Comments
Regarding Unusual Statements
Found In Ellen G. White's Writings
Comments
Regarding Unusual Statements
Found In Ellen G. White's Writings
Introduction:
Among the 100,000 pages of Ellen G. White's writings, some have pointed to
several statements that are difficult to understand. A few of these statements
are perplexing only because they have been lifted from their immediate
contexts. Other statements pose problems for those who believe God's messengers
are infallible, their predictions unalterable, and that their words and
expressions are communicated verbatim by the Holy Spirit. Seventh-day
Adventists believe that such views are incompatible with what is observed in
Scripture. They are certainly counter to what Ellen White claimed for either
herself or her writings. One may also find statements that seem to defy a ready
explanation or lack current scientific confirmation. Regarding such, we are
reminded of the following statement concerning supposed difficulties in the
Scriptures:
Note
by Ron: Though Ellen White did not claim infallibility, yet one of the tests of
a true prophet is that what they prophesy comes true. And I believe that any
and all that Ellen White saw either has and/or will come true. God has shown me
that He has ways and means that man does not understand. End note.
"While
God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all excuse for
unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them. And
those who refuse to accept and obey God's Word until every objection has been
removed, and there is no longer an opportunity for doubt, will never come to
the light" (The Great Controversy, p. 527).
Statements Taken Out of Context
"Those
who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion,
should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved."
A
closer look at Ellen G. White's cautions regarding this subject reveals that,
in context, she is not speaking against the certainty of a believer's present
standing with God. She is warning against the presumptuous "once saved,
always saved" teaching of eternal security--those who claim "I am
saved" while continuing to transgress the law of God. Here is her full
statement:
"Peter's
fall was not instantaneous, but gradual. Self-confidence led him to the belief
that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the downward path, until he
could deny his Master. Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against
temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that
they are saved. This is misleading. Everyone should be taught to cherish hope
and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not
beyond the reach of temptation. God's Word declares, 'Many shall be purified, and
made white, and tried' (Dan. 12:10). Only he who endures the trial will receive
the crown of life (James 1:12)" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 155, emphasis
supplied).
Note
by Ron: The Bible does not teach once saved always saved. Adam and Eve were
once saved, but not forever. Satan was once in a saved condition, but he fell.
End note.
That
Ellen White understood the proper basis for true Christian assurance is
evidenced by the following remark she made before the church's General
Conference session:
"Each
one of you may know for yourself that you have a living Saviour, that He is
your helper and your God. You need not stand where you say, 'I do not know
whether I am saved.' Do you believe in Christ as your personal Saviour? If you do, then rejoice" (General Conference Bulletin, April
10, 1901).
Note
by Ron: God gives us a personal test for knowing whether or not we are in a
saved condition. He says: How do you know you love me? You will love the
brethren and keep my commandments. If you love Jesus more than the sins that
tempt you, and you resist those temptations with the empowerment of His grace
(Holy Spirit), you are in a saved condition. But that does not mean you cannot
fall from that state. However, the Bible does say that the truly born again
will not sin. End note.
When
you remember that Christ has paid the price of his own blood for your
redemption and for the redemption of others, you will be moved to catch the
bright rays of his righteousness, that you may shed them upon the pathway of
those around you. You are not to look to the future, thinking that at some
distant day you are to be made holy; it is now that you are to be sanctified
through the truth. The prophet exhorts: "Seek ye the Lord while he may
be found, call ye upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he
will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
And Jesus says, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is
come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me . . . unto the uttermost part
of the earth." We are to receive the Holy Ghost. We have had an idea that
this gift of God was not for such as we are, that the gift of the Holy Spirit
was too sacred, too holy for us; but the Holy Spirit is the Comforter that
Christ promised to his disciples to bring all things to their remembrance
whatsoever he had said unto them. Then let us cease to look to ourselves, but
look to him from whom all virtue comes. No one can make himself
better, but we are to come to Jesus as we are, earnestly desiring to be
cleansed from every spot and stain of sin, and receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit. We are not to doubt his mercy, and say, "I do not know whether I
shall be saved or not." By living faith we must lay hold of his promise,
for he has said, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white
as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." {ST,
April 4, 1892 par. 3}
To
a woman who was struggling with doubts Ellen White wrote:
"The
message from God to me for you is 'Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise
cast out' (John 6:37). If you have nothing else to plead before God but this
one promise from your Lord and Saviour, you have the assurance that you will
never, never be turned away. It may seem to you that you are hanging upon a
single promise, but appropriate that one promise, and
it will open to you the whole treasure house of the riches of the grace of
Christ. Cling to that promise and you are safe. 'Him that cometh unto me I will
in no wise cast out.' Present this assurance to Jesus, and you are as safe as
though inside the city of God" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 175).
"I do
not claim to be a prophetess."
Why
does the Seventh-day Adventist church believe that Ellen G. White received the
gift of prophecy when she said that she did not claim to be a prophetess? The
misuse often made of this Ellen White statement is an illustration of the
importance of proper context. Here, in her own words, is what Ellen White did
and did not mean by her statement:
"Some
have stumbled over the fact that I said I did not claim to be a prophet; and
they have asked, Why is this?
"I
have had no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am the Lord's
messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His
word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus.
"Early
in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me
a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be
His messenger. 'Your work,' He instructed me, 'is to bear My
word. Strange things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the
message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen
and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the
Word. I will make My Word open to you. It shall not be as a strange language.
In the true eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the messages that I
give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit
and My power shall be with you.' . . .
"Why
have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly
claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because
my work includes much more than the word 'prophet' signifies. . . .
"To
claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me
by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many
lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger, sent to bear a message
from the Lord to His people, and to take up work in any line that He points
out.
"When
I was last in Battle Creek, I said before a large congregation that I did not
claim to be a prophetess. Twice I referred to this matter, intending each time
to make the statement, 'I do not claim to be a prophetess.' If I spoke
otherwise than this, let all now understand that what I had in mind to say was
that I do not claim the title of prophet or prophetess" (Review and Herald,
July 26, 1906, reprinted in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 31-35).
Note
by Ron: I do
not claim to be a prophet. I claim to have a warning message from the Lord for
His people. I don’t prophesy future events except as they relate to the warning
message God has given me. Nor do I claim any equal status with Ellen G. White.
Her work was far more pervasive than mine, though God has instructed me in
setting Ellen White’s work and the Bible in the framework of truth wherein both
have been taken out of that proper context by errant leaders of the church,
mainstream Christianity and the world at large. End note.
"During
the discourse, I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were
surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to it, I will
make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never
assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate
myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are
often a reproach to the cause of Christ.
"My
work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard
myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people"
(Letter 55, 1905; quoted in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 35, 36).
Unusual Statements Regarding Scientific Issues
Some
have charged that Ellen White wrote in 1864 (and republished in 1870) that
humans once cohabited with animals and that their offspring produced certain
races that exist today. The statement reads: "But if there was one sin
above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was
the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God,
and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that
powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him." [1]
No
dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation
of man with beast. The primary use of the word describes the fusion of metals,
the union of different elements such as in making tooth cements.
