Disbelievers
Faith in the authority of the Ellen G. White writings has been very difficult to dislodge in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Despite decades of attacks on her credibility from academic and other circles, from the unproven allegations of internal contradiction to the ubiquitous but irrelevant plagiarism charge, those seeking to reduce or eliminate Ellen White’s authoritative role have failed to exert more than a marginal influence on the church’s grassroots, nor perhaps on any of its official pronouncements.
I well remember when the late Walter Rea’s infamous screed The White Lie was published [13]. The book’s biggest problem was less one of substance than of style—its pages dripping with vitriol, sarcasm, even attacks on the Bible itself, as when the author describes as “freethinkers” such Biblical notables as the man stoned for Sabbath-breaking during Israel’s wilderness wandering [14], along with Ananias, husband of Sapphira, who in Rea’s words “kept a few shekels from the tithe to pay the rent,” and as a result “was told by the local divine to drop dead—which he did” [15].
Despite the hoopla that attended Rea’s book from non-Adventist and non-conservative circles within Adventism, sentiments like the above—along with the book’s angry, even pugilistic tone—didn’t ingratiate it or its message with the vast majority of church members. One lay revivalist whose meetings I attended during those days perhaps said it best, when he observed that “it boils down to whether you believe Ellen White or Walter Rea. To me, that’s an easy decision.”
This did not, of course, prevent theological liberals among us from voicing the hope that Ellen White’s authority in the church was at an end. Speaking to Time magazine, the editor of Spectrum declared that in light of Rea’s findings, “Adventists will no longer be able to appeal to White as ‘the final authority on a whole range of issues, including biblical and theological interpretation and life-style’” [16]. Evoking memories of Jesus’ statement about the stones crying out (Luke 19:40), Time’s religion editor Richard Ostling replied to the above statement as follows:
If so, the Seventh-day Adventists would seem to have lost a resource more precious than the millions that went down the [Davenport] drain [17].
Dick Ostling need not have feared. The myriad attacks of critics both suave and strident have failed to sunder Ellen White’s authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for the simple reason—as Martin Luther King said so powerfully—that no lie can last forever. The Biblical faithfulness and Christ-centered grandeur of the Ellen G. White writings cannot be gainsaid by the blizzard of falsehoods and angry diatribes in the books, seminars, and Internet sites of her detractors. Like the revivalist quoted above said in one of its lectures, it’s like asking us to believe the devil and his demons authored The Desire of Ages!
For the above reasons, among others, open rejection of Ellen White’s authority—to the point of either calling her a false prophet or simply saying her theology is wrong—has remained a rarity among professing Adventists (as opposed to former Adventists) in the decades since the Rea attacks. Ellen White and her writings remain very dear to the great majority of Seventh-day Adventist hearts, which makes it especially difficult to admit that a theological position one rejects and despises represents—when all is said and done—the position of Ellen White herself. For if indeed Ellen White espoused such a position—like the post-Fall humanity of Christ, the earthly perfectibility of Christian character, or the investigative judgment—rejecting such a position constitutes, for all practical purposes, a rejection of Ellen White’s Biblical integrity and spiritual trustworthiness as a messenger of the Lord.
But one of these rare examples of candor on the part of persons rejecting Ellen White’s authority occurred during the mid-1980s, in a liberal Adventist magazine that no longer exists. In an analysis of two Sabbath School Quarterlies with different perspectives on the human nature of Christ, one author frankly admitted which side in the controversy most accurately represented Ellen White’s theology—a theology which, in the context of the article, he clearly disagreed with:
Does it follow, then, that Ellen White did not really have a consistent viewpoint concerning the nature of Christ and the issue of perfection? Probably not, because her entire theology was perfection-oriented. The Sabbath and health reform, two of her great concerns, have their rationale in perfectionism in preparation for translation.… Using some of Ellen White’s statements to prove that perfection is unattainable would seem as futile as using some of her statements to establish that she repudiated the significance of 1844 [18].
The same author admits, earlier in this article, that a series of “antiperfectionistic” Ellen White statements quoted by another author “are generally not very convincing when read in context” [19]. He goes on, writing of the end-time-perfection theology: “To repudiate it would be to repudiate the very nature of Adventism” [20].
