GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | GCO PRESS PRICE LIST | GCO Ministry Officers 2010-03-12 16:01Z

The Loss of Transcendence, Pt. 3

Kevin D. Paulson reviews Graeme Bradford’s More Than A Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), and People Are Human (Look What They Did To Ellen White) (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 2006).

Presenter:   Kevin D. Paulson

Location:    Internet

Delivery:    2007-05-02 21:15Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-05-02 21:15Z

Type:        Book Review

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot3.php

Ellen White’s Authoritative Role

The following statement by Bradford summarizes quite well the current Adventist debate over the role of Ellen White:

It is important to note that what is at stake is not her inspiration, but her authority. At the present time there is going on in the church widespread discussion among members that take into account issues such as:

What if she is not always strictly original? She did borrow from others; who can sort out what is borrowed and what has been shown to her?

What if she is not always totally accurate? We know she did not always use the best sources available or use them correctly.

What about the fact that she lived in a world so different to us today? That was a world when Adventism was mainly in North America. She only lived fifteen years into the 20th century and never saw most of the big issues we have to face today.

Then, in what way is she an authority in the church today? Authority is not something that can be claimed; it must be earned. We have a division of opinion at the present time to these questions. While some will say she is an authority and we must not question her right to prescribe to us, there is a growing number (particularly among the younger generation) who would say she has no relevance today. This discussion has been going on in the homes and hearts of thousands of Adventists since the early 1980s.

So what is Ellen White’s function?… The question must be asked, Are we a free people? Free to grow in our understanding of the Bible? Free to disagree with what she has written in the areas of science, health, history, prophecy and education, etc.? What should a person do if they find they have come to some other conclusion than what she has written? Do they surrender their private judgment? These questions are crucial to the future of Adventism (140).

They are indeed. This review will address each of them. Wrong as the evidence demonstrates Bradford to be on the issue of Ellen White’s authority, the above statement frames the issues well. Ellen White’s inspiration is not the issue, nor is the legitimacy of the title of prophet when applied to her role. Rather, the issue is the authority of her counsel over the beliefs and behaviors of church members.

In his recent letter to Ministry Bradford writes: “I do not say Ellen White was merely a product of her culture. I do say she was ahead of her time in the things God revealed to her” (141). The problem is, as we have seen already, Bradford believes God’s revelation to prophets (including those in the Bible) is invariably mingled with their own opinions, with no objective means available to tell the difference (142). In Bradford’s own words:

How then can we know what is revealed from what is her own wisdom? How can we sort out what is revealed from what is borrowed? We may never have satisfactory answers to these questions (143).

So in reality, it proves nothing for Bradford to affirm faith in what he claims God revealed to Ellen White. Because if we follow his reasoning, we can never be sure what that is.

Bradford’s books speak at length of the struggle between persons he labels “conservatives” and “progressives” in the Adventist past and present (144). Though at one point he claims he doesn’t wish to “demonize” either group (145), it is clear that in his view, conservative (sometimes called “fundamentalist”) Adventists are the church’s primary troublemakers. Such statements as the following, from two of the fictional talkers in People Are Human, bear witness to his thoughts along these lines:

What I mean is that those on the conservative side seem to have an advantage in that they can play upon the ignorance of the majority (146).

It would seem that there has always been conservative pressure that has had an intimidating influence… which has caused our better informed people not to go to all the fuss of bringing [facts] all out in the open (147).

Clearly, in Bradford’s view, those he calls “progressives” (that convenient, sanitized substitute for the L word) are the informed pursuers (or possessors) of facts, while the conservatives are the ignorant, often mean obstructionists who would rather conceal facts, suppress research and discussion, and perpetuate illusions than face reality. The possibility that the so-called “facts” touted by “progressives” might themselves be illusions, or that the conservative defense of Ellen White’s authority might correctly represent both the consensus of her counsel and the true Bible model of prophetic ministry, seems not to have occurred either to Bradford or his theological fellow travelers.

One sympathetic reviewer of Bradford’s books, to whom People Are Human is dedicated (148), offers a clear sample of the above mindset. While applauding “perceptive” thinking on the part of revisionist Adventists on the subject of inspiration, he complains that responses to such thinking by conservative Adventists “retarded the Church’s progress on the subject” (149). The possibility seems not to have been considered that the “progress” touted by revisionists might biblically be defined as spiritual regress, and that the findings promoted by such persons fall decidedly short of the biblical and factual evidence.

According to Bradford, conservatives bear the blame for allegedly exalting Ellen White’s ministry to a level she presumably never intended. In Bradford’s words:

During her lifetime Ellen G. White fought to have her writings used correctly. After her death—at least among conservative forces within the Adventist Church—a misuse of her writings led the denomination away from many founding concepts (150).

One of the 1919 Bible Conference participants is quoted as saying:

If we had always taught the truth on this question, we would not have any trouble or shock in the denomination now. But the shock is because we have not taught the truth, and have put the Testimonies on a plane where she says they do not stand. We have claimed more for them than she did (151).

Another of those in Bradford’s fictional dialogue, feeling the “truth” at last dawn on her in purported contrast to her parents’ Adventism, exclaims

So what you’re saying here is that the Adventism of my father and mother, which was so strict in the way it saw things and in the way they used Ellen White, was really an Adventism that went that way after Ellen White’s death, but it was not meant to go that way. This is very important for me. I guess I had a very legalistic upbringing. My parents used Ellen White as the last word on everything and they literally drilled it into us as kids. But it wasn’t meant to be that way (152).

