- Apr 18, 2007
- 5,639
- 125
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Visions and The Word ~ The complete article from Adventist Today Vol. 15 No. 6
VISIONS AND THE WORD: THE AUTHORITY OF ELLEN WHITE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IN THE SEVENTH- DAY ADVENTIST MOVEMENT
George R. Knight
Andrews Univerisity
James White and the other early leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church had no doubt that the Bible taught that God would pour out the prophetic gift during the last days, and that individuals had a responsibility to test by the Bible criteria those who claimed to be prophets. Adventist leaders also had no doubt that any such gifts must be subordinate to the Bible in the life of believers, and that whenever they were not subordinated they were being used wrongly.
At this juncture it is important to recognize that just because the early Adventist leaders believed that Ellen White’s gift of prophecy was subordinate to the authority of the Bible, that did not mean that they held her inspiration to be of a lesser quality than that of the Bible writers. To the contrary, they believed that the same Voice of authority that spoke through the Bible prophets also communicated through her.
We find a careful balance here. Even though early Adventists viewed her inspiration as being equally divine in origin with that of the Bible writers, they did not see her as being the same in authority.
Ellen White and her fellow Adventists held that her authority was derived from the Bible and thus could not be equal to it. As a result, her authority was not to transcend or contradict the boundaries of truth set forth in the Bible.
The reforming element that was pushing for a more Christ-centered theology rejected all appeals to human authority in solving theological and biblical issues. Ellen White, the only remaining founder of the denomination, stood firmly with the reformers in their primacy of scripture position.
But the official leadership of the denomination not only sought to use human authority to shore up what they saw as threats to traditional Adventist theology, but also the authority of Ellen White. In the eyes of General Conference president George I. Butler an authoritative word from the pen of Ellen White would solve both the biblical and the theological issues facing the church. he wrote more than a dozen letters requesting, and at times demanding, that she use her authority to settle the controversial issues.
Significantly, Ellen White refused to let Butler and his colleagues use her writings to settle the theological/biblical issues dividing the denomination. She even went so far as to tell the delegates to the 1888 General Conference session on October 24 that it was providential that she had lost the one writing in which she had purportedly identified the law in Galatians. “God,” she asserted, “has a purpose in this. He wants us to go to the Bible and get the Scripture evidence.” In other words, she rejected the position of Butler and others that sought to use her writings as an inspired commentary on the Bible.
She was not willing to let her writings be used to settle the interpretive issue. For her scripture was supreme. While her writings might be used to apply scriptural principles to her context, they were not to be used authoritatively to give the final word on the meaning of scripture. And to make sure that they would not be used improperly to solve that particular issue she had the quotations on the law in Galatians removed when she revised the book some years later.
And in August she wrote to all the delegates of the forthcoming General Conference session that “the Word of God is the great detecter of error; to it we believe everything must be brought. The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and practice. . . . We are to receive no one’s opinion without comparing it with the Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith. It is the word of the living God that is to decide all controversies.”
Ellen White herself had held to the position of early Adventism. But many of the second generation leaders and ministers had moved from that well defined position and had sought to use Ellen White’s prophetic authority to settle theological and exegetical issues.
Thus in both the struggles over the daily and the law in Galatians, Ellen White took the position that her comments were not to be used as if she were an infallible commentator to settle the meaning of the Bible.
Her refusal to function as an infallible Bible commentator should not have surprised anyone. She had not assumed that role in the past, but had always pointed people to their need to study the Bible for themselves. Never did she take the position that “you must let me tell you what the Bible really means.”
To that comment Daniells responded: “Yes, but I have heard ministers say that the spirit of prophecy is the interpreter of the Bible. I heard it preached at the General Conference some years ago [by A. T. Jones], when it was said that the only way we could understand the Bible was through the writings of the spirit of prophecy.” J. M. Anderson added that “he also said ‘infallible interpreter.’” Daniells responded by observing that that “is not our position, and it is not right that the spirit of prophecy is the only safe interpreter of the Bible. That is a false doctrine, a false view. It will not stand.”
The middle decades of the twentieth century found Adventists more and more using Ellen White’s writings to both settle biblical issues and to do theology. Few would have openly admitted that they were putting Ellen White’s authority above that of the bible, but their writings and discussions indicated that all too many Adventists (if not most) were spending more time with Ellen White than with the Bible. She had for most of them become the final word on any biblical passage that she had utilized and a doctrinal authority. A word from Ellen White tended to end discussion. The official position of the denomination may not have changed but practice certainly had.