I couldn’t agree more! And a more recent author has affirmed the same reality, responding to an article on the Spectrum website which tries to distinguish Ellen White’s early writings from her later ones on the subject of character perfection:
Reading this account (the de Vera article), one might think it a complete mystery why the church hasn’t been able to settle this issue and root out perfectionistic legalism. A more frank analysis of Ellen White’s role should clear up this mystery. Here’s just a few quotes compiled in an article from one of our most prolific proponents of perfection theology (Kevin Paulson, “Assurance of Salvation at the Time of the End,” ADvindicate, April 30, 2018 http://advindicate.com/articles/2018/4/30/assurance-of-salvation-at-the-time-of-the-end).
“The work of gaining salvation is one of copartnership, a joint operation. There is to be co-operation between God and the repentant sinner. This is necessary for the formation of right principles in the character. Man is to make earnest efforts to overcome that which hinders him from attaining to perfection.” (Acts of the Apostles, p. 482, 1911.)
“We are saved by climbing round after round of the ladder, looking to Christ, clinging to Christ, mounting step by step to the height of Christ, so that He is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 147, 1901).
“We cannot have the assurance and perfect confiding trust in Christ as our Saviour until we acknowledge Him as our King and are obedient to His commandments” (Faith and Works, p. 16 (MS. 36, 1890).
“Obedience to the laws of God develops in man a beautiful character that is in harmony with all that is pure and holy and undefiled. In the life of such a man the message of the gospel of Christ is made clear. Accepting the mercy of Christ and His healing from the power of sin, he is brought into right relation with God. His life, cleansed from vanity and selfishness, is filled with the love of God. His daily obedience to the law of God obtains for him a character that assures him eternal life in the kingdom of God.” (Sons and Daughters of God, p. 42 (MS. 49, 1907, emphasis supplied).
“Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ…This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.” (The Great Controversy, p. 623 1911).
As this is getting tedious, I’ll stop there. Note these all come from after 1888. With a “prophet” making such statements, it should be clear why we cannot move past perfection theology. This article’s portrait of EGW being squarely in the anti-perfection righteousness by faith alone camp since 1888 is simply not tenable.
But the evangelical wing of Adventism takes the strategy of telling members that when EGW says salvation is obtained by striving for perfection with the help of God, she doesn’t mean that salvation is obtained by striving for perfection with the help of God. It’s hard to not see this as a form of spiritual gaslighting. Instead of reconsidering the role of Ellen White in the church’s theology, we blame members for deriving a legalistic theology from her writings by reading her to mean what she actually wrote. Mind you, for the most part, I don’t think it’s intentional gaslighting but the effect is the same [21].
We do not, of course, accept the labeling of “perfectionistic legalism” when applied to the Bible-based, Ellen White-affirmed prospect of divinely-empowered sinless obedience this side of heaven. But despite our disagreement with such characterization on the part of the above author, his honesty in recognizing what Ellen White truly taught on this subject is worthy of note in the present discussion.
Two other contemporary observers of Adventism’s ongoing controversies—one a former Adventist, the other from an Adventist background but who was never baptized—are likewise unambiguous as to where Ellen White stood on the perfection issue:
If Christ had an unfair advantage, how could individuals be expected to follow his example in living a perfect life? The problem was particularly acute since perfection had been suggested by Ellen White as the goal of the Adventist people: “While our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ.” Her call to perfection was urgent: “Jesus does not change the character at His coming. The work of transformation must be done now.” . . .
Prior to [Edward] Heppenstall, no important Adventist writer denied the possibility of perfection. Ellen White had been unequivocal: “As the Son of Man was perfect in His life, so His followers are to be perfect in their life” [22].
Like the two statements cited earlier, the above comes from authors who no longer accept Ellen White as doctrinally authoritative, and who are thus not constrained by standards of popular expectation to find harmony between Ellen White’s writings and the perfection-denying view of the gospel. The analysis of such authors may thus be more objective when it perceives Ellen White’s writings as “unequivocal” in affirming the necessity of character perfection in the lives of earthly believers.
Ellen White On Her Doctrinal Authority
Before we close this article, it should be noted once again that despite claims to the contrary, Ellen White most assuredly saw her prophetic role as including doctrinal affirmation and correction. When we hear it stated in contemporary Adventism that “Ellen White disapproved the usage of her writings to settle theological issues” [23], we are forced to a choice between such claims and the following statements from Ellen White’s own writings:
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 [24].
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 [25].
Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given [26].
How many have carefully read 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 [27].
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 [28].
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 [29].
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 [30].