We will resist the urge to digress at length regarding such words as “strict” and “legalistic,” except to say that the drudgery of superficial compliance versus the joy of true obedience—important as this contrast is—is not the issue here. (In brief, one who refrains from marital infidelity out of love for God as well as one’s spouse is a strict adherent to the seventh commandment. But such a one can hardly be called a legalist.) None will deny that harshness and needless severity have at times attended the application of Ellen White’s counsel, much as it has at times attended the application of Scripture itself. But the problem of harshly applying Ellen White’s authority is an issue completely separate from the definition and limits of that authority. The latter is the key issue addressed by Bradford, and by the present review.

Bradford cites scholars of the same mind as his, who claim the writings of Ellen White were never intended to be used, nor can they rightfully be used, as a measure of doctrinal faithfulness:

Ellen White’s role was not that of a theological policewoman, even though most twentieth-century Adventists seem to have that view (153).

The ministry of Ellen White does not define, control, or restrict an Adventist understanding of scripture. That is, what she wrote does not determine in advance the result of Adventist scriptural exegesis; nor did she ever intend her work to be so used. She did not suppose that scripture needed her explanation to make it intelligible (154).

We may wish with all our hearts that she (Ellen White) could serve us today as scientist or psychologist, as technician or theologian, or as conference or college president, but that is not to be. My firm conviction is that she was not, nor can she be any of these for us (155).

Such statements as the above form the basis of Bradford’s effort to rediscover what he calls the “real” Ellen White, whose view of her own authority—like, allegedly, that of her contemporaries (156)—supposedly allowed for error and contradiction in her work, as well as for the right of church members to disagree with her counsel (157). This is why, in his recent letter to Ministry, he declares: “I do not say the Church needs to ‘grow’ but ‘recover’ its understanding of Ellen White” (158). A California dentist supportive of Bradford’s view claims his mother lived for a number of years in the White home, and alleges the Whites endorsed the view of Ellen’s gift that Bradford is now teaching (159).

Bradford believes this issue has lain at the heart of so much that has divided the church during the past century and a half. In his own words:

How her writings are to be used has been at the core of many significant issues faced within the Adventist Church for almost 150 years (160).

But the so-called “real” Ellen White Bradford talks about is, in truth, a historical fabrication—a contrivance of wishful revisionism which sees contradictions where investigation reveals none, and which ignores the plainest statements from the prophet regarding her authoritative role.

Whether Bradford or his theological allies believe it or not, Ellen White is unmistakably clear that her prophetic ministry includes the correction of false teachings and misunderstandings imposed by others onto the Bible:

God has, in that Word (the Bible), promised to give visions in the last days, not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth (161).

The Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors, and to specify what is truth (162).

Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given (163).

How many have read carefully Patriarchs and Prophets, The Great Controversy, and The Desire of Ages? I wish all to understand that my confidence in the light that God has given stands firm, because I know that the Holy Spirit’s power magnified the truth, and made it honorable, saying, ‘This is the way; walk ye in it.’ In my books the truth is stated, barricaded by a ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God upon the tables of stone (164).

My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the Bible, were only according to their opinion of the Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory (165).

Serious errors in doctrine and practice were cherished.… God revealed these errors to me in vision and sent me to His erring children to declare them (166).

At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would being the truth to our minds. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error (167).

I am instructed that the Lord, by His infinite power, has preserved the right hand of His messenger for more than half a century, in order that the truth may be written out as He bids me write it for publication, in periodicals and books. Why? Because if it were not thus written out, when the pioneers in the faith shall die, there would be many, new in the faith, who would sometimes accept as messages of truth teachings that contain erroneous sentiments and dangerous fallacies. Sometimes that which men teach as “special light” is in reality specious error, which, as tares sown among the wheat, will spring up and produce a baleful harvest. And errors of this sort will be entertained by some until the close of this earth’s history (168).

If one chooses to question Ellen White’s doctrinal authority based on a particular definition of sola scriptura—a false dilemma, to be sure, since Scripture repeatedly bears witness to the authority of non-canonical prophets—that is one thing. But one is hard pressed to read the above statements and conclude that Ellen White didn’t herself see her role as including the correction and curtailment of doctrinal error, including error which claimed a basis in Scripture itself.

At one point Bradford cites the statement noted above which says, “Additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given” (169). What Bradford seems to totally miss is how decisively this statement clashes with his denial of Ellen White’s role as an authoritative interpreter of Scripture. One of the scholars cited earlier, who disputes Ellen White’s role in this regard, insists that “she (Ellen White) did not suppose that scripture needed her explanation to make it intelligible” (170). Perhaps not. And yet, Deity saw that many might be aided if given straightforward prophetic counsel. Heaven foresaw how those having a certain mindset would use scholarship so-called to seduce end-time believers into doctrinal and behavioral compromise. And so God, through the Testimonies, has “simplified the great truths already given” (171). They are not necessary to simplify the Bible, but they go a long way toward safeguarding its teaching against those who in their subtleties would make of none effect its testimony.

