As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe in the Scriptures as our source of truth. However, we also believe that Ellen White’s writings provide further context on how this truth applies to us in these last days. The idea that we believe in the Bible and Ellen White has confused many into thinking we must believe Ellen White’s writings are on par with Scripture or are elevated above Scripture. Our allegiance to Ellen White is probably the biggest reason many believe the Seventh-day Adventist Church is an Ellen White-worshipping cult. But is this a fair assessment?

Although I am a Seventh-day Adventist, in this article, I want to take an unbiased look at Ellen White and her role as the Messenger to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In this article, we are going to answer questions like:

• Was Ellen White a prophet?
• Does her writings supersede the Bible for Adventists?
• And last but not least, Can Ellen White’s writings contain mistakes?

In my experience, local 7th Day Adventist Churches do a decent job of making us aware that Ellen White’s writings are an authoritative source in the church.

• We are told that Ellen White was a co-founder of the Church.
• We are taught that she was a prophet.
• Our Sabbath School lessons often refer to her writings.
• The Pastor or Elders may even quote from her.

However, even though many churches do a decent job in making us aware of Ellen White, I believe that most churches do a poor job of explaining how her writings apply to us considering we believe the Bible is our ultimate authority. In other words, just because I know about Ellen White doesn’t mean I know how her writings apply to me.

Think about it this way: How many churches sit down with their new members (and in some cases, their current members) and provide a basic understanding of Ellen White and how her gift applies to them? You may have been taught that Ellen White was a prophet, but what does that mean for you? How does a non-canonical (outside of Scripture) prophet affect me in the here and now?

In my experience, it is extremely rare for a church to be intentional about Ellen White to the point that it ensures all its members understand how to view her writings in conjunction with the Word of God. And because of this lack of intentionality regarding our Messenger, many Seventh-day Adventists ultimately are left to develop their own understanding of how we should view Ellen White’s writings. As a result, I find that are there three dispositions Seventh-day Adventists have towards Ellen White:

1. The first group finds merit in the arguments that Ellen White’s detractors have put forth against her. As a result, they do not believe in Ellen White’s writings.
2. The second group says, if the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and Ellen White was inspired by the same, then it’s the same authority, thus this group sees Ellen White’s commentary on par with Scripture.
3. And finally, the third group represents those of us who believe in the writings of Ellen White, but also understand that the Bible is our ultimate source of authority.

Out of these three groups, I obviously identify with the third, however, let’s understand why. Let’s begin by looking at Ellen White and Inspiration.

What is Inspiration?

According to 2Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." However, the question we must now answer is— What is Inspiration? According to the Oxford Dictionary Inspiration is “the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something.” So using this definition, we can say all scripture was given by being supernaturally stirred up by God to define doctrine for reproving, correcting, and instructing. 

Ellen White’s Inspiration

As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that Ellen White was inspired or stirred up by God, but what we also must understand is that not all inspiration is the same. Ephesians 4:11 says, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers."

Inspiration has different callings. For example, John the Baptist was inspired by the same Holy Spirit as Paul, but John wasn’t inspired to write Scripture, he was inspired to be Christ’s forerunner. In this manner, you should understand that Ellen White was inspired, but she also was NOT inspired to write Scriptures, she was inspired to expound on the Scriptures. Here’s what she says:

I have a work of great responsibility to do—to impart by pen and voice the instruction given me, not alone to Seventh-day Adventists, but to the world. I have published many books, large and small, and some of these have been translated into several languages. This is my work—to open the Scriptures to others as God has opened them to me. 8t 236

Ellen White’s purpose is not to reveal new truth but to simply unveil the truth that’s already there.

The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed. Man’s duty to God and to his fellow man has been distinctly specified in God’s word, yet but few of you are obedient to the light given. Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given and in His own chosen way brought them before the people to awaken and impress the mind with them, that all may be left without excuse. [1]

Now, notice how Ellen White responded when someone tried to elevate her writings to be on par with Scripture:

Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the Word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of his people to his Word, to give them a clearer understanding of it. [2]

The Lesser Light leading to the Greater Light

Ellen White said, “Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.”[3]  What does this mean? It reminds me of the time I was sitting in the waiting room at my doctor’s office. While waiting, I decided to take out my Bible (this was before the invention of smartphones) and started innocently reading Revelation 13. Little did I know there was a young teenage boy sitting next to me who was closely observing me. I looked up and realized he was watching me, so I asked him if he was familiar with Revelation 13. He said he was familiar with the chapter but didn’t really understand it. I then proceeded to give this teenager a five-minute impromptu Daniel and Revelation Bible study. He was amazed at how simple the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were, and I was full of joy that such a young person found such excitement in the pages of Scripture. While I never knew what became of this young person, I realize that my words were a lesser light leading him to the Greater Light. In other words, after our discussion, my hope was that he would go home and study the Word of God for himself.