It should be clarified that this is not an attempt to “prove Ellen White by Ellen White,” as some may believe. Rather, what the above statements prove is that despite the claims of modern Adventist revisionists, those who cite the Ellen G. White writings as authoritative in the church’s doctrinal controversies are not using those writings in a manner Ellen White did not intend. As with those who deny that Ellen White taught the possibility of divinely-empowered character perfection this side of heaven, those who deny Ellen White’s authority in doctrinal matters cannot rightly claim to reflect the teachings of the Ellen G. White writings when they do this.
Despite the wishful thinking of certain ones, there is no benign middle ground in the debate over Ellen White’s prophetic role. If her statements on character perfection and related topics are taken as they read, and if one holds such beliefs to be unscriptural and anti-gospel (which they are not, if one takes the Bible as it reads), then honesty demands that Ellen White’s teachings on this subject be rejected and her prophetic authority denied. And if Ellen White’s statements regarding her authority in doctrinal controversy are likewise taken as they read, the reader is constrained either to accept that authority as divinely instituted or to reject Ellen White’s claims as the illegitimate assertions of a Joseph Smith, a Mary Baker Eddy, a Jim Jones, or a Marshall Applewhite.
Conclusion: From Wax to Granite
As the evidence of Ellen White’s collective testimony has come to light relative to salvation-related topics, the “nose” Geoffrey Paxton perceived to be made of “wax” [31] has clearly turned to granite. Simple honesty requires that those who take the evangelical view of the gospel in the Seventh-day Adventist Church acknowledge at last that a straightforward reading of the writings of Ellen White cannot find such a perspective represented in those writings. Such an acknowledgement will ultimately force them to an unpleasant decision as to the Biblical faithfulness and theological integrity of those writings. Of course, if such readers are consistent, they will be forced to similarly unpleasant choices regarding Scripture itself, where a plain reading likewise affirms the divinely-empowered imperative of sinless obedience for the earthly believer (e.g. Psalm 4:4; 119:1-3,11; Zeph. 3:13; Rom. 6:14; 8:4; I Cor. 15:34; II Cor. 7:1; 10:4-5; Eph. 5:27; I Thess. 5:23; I Peter 2:21-22; 4:1; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 1:7,9; 3:2-3,7; Jude 24; Rev. 3:21; 14:5).
REFERENCES
1. Geoffrey J. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism (Wilmington, DE: Zenith Publishing Co, 1977), p. 156.
2. Ibid, p. 60.
3. M.L. Andreasen, Letters to the Churches (Brushton, NY: TEACH Services, 1996), pp. 29-42.
4. Desmond Ford, Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith (Goodlettsville, TN: Jack D. Walker, Publisher, 1976), pp. 10,42-43.
5. ----“The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” Lecture at Pacific Union College, Angwin, CA, Oct. 27, 1979 https://www.desford.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160105-Ford-Investigative-Judgment-free-ebook.pdf
6. ----Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), p. 4.
7. “The role of the Ellen G. White writings in doctrinal matters,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 15.
8. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 164.
9. George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1989), p. 107.
10. Kevin D. Paulson, “Alleged Ellen White Contradictions: Exploding the Urban Legends, Part 4,” ADvindicate, July 14, 2016 http://advindicate.com/articles/2016/7/14/alleged-ellen-white-contradictions-exploding-the-urban-legends-part-4-the-daily-the-law-in-galatians-and-gods-love-for-the-disobedient
11. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 233.
12. Knight, End-Time Events and the Last Generation: The Explosive 1950s (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), p. 105.
13. Walter T. Rea, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M&R Publications, 1982).
14. Ibid, p. 45.
15. Ibid.
16. Richard N. Ostling, “The Church of Liberal Borrowings,” Time, Aug. 2, 1982, p. 49.
17. Ibid.
18. Dennis Hokama, “Wallowing in the Gulley of Indecision—Christ’s All-Atoning Sacrifice versus Jesus the Model Man: An Analysis” Adventist Currents, July 1983, p. 14.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Comment of Jmark in discussion following Nixon de Vera, “Perfectionism in Adventist History,” Spectrum, March 8, 2021 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2021/perfectionism-adventist-history
22. Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventists and the American Dream (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007), pp. 86-87.
23. Knight, End-Time Events and the Last Generation: The Explosive 1950s (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), p. 105.
24. White, Early Writings, p. 78.
25. ----Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 32.
26. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
27. ----Colporteur Ministry, p. 126.
28. ----Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98-99.
29. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655-656.
30. ----Gospel Workers, p. 302.
31. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, p. 156.
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