Ellen White’s “lesser light” statement (172), noted earlier in this review, becomes clearer as we understand the extent to which successive divine revelations throughout history have been needed because the previous revelation wasn’t fully taken to heart. Many will note Ellen White’s statement: “If you had made God’s Word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies” (173). They thus assume that if they would now only study the Bible as they should, they can safely ignore the counsel of Ellen White. Such seem to forget Ellen White’s explanation for God’s increasingly detailed revelations of His will through the centuries:

If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, they would never have been seduced into idolatry, nor would it have been necessary for them to suffer a life of bondage in Egypt; they would have kept God’s law in mind, and there would have been no necessity for it to be proclaimed from Sinai or engraved upon the tables of stone. And had the people practiced the principles of the Ten Commandments, there would have been no need of the additional directions given to Moses (174).

In other words, every time God gives His people more detailed instruction, it is because His previous instruction was neglected. But one could hardly conclude that in any of these cases, the additional instructions were less authoritative than earlier ones, or that the later instructions could safely be set aside so long as the earlier, less detailed ones received sufficient study. Once God explains His will at any time, either originally or in elaboration, the faith community is commanded to hear and obey (Joshua 23:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15; 2 Timothy 3:15, 16; 2 Peter 1:19).

Two of the other statements noted above, which define Ellen White’s doctrinal authority, are also cited by Bradford (175). But rather than submit to inspired counsel, Bradford has chosen to argue with it, claiming these statements are inconsistent with others where, presumably, she denies having such authority (176). However, Bradford assures us we needn’t worry. This merely means prophets are human, and thus at times inconsistent:

There is an inconsistency in these statements. And in this we find a revelation of her humanity. What human can pass the test of always being consistent in what we say and what we live—now stretch that over a 60-year ministry. However, that does not invalidate the fact that she has been genuinely used of God. Remember, earlier we discovered that some of the great men, used in the Bible by God, were not always consistent either. She certainly was using all her prophetic authority to protect Adventism against what she perceived to be threatening teachings, in doing this she may not always have been consistent regarding the importance of recognizing no other authority than the Bible (177).

And once again, the prophetic gift is robbed of its transcendence, leaving the church at the whimsical mercy of culture, circumstance, and experience.

The fact is, there’s no inconsistency at all in the Ellen White statements Bradford cites. After quoting her statement where she declares it her prophetic responsibility to “correct specious errors, and to specify what is truth” (178), Bradford declares: “This is not consistent with what she says elsewhere,” that “there are also those other statements where, in many other places she says we are not to use her writings to settle doctrinal issues” (179). Then he quotes the following statements as evidence for his claim:

The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word.… Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures, and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God (180).

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms.… Before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain ‘thus saith the Lord’ in its support (181).

Regarding the first of the above statements, a simple reading of Ellen White’s words tells us that when she says the Testimonies aren’t to be “carried to the front,” she is saying they aren’t to be placed ahead of the Bible. This in fact is what she goes on to say, when she says “the Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word.” In no way is she denying to her ministry the right to settle doctrinal disputes, provided her counsel is in harmony with the biblical consensus. (If ever it is not, she is clear—as we will later see (182)—that such counsel would necessitate a complete rejection of her role, not the mere partial rejection Bradford suggests.) Every doctrinal, prophetic, and lifestyle principle taught in the writings of Ellen White has its origin in the Bible. This origin must be demonstrated before Ellen White’s elaborating, clarifying commentary is brought to bear on a subject. The Bible must come first in all our statements of faith and practice. That is all the statement in question is saying.

Regarding the second of the above statements, in context Ellen White says absolutely nothing about the Bible in relation to her ministry, or in relation to any other non-canonical prophetic testimony. The ellipses Bradford unfortunately inserts in this passage leave out her reference to precisely the sort of authority she is contrasting with the Bible. Here is what Bradford left out:

The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith (183).

In other words, it is the “Bible alone” in contrast with these human authorities, not the Bible in contrast with the biblically-authorized prophetic gift, that is in focus here. One is truly sobered by the above statement when considering how perhaps seventy-percent, maybe more, of Bradford’s book More Than a Prophet, consists of scholarly quotations as support for his understanding of the prophetic gift.

Bradford then writes: “Indeed she seems condemned by her own counsel when she says” (184), and then quotes the following statement:

But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God’s Word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion (185).

But what Bradford seems not to understand is that no “advancement” or “further investigation of the Scriptures” can ever, according to Ellen White as well as the Bible (Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11), contradict what God has already revealed through His written counsel. In all her appeals for the church to be receptive to new light, Ellen White never gives the church permission to contradict what she or the Bible have already stated. While she often urged her brethren to be open to ideas other than their own, made manifest by her statement—quoted several times by Bradford (186)—that “we have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn” (187), never did she declare the consensus of Scripture or her own writings as eligible for contradiction or disagreement.

Human opinions should ever be open to revision and dispute. The written counsel of God is quite another matter. The most basic problem with “progressive” Adventists is their perpetual tendency to blur the line between the opinions of human beings and the objective will of God as found in the writings of Inspiration.

Once again, by a convenient use of ellipses, Bradford makes it appear there are “two” Ellen Whites on the subject of openness to new ideas. He quotes the following statement as a sample of those passages which, in his words, “seem to invite open inquiry” (188):

Our brethren should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy.… We should all know what is being taught among us, for if it is the truth, we need it.… If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time we knew it.… We must study the truth for ourselves. No living man should be relied upon to think for us (189).