Just like my words were meant to open up the Scriptures to the teenager at my doctor’s office, we should view Ellen White’s commentary as a means for opening up the Scriptures to us. When I read the writings of Ellen White, the intention is to be led back to the Scriptures. So when I read her writings and she says, that the Little Horn is the Papacy or that God desires us to be healthy or that there is a heavenly sanctuary, my response is to now confirm that view by opening up God’s Word. And because I am now driven with a new understanding and a desire to see this in the Scriptures, I find myself drawn back to God’s Word.

Ellen White’s Writings are the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official Bible commentary

If you are a student of the Bible, you will know that there are a myriad of tools that are geared towards helping Christians to better understand God’s Word. Some of the tools that we are blessed with are Dictionaries, Lexicons, Concordances, and Commentaries.

There are other tools available, but here I want to focus on commentaries. A Bible Commentary is a book written by an individual or group of people who comment on or explain the meaning of the Scriptures.

Now, with this understanding, I want us to once again contemplate the previous excerpts where Ellen White said her writings were meant to:

• To open the Scriptures.
• To simplify the great truths  already given.
• Give them a clearer understanding of it [God’s Word].

Taking Ellen White’s words as a principle, we should see that, today, one of the main ways we use her writings is from a commentative perspective. However, because she often counseled and corrected, we know her writings were more than just a straight Bible commentary. But even then, her counsel and correction were based upon the Scriptures. Thus, even though our church has an official Bible Commentary, knowing that Ellen White’s inspiration was directed at Adventists, we should see that her writings are really our official commentary. Therefore, when we are uncertain as to the meaning of a Bible text or topic, we can go to her writings to see if she had any commentary on that specific verse or subject.

Once we understand how Ellen White’s words should be applied, we can then see that almost every Christian denomination has an “Ellen White” of their own. What I mean is that most denominations have a framework of Biblical interpretation that they believe and teach. But what they may not realize is that their framework also came from a person or group of people. For example, if you were to ask your non-Adventist neighbor for the meaning of the 2300-day prophecy, most of them will say, the 2300-day prophecy refers to 2300 sacrifices. Now, even though the text clearly says days (evening morning), they simply believe it refers to sacrifices because that’s what a Pastor or a scholar or a commentary has deciphered for them. And because so many in the Christian faith believe this same view, it gives them the impression that this is what the Bible teaches and anyone who has an opposing view is in error.

You may not see it yet, but this same issue of interpretation existed back in Bible times. In the days of Israel, their teachers taught that the Messiah would come as a conqueror and free them from Roman oppression. The Book of Acts reveals that even Christ’s disciples were caught up in this teaching:

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Acts 1:6

Jewish scholars were essentially acting as walking commentaries for the Children of Israel; and because this view was so commonly taught, it was perceived as common truth. My point is that just because something is commonly taught among the majority of Christians, doesn’t make it inherently right. Ellen White, as the official Seventh-day Adventist commentator, simply has a different viewpoint than most non-Adventist commentaries, but that doesn’t mean she is incorrect.

Spiritual Filter

I want you to see Ellen White as a filter for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Think about it this way: When you get water out of a refrigerator, it runs through a filter. That filter’s job is to prevent all the chemicals and toxins from entering your cup, allowing you to receive pure water.

What I want you to understand is that Ellen White is a doctrinal filter for our church. As the official commentary of Seventh Day Adventists, her role is not just to provide her own commentary, but she is to gather and sanction the works of others and provide a framework of truths that make up our Church’s belief system.

Ellen White encountered many teachings—some true, others false. Her role as the church’s filter was to accept truth into the church or reject error from the church. For example, she filtered out the temporal millennium, literal Israel, Antiochus as the Little Horn, and the false state of the dead among many others. While also filtering in the seventh-day Sabbath, the Investigative Judgment, and the Three Angels’ Messages among many other truths.

As a doctrinal filter, we should understand that Ellen White often used writings from non-Adventist sources and incorporated their works into our Adventist framework. Sometimes she cited those authors and other times she did not cite them; however, we should understand that her role was to filter in truth and filter out error to establish the Adventist belief system.
 