Significantly, in 1981 Robert Olson, director of the Ellen G. White Estate, faced the problems inherent in the infallible commentary approach when he wrote that “to give an individual complete interpretive control over the bible would, in effect, elevate that person above the Bible. It would be a mistake to allow even the apostle Paul to exercise interpretive control over all other Bible writers. In such a case, Paul, and not the whole Bible, would be one’s final authority.”
Olson went on to note that “Ellen White’s writings are generally homiletical or evangelistic in nature and not strictly exegetical.”
In fact, she often accommodated the words of a text to her own homiletical needs. Thus she could derive quite different meanings from the same passage, depending on her purpose. Olson does note correctly that she sometimes interprets texts exegetically, even though she “generally” spoke homiletically. But that fact does not imply that she ever claimed to be a divine commentary on scripture.
In the early twenty-first century mainline Adventism has a healthier understanding of the relationship between Ellen White’s authority and that of the Bible. Its theologians and biblical interpreters have a better grasp of the biblical position and that of the founders of the church, including Ellen White herself. In practice that means that she is neither a determiner of doctrine nor the final word on the meaning of scripture.
But old habits and ways of thinking die hard for some, even when they know the facts. And there are many mainline Adventists who haven’t even caught up with the facts yet. But when all is said and done mainline Adventism is light years ahead of where it was in 1980 in its understanding of Ellen White’s authority.
The same cannot be said for sectarian Adventism. The perfectionistic, fundamentalistic sub-denominations within the denomination still largely rely on Ellen White for their theology and have no problem viewing her as an infallible commentary on the Bible.
This sector of Adventism has even developed an Ellen White Study Bible that has Ellen White notes and marginal references. Such a Bible would have been totally rejected in early Adventism.
Some years ago I persuaded the publishing house administration to drop its marketing of the Ellen White Study Bible on the grounds that Ellen White would vigorously object to it from what we know of her principles historically. But after some months the publishing house president phoned me, notifying me that they were reversing their decision because there was a demand for the Study Bible and it sells well. So much for higher principles!
Sectarian Adventist groups are critical of mainline Adventism for its “betrayal” of the prophet and often consider themselves in one form or another to be the true historic Adventists. Unfortunately, their understanding of history focuses on the period from the 1920s through the 1950s and the approach to Ellen White’s writings set forth by A. T. Jones in the 1890s. They have failed to capture the biblical understanding of the founders of the denomination, including that of Ellen White herself.
http://www.atoday.com/node/3095
VISIONS AND THE WORD: THE AUTHORITY OF ELLEN WHITE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IN THE SEVENTH- DAY ADVENTIST MOVEMENT
George R. Knight
Andrews Univerisity
James White and the other early leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church had no doubt that the Bible taught that God would pour out the prophetic gift during the last days, and that individuals had a responsibility to test by the Bible criteria those who claimed to be prophets. Adventist leaders also had no doubt that any such gifts must be subordinate to the Bible in the life of believers, and that whenever they were not subordinated they were being used wrongly.
At this juncture it is important to recognize that just because the early Adventist leaders believed that Ellen White’s gift of prophecy was subordinate to the authority of the Bible, that did not mean that they held her inspiration to be of a lesser quality than that of the Bible writers. To the contrary, they believed that the same Voice of authority that spoke through the Bible prophets also communicated through her.
We find a careful balance here. Even though early Adventists viewed her inspiration as being equally divine in origin with that of the Bible writers, they did not see her as being the same in authority.
Ellen White and her fellow Adventists held that her authority was derived from the Bible and thus could not be equal to it. As a result, her authority was not to transcend or contradict the boundaries of truth set forth in the Bible.
The reforming element that was pushing for a more Christ-centered theology rejected all appeals to human authority in solving theological and biblical issues. Ellen White, the only remaining founder of the denomination, stood firmly with the reformers in their primacy of scripture position.
But the official leadership of the denomination not only sought to use human authority to shore up what they saw as threats to traditional Adventist theology, but also the authority of Ellen White. In the eyes of General Conference president George I. Butler an authoritative word from the pen of Ellen White would solve both the biblical and the theological issues facing the church. he wrote more than a dozen letters requesting, and at times demanding, that she use her authority to settle the controversial issues.
Significantly, Ellen White refused to let Butler and his colleagues use her writings to settle the theological/biblical issues dividing the denomination. She even went so far as to tell the delegates to the 1888 General Conference session on October 24 that it was providential that she had lost the one writing in which she had purportedly identified the law in Galatians. “God,” she asserted, “has a purpose in this. He wants us to go to the Bible and get the Scripture evidence.” In other words, she rejected the position of Butler and others that sought to use her writings as an inspired commentary on the Bible.