“But,” in Bradford’s words, “there are times when she seems to put the dampener on more investigation and growth” (190). A statement which he thinks illustrates this tendency is the following:

As a people we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith.… No line of truth that has made the Seventh-day Adventist people what they are, is to be weakened. We have the old landmarks of truth.… Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages.… Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where will we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years? (191).

After offering the above statements, Bradford writes:

In Adventist history, whenever the church is about to look at some new point of view from the Scriptures, both types of statements are appealed to. Usually those who are for the new ideas will quote the former and those who are against the new ideas will quote the latter. So, which is the real Ellen White? (192)

Bradford tries to reconcile these two statements, and similar ones, by claiming that the first set were generally written at the time of the 1888 controversy, in which she urged openness to the ideas presented by Jones and Waggoner, while the latter statement and others like it come from the Kellogg era, whose challenges Bradford acknowledges were serious enough to threaten the church with spiritual shipwreck (193). But if Bradford had only quoted the words left out by the ellipses in the first of the above statements, there would be no paradox at all in understanding Ellen White’s meaning.

While, as the reader will note, both statements contain ellipses as Bradford quotes them, it is in the first statement where the left-out portion is most significant, and completely clarifying to what Bradford mistakenly presents as paradoxical. Let us consider the entire passage, without Bradford’s ellipses:

Our brethren should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy. If a brother is teaching error, those who are in responsible positions ought to know it; and if he is teaching truth, they ought to take their stand at his side. We should all know what is being taught among us; for if it is truth, we need it. We are all under obligation to God to know what He sends us. He has given directions by which we may test every doctrine,—‘To the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ If the light presented meets this test, we are not to refuse to accept it because it does not agree with our ideas.

Truth is eternal, and conflict with error will only make manifest its strength. We should never refuse to examine the Scriptures with those who, we have reason to believe, desire to know what is truth as much as we do. Suppose a brother held a view that differed from yours, and he should come to you, proposing that you sit down with him and make an investigation of that point in the Scriptures; should you rise up, filled with prejudice, and condemn his ideas, while refusing to give him a candid hearing?

The only right way would be to sit down as Christians and investigate the position presented, in the light of God’s word, which will reveal the truth and unmask error. To ridicule his ideas would not weaken his position in the least if it were false, or strengthen your position if it were true. If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time we knew it. There must be no spirit of pharisaism cherished among us. When Christ came to His own, His own received Him not; and it is a matter of solemn interest to us that we should not pursue a similar course in refusing light from heaven.

We must study the truth for ourselves. No living man should be relied upon to think for us (194).

Notice that while the patient, Christlike consideration of new ideas is urged in the above passage, it is equally clear that according to Ellen White, an absolute standard of objective truth—the written counsel of God—is to be the measure of all ideas presented. In view of his elastic perspective on the nature of revealed truth, it is understandable why Bradford would be uneasy about the portions of the above passage which he left out. But once we read those portions, it becomes clear that neither contradiction nor tension exists between the two sets of statements cited by Bradford.

Ellen White’s approach is breathtakingly simple with regard to truth and the investigation of doctrine: new light can never contradict old light. New light may indeed contradict previously cherished ideas, but it will never contradict the objective, authoritative counsel of God as found in the writings of Inspiration. Not the slightest hint is found, in the above statement or any other inspired statement, that Christians are to pick apart God’s prophetic word.

Bradford is obviously uncomfortable with Ellen White’s rebukes to A.F. Ballenger on account of the latter’s denial of the sanctuary doctrine. This is not surprising, due to features of Bradford’s salvation theology which we will note later in this review. His apparent sympathy with Ballenger and discomfort with Ellen White are evident in the following observation:

There were other times when she (Ellen White) used her prophetic office to put people down and effectively end discussion. Such was the case with A.F. Ballenger and his ideas on the sanctuary. She said that he had gathered together a mass of Scripture and his application of these passages was misleading. She appears not to have attempted to show where he was wrong from the Bible rather she defended the traditional views on the basis of ‘the remarkable beginnings and the long history of the doctrine, and the confirmation of the doctrine given to her in her own visions.’ It is significant that she does not even try to exegete the passages of Scripture used by Ballenger rather she says this truth had been ‘sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle working power from the Lord.’ It is to her visions that she makes the final court of appeal (195).

One is truly saddened by the use of such words as “put people down” with reference to the appropriate, godly reproof of wrong. Such language is decidedly unhelpful to the church, conveying as it does the false impression that people are themselves being attacked whenever their sins and errors are pointed out. Again one senses a greater sympathy on Bradford’s part with the recipients of prophetic rebuke than with the truth ordained by God to rebuke evil.

Regarding Ballenger, merely because Ellen White didn’t specifically address the biblical errors of his theology doesn’t mean those errors were not carefully addressed by others. Rarely if ever did Ellen White engage in direct theological disputation. But this hardly means biblical support for the Adventist sanctuary doctrine, in contrast with Ballenger’s claims, was lacking. Indeed, evidence from Ballenger’s time suggests that more than one denominational leader brought to Ballenger’s attention the biblical shortcomings of his views (196). Ellen White’s appeal to the authority of her visions in refuting Ballenger’s claims in no way countermands her appeal elsewhere to Scripture as the foundation of the Advent faith. This is because her visions, and the sanctuary doctrine they affirm, are solidly based on the Bible. Despite claims by the deniers of this doctrine from Ballenger onward, the biblical evidence for the 1844 theology is clear and demonstrable. The present writer, along with many others, has written at length on the biblical basis of this doctrine in contrast with the claims of detractors (197).