Nineteenth-century usage included the mixing of diverse races.
Granted,
her statement could appear ambiguous: Does she mean "amalgamation of man
with beast" or "amalgamation of man and of beast"? Often,
repetition of the preposition is omitted in similar construction. [2]
On
other occasions, when Mrs. White used the word "amalgamation," she
used it metaphorically, comparing faithful believers and worldlings.
[3]
She also used it to describe the origin of poisonous plants and other
irregularities in the biological world: "Christ never planted the seeds of
death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of
the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant
was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous
herbs sprang up. . . . All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb
is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted
the earth with tares." [4]
Recognizing
that Satan has been an active agent in the corrupting of God's plan for man,
beast, plants, etc., we can better understand what Ellen White may have meant
when she described the results of amalgamation. That which
"defaced the image of God" in man and that which "confused the
species [of animals]" has been the handiwork of Satan with the cooperation
of humans. Such "amalgamation of man and [of] beast, as may be seen
in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of
men," becomes understandable.
Mrs.
White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human
relationship. She did speak of "species of animals" and "races
of men" but not any kind of amalgam of animals with human beings.
We
recognize, however, that serious students of Ellen White's writings differ on
what she meant by "amalgamation." "The burden of proof rests on
those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the
term." [5]
For
further study of this issue, see "Amalgamation"
in the Reference Library.
Notes
[1]
Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64. "Every species of animal which God had
created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not
create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood.
Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in
the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of
men" (page 75).
[2]
"We might speak of the scattering of man and beast over the earth, but we
do not therefore mean that previously man and beast were fused in one mass at
one geographical spot. We simply mean the scattering of man over the earth and
the scattering of beasts over the earth, though the original location of the
two groups might have been on opposite sides of the earth. In
other words, the scattering of man and of beast" (Francis D. Nichol, Ellen
G. White and Her Critics, p. 308).
[3]
"Those who profess to be followers of Christ, should be living agencies,
cooperating with heavenly intelligences; but by union with the world, the
character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the
corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim" (Review and Herald, Aug. 23, 1892; see
also The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 144 and The Upward Look, p. 318).
[4]
Selected Messages, book 2, p. 288.
[5]
Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 308.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1998), pp. 491, 492.]
Attention
has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen White made grievous
errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called to update
encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to be made
"an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to
the highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these
"standards" change, even for the experts), we would have cause to
reject Isaiah for referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa.
11:12) and John for writing that he saw "four angels standing at the four
corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1).
Some
point to the phrase, "As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine
by the reflected light of the sun," charging that Ellen White was
untrustworthy in scientific matters. [1]
But most readers would recognize this use of "stars" for
"planets of our solar system" as a non-technical description easily
understood by laymen.
Some
have declared Ellen White was in error when she allegedly said that she had
visited a "world which had seven moons," [2]
and that the planets visited were Jupiter and Saturn. In point of fact, she never
named the "world which had seven moons." But there is more to the
story.
Less
than three months after she and James were married in 1846, she had a vision at
the Curtis home in Topsham, Maine, in the presence of Joseph Bates. Although
Bates had seen Ellen White in vision on several occasions, he still had doubts
about her prophetic gift; but through the Topsham vision he was convinced that
"the work is of God." [3]
James White reported that, in this vision, Mrs. White was "guided to the
planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision,
she could give a clear description of their moons, etc. It is well known, that
she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to
the planets, before she had this vision." [4]
What
was it that convinced Bates, the old sea captain and amateur astronomer,
that Ellen White was "of God"? After the vision, she described
what she had seen. Knowing that she had no background in astronomy, Bates said,
"This is of the Lord."
Obviously,
what Bates heard corresponded to his knowledge of what telescopes showed in 1846. Almost certainly this vision was given in Bates's presence to give him added confidence in Ellen
White's ministry. If she had mentioned the number of moons that modern
telescopes reveal, it seems clear that Bates's doubts
would have been confirmed. [5]
(See "Avoid Making the Counsels 'Prove' Things They
Were Never Intended to Prove.")
Notes
[1] Education, p. 14 (same statement, The
Desire of Ages, p. 465).
[2]
Early Writings, p. 40. This vision was first described in the Broadside, To those who are receiving the seal of the living God, first
published Jan. 31, 1849.
[3]
A Word to the Little Flock, p. 21, cited in F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and
Her Critics, p. 581.
[4]
Ibid., p. 22. Ellen White wrote: "I was wrapped in a vision of God's glory,
and for the first time had a view of other planets" (Life Sketches, p. 97;
see also Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 83). No evidence exists that this is the
same vision described in Early Writings, p. 40. See pages 144, 145.
[5]
Further information regarding this 1846 vision is found in Loughborough,
The Great Second Advent Movement, pp. 257-260. For a
discussion of how Loughborough's memory of his
conversation with Bates many years earlier fits into this memorable moment for
Bates, see Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 93-101.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho.: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 1998), pp. 490, 491.
In
an article describing unhealthful fashions, Ellen G. White included the
following statement in an article regarding dangerous fashionable fads:
"Many
are ignorantly injuring their health and endangering their life by using
cosmetics. They are robbing the cheeks of the glow of health, and then to
supply the deficiency use cosmetics. When they become heated in the dance the
poison is absorbed by the pores of the skin, and is thrown into the blood. Many lives have been sacrificed by this means alone" (The
Health Reformer, October 1871).
Some
have wondered how the use of cosmetics alone could prove fatal. In today's
world, with government testing and consumer safety guidelines, adverse
reactions to cosmetics are essentially limited to skin irritation and
allergies. But this was not the case in the 19th century, as noted in this
consumer bulletin issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: "The
European cosmetic known as ceruse was used faithfully--and fatally, because it
was mainly white lead--by wealthy women from the second century until well into
the 19th century to make their faces look fashionably pale" (Dori Stehlin, FDA Consumer,
November 1991; revised May 1995).
Note
by Ron: If you
don’t think there still are cancer causing chemical in some cosmetics today,
read this: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/fashion-beauty/toxic-cosmetics-ingredients.html
In
1871, when Ellen White prepared the article in question, "enameling"
was the latest cosmetic fad, "which is nothing less than painting the face
with lead paint, and for this purpose are used the poisonous salts of
lead" (Sara Chase, M.D. in The Health Reformer, October 1871, p. 125).
Another deadly concoction was vermilion, made from mercuric sulphide.
In such an environment, it is not surprising that Ellen White should alert her
readers to the real life and health threats posed by such products.
Physical
and spiritual dangers of masturbation or "self-abuse"
Few
topics have generated more ridicule from critics than Ellen White's statements
regarding "self-abuse," "solitary vice,"
"self-indulgence," "secret vice," "moral
pollution," etc. Ellen White never used the term "masturbation."