She was not willing to let her writings be used to settle the interpretive issue. For her scripture was supreme. While her writings might be used to apply scriptural principles to her context, they were not to be used authoritatively to give the final word on the meaning of scripture. And to make sure that they would not be used improperly to solve that particular issue she had the quotations on the law in Galatians removed when she revised the book some years later.
And in August she wrote to all the delegates of the forthcoming General Conference session that “the Word of God is the great detecter of error; to it we believe everything must be brought. The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and practice. . . . We are to receive no one’s opinion without comparing it with the Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith. It is the word of the living God that is to decide all controversies.”
Ellen White herself had held to the position of early Adventism. But many of the second generation leaders and ministers had moved from that well defined position and had sought to use Ellen White’s prophetic authority to settle theological and exegetical issues.
Thus in both the struggles over the daily and the law in Galatians, Ellen White took the position that her comments were not to be used as if she were an infallible commentator to settle the meaning of the Bible.
Her refusal to function as an infallible Bible commentator should not have surprised anyone. She had not assumed that role in the past, but had always pointed people to their need to study the Bible for themselves. Never did she take the position that “you must let me tell you what the Bible really means.”
To that comment Daniells responded: “Yes, but I have heard ministers say that the spirit of prophecy is the interpreter of the Bible. I heard it preached at the General Conference some years ago [by A. T. Jones], when it was said that the only way we could understand the Bible was through the writings of the spirit of prophecy.” J. M. Anderson added that “he also said ‘infallible interpreter.’” Daniells responded by observing that that “is not our position, and it is not right that the spirit of prophecy is the only safe interpreter of the Bible. That is a false doctrine, a false view. It will not stand.”
The middle decades of the twentieth century found Adventists more and more using Ellen White’s writings to both settle biblical issues and to do theology. Few would have openly admitted that they were putting Ellen White’s authority above that of the bible, but their writings and discussions indicated that all too many Adventists (if not most) were spending more time with Ellen White than with the Bible. She had for most of them become the final word on any biblical passage that she had utilized and a doctrinal authority. A word from Ellen White tended to end discussion. The official position of the denomination may not have changed but practice certainly had.
Significantly, in 1981 Robert Olson, director of the Ellen G. White Estate, faced the problems inherent in the infallible commentary approach when he wrote that “to give an individual complete interpretive control over the bible would, in effect, elevate that person above the Bible. It would be a mistake to allow even the apostle Paul to exercise interpretive control over all other Bible writers. In such a case, Paul, and not the whole Bible, would be one’s final authority.”
Olson went on to note that “Ellen White’s writings are generally homiletical or evangelistic in nature and not strictly exegetical.”
In fact, she often accommodated the words of a text to her own homiletical needs. Thus she could derive quite different meanings from the same passage, depending on her purpose. Olson does note correctly that she sometimes interprets texts exegetically, even though she “generally” spoke homiletically. But that fact does not imply that she ever claimed to be a divine commentary on scripture.
In the early twenty-first century mainline Adventism has a healthier understanding of the relationship between Ellen White’s authority and that of the Bible. Its theologians and biblical interpreters have a better grasp of the biblical position and that of the founders of the church, including Ellen White herself. In practice that means that she is neither a determiner of doctrine nor the final word on the meaning of scripture.
But old habits and ways of thinking die hard for some, even when they know the facts. And there are many mainline Adventists who haven’t even caught up with the facts yet. But when all is said and done mainline Adventism is light years ahead of where it was in 1980 in its understanding of Ellen White’s authority.
The same cannot be said for sectarian Adventism. The perfectionistic, fundamentalistic sub-denominations within the denomination still largely rely on Ellen White for their theology and have no problem viewing her as an infallible commentary on the Bible.
This sector of Adventism has even developed an Ellen White Study Bible that has Ellen White notes and marginal references. Such a Bible would have been totally rejected in early Adventism.
Some years ago I persuaded the publishing house administration to drop its marketing of the Ellen White Study Bible on the grounds that Ellen White would vigorously object to it from what we know of her principles historically. But after some months the publishing house president phoned me, notifying me that they were reversing their decision because there was a demand for the Study Bible and it sells well. So much for higher principles!
Sectarian Adventist groups are critical of mainline Adventism for its “betrayal” of the prophet and often consider themselves in one form or another to be the true historic Adventists. Unfortunately, their understanding of history focuses on the period from the 1920s through the 1950s and the approach to Ellen White’s writings set forth by A. T. Jones in the 1890s. They have failed to capture the biblical understanding of the founders of the denomination, including that of Ellen White herself.
http://www.atoday.com/node/3095