One finds it truly astounding that while Bradford in the above statement makes it appear Ellen White was too hard on Ballenger, and that his objections to the sanctuary doctrine were Bible-based, he then writes in People Are Human that Ellen White rightly used her authority in “fighting against A.F. Ballenger’s erroneous ideas regarding the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary” (198). The contradiction here is glaring and obvious to anyone who reads both books. Where in fact does Bradford stand on the issue of Ballenger and Ellen White? If in fact Ballenger was teaching error, as Bradford says in People Are Human (199), why was it wrong for Ellen White to urge rejection of his views, as Bradford clearly implies in More Than a Prophet (200)?

Reference is made by Bradford, in both his books, to the writings of a contemporary Adventist scholar who claims Ellen White’s salvation theology changed as she grew older, from an allegedly law-oriented theology in her early years to an allegedly “grace-oriented” emphasis as her thinking “matured” (201). But while none can deny that the depth and richness of Ellen White’s understanding grew as the years passed, regarding salvation as well as other issues, the problem arises when those such as Bradford confuse growth with contradiction. Regarding Ellen White’s salvation theology, her early writings are as clear as her later ones that only imparted divine strength makes possible the obedience required as a condition of salvation (202), and her later writings are as clear as her early ones that this Spirit-empowered obedience remains the unalterable condition for humans to receive eternal life (203).

As in Prophets Are Human (204), Bradford repeats in More Than a Prophet the erroneous claim that Ellen White’s “shut door” theology, taught on the basis of visions, excluded for a time all but the little Adventist band from salvation (205). Those familiar with my review of Prophets Are Human will recall the evidence presented there which demonstrates the falsity of this claim (206). Though in his two latest books Bradford refers several times to the book Messenger of the Lord, by Herbert Douglass (207), he seems not to have considered the persuasive evidence presented in Douglass’ book which clarifies—in opposition to the prophet’s critics—the consistency of Ellen White’s “shut door” teachings throughout her prophetic ministry (208).

When Bradford tries to compare the “shut door” teaching of early Adventism with the early exclusion of Gentiles by the early church (Acts 10:9-34) (209), he confuses the issue badly—at least with regard to the question of Ellen White’s authority. Yes, the early Christians believed in a shut door, but no one is recorded as teaching this through purported divine revelation. The claim that Ellen White supported, on the basis of visions over a period of years, the exclusion of all but her fellow believers from salvation, raises a much different issue from the one faced by the early church. If, as Bradford alleges, this claim is true (210), Ellen White can justly be called a false prophet. But as is demonstrated in my review of Bradford’s first book, the evidence brought by the critics alleging Ellen White’s complicity in the extreme shut door concept proves nothing of the kind (211).

At another point, Bradford quotes from an unpublished paper by a General Conference archivist, alleging how Willie White told John Harvey Kellogg how unreliable his mother could be in relating what was shown to her (212). Then the archivist is quoted as citing three occasions where Ellen White supposedly misunderstood her visions: “Eve touching food in the Garden of Eden and death as the result, the number of generations contemporaneously living at the time of the flood, the use of Southern Publishing facilities as a depot” (213).

Unfortunately for Bradford’s case, no references are given for the alleged Ellen White contradictions. We will see that Bradford does this a number of times in seeking to prove Ellen White’s unreliability. Unless references are given for a claim such as this, it has no validity. Not to mention that John Harvey Kellogg is hardly an objective source in quoting a purported statement by Willie White, considering Kellogg’s disregard of Ellen White’s instruction and eventual separation from the church.

Bradford likewise raises the issue of the “daily” of Daniel 8, implying a contradiction in her stand:

She had previously written that the pioneer position (on the ‘daily’) was correct. The pioneer position was that the Daily mentioned in Daniel chapter 8 represented Pagan Rome. A new position was put forward that it represented the Papacy in their counterfeit of the work of Christ through the mass. The new view was opposed by old stalwarts who appealed to the statement in Early Writings as having settled the matter forever. Ellen White eventually took herself out of the contest by declaring that she had no special light on the matter and that they should work it out from the Bible and not her writings (214).

Bradford thus advances yet another distortion of the facts. Here is Ellen White’s statement in Early Writings on this subject, in its totality:

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’; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test (215).

Notice carefully that the only thing God showed her concerning the “daily” was that the word “sacrifice” didn’t belong in the text. When she writes in the next phrase about “the correct view of it,” it is clear in context that the “it” being described is the text of Daniel 8 and whether the word “sacrifice” belongs there. Not a word, in this passage or elsewhere, endorses the view that the “daily” in this passage refers to pagan Rome. Bradford is correct in claiming that the reason Ellen White refused to get involved in the debate over this question was because God had given her no light concerning it (216). Here are her thoughts, and her reasons for them:

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 (217).