Her
first reference to this subject appeared in a 64-page pamphlet, An Appeal to
Mothers, April 1864, nine months after her first comprehensive health vision.
Primarily devoted to masturbation, pages 5 to 34 were from her
own pen; the remainder consisted of quotations from medical authorities.
[1]
Ellen
White did not say that all, or even most, of the potentially serious
consequences of masturbation would happen to any one individual. Nor did she
say that the worst possible degree of a serious consequence would happen to
most indulgers.
Modern
research indicates that Ellen White's strong statements can be supported when
she is properly understood. The general view today, however, is that
masturbation is normal and healthy.
Two
medical specialists have suggested a link between masturbation and physical
abnormalities due to zinc-deficiency. Dr. David Horrobin,
an M.D. and Ph.D. from Oxford University, states:
"The
amount of zinc in semen is such that one ejaculation may get rid of all the
zinc that can be absorbed from the intestines in one day. This has a number of
consequences. Unless the amount lost is replaced by an increased dietary
intake, repeated ejaculation may lead to a real zinc deficiency with various
problems developing, including impotence.
"It
is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that 19th century
moralists were correct when they said that repeated masturbation could make one
mad!" [2]
More
recent research has confirmed the critical role of zinc as a principal
protector of the immune system, with a host of physical illnesses attributable
to zinc-deficiency.
Two
professionals in the area of clinical psychology and family therapy have
compared Ellen White's statements on masturbation with current medical
knowledge. [3]
Dr. Richard Nies defended Ellen White's general
counsel on masturbation, making four main points:
(1)
Masturbation leads to "mental, moral, and physical deterioration. . . . It
is not the stimulation, per se, that is wrong. It's what's going on in . . .
[persons] when they're becoming self-referenced and self-centered."
(2)
Masturbation "breaks down the finer sensitivities of our nervous system. .
. . It is not difficult to see in terms of the electrical mediation of our
nervous system, how disease becomes a natural result of individuals who have
placed their own gratification at the center of their being. . . . Disease is
the natural result of this."
(3)
Masturbation is a predisposition that can be "inherited and passed on and
transmitted from one generation to another, even leading to degeneration of the
race."
(4)
In dealing with others, especially children, Ellen White's counsel lies in the
direction of dealing with the consequences, of showing them that we should be
training for love and eternity, not self-gratification with its terrible
consequences. Dr. Nies concluded his paper,
"Self-gratification is synonymous with destruction."
Alberta
Mazat observed that Ellen White's concern regarding
masturbation was primarily on the mental consequences rather than the
"purely physical act. She was more concerned with thought processes,
attitudes, fantasies, etc." Mazat quoted Ellen
White's references to the fact that "the effects are not the same on all
minds," that "impure thoughts seize and control the
imagination," and that the mind "takes pleasure in contemplating the
scenes which awake base passion."
Mazat further noted that some may be embarrassed
by Ellen White's strong statements regarding masturbation. However, many of
Mrs. White's other statements also seemed "unrealistic and exaggerated
before science corroborated them, for example, cancer being caused by a virus,
the dangers of smoking, overeating, and the overuse of fats, sugar, and salt,
to name a few. . . . It seems worthwhile to remind ourselves that medical
knowledge at any point is not perfect." [4]
Looked
at from another perspective, God always upholds the ideal for His people
through His messengers. However one reacts to Ellen White's specific counsel,
clearly masturbation was not what God had in mind when He created man and
woman, united them in marriage, and then instructed them to be fruitful and
multiply. God's ideal in regard to sexuality is the loving relationship that
exists in marriage between husband and wife. Anything else, including
masturbation, falls far short of God's ideal.
Note
by Ron: If you don’t believe Ellen White concerning masturbation, read these
links:
http://homeoint.org/site/ahmad/masturbation.htm
www.herballove.com/article.asp?art=547
As I
explain below, frequent ejaculation can certainly cause or aggravate prostate
problems. But masturbation, fantasy, and excessive sexual activity, even ...
www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/4961.html
27 Jan
2006 – Are there any physical problems with over ejaculating? ... worth applauding, as being in tune with yourself and your new masturbation schedule ...
www.steadyhealth.com/effect___of_masturbation__on_prostate_and...
20 Dec
2005 – i do masturbation sinsce puberty what is the effect of this habit onprostate and.
Very frequent need to
urinate (can it be a prostatitis ...
Is it harmful to masturbate alot without ejaculating · Penile ...
Can overmasturbation
cause impotency? · Sexual Stimulation Issues ...
More results from steadyhealth.com »
www.doctors-4u.com/mens_health.htm
Our
Articles and links are as follows: Prostate
problems. Testicular Cancer?Masturbation & Prostate Cancer Erectile
Dysfunction Injections for Prostate Cancer ...
www.healthboards.com
› ... › Health Issues › Sexual Health - Men
5
posts - 5 authors - Last post: 5 Jul 2006
I saw
somewhere that if you never ejaculate it causes prostate
problems. People always like to talk
about how healthy masturbating is, how if ...
www.webmd.com/prostate.../masturbation-and-prostate-cancer-risk
27 Jan
2009 – Frequent masturbation is a sign of higher prostate cancer risk in younger men, but
a sign of lower risk in older men, a U.K. study shows.
www.4-men.org
› Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer's Enemy: Masturbation ... concentrating these components
from the bloodstream up to 600-fold - and this could be where the trouble starts. ...
www.newscientist.com/.../dn3942-masturbating-may-protect-against-...
Masturbating may protect against prostate cancer. 19:00 16 July 2003 by
Douglas Fox, Adelaide. It will make you go blind. It will make your palms grow
hairy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_massage
Prostate massage is the massage or stimulation of the male prostate gland for ... The main problem in using the finger is that it
may be too short to reach the prostate gland.... Men can excite their own prostates while masturbating using anal ...
www.nativeremedies.com/.../connection-between-masturbation-prost...
Is
there a connection between masturbation and prostate health. ... Prostate Dr. - Promotes prostate gland health, plus urinary
tract and immune system functioning ...You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any
health problems ...
Notes
[1]
An Appeal to Mothers was reprinted in 1870 as part of a larger work, A Solemn
Appeal Relative to Solitary Vice and Abuses and Excesses of the Marriage
Relation. A facsimile reprint appears in the Appendix to A Critique of
Prophetess of Health (by the Ellen G. White Estate).
[2]
David F. Horrobin, M.D., Ph.D., Zinc (St. Albans,
Vt.: Vitabooks, Inc., 1981), p. 8. See also Carl C.
Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D., Zinc and Other Micro-Nutrients (New Canaan, Conn.: Keats
Publishing, Inc., 1978), p. 45.
[3]
Richard Nies, Ph.D. (Experimental Psychology, UCLA,
1964; equivalent Ph.D. in clinical psychology, including oral exam, but died
during dissertation preparation), Lecture, "Give Glory to God,"
Glendale, Calif., n.d.; Alberta Mazat,
M.S.W. (Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy, Loma Linda University, Loma
Linda, Calif.), Monograph, "Masturbation" (43 pp.), Biblical Research
Institute.