Inspiration vs. Prophesying

Most Evangelicals will point to the fact that the scholars who wrote the commentaries were not prophets to them as Ellen White is to us. That is a fair point. However, the question is not about prophesying, the question is about inspiration. You see, you can be inspired but not be a prophet, but you can’t be a prophet without being inspired. Bible commentators such as Matthew Henry, C. I. Scofield, and Albert Barnes among many may not be seen as prophets, but they are seen by many as men who were inspired by God. Thus, both Evangelicals and Adventists believe in the inspiration of men and women outside of the Bible, however, we believe that Ellen White’s inspiration also included the gift of prophecy. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, both Adventists and non-Adventists believe there is a level of inspiration exhibited in a select group of non-canonical writers. In essence, many choose to believe in Barnes, Cambridge, Henry, and many others as inspired commentators; however, Adventists choose to believe in Ellen White as our inspired commentator.

Ellen White and The Spirit of Prophecy

When I was young, I used to hear Pastors preach on what was the true Church. These preachers would often quote Revelation 12:17 and declare that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was God’s remnant because they "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Then they would go to Revelation 19:10 where John was told "the testimony of Jesus was the Spirit of prophecy."

The idea was presented that God’s true church in the last days will keep the Ten Commandments and have a prophet. In this manner, the Spirit of Prophecy was essentially presented as referring to Ellen White. Then the fact that Ellen White’s writings were sometimes referred to as the Spirit of Prophecy gave more credence to the idea that Revelation 19:10 was referring to her writings. However, I think the proper way to understand the Spirit of Prophecy is to see that it actually represents a true understanding of end-time Bible prophecy. In other words, God foresaw that false theories would soon arise—theories like the Little Horn being Antiochus, the 2300-sacrifice prophecy, Preterism, which declares prophecy was fulfilled before the rise of the Papacy, Futurism, which declares prophecy is fulfilled after the fall of the Papacy, national Israel as God’s chosen, and the Sabbath is only for the Jews, your dead relatives are conscious, hell burns forever among many other false teachings. And because God foresaw the Dragon’s flood of false teachings, I believed He raised up the Seventh-day Adventist Church to ensure the true tenants of prophecy were held intact. We also must recognize that Ellen White is the main contributor of these true tenants, however, we must also remember there were other key individuals who also contributed to Adventism’s unique view of prophecy. Individuals such as Hiram Edson, who initiated our understanding of the Investigative Judgment, Josiah Litch, whose interpretation of Revelation 9 revealed the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1840, Joseph Bates' Sabbath revelation, and William Miller’s calculation of 1844 are all contributions to what we call the Spirit of Prophecy. So, Ellen White is not the Spirit of Prophecy, but she is our main contributor to the Spirit of Prophecy.

Was Ellen White a Prophet?

Much of the contention around Ellen White is the question of whether she was a true prophet. While I believe Ellen White had the gift of prophecy, I am sometimes reticent to actually call her a prophet as noted by her following statements:

Regarding the title of prophet, she says, “My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people." 1SM 36

I have been instructed that I am not to claim any title, except that of a messenger, appointed of God. The work assigned to me embraces more than the ordinary work of a prophet. The gift of prophecy is included, but that alone does not cover the many lines of work to which I have been called as the Lord’s messenger. Lt 225c, 1906

Although Ellen White had no issue with anyone who called her a prophet, I believe the Church should’ve adhered to Ellen White’s words and refrained from calling her a prophet. We know this because God revealed to Ellen White the hindrances that come with the title of a prophet. Notice what she says:

I am now instructed that I am not to be hindered in my work by those who engage in suppositions regarding its nature, whose minds are struggling with so many intricate problems connected with the supposed work of a prophet. My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. 1SM 36

God instructed Ellen White to call herself the Lord’s Messenger. While this title can produce its own set of presuppositions, I believe we are seeing why Ellen White was told to avoid the title of a prophet. In my observation, when someone claims to be a prophet, any and everything they say is often viewed as a prophecy—even when they are not prophesying. But remember, just because someone is inspired, doesn’t mean they are prophesying. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament. However, did you know Paul was a prophet? Paul was the same individual who said, “…in the last days perilous times shall come.”[4] He’s the same preacher who revealed that “…the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,”[5] and the “falling away” before “the son of perdition”[6] is revealed. If it wasn’t clear before, it should now be obvious that Paul was a prophet. However, we rarely call him a prophet. Why is that? Because he was much more than a prophet! He built churches, counseled, corrected, expounded on the Scriptures, and revealed God’s Word as a canonical writer.