Why did she ask that her writings not be used in this controversy? Because it was not her place to settle doctrinal issues? No. It was because God had given her no light on the issue of the “daily” either being paganism or the mediatorial work of Christ. Her Early Writings statement, as we have seen, had merely settled the question of whether the word “sacrifice” belonged in the text—a fact which holds true regardless of the stand one takes on the paganism-versus-Christ’s-mediation issue. The Early Writings statement neither mentioned nor settled the issue of what in fact the “daily” was. For Bradford or anyone else to use this issue either as evidence of self-contradiction on Ellen White’s part, or a general disavowal by her of a role in settling doctrinal disputes, is to distort the plain facts of the case.

Bradford also alleges a contradiction in Ellen White’s counsel on the time to begin the Sabbath, during the early development of Adventist beliefs regarding Sabbath observance (218). This, too, is an alleged contradiction without support. Robert W. Olson, in his book One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White, offers a careful chronology of Ellen White’s visions on this subject, which reveal no contradiction whatsoever (219).

A similar approach is used by Bradford in claiming Ellen White gave conflicting counsel regarding the use of swine’s flesh in the diet. He claims that Ellen White, presumably under inspiration, proclaimed in her early ministry that pork was “a healthy and nourishing food” (220). Later, Bradford claims, she changed her position (221). Bradford’s reference for Ellen White’s alleged statement that pork is “a healthy and nourishing food” is from an article by Ron Graybill, a former White Estate employee, titled, “The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats” (222). Unfortunately for Bradford’s argument, the statement he alleges is found nowhere in Graybill’s article, nor has the present writer found it elsewhere. An officer of the White Estate, consulted in the preparation of this review, considers this statement totally fictitious.

It is true that, in the late 1850s, at least one person was urging Adventists to give up swine’s flesh, and that both James and Ellen White discouraged this man’s efforts. This was because God hadn’t yet given Ellen White the instruction He would later give regarding this and other health issues. In her own words, written at the time:

If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine’s flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach His church their duty (223).

Five years later the Lord did just that. In the vision received on June 6, 1863, Ellen White was shown that “God never designed the swine to be eaten under any circumstances” (224).

Yes, Ellen White grew in her understanding of this issue. But as all can see, there is no conflict whatsoever between the two statements noted above. Growth and contradiction are not necessarily one and the same. For ordinary humans, they are often synonymous. But for one speaking as a mouthpiece of the Most High, they cannot be.

Bradford’s treatment of Ellen White’s stand on the law in Galatians also cites nonexistent evidence in seeking to prove contradiction in the prophet’s testimony. In Bradford’s words:

In the 1850s, J.H. Waggoner had written a book in which he took the position that the law in Galatians was the moral law. Stephen Pierce opposed him arguing that it was the law system including the ceremonial law. She opposed Waggoner and supported Pierce. Later the denominational position accepted that the law in Galatians was the ceremonial law alone. She supported this position. She published this view in her book Sketches from the Life of Paul.

At the time of the debate over the subject at Minneapolis in 1888, she began to doubt the position she had held that it was the ceremonial law. When hearing E.J. Waggoner, ‘For the first time I began to think it might be we did not hold correct views, after all upon the law in Galatians’.… This illustrates well that we find her changing her position on the basis of others pointing out a more correct position from the Bible. She was prepared to change her own previously published position on a basis of further Bible study. She also refused to let her writings be the final arbiter in the matter; instead she requested that the matter be resolved from the Bible alone (225).

The above statement is a mixture of truth and falsehood. In the controversy between J.H. Waggoner and Stephen Pierce, Ellen White did indeed support Pierce and oppose Waggoner (226). But Bradford’s statement that the “denominational position” later taught that the law in Galatians was exclusively the ceremonial law, is misleading. What does he mean by the “denominational position”? Denominational positions on any issue are established only one way in the Seventh-day Adventist Church—by a vote of the General Conference at a duly called global session. To the present writer’s knowledge, the identity and scope of the law in Galatians has never been addressed or defined by a General Conference vote. Merely because a few outspoken persons or even a majority of church officials believe a certain way, does not make their views “denominational.”

Also, Bradford is completely wrong in claiming Ellen White declared the law in Galatians as exclusively the ceremonial law in Sketches from the Life of Paul. Nor, in fact, does Bradford give a reference from this book for such a statement. And with good reason. Not a single statement in the entire book addresses the issue of the law in Galatians. The book does speak of the deception Paul confronted among the Galatians, regarding the ceremonial law supposedly still binding the Christian conscience, as well as the formalism and superficiality such a religion was encouraging (227). But at no point in the book does she either address or answer the question of which law, described in Galatians, was the schoolmaster to bring believers to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

Though she had earlier endorsed Pierce’s stand against J.H. Waggoner’s on this point, the later Minneapolis controversy saw her take a stand of tentative neutrality until she was either divinely instructed or could learn more of both views in the controversy. “I cannot take my position on either side,” she explained, “until I have studied the question” (228). As she learned more of what was being discussed, she could write of both persuasions: “Neither have all the light upon the law; neither position is perfect” (229). Shortly after Minneapolis she wrote that the issue in question “should not be handled in a debating style,” that it was “not a vital question and should not be treated as such” (230).

A few years later, when the controversy had subsided to some degree, Ellen White was divinely led to reaffirm the stand she had taken for the earlier views of Stephen Pierce. This reaffirmation can be found in Selected Messages, volume 1:

I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments (231).

