The Authority of Ellen White in Relation to the Authority of Scripture in the Seventh-day Adventist Movement

The Seventh-day Adventist Church from its earliest days has told the world, and its own members, that in the true Protestant tradition, it holds the Bible as the supreme guide to all its doctrine and practice.

The church also maintains that Ellen G. White (1827-1915), one of its founders, had an “authoritative” prophetic gift. 1 She had “visions” and revelations that helped shape the structure and practices of the church. She and most of the people surrounding her averred that her authority was second to that of the Bible; while she could provide clarification of the Scriptures, she could not and would not try to supersede them.

In more recent times, however, some devoted followers have attempted to elevate her writings to a position equal to, or more authoritative than, the Bible’s. In fact, it is not too much to say that the Seventh-day Adventist movement was formed in the matrix of tension on the subject of visions versus the Word.

Christian Connexion Antecedents
Millerite Adventism 2 (one of the church’s major historical antecedents) had gone on record in June 1843, and reaffirmed in May 1845 after the 1844 Great Disappointment, that “we have no confidence whatever in any visions, dreams, or private revelations.”3 This was some five months after the first vision of the young Ellen G. Harmon (White after August 1846). 4 Millerite Adventism was a movement based on one authoritative book — the Bible.

Another of Seventh-day Adventism’s theological roots, the Christian Connexion, a restorationist group, held to the Bible as the only rule of faith. William Kinkade (b. 1783), one of its founders and their principal theologian,5 wrote in 1829 that he had in his early years refused to call himself by “any name but that of Christian” and that he would take no book for his “standard but the Bible.”6

However, Kinkade recognized that at the center of New Testament order were the spiritual gifts, including the gift of prophecy, described in 1 Corinthians 12:8-31 and Ephesians 4:11-16. The presence of these gifts in the church, he wrote, “is the ancient order of things; every one opposed to this, is opposed to primitive Christianity. 7 Kinkade did not seem to be concerned with possible conflict between the two realms of authority.

Kinkade’s theology is important for understanding early Seventh-day Adventism because two of the movement’s three founders had been active in the Christian Connexion — Joseph Bates as a leading layperson, and James White as a Connexionist pastor.

Early Adventists on Authority
The earliest Sabbatarian Adventists were quite clear on the issue of authority. James White, Ellen’s husband, stated the developing denomination’s position quite accurately in 1847 when he wrote that “the Bible is a perfect, and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice.” But, he added, in harmony with Kinkade’s line of thought, “this is no reason, why God may not show the past, present, and future fulfillment of his word, in these last days, by dreams and visions; according to Peter’s testimony [see Acts 2:17-20; Joel 2:28-31]. True visions are given to lead us to God, and his written word; but those that are given for a new rule of faith and practice, separate from the Bible, cannot be from God, and should be rejected.”8 Whenever they were not subordinated they were being used wrongly.

Thus James could write in 1851 that “the gifts of the Spirit should all have their proper places. The Bible is an everlasting rock. It is our rule of faith and practice…. Every Christian is therefore in duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty…. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position.”9

At this juncture it is important to recognize that even though the early Adventist leaders believed that Ellen White’s gift of prophecy was subordinate to the authority of the Bible, that did not mean 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. Ellen White and her fellow Adventists held that her authority was derived from the Bible and thus could not be equal to it. We find a careful balance here. As a result, her authority was not to transcend or contradict the boundaries of truth set forth in the Bible. As Ellen White so aptly put it in 1871, “The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed” in the Bible. 10

It is important to realize that Ellen White believed that her visions were for the guidance of the Adventist community, rather than the Christian church at large. Writing to Adventist believers in 1871, she noted that “if you had made God’s word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard, …you would not have needed the Testimonies [i.e. her counsel]. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies, calling your attention to the words of inspiration which you had neglected to obey.”11 Did the early Adventists practice what they preached on the topic? More specifically, did Ellen White’s visions have a significant role in doctrinal formation, and how did her writings relate to the interpretation of the Bible?

In the first decades of Adventism, Ellen White’s writings were not thought of as interpreting the meaning of scriptural passages. As to doctrinal formation, James White wrote in 1855 that “it should be understood that all these views as held by the body of Sabbath-keepers, were brought out from the Scriptures before Mrs. W. had any view in regard to them. These sentiments are founded upon the Scriptures as their only basis.”12

That statement is found in the context of a discussion of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine being a “vision view” rather than a “Bible view.” That accusation was a popular one among the denomination’s detractors. Miles Grant, for example, argued in 1874 in the World’s Crisis (a leading Advent Christian periodical) that the Sabbatarians’ understanding of the heavenly sanctuary doctrine had come through Ellen White’s visions. 13

Uriah Smith vigorously responded to that accusation. “Hundreds of articles,” he stated, “have been written upon the subject [of the sanctuary]. But in no one of these are the visions once referred to as any authority on this subject, or the source from whence any view we hold has been derived. Nor does any preacher ever refer to them on this question. The appeal is invariably to the Bible, where there is abundant evidence for the views we hold on this subject.”14

The interesting thing about Smith’s assertion is that any person willing to go back into early Seventh-day Adventist literature can either verify or disprove it. On the subject of the heavenly sanctuary, Paul Gordon has done that and has verified Smith’s claims in his The Sanctuary, 1844, and the Pioneers. 15 On a broader scale, extensive research by Merlin Burt, Rolf J. Pöhler, and George R. Knight has demonstrated that Adventism’s various doctrines were originated and fleshed out by several individuals, none of whom became Seventhday Adventists. 16 The Adventist contribution was in integrating the various doctrines they had accepted through Bible study into an apocalyptic theology. But even that was a contribution by Joseph Bates rather than Ellen White. 17 Her early visions tended to be visions of confirmation of Bible study or related to building unity in matters of detail. 18

Early Seventh-day Adventists appear to have been a people of the “Book,” consistent in theory and practice in their view of the Bible as the only source of doctrinal authority and their acceptance of a modern prophet. But that would change.