[4]
Mazat, Monograph, "Masturbation."
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1998), pp. 493, 494, with additional comments.]
Some
charge that Mrs. White's statements regarding the cause of volcanoes reflected
the myths and fanciful thinking of age-old theories. Her writings contain eight
relevant concepts [1]
that have been debated since they first appeared in 1864. [2]
This
list includes: (1) Formation of coal beds is linked to the Flood; (2) Coal
produces oil; (3) Subterranean fires are fueled by the burning of both coal and
oil; (4) Water added to the subterranean fires produces explosions, thus
earthquakes; (5) Earthquake and volcanic action are linked together as products
of these underground fires; (6) Both limestone and iron ore are connected with
the burning coal beds and oil deposits; (7) Air is involved in the super heat;
(8) Deposits of coal and oil are found after the subterranean fires have died
out. [3]
Many
theories abound as to the causes of volcanoes and earthquakes and the formation
of oil and coal. Most earth scientists base their ideas on the plate-tectonic
theory. Nothing in Ellen White's comments rules out that theory. Further,
nothing in her writings states that all volcanoes are the product of burning
coal fields or that all earthquakes are caused by subterranean fires. When she
links earthquakes and volcanoes together, one immediately thinks of the Pacific
Ocean "ring of fire" and its high potential for disasters from both.
However,
notable scientists have confirmed Ellen White's observations. Otto Stutzer's Geology of Coal documented that
"subterranean fires in coal beds are ignited through spontaneous
combustion, resulting in the melting of nearby rocks that are classed as pseudo
volcanic deposits." [4]
Stutzer listed several examples of such activity,
including "a burning mountain," an outcrop that "lasted over 150
years," and "the heat from one burning coal bed [that] was used for
heating greenhouses in that area from 1837 to 1868." [5]
Modern confirmation exists for the igniting of coal and oil with its sulfur
constituent "seen around the eruptions of hot springs, geysers, and
volcanic fumaroles." [6]
References
to rocks "which overlie the coal [and] have suffered considerable
alteration because of the fires, being sintered and partly melted,"
correlate with Ellen White's statement that "rocks are heated, limestone
is burned, and iron ore melted." [7]
Further research in the western United States has produced conclusions and
language very similar to Mrs. White's writings of a century earlier: "The
melted rock resembles common furnace clinker or volcanic lava." [8]
One
last charge has been that melted iron ore is not found in connection with
burning coal and oil deposits. However, a United States Geological Survey paper
records the discovery of hematite (an iron ore) that had been "formed in
some way through the agency of the burning coal." [9]
The
suggestion that Ellen White was wholly dependent upon existing sources for her
scientific information is without merit, because some of this verification only
became known many years after her death. Further, "It is much more
unlikely that she resorted to the published ideas of contemporary Creationists
on the subject, since their views were relics of wild cosmological
speculations." [10]
Notes
[1]
See Warren H. Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 1,"
Ministry, August 1977, pp. 9-12.
[2]
Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 79-80 (1864); see also The Spirit of Prophecy,
vol. 1, pp. 82, 83 (1870); Signs of the Times, Mar. 13, 1879; Patriarchs and
Prophets, pp. 108, 109 (1890); Manuscript 21, 1902, cited in Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 946, 947.
[3]
Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 1," Ministry,
August, 1977, p. 6.
[4]
Otto Stutzer,Geology of
Coal, translated by Adolph Noe (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 309, 310, cited in ibid., p. 19.
[5]
Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," Ministry,
October 1977, p. 20.
[6]
Ibid. See also Thomas Gold, Profesor Emeritus of Astromomy at Cornell University, "Earthquakes, Gases,and Earthquake
Prediction" (1994), at www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Earthq.html
[7]
Stutzer, Geology of Coal, p. 310; Patriarchs and
Prophets, p. 108, cited in Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires,
Part 2," p. 20.
[8]
E. E. Thurlow, "Western Coal," Mining
Engineering, 26 (1974), pp. 30-33, cited in ibid., p.
21.
[9]
G. Sherburne Rogers, "Baked Shale and Slag Formed by the Burning of Coal
Beds," U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 108-A (1918), cited in ibid., p. 21.
[10]
Johns, "Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part 2," p. 22.
"The coal mines of Germany have become a veritable gold mine in a study of
Ellen White's scientific declarations, indicating the intermingling of the
divine and human in a unique way" (ibid.).
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1998), pp. 492, 493.]
Ellen
G. White often addressed the subject of how practical Christianity relates to
fashion. She pointed out the duty of dressing healthfully and not being a slave
to the dictates of "style." Like other health reformers of her day,
Ellen White protested vigorously against the unhealthful practice of
"tight-lacing" associated with the wearing of corsets. She noted:
"The
corsets which are again being generally worn to compress the waist is one of the most serious features in woman's dress. Health
and life are being sacrificed to carry out a fashion that is devoid of real
beauty and comfort. The compression of the waist weakens the muscles of the
respiratory organs. It hinders the process of digestion. The heart, liver,
lungs, spleen, and stomach, are crowded into a small compass, not allowing room
for the healthful action of these organs. . . .
"By
lacing, the internal organs of women are crowded out of their positions. There
is scarcely a woman that is thoroughly healthy. The majority of women have
numerous ailments. Many are troubled with weaknesses of most distressing
nature. These fashionably dressed women cannot transmit good constitutions to
their children. Some women have naturally small waists. But rather than regard
such forms as beautiful, they should be viewed as defective. These wasp waists
may have been transmitted to them from their mothers, as the result of their
indulgence in the sinful practice of tight-lacing, and in consequence of
imperfect breathing. Poor children born of these miserable slaves of fashion
have diminished vitality, and are predisposed to take on disease. The
impurities retained in the system in consequence of imperfect breathing are
transmitted to their offspring" (Review and Herald, October 31, 1871).
Some
have questioned Ellen White's credibility for suggesting the possibility that
some women may have inherited small waists from their mothers--as if she were
claiming divine revelation on this point. Her cautious, qualified assertion
("may have inherited") indicates that she was not claiming revelation
here. Even if she was mistaken in her understanding on how some persons may
have acquired their physical deformities, it does not gainsay the health principles
she was advocating, or the wisdom of her counsel that women should abandon such
unhealthful practices. (See "Avoid Making the Counsels 'Prove' Things They
Were Never Intended to Prove.")
In
the October 1871 issue of The Health Reformer, [1]
Ellen White wrote of "hurtful indulgences" that militate against the
highest interests and happiness of women. Among these "indulgences"
she included wigs that, "covering the base of the brain, heat and excite
the spinal nerves centering in the brain." As a result of "following
this deforming fashion," she said, "many have lost their reason, and
become hopelessly insane."
In
the context of today's comfortable wigs, critics tend to ridicule this
statement. But Mrs. White was referring to an entirely different product. The
wigs she described were "monstrous bunches of curled hair, cotton, seagrass, wool, Spanish moss, and other multitudinous
abominations." [2]
One woman said that her chignon generated "an unnatural degree of heat in
the back part of the head" and produced "a distracting headache just
as long as it was worn."