At no time since has the scope of the law in Galatians been an issue in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The above Ellen White statement has effectively settled the dispute.

The evidence is therefore clear, despite Bradford’s claims, that Ellen White’s stand on this issue was consistent throughout her ministry. Her restraint in addressing the debate at Minneapolis was not a denial of her earlier stand, only a decision to learn in fact what both sides were saying before taking a position. Until she either studied the positions taken by both sides, or God revealed to her who was right, this was the wisest course. She also desired both sides to understand that the issue was not of vital importance, regardless of the stand one took. But the fact remains that her public pronouncements on the issue, throughout her ministry, reflect the same stand. No change in her position can be documented.

Bradford’s claim that Ellen White “requested that the matter (of the law in Galatians) be resolved from the Bible alone” (232) is obviously belied by her support of Pierce’s view against that of J.H. Waggoner (233), as well as her declaration on the subject some years afterward, as found in volume 1 of Selected Messages (234). If it had been her intention for the church to resolve the issue exclusively from the Bible, without her authoritative voice, God would not have given her the explicit guidance noted above. Bradford’s insistence notwithstanding, God clearly used Ellen White’s prophetic gift to settle this controversy, a debate which—to my knowledge—has never troubled the church in the years since.

Bradford maintains, again on the authority of scholars, that Ellen White’s use of Scripture is more homiletical than exegetical (235), this supposedly making less credible her role as an inspired Bible commentator (236). In simple words, the distinction Bradford is drawing is between the license with which a preacher might use biblical language, and the careful consideration of what a Bible verse is actually saying, on the surface and in context. Unfortunately for Bradford’s case, the examples he cites demonstrate no conflict at all between the biblical consensus and Ellen White’s use of the texts in question.

One of the verses Bradford claims Ellen White takes out of context, Nahum 1:9 (237), is easily seen as in harmony with Ellen White’s use of it once the context of the verse is considered. While, as Bradford claims, Nahum is indeed talking about the destruction of Nineveh (238), the immediate context is clear that a much larger meaning is intended:

He (God) rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth. The mountains quake at Him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at His presence; yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before His indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of His anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by Him (Nahum 1:4-6).

Quite obviously, this is end-time language (see Revelation 16:18-21; 20:9: 21:1). The whole earth wasn’t burned at God’s presence when Nineveh fell, the sea and the rivers didn’t dry up, nor did mountains quake and hills melt. The fall of Nineveh is no more the exclusive focus of this chapter than are the kings of Babylon and Tyre the exclusive focus of other passages which describe the fall of Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:12-15). Just as the internal evidence of the verses describing Lucifer’s fall give evidence that more than an earthly ruler is the subject, so the context of Nahum 1:9 makes it clear that more than Nineveh’s destruction is being predicted. Ellen White’s use of this verse is entirely in harmony with its context, as well as with a pattern found elsewhere in Scripture in which a local person or event is used to address a larger theme.

The other three passages cited by Bradford as evidence of Ellen White’s homiletical license are Ecclesiastes 7:2 (239), 1 Corinthians 2:9 (240), and Colossians 2:21 (241). While Bradford is correct that the context and content of these verses address different subjects than those Ellen White addresses when using the language of these verses, he seems not to realize that certain Bible writers do the same thing when quoting Bible passages. When Matthew, for example, quotes the words of Hosea which declare, “Out of Egypt have I called My Son” (Matthew 2:15; see Hosea 11:1), he is using Hosea’s words very differently from the way Hosea uses them. Hosea is speaking of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, while Matthew in context is speaking of Joseph and Mary bringing Jesus back to Israel from Egypt following the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:19-21).

What we must understand is that an inspired writer operates with information beyond what an ordinary Bible student receives from a simple reading of the text. An inspired writer may be instructed by the Holy Spirit to apply a verse in a way unreachable by normal exegesis or hermeneutics. So long as the inspired writer applies such a verse in a manner consistent with the consensus of inspired counsel, such use of an inspired passage is fully appropriate. (Should an inspired writer violate the overall message of Inspiration by such usage, what we have seen thus far from the sacred record gives evidence that the prophetic gift would not last long in such a one’s possession.) What biblical language means when employed by an inspired writer is determined, like all issues raised in Scripture, by the inspired consensus and in particular the two-or-three-witnesses principle found in both Old and New Testaments (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 1 Corinthians 14:29; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28).

Matthew’s use of Hosea’s words is therefore entirely proper. By the same token, so is Ellen White’s use of Ecclesiastes 7:2 in promotion of physical posture for health’s and spirituality’s sake (242), 1 Corinthians 2:9 in anticipation of the new earth (243), as well as her use of Colossians 2:21 in forbidding the use of harmful substances (244). Such a use of the Bible by Ellen White would only place her in trouble were the overall biblical message to teach that physical posture is irrelevant either to physical or spiritual well-being, that the future glories of the new earth are fully knowable by finite mortals, or that the use of physically destructive substances is an acceptable Christian practice.

Another such example cited by Bradford is Ellen White’s dual application of the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) (245). He claims Ellen White’s application of this parable both to the Great Disappointment and the Second Coming of Christ (246), proves her interpretations of Scripture are not “the one and only true meaning” of the text (247). But Ellen White’s authoritative interpretation of Scripture doesn’t require a “one and only” true meaning; it only requires that the meaning she attaches to the text be both correct and incontrovertible. Additional meanings are certainly possible, but they must always harmonize with the standard set by Inspiration, and never contradict it. Ellen White’s dual application of the parable of the ten virgins contradicts neither the consensus of Scripture nor that of her own writings. That is all that matters.