The 1888 Era and Authority
The transformation in Adventism’s usage of Ellen White’s writings in relation to the Bible may have begun in the late 1870s, but it is openly evident in the 1880s, particularly as the denomination approached its 1888 General Conference session. That session would be one of the most significant in Adventist history. At stake was the understanding of gospel and law and how they should be related. Side topics were the definition of the law in Galatians and the 10 horns of Daniel 7. 19

In the struggle over the various topics, the question of religious authority came to the forefront. Swerving from the earlier Adventist position on the absolute primacy of Scripture, the denomination’s second-generation leadership sought to solve its theological and biblical issues through the use of human authority related to expert opinion, authoritative position, Adventist tradition, and majority votes. 20 But these were opposed by a reforming element that was pushing for a more Christ-centered theology, and the reformers 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 sought to use human authority to shore up what they saw as threats to not only 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.

Butler and his colleagues took two approaches to having Ellen White solve these issues. The first was to have her provide a written statement on the controverted topics related to the interpretation of Galatians and Daniel. Between June 1886 and October 1888 the embattled president wrote Ellen White a series of more than a dozen letters requesting, and at times demanding, that she use her authority to settle the controversial issues. 21

Significantly, Ellen White refused to let Butler and his colleagues use her writings as an inspired commentary on the Bible.

The second strategy of the Butler coalition in the 1888 era was to use Ellen White’s published writings to establish the “correct” interpretation of the controverted issues. In regard to the interpretation of the law in Galatians, for example, they quoted from her Sketches from the Life of Paul (1883) to arrive at the correct understanding. Once again, she rejected their maneuver, asserting: “I cannot take my position on either side until I have studied the question.”22 She was not willing to let her writings be used to settle the interpretive issue. For her, Scripture was supreme.

No one pounded home the primacy-of-Scripture principle more vigorously and more often during the 1888 era of Adventist history than Ellen White. “We want Bible evidence for every point we advance,” she wrote to Butler in April 1887. In July 1888 she published in the leading Adventist periodical that “the Bible is the only rule of faith and doctrine.” And in August she wrote to all the delegates of the forthcoming General Conference session that “the Word of God is the great detector 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.”23

The lessons on religious authority related to the 1888 General Conference session are crucial for evaluating the authority of the Bible in relation to prophetic authority in Seventh-day Adventism. Ellen White herself had held to the position of early Adventism. But many of the second-generation leaders and ministers had moved from that welldefined position and had sought to use Ellen White’s prophetic authority to settle theological and exegetical issues.

TO BE CONTINUED IN NEXT ISSUE

Notes and References
1“Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists,” in Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 16th ed. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), pp. 9, 15.
2For major discussions of Millerite Adventism, see Ronald L. Numbers and Jonathan M. Butler, eds., The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987); George R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993). 3“Declaration of Principles,” Signs of the Times, June 7, 1843, p. 107; “Conference of Adventists at New York,” Morning Watch, May 15, 1845, p. 158.
4For more on Ellen White’s life and ministry, see Arthur L. White, Ellen White, 6 vols. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981-1986). For a briefer treatment, see George R. Knight, Meeting Ellen White: A Fresh Look at Her Life, Writings, and Major Themes (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1996).
5Milo True Morrill, A History of the Christian Denomination in America: 1794-1911 A. D. (Dayton, OH: Christian Publishing Assn., 1912), pp. 58-65; Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1981), p. 290.
6William Kinkade, The Bible Doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Atonement, Faith, and Election; to Which Is Prefixed Some Thoughts on Natural Theology and the Truth of Revelation (New York: H. R. Piercy, 1829), p. iv.
7Ibid., pp. 331-333.
8James White, in A Word to the “Little Flock” (n. p.: James White, 1847), p. 13.
9James White, “The Gifts of the Gospel Church,” Review and Herald, April 21, 1851, p. 70.
10Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), II: 605.
11E. G. White, Testimonies, II: 605. 12James White, “A Test,” Review and Herald, Oct. 16, 1855, p. 61.
13Miles Grant, World’s Crisis, Nov. 25, 1874, in Review and Herald, Dec. 22, 1874, p. 204.
14Uriah Smith, “The Sanctuary,” Review and Herald, Dec. 22, 1874, p. 204.
15Paul A. Gordon, The Sanctuary, 1844, and the Pioneers (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1983).
16Merlin D. Burt, “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism from 1844 to 1849.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 2002); Rolf J. Pöhler, Continuity and Change in Adventist Teaching: A Case Study in Doctrinal Development (Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang, 2000); George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000).
17For Bates’ development of “great controversy theology,” see George R. Knight, Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of Seventh-day Adventism (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2004), pp. 107-151.
18See, e. g., J. White, “Time to Commence the Sabbath,” p. 168; Knight, Joseph Bates, pp. 102-103, 116, 153.
19For discussion of the events surrounding the 1888 General Conference session, see A. V. Olson Thirteen Crisis Years: 1888-1901 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981); George R. Knight A User- Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998).
20 George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle over Righteousness by Faith (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1989), pp. 100-104. 21Ibid., pp. 104-107.
22Ibid.; Knight, Angry Saints, pp. 107-108.
23 E. G. White to G. I. Butler and U. Smith, Apr. 5, 1887; Ellen G. White, “The Value of Bible Study,” Review and Herald, July 17, 1888, p. 449; E. G. White to Brethren who shall assemble in General Conference, Aug. 5, 1888.

pp.22-25 adventist today | vol. 15 issue 5