Another
Health Reformer article (quoting from the Marshall Statesman and the
Springfield Republican) described the perils of wearing "jute
switches"--wigs made from dark, fibrous bark. Apparently these switches
were often infested with "jute bugs," small insects that burrowed
under the scalp. One woman reported that her head became raw, and her hair
began to fall out. Her entire scalp "was perforated with the burrowing
parasites." "The lady . . . is represented as nearly crazy from the
terrible suffering, and from the prospect of the horrible death which
physicians do not seem able to avert." [3]
With
reports such as this in the public press, it is easy to understand why Ellen
White would warn women against the possible dangers of wearing wigs and trying
to "keep pace with changing fashion, merely to create a sensation." [4]
Notes
[1]
The Health Reformer, October 1871, pp. 120, 121.
[2]
Ibid., July 1867.
[3]
Ibid., January 1871.
[4]
Ibid., October 1871.
England to
Declare War During the U.S. Civil War?
Did
Ellen G. White predict that England would declare war against the United
States? Here is the context of her comment:
"England
is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition
of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter,
and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war
abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take
advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active
preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our
nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for
the advantage she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A
portion of the Queen's subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break
their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment
to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble our nation. When
England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to
serve, and there will be general war, general confusion" (Testimonies for
the Church, vol. 1, p. 259).
Note
the conditional character of these statements: "She fears, if she should
commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home." "But if England
thinks it will pay." Then follows the sentence: "When England does
declare war. . . ." It is evident that Mrs. White is here using the word
"when" as a synonym for "if," which is good English. In
fact, if we do not thus understand the word "when" in this connection,
we have an unusual situation--a series of problematical "ifs" is
followed by a simple statement that England is going to declare war. Thus Mrs.
White's last sentence would make pointless her preceding sentences.
A
similar use of the word "when" is found on the preceding page in her
work: "When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen, then will
He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned." No one will argue
that the word "when" in this connection introduces a simple statement
concerning a future fact that will undebatably
happen.
An
inspired parallel to this "if" and "when" construction is
found in Jeremiah 42:10-19. The prophet speaks to Israel about abiding in
Palestine rather than going down into Egypt:
"If
ye will still abide in this land. . . ." Verse 10.
"But if ye say, We will not dwell in this
land. . . ." Verse 13.
"If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt. . . ." Verse 15.
"When ye shall enter into Egypt . . . ." Verse
18.
It
is evident that the phrase "when ye shall enter into Egypt" is
synonymous with "if ye shall enter into Egypt."
With
the clause "when England does declare war," understood as synonymous
with "if England does declare war," the statement changes from a
prediction to a statement of mere possibility, but a possibility, however,
whose full potentialities many might not realize.
[Adapted from Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp.
122, 123.]
Jerusalem Never to Be Rebuilt?
Ellen
G. White wrote in 1851 that "old Jerusalem never would be built up." [1]
By itself, the statement looks unsustainable. But when the setting is
reconstructed, we find Mrs. White counseling the growing Adventist group that
both time-setting [2]
and the "age-to-come" notion [3]
were incompatible with Biblical truth. She emphasized that the Old Testament
prophecies regarding the establishment of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine were
conditional on obedience and forfeited by disobedience. Unfulfilled prophecies
would be fulfilled to "true Israel" as unfolded in the New Testament
text.
Thus
the popular movement of the 1840s and 1850s to promote a Zionist state in
Palestine was not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and not a quest in which
Adventists should become involved. Her warnings and instruction were designed
to turn the interest away from Palestine and toward the work God had opened up
before them.
In
a September 1850 vision she saw that it was a "great error" to
believe that "it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have
a work to do there before the Lord comes. . . ; for
those who think that they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds
there, and their means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get
themselves and others there." [4]
Less
than a year later, August 1851, she wrote with greater emphasis "that Old
Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead
the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering
time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of
the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of
the Lord." [5]
How
did Ellen White's readers understand this statement? That there was no light in
the popular "age-to-come" teaching, that there is no Biblical
significance in the Jews' returning to Palestine, that Jerusalem will never be
rebuilt in a future millennial period. She was not talking about a possible
political rebuilding of Jerusalem but of a prophetically significant rebuilding
of Old Jerusalem. To continue to think that way, she emphasized, was to sink
further into Satan's deceptions and away from present duty.
For
further study of this topic, see Julia Neuffer, "The Gathering of Israel," in the Reference Library.
Notes
[1]
Early Writings, p. 75. This sentence appears in the chapter, "The
Gathering Time," which combined two visions and some additional lines. The
first vision, Sept. 23, 1850, dealt with the "gathering time" of
"Israel," the dates on the Millerite 1843
chart, the "daily," timesetting, and the
error of going to Old Jerusalem. The second vision, June 21, 1851, focused on
the third angel's message, time-setting, and Old Jerusalem's not
being built up.
[2]
Many former Millerites were setting various dates for
the return of Jesus, with 1850 and 1851 being the latest dates for the end of
the 2300-day/year prophecy. Although Sabbatarian
Adventists generally were immune from time-setting, Hiram Edson
and Joseph Bates advocated 1850 and 1851, respectively. James White kept their
views out of Present Truth, the Advent Review, and the Review and Herald.
[3]
With several variations, age-to-come exponents, led by Joseph Marsh, O. R. L.
Crosier, and George Storrs, believed that the Second Advent would usher in the
millennial kingdom on earth during which time the world would be converted
under the reign of Christ, with the Jews playing a leading role. This group
closely related to the Literalists (British Adventists) who had believed that
in the 1840s the literal Jews would welcome their Messiah (Christ) in
Palestine, thus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies with Jerusalem becoming
Christ's capital during the millennium. The majority of the Millerites
had rejected this aspect of their Adventist theology, calling it Judaism. (See
Josiah Litch, "The Rise and Progress of
Adventism," The Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, p. 92, cited in
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book, p. 513. The first defectors
from early Seventh-day Adventists were H. S. Case and C. P. Russell who had,
among other concepts, embraced the "age-to-come" theory. See The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v.
"Messenger Party."
[4]
Early Writings, p. 75.
[5]
Early Writings, pp. 75, 76.
[Excerpt
from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic Ministry of
Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1998), pp.
488, 489.]
Some in
1856 Alive When Jesus Returns?
Concerning
a conference in 1856 Ellen White declared: "I was shown the company
present at the conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for
worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain
upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.' " All who were alive then are now dead. Does this
prediction mean that Mrs. White is a false prophet?
Note
by Ron: According to Revelation 3:10-12, Philadelphians from circa A.D. 1, will
be alive and kept through the greatest time of trouble the entire world has
ever experienced. They will be made pillars in the Temple in heaven. Ellen
White said that only the 144,000 enter that Temple. So apparently, the
Philadelphians of the first century A.D. and the bride of all ages, will be
regenerated in human form through the normal birth process (which Jesus was the
firstfruits—firstborn) of, and will be alive to be translated at the coming of
Jesus. And this is no more difficult to understand than the Biblical record of
people arising from the grave at the crucifixion of Christ to witness to the
gospel. End note.