Because Paul was more than a prophet, any suggestion that Paul was just a prophet is actually taking away from the scope of Paul’s role. The same is true for Ellen White. We know this because she told us that her role included “The care of the orphan, the widow, and the afflicted is to be one branch of my work. I am to take an interest in the establishment of institutions for the care of the sick and to specify the reforms that are needed in those already established."[7] In this manner, we can see similarities between Paul’s role in establishing the New Testament Church and Ellen White’s role in establishing the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Paul’s role included prophesying when needed, and Ellen White would sometimes have visions and dreams to help Adventists piece together God’s design for His last day church. Thus, even though Ellen White had the gift of prophecy, we should do our best to refrain from calling her anything other than the Lord’s Messenger.

Prophesying or Inspired Observation?

The apostle Paul had an idea of the coming conflict that would arise before the Second Coming, and he made the following statement with the time of trouble in mind: "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none."[8]

It should be evident that Paul believed time was so short and the coming of Christ was so near that he counseled married believers to no longer focus on their spouses. Paul wrote this statement almost 2,000 years ago, yet time remains. Now ask yourself this question—Was Paul prophesying, or was he making an observation? You must understand that Paul saw the signs of the times and made an observation that married believers should act as if they are no longer married to focus on preparing for the Second Coming. Remembering that we can’t prophesy without being under inspiration but we can be under inspiration without prophesying, allows us to conclude that Paul, under inspiration, made an observation anticipating the nearness of the Second Coming.

This is an important distinction once we realize that Ellen White also made observational statements under inspiration:

“Some of us have had time to get the truth, and to advance step by step, and every step we have taken has given us strength to take the next. But now time is almost finished, and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months.”[9]

Ellen White’s critics often use this statement as proof that Ellen White had a failed prophecy. However, here, we should see that she is making an observation considering the signs pointed to the shortness of time. But because she is called a prophet, her statement is measured as if she is prophesying, and as a result, Seventh-day Adventists rush to defend Ellen White the prophet, when in reality we need to educate them on Ellen White’s inspiration.

Can Ellen White be under Inspiration and be mistaken?

As an Adventist, I believe we spend a lot of time defending Ellen White. While I support, encourage, and sometimes participate in defending the Lord’s Messenger, I honestly believe that we are putting way too much pressure on ourselves to make Ellen White’s words infallible. Listen to what she says, “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.”[10]

I want us to stop attempting to make Ellen White 100% accurate in every word and sentence she wrote. Not only does this put unnecessary pressure on the Church, but it’s also one of the reasons many have left the Church. What’s happened is we are trying to hold Ellen White to a standard that not even the Bible writers are held to. Let me show you what I mean:

And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. Luke 8:26-28

And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Matt 8:28-29

Here, we should be reminded that both Matthew and Luke were inspired Bible writers. However, under inspiration, Matthew wrote that there were two demoniacs, but Luke declared there was only one demoniac. Although both of these men were inspired, it’s obvious that one of them was mistaken. And here is where you must understand that when you’re under inspiration, you aren’t under a mind control spell. You are compelled by the Holy Spirit, but even under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are still human and are prone to the possibility of making a mistake. And what you also must understand is that God allows for minor mistakes as long as the intent of His thought is still understood. Let me give you an example. One Sabbath morning, our family was getting ready for church. Before we walked out the door, I told one of my sons to ask my wife if she could warm up the engine and I’ll be down in two minutes. Here, you should know that we drove an SUV; however, when my son conveyed my words to his mother, he said, “Mom, Dad said to start the car.” Although we drove an SUV, and my son said, “car,” I didn’t bother correcting my son. Why? Because I knew that even though my son incorrectly called the SUV a car, my wife would still understand the intent of my words.

What I want you to understand is that even though one of Christ’s disciples was mistaken in their recollection of Jesus’ encounter with the demoniac(s), the number of demoniacs didn’t matter because the thought that God wanted to convey was still understood. And that is, whether there was one, two, or 100 demoniacs, Jesus still has the power to heal.

Here, I think it’s important that we read what Ellen White wrote about inspiration:

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.—Selected Messages, bk1, 21.

There may be instances where Ellen White may have been incorrect on certain details in her writings, but this does not mean Ellen White was not inspired nor does that mean we should discard everything written by the Lord’s Messenger…it simply means Ellen White was a human. 

------------

[1] T5 665

[2] 3SM 30

[3] RH, Jan 20, 1903

[4] 2Timothy 3:1

[5] 1Thessalonians 4:16

[6] 2Thessalonians 2:3

[7] Lt 225d, 1906

[8] 1Corinthians 7:29

[9] EW 67