Bradford misleads his readers in his reference to James White’s inclusion of statements from the Apocrypha as footnotes to some of Ellen White’s early visions (248). Bradford writes:

The later writings of Ellen White do not contain such allusions or references. She, along with the rest of the Protestant world, gradually saw a clearer distinction between these books and the Bible (249).

While Bradford refers to a recent Review article on this subject as evidence for his claims (250), he seems not to have read the article carefully. This article makes it clear that while James White did include footnotes referring to the Apocrypha in some of Ellen White’s early visions (251), no evidence exists for Ellen White including such references in the visions themselves (252). Moreover, when she republished the narrative of her first visions in The Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White (253), James’ footnotes referring to the Apocrypha were removed (254). This hardly comports with Ellen White “gradually” seeing a distinction between the Apocrypha and the Bible. Though the article in question does mention one early Ellen White statement which speaks favorably of the Apocrypha (255), the article notes that this statement is unique and never repeated in Ellen White’s writings (256). Here again we must apply the Bible principle that two or three witnesses are needed to establish matters (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 1 Corinthians 14:29; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). A single reference clearly does not satisfy this principle.

One Adventist scholar quoted by Bradford declares:

As was the case with the classical prophets of the OT, her (Ellen White’s) main concern was to speak to her contemporary situation (257).

Ellen White flatly contradicts this statement, declaring instead:

Each of the ancient prophets spoke less for their own time than for ours, so that their prophesying is in force for us. ‘Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come’ (1 Corinthians 10:11) (258).

Seventh-day Adventists must face the sad reality that some who don scholarly robes and claim expertise in biblical and spiritual matters, have either failed to consult God’s written counsel or stand in deliberate defiance thereof.

Bradford insists that if Ellen White’s writings function as an inspired interpreter of the Bible, their authority inevitably supersedes the Bible. Declaring correctly that “the Bible is its own interpreter” (259), he claims the use of Ellen White statements to interpret Scripture is akin to the Catholic view of the pope:

The Catholic Church tried to impose upon Christians the role of the pope as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. This concept was rejected by Protestants, because it violated the principle of Sola Scriptura. Besides, once you have an external authority telling you what the Bible means, you make that authority more powerful than the Bible itself (260).

We have already noted how inconsistent Bradford is with this claim, in light of his pervasive, almost suffocating use of scholarly quotes as a means of explaining both Scripture and Ellen White. But in addition to its hypocrisy, the above statement is also fallacious. The papacy gives the pope the right to alter and contradict the meaning of Scripture, as evidenced by such doctrines as confession to priests, indulgences, clerical celibacy, and the attempted change of the Ten Commandments. By contrast, those Adventists who accept Ellen White’s role as authoritative Bible interpreter—defined, as we have seen, in her own writings (261)—acknowledge that the Bible interprets itself, but nevertheless recognize that the hardening of human hearts through centuries of transgression has made needful the constant repetition of the divine will. As both Ellen White and sacred history make plain (262), the clarification of God’s Word has been repeatedly necessary through the ages due to the faith community’s continual disobedience.

But like all inspired messengers, Ellen White is not allowed to contradict—as does the pope—what God has already revealed. Her interpretive role does not permit her to contradict the Bible’s message, for should she ever do this her prophetic gift would be annulled. Inspired interpretation involves amplification, clarification, elaboration, and simplification. But never contradiction. So long as Ellen White is faithful to the biblical consensus, her role remains intact in simplifying and magnifying the Scriptures (263), and correcting those who err from them (264).

One illustration of Ellen White’s interpretive role is the following: Ellen White uses Paul’s declaration that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20) to counter the disregard of physical health (265). But in context, this statement by Paul refers not to physical health but to sexual immorality (verses 15-18). Ellen White’s use of this passage thus expands its meaning beyond what is found in context. And since the Bible is clear that God cares about physical health and forbids habits destructive of the same (Proverbs 20:1; 23:2, 31, 32; Luke 21:34; 3 John 2), Ellen White is not violating the biblical message by using Paul’s statement about the body being the Spirit’s temple as supporting a larger concern for bodily health. Ellen White’s elaboration of this passage’s theme would only be problematic if Scripture taught that physical health was irrelevant to one’s relationship with God.

One revisionist scholar quoted by Bradford writes as follows regarding those upholding identical authority for both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White:

Although these writers probably did not realize it, they implied by their arguments that the Bible alone is insufficient to guide the believer into all truth (266).

This raises a totally false issue, since the Bible itself authorizes the prophetic gift (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11), which—as we have noted—includes the ministry of individuals whose testimonies were not later included in the biblical canon. We cannot claim a sufficiency for the Bible that it doesn’t claim for itself. While we affirm Ellen White’s support of a closed canon, and her denial that her writings are an addition to the Bible (267), the Bible neither distinguishes the authority of canonical from non-canonical prophets, nor does it claim the church needs no further authoritative instruction or guidance beyond what is found in the 66 books of Scripture. Certainly the Bible is all-sufficient as