Numerous
statements made by
Ellen White in the decades following the 1856 vision demonstrate her clear
understanding that there is an implied conditional quality to God's promises
and threatenings--as Jeremiah declared--and that the
conditional feature in forecasts regarding Christ's Advent involves the state
of heart of Christ's followers. The following statement, written in 1883, is
especially relevant on this point:
"The
angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it
has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than
we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as
soon as we hoped. But has the Word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be
remembered that the promises and the threatenings of
God are alike conditional. . . .
"It
was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God
did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the
wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and
establish them there a holy, healthy, people. But those
to whom it was first preached, went not in 'because of unbelief.' Their hearts
were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and
He could not fulfill His covenant with them.
"For
forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from
the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel
into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It
is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and
strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin
and sorrow so many years" (Ms 4, 1883, quoted in Evangelism, pp. 695,
696).
We
can better understand Mrs. White's prediction of 1856 by examining it in the
light of the conditional character of prophetic promises found in the
Scriptures. For further study on this topic see "The Predictions of the 1856 Vision," in the Reference Library.
While
many events of the past were shown to her, neither
Ellen White nor her son ever claimed that every historical detail mentioned in
her works was provided by the Lord in vision. Ellen White says that she used
"facts" which were "well known and universally
acknowledged." (See The Great Controversy, pp. xiii, xiv.) She wrote, for
example, "In 1816 the American Bible Society was founded" (The Great
Controversy, p. 287). There is no reason to believe that this type of
information was supplied in vision.
W.
C. White [Ellen White's son] states:
"The
framework of the great temple of truth sustained by her writings was presented
to her clearly in vision. In some features of this work, information was given
in detail. Regarding some features of the revelation, such as the features of
prophetic chronology, as regards the ministration in the sanctuary and the
changes that took place in 1844, the matter was presented to her many times and
in detail many times, and this enabled her to speak very clearly and very
positively regarding the foundation pillars of our faith.
"In
some of the historical matters such as are brought out in Patriarchs and
Prophets and in Acts of the Apostles, and in Great Controversy, the main
outlines were made very clear and plain to her, and when she came to write up
these topics, she was left to study the Bible and history to get dates and
geographical relations and to perfect her description of details"
(Selected Messages, book 3, p. 462).
In
a letter to W. W. Eastman, W. C. White declared:
"When
Controversy was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it as
authority on historical dates or use it to settle controversy regarding details
of history, and she does not now feel that it should be used in that way"
(Selected Messages, book 3, p. 447).
W.
C. White also wrote S. N. Haskell on the same subject, stating that:
"We
will make a great mistake if we lay aside historical research and endeavor to
settle historical questions by the use of Mother's books as an authority when
she herself does not wish them to be used in any such way" (W. C. White to
S. N. Haskell, October 31, 1912).
In
making her case for the future, Ellen White built not only on the revelations
God gave her, but also on the records of the past. She made no attempt to write
an authoritative history textbook. Rather, in the words of W. C. White,
"The principal use of the passages quoted from historians was not to make a
new history, not to correct errors in history, but to use valuable
illustrations to make plain important spiritual truths" (W. C. White to L.
E. Froom, February 18, 1932).
[Excerpt
from R. W. Olson, 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White, pp. 48,
49. Available from the Ellen G. White Estate.]
Apparent Discrepancies and Contradictions
Critics
of Ellen White contrast certain of her statements which appear to contradict
either herself or the Bible. Some of these "contradictions" are
merely distortions of her words by the critics; others may be accounted for by
the fact that the statement in question is only part of an idea more fully developed
elsewhere in her writings. For a helpful review of such misrepresentations, see
"A Closer Look at: 'Ellen White Contradicts the
Bible Over 50 Times.'" But to attempt to prove that all the
alleged "errors" in Ellen White's writings are not actually errors, is unprofitable for at least two reasons.
First,
a person who looks for contradictions and errors in inspired writings will
always be ready to supply new difficulties to replace those that have been
removed. This has been demonstrated for centuries by those who take delight in
looking for "mistakes" in the Bible.
Speaking
of such, Ellen White wrote, "All the difficulties will not cause trouble
to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture
difficulties from the plainest revealed truth" (Selected Messages, book 1,
p. 16).
Second,
Seventh-day Adventists (including Ellen White herself) do not claim that either
she or other inspired persons were infallible, either in their writing or
living. Alleged discrepancies and factual errors are only fatal to views of
inspiration that demand perfection in human language and in the human
instrument presenting the divine message. Such views run counter to what is
observed in Scripture--the standard by which we are to judge our conceptions of
how God speaks.
In
evaluating so-called errors, one needs to consider whether the perceived
"error" is central to the divine message, or inconsequential. Even
when it is central, we need to allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit
may "correct" the prophet in a future communication. See 2 Samuel
7:1-17 for an example. If, in their prophetic teachings--those messages
presented as revelation from the Lord--Ellen White or any other claimant were
to be found contradicting the teaching of the Word of God, then such claims
would fail the Biblical test "To the law and to the testimony: if they
speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them"
(Isaiah 8:20).
For
further study, see "Realize That
Prophets Are Not Verbally Inspired, Nor Are They Infallible or Inerrant." See also "Infallibility: Does the True Prophet Ever
Err?"
What is "the shut
door" and what did Ellen White believe about it?
William
Miller likened his message of the soon return of Jesus to the "midnight
cry" of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). He
interpreted the ten "virgins" as those summoned to meet the returning
Lord, the "wedding" as the eternal kingdom, and the shutting of the
"door" (verse 10) as "the closing up of the mediatorial kingdom,
and finishing the gospel period"--in other words, the closing of the
"door of salvation" or the close of human probation. According to
Matthew 25:10, "The bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with
him to the marriage: and the door was shut" (Matt. 25:10).
Because
they expected Christ to return at the close of the 2300 prophetic days of
Daniel 8:14, Millerite adventists had emphasized that probation would close
at the end of that period. Therefore, for a short period
after the disappointment of October 1844, Miller and many of his followers,
including young Ellen Harmon (later Ellen White), felt that their work of
warning sinners was finished for the world. While a majority of Millerites soon gave up their belief that prophecy had been
fulfilled in 1844, a small group continued to hold that the time had been
correct, but that they had been mistaken in the event expected. They were
convinced that the movement was of God, that the 2300-day prophecy had been
fulfilled, and that the "door" referred to in the parable was
therefore shut--whatever that might mean. Thus, to believe in the "shut
door" became equivalent to believing in the validity of the 1844 movement
as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
What
is important to recognize is that the term "shut door" underwent a
change in meaning among those who saw that the 2300-day prophecy referred to a
change in Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The "shut
door" was seen as applying to the closing of the first phase and the
opening of the second and final phase of Christ's intercession in heaven. It is
erroneous to read into all of Ellen White's "shut door" statements
the initial Millerite definition.
Ellen
White maintained, and the evidence supports, that, while she and others
believed for a time that no more sinners would be converted after 1844, she was
never instructed in vision that the door of salvation was shut for the world.
Here
is Ellen White's explanation of what she believed regarding the "shut
door:"
"For
a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent
body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This
position was taken before my first vision was given me. [Emphasis supplied.
Here Ellen White states that her visions were not the source of her belief in
this Millerite error.] It was the light given me of
God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position.
"I
am still a believer in the shut-door theory, but not in the sense in which we
at first employed the term or in which it is employed by my opponents.
"There
was a shut door in Noah's day. There was at that time a withdrawal of the
Spirit of God from the sinful race that perished in the waters of the Flood.
God Himself gave the shut-door message to Noah:
"'My
spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his
days shall be an hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3).
"There
was a shut door in the days of Abraham. Mercy ceased to plead with the
inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot, with his wife and two daughters,
were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven.
"There
was a shut door in Christ's day. The Son of God declared to the unbelieving Jews
of that generation, 'Your house is left unto you desolate' (Matt. 23:38).
"Looking
down the stream of time to the last days, the same infinite power proclaimed
through John:
"'These
things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David,
he that openeth, and no man shutteth;
and shutteth, and no man openeth'
(Rev. 3:7).
"I
was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844.
All who saw the light of the first and second angels' messages and rejected
that light, were left in darkness. And those who accepted it and received the
Holy Spirit which attended the proclamation of the message from heaven, and who
afterward renounced their faith and pronounced their experience a delusion,
thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer pleaded with them.
"Those
who did not see the light, had not the guilt of its
rejection. It was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that
the Spirit of God could not reach. And this class included, as I have stated,
both those who refused to accept the message when it was presented to them, and
also those who, having received it, afterward renounced their faith. These
might have a form of godliness, and profess to be followers of Christ; but
having no living connection with God, they would be taken captive by the
delusions of Satan. These two classes are brought to view in the [first]
vision--those who declared the light which they had followed a delusion, and
the wicked of the world who, having rejected the light, had been rejected of
God. No reference is made to those who had not seen the light, and therefore
were not guilty of its rejection" (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 62-64).
For
further study, see the following documents in the Reference Library:
"Open and Shut Door" Article from the Seventh-day Adventist
Encyclopedia
"The 'Shut Door' Documents," by Robert W. Olson
In
a document titled "A copy of E. G. White's vision which she had at Oswego,
New York," January 11, 1850, an unusual statement appears concerning the
Apocrypha, also known as "the hidden book":
"I
then saw the Word of God, pure and unadulterated, and that we must answer for
the way we received the truth proclaimed from that Word. I saw that it had been
a hammer to break the flinty heart in pieces, and a fire to consume the dross
and tin, that the heart might be pure and holy. I saw that the Apocrypha was
the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I
saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will
judge us at the last day. I saw that heaven would be cheap
enough, and that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for Jesus, and that we must
give all to enter the kingdom" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 34).
If
what we have is a correct copy of what she wrote, the meaning and significance
of this statement is unclear. At no subsequent time did Ellen White make
reference to the Apocrypha, call upon Adventists to study it, or urge its
reading. Nor did she include this statement in any of her publications.
Whatever one makes of the statement, it should be observed that the Apocrypha
is not described as inspired, but is contrasted with the Scriptures which are
called the "standard Book, that will judge us at the last day."
The
question is whether later inspired writers may include added details about
persons and events described in the Bible. Additions in terms of details, from
one privileged to view in vision scenes of Biblical history, is no more
surprising than the fact that one finds details mentioned by one Gospel writer
that are omitted by another describing the same event. Paul identifies the
Egyptian magicians by name (2 Tim. 3:8), whereas in the book of Exodus they are
nameless. Jude describes a prophecy of Enoch (Jude 14, 15) that is nowhere
recorded in Genesis. Similar insights by Ellen White complement the Biblical
record, which remains the unique, authoritative, revelation of God's will.
God's Love
for Erring Children
A
few have wondered about certain expressions Ellen White used in some letters to
her children in the early 1860s. In her tender love, she appealed to their
souls in many ways. In 1860 she was speaking to children between ages 6 and 13.
Trying to make the big picture clear in simple language, this 33-year-old
mother used language at times that was more like theological shorthand,
especially when she wrote that the Lord loves children "who try to do
right" but "wicked children God does not love." [1]
Just
as we must consider some difficult Biblical texts within the total Biblical
context, we must do the same with Ellen White. For example, in Deuteronomy 7:9,
10, we note that God "repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy
them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face.
Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which
I command you today, to observe them." In Psalm 11:5 we read, "The
Lord tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His
soul hates." By themselves such statements sound harsh, but when placed in
the context of the whole Bible (including such texts as Isa. 1:18-20; Jer.
31:3; John 3:16, 17; John 14-17) their true meaning becomes clear.
Note
the larger context of Ellen White's counsel to parents (1892): "Jesus
would have the fathers and mothers teach their children . . . that God loves
them, that their natures may be changed, and brought into harmony with God. Do
not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach
them that He loves them so that it grieves His tender Spirit to see them in
transgression, because He knows they are doing injury to their souls. Do not
terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to
impress them with His unspeakable love and goodness, and thus let the glory of
the Lord be revealed before them." [2]
In
other circumstances, she clearly made a difference between God's loving a
person and endorsing what that person may be doing. [3]
In clear theological terms, she set forth the fact that character determines
destiny. Even a loving God will not refashion people's character after their
death in order to redeem them. [4]
Yet,
how much theology can a six-year-old understand? God had the same challenge
when He instructed the recently freed Israelites after their exodus from Egypt.
He used kindergarten language and methods--including the sandbox illustration
of the desert sanctuary service--for that was the only language level they
could understand. Sometimes the threat of disapproval and punishment can get
the attention of six-year-olds and recently delivered Israelites when
"love talk" would have no impact.
Ellen
White used both methods when dealing with her boys, apparently with good
effect. The record contains numerous instances in which she talked to her sons
about a friendly God, on many occasions praying with them about their spiritual
growth. If young Ellen were to be confronted with a possible misunderstanding
of her words, she would quickly say what, in substance, she would later write
out more completely: "What I meant--and I believe what the boys
understood--was that God will not condone disobedience, even though He always
loves little boys and girls, good or bad. Disobedience has tough consequences,
and God, in love, doesn't want them to experience the costs of
disobedience." [5]
Ellen
White did not always express her thoughts perfectly in her first attempt, and
her later statement indicates that she found a better way to present both God's
displeasure and His love.
Notes
[1]
An example of letters from Ellen White to young, six-year-old Willie revealed
her motherly attempts to keep him focused on cheerful obedience: "You must
be a good, sweet, little boy, and love to obey Jenny [Fraser] and Lucinda
[Hall]. Give up your will, and when you wish to do anything very much, inquire,
Is it not selfish? You must learn to yield your will
and your way. It will be a hard lesson for my little boy to learn, but it will
in the end be worth more to him than gold."*
"Learn, my dear Willie, to be patient, to wait
others' time and convenience; then you will not get impatient and irritable.
The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and He has promised
that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He
will not take them to the beautiful City, for He only admits the good,
obedient, and patient children there. One fretful, disobedient child, would spoil all the harmony of heaven. When you feel
tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will
not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings,
the Lord smiles upon you.
"Although
He is in heaven, and you cannot see Him, yet He loves you when you do right,
and writes it down in His book; and when you do wrong, He puts a black mark
against you. Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no black mark
will be set down against you; and when Jesus comes He will call for that good
boy Willie White, and will put upon your head a wreath of gold, and put in your
hand a little harp that you can play upon, and it will send forth beautiful
music, and you will never be sick, never be tempted then to do wrong; but will
be happy always, and will eat of rich fruit, and will pluck beautiful flowers.
Try, try, dear boy, to be good. Your affectionate
Mother." [*"By
the blessing of God and his mother's instruction, Willie has overcome the
impatient spirit which he sometimes manifested when quite young, and he now possesses
a most affectionate, amiable, and obedient disposition."--A.P.P.]
(Ellen G. White,An Appeal to
the Youth, pp. 62-63). A careful look at the whole letter (and her total
writings on child guidance) suggests strongly that when Ellen White wrote that
"wicked children God does not love," she meant that ultimately
children who continue to be "wicked" will not be taken to heaven.
[2]
Signs of the Times, February 15, 1892; "His [Jesus'] heart is drawn out,
not only to the best behaved children, but to those who have by inheritance
objectionable traits of character. Many parents do not understand how much they
are responsible for these traits in their children. . . . But Jesus looks upon
these children with pity. He traces from cause to
effect" (The Desire of Ages, p. 517).
[3]
See Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, pp. 558-565, for a sensitive letter to
an indulged teenager.
[4]
Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 74, 84, 123; Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2,
pp. 355, 356.
[5]
See previous footnotes, citing Signs of the Times, Feb. 15, 1892, and The
Desire of Ages, p. 517.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1998), pp. 59, 60.]
God's
Providence in the 1843 Prophetic Chart
In
1850 Ellen White wrote that she "had seen that the 1843 [prophetic] chart
was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that
the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in
some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was
removed." [1]
At
first glance, one could wonder why God would want to hide a mistake! Those who
begin with the presupposition that Jesus did not enter the closing phase of His
mediatorial work in 1844 ridicule this Ellen White reference.
But
those who have found meaning in these events, whether on earth or in heaven, also realize that God's ways are often cast in human
language where circumstances that God permits are described as events that God
causes. When the author of Exodus wrote of God's conversation with Moses, he
portrayed God as the Agent who "hardened" Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 10:1).
However, the same writer also wrote of Pharaoh's responsibility for hardening
his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34).
We
think of Biblical circumstances where knowledge was "withheld" from
dedicated men and women. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus joined two devastated
disciples but they did not recognize Him because "their eyes were
restrained" (Luke 24:16). A few hours later, while eating with their
traveling Companion, "their eyes were opened and they knew Him" (Luke
24:31). If their eyes had been "opened" prematurely while walking
toward Emmaus, they would have missed a great experience that God wanted them
to share.
For
reasons that God alone can explain best, Bible students in 1843 needed the
experience of 1843-1844. Obviously God could have "stepped in" and
guaranteed every date, every line of reasoning, when Charles Fitch and Apollos Hale prepared their chart. But that kind of divine
intervention has been rare throughout history. Permitting men
and women to work through their problems, learning special lessons that would
not have been experienced otherwise, seems to have been God's general plan.
[2]
What
would have happened if William Miller had preached the true significance of
1844? What kind of public response would he have received if he had proclaimed
the truth about a change in Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary instead
of emphasizing His imminent return? No one would have listened to him; no one
would have been stirred to read the Bible. After the disappointment of October
22, a group of his followers restudied their Bibles to discover the real
meaning of 1844, an interest that never would have developed if Miller had not
focused their attention on the Bible and its prophecies prior to 1844.
Notes
[1]
Early Writings, p. 74. This chart, designed in 1842 by Charles Fitch,
Congregational pastor, and Apollos Hale, Methodist
preacher, was approved by the Millerites in their
Boston General Conference of May, 1842. The chart's graphic symbols and time
periods became a well-known trademark of Millerite
preaching as they endeavored to simplify in an attractive manner the time
prophecies focusing on 1843. (See L. E. Froom,
The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. IV, pp. 538, 616.)
[2]
See Matt. 11:25; Mark 4:33; John 16:12; 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:11-14.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1998), p. 490.]
In
1858 Ellen G. White wrote that "the slave master would have to answer for
the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance. . . . God cannot take the
slave to heaven, who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing
nothing of God, or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and not
holding so elevated a position as his master's brute beasts. But He does the
best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He lets him be as though he
had not been." [1]
However,
a few pages later she reported that she "saw the pious slave rise [in the
resurrection] in triumph and victory." [2]
In many places she referred to the terrible conditions imposed on slaves in the
South, treated "as though they were beasts." [3]
Nevertheless, she was equally emphatic that "many of the slaves had noble
minds." [4]
In
these statements Ellen White was distinguishing between the "pious"
slave and the "ignorant" slave who knows "nothing of God."
Regarding the latter, she stated with prophetic insight that the most
compassionate act for a just God would be to let such slaves remain in their
graves, not to be resurrected for judgment.
Some
object to this statement because the Bible says that "all who are in the
graves will . . . come forth" (John 5:28, 29). A few chapters later, John
quoted Jesus: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all
peoples to Myself" (John 12:32). Here we have two
examples among many where Bible writers used all-inclusive language but with
very definite restrictions. No one but Universalists argue that everyone,
sooner or later, will be redeemed, regardless of character or desire. Not all
people will be drawn to Jesus because not all are willing to be drawn!
Another
example of a general, all-inclusive statement is John the Revelator's
description of the Second Advent: ". . . every slave and every free man,
hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the
mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on
the throne'" (Rev. 6:15, 16). Obviously, not all slaves and not all free
men are going to be lost!
Prophets,
as well as everyone else, use inclusive language at times, and most people
understand the implied restrictions. The next question is, How does God deal
with those who are neither among those "who have done good,"
or "those who have done evil" (John 5:29)? The best we can do is to
join Abraham, the father of the faithful, and believe with confidence:
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).
Notes
[1]
Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 193 (Early Writings, p. 276).
[2]
Ibid., p. 206 (Early Writings, p. 286).
[3]
Review and Herald, Dec. 17, 1895.
[4]
Ibid.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1998), pp. 489, 490.]
Ellen G. White Estate Homepage
Selected Issues Regarding Inspiration and the Life
and Work of Ellen G. White