The Only Inspired Pioneer

Kevin D. Paulson. Published originally on GreatControversy.org on 15 May 2003

Editorial #125

Fanaticism remains a persistent trap for conservative, reform-minded Adventists. One form of such fanaticism that has lately gained some ground is the wholesale veneration of Adventist pioneer teachings -- beyond those specifically based on Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy.

Any reformatory movement which seeks a return to "the old paths" will confront the urge to embrace the past without qualification. We observe this tendency at times in social and political conflicts, and it seems especially tempting in matters spiritual. Some refer to this as the "good old days" mentality, in which anything from long ago is invariably thought to be better than what we see and have now.

The point here is not that the Adventist pioneers didn't offer numerous valuable insights on many topics--many of which, if rediscovered, would greatly benefit the contemporary church. Rather, the point is that only one Seventh-day Adventist pioneer was divinely inspired, and her name was Ellen G. White.

Contrary to what some have alleged at times, Ellen White never gave a blanket theological endorsement to any of her contemporaries. Neither A.T. Jones, E.J. Waggoner, Uriah Smith, not even Ellen White's husband James, received unqualified support from the prophet's pen. The following Ellen White statements clarify which are the only sources free of doctrinal or spiritual error:

The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience (1).

"There is one straight chain of truth, without one heretical sentence, in that which I have written (2).

No sweeping endorsement like the above can be found anywhere in the inspired writings regarding any other person's writings or beliefs.

Jones and Waggoner

A very vocal group in modern Adventism, particularly members of what has become the 1888 Message Study Committee, place themselves where they appear to claim that Ellen White endorsed without qualification the teachings of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner. Such persons are convinced that Jones and Waggoner taught such doctrines as the universal justification of all mankind at Calvary, as well as salvation by justification only. And because they believe Ellen White endorsed Jones and Waggoner, they refuse to consider the reams of contrary Ellen White evidence which demonstrate so clearly her opposition to the above concepts.

The question of whether Jones or Waggoner actually taught these views -- a dubious conclusion at best, from what I've read in their writings -- is a separate issue. For now we are simply asking, Did Ellen White give their theology a blank check, concerning salvation or any other issue? The following statements offer a clear answer:

Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct (3).

I believe without doubt that God has given precious truth at the right time to Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner. Do I place them as infallible? Do I say that they will not make a statement, or have an idea that cannot be questioned or that cannot be error? Do I say so? No, I do not say any such thing (4).

Certain contemporary Adventist authors have tried at length to discredit Jones and Waggoner in order to render irrelevant their strong support of the historic Adventist perspective on such current issues as character perfection and the human nature of Christ (5). What these contemporary authors fail to understand, of course, is that the position of both Scripture and Ellen White on these subjects is sufficient to sustain the historic Adventist view, without any need of recourse to Jones or Waggoner or anyone else.

The Godhead

Recently some in conservative Adventist circles have tried to bring back the Arian or semi-Arian views of the Trinity, which were held by certain of the Adventist pioneers. While it is beyond the scope of this editorial to examine this issue at length, I invite my readers to consult an article I wrote for Our Firm Foundation in December 1998, titled, "In Defense of the Trinity" (6). This article contains sufficient evidence from both Scripture and Ellen White to establish beyond question the doctrine of a triune Godhead of equal Persons. The Ellen White passages found in this article disagree strongly with the views on this subject held by a number of our early pioneers.

Prophetic Issues

Two similar issues, involving prophetic interpretation, have also come into focus in recent times. These are the identity of the "daily" of Daniel 8:11, and the identity of the "glorious land" described in Daniel 11:41.

The "Daily"

For some time, various conservative Adventists have maintained that Ellen White endorsed the view of most early Adventist pioneers that the "daily" in the book of Daniel represents paganism, not -- as others have claimed -- the mediatorial work of Christ in heaven. They base their view on the following statement from Ellen White:

Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Dan. 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily" (7).

Yet in a later statement, addressed to those who were using her writings to support their insistence that the "daily" represented paganism, she counseled:

I entreat of Elders H, I, J, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of "the daily."

It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken in settling this matter. The true meaning of "the daily" is not to be made a test question.

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question ["the daily"]; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy" (8).

This controversy has been misused by critics of Ellen White in two ways. First, there are those who insist that she simply changed her position, for political or other reasons, and that this proves her writings can't be taken seriously as a doctrinal authority. Others, like Desmond Ford (9), Jack Sequeira (10), and the 1888 Message Study Committee (11), insist that the above statement proves Ellen White didn't wish for her writings to ever be used to settle doctrinal controversy.

The latter position is easily disproved simply by reading the above statement carefully. Ellen White didn't say her writings were never to be used to settle doctrinal disputes. Rather, she said the reason her writings weren't to be used to settle the "daily" controversy was because "I have had no instruction on the point under discussion" (12). Where God hadn't given her direct light, she knew no more than anyone else. In a number of other statements she is very clear that pointing out the difference between truth and error is precisely why her writings were given (13).

But obviously it is not only critics of Ellen White who have failed to carefully consider the above statements. Those who today would have us endorse the original pioneer view of the "daily," on the basis of Ellen White's presumed counsel, need to study these passages also.

To begin with, the controversy these persons are now raising is the very one Ellen White told her brethren -- in the second of the above statements -- to lay aside. The only view her writings were being used to support was the view that the "daily" represented paganism. And it was on the basis of the first of the above statements that this claim was being made.

But if one carefully considers the statement in question, the issue of paganism versus the mediation of Christ is not at all the focus. The only thing Ellen White says is that the word "sacrifice" was added to the text by human wisdom and does not belong there. This fact holds true regardless of the view one takes on this issue. Whether the "daily" represents paganism or the mediatorial work of Christ, the word "sacrifice" doesn't belong in the verse. No sacrifices are being offered daily in the heavenly sanctuary, as in the earthly. Rather, Jesus is mediating the blood of the one eternal sacrifice which He offered on Calvary (Heb. 9:26). Had the word "mediation" been the supplied word in the text to which Ellen White was objecting, those using her writings in this regard would have a case. But the word "sacrifice" is altogether different, and is out of place regardless of whether one holds that the "daily" represents paganism or the mediatorial work of Christ in heaven.

In short, the two statements on the "daily" cited above are in complete accord. Neither endorses either view in the present controversy, nor does Ellen White advise that her writings never be used to settle a doctrinal issue. She simply asked that her writings not be used to settle this issue because God had given her no light regarding it.

The "Glorious Land"

Many who urge that the "daily" must be paganism because the pioneers said so, use the same argument to insist that the "glorious land" in Daniel 11 refers to the United States of America. Because the pioneers believed this, among other reasons, it is assumed to be correct.

Unfortunately, this view collides with a very important fact of salvation history -- that after the close of the seventy-week prophecy and the stoning of Stephen (Dan. 9:24), references to Israel, Zion, and the people of God consistently refer to the church (Gal. 3:29; Heb. 8:8-10; Rev. 7). Indeed, in the very context of Daniel 11:41, this point is clear. In verse 45, we read of the king of the north planting his tabernacles "in the glorious holy mountain." Then in the following verse, we read of Michael, "the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people," and of the great time of trouble, at the end of which "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" (Dan. 21:1).

If "the children of thy people" and "thy people" in Daniel 12:1 refer to God's end-time church, it is only sensible to conclude that the "glorious holy mountain" (Zion) which the king of the north invades is also a reference to the church. And certainly none can deny that the king of the north -- clearly, in context, a symbol for the papacy -- has invaded God's remnant church with falsehood and deception. But the good news is that he will not prevail. "He shall come to his end, and none shall help him" (Dan. 11:45).

The Only Inspired Pioneer

The pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were probably the most careful students of the Bible since the apostles themselves. Through diligent study and the intervention of His prophet, God enabled them to put together a doctrinal platform which mirrors the Biblical consensus as no other confession of faith in history has done.

But they were still erring, fallible mortals, whose conclusions on a number of issues veered from the inspired standard. Only one of them was gifted with prophetic authority; only one could rightfully say, "The Lord has shown me," etc. Among the pioneers only her writings, her public teachings, stand totally free of doctrinal error.

As in early Adventism, it is possible for faithful believers in God's end-time church to have honest differences, within the parameters set by inspired counsel. The more adventurous among the faithful will always, perhaps, be on the search for new ideas, new perceptions, new convictions regarding issues ranging from doctrine to lifestyle. And as the teachings of the pioneers are recovered more and more, these will increasingly be consulted as the source of such insights. There is nothing wrong with this. Where it becomes wrong, however, is when human opinions -- including those of the pioneers -- are placed on a level with inspired counsel, and are assumed -- in the absence of endorsement by such counsel -- to constitute "present truth" for the church. "Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9) was a cardinal offense of the ancient Pharisees. In these last days, conservative Adventists who seek a return to ancient truth dare not repeat the same offense.

1. Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. vii.
2. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 52.
3. ________, 1888 Materials, vol. 1, p. 164.
4. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 566.
5. See Roy Adams, The Nature of Christ: Help for a church divided over perfection (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1994), pp. 29-36; George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1989), pp. 129-137.
6. Kevin D. Paulson, "In Defense of the Trinity," Our Firm Foundation, December 1998, pp. 26-27 (available on the Internet from www.hopeint.org.
7. White, Early Writings, pp. 74-75.
8. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 164 (italics supplied).
9. Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), p. 4.
10. Jack Sequeira, taped sermon, November 3, 1993.
11. Robert J. Wieland & The 1888 Message Study Committee, Is Beyond Belief Beyond Belief? (Paris, OH: 1888 Message Study Committee, 1994), p. 66.
12. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 164.
13. ________, Early Writings, p. 78; Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32; Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655-656, 665; Gospel Workers, p. 302; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98-99.

Pastor Kevin Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Through the years he has published articles in many publications. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin is also the speaker for "Know Your Bible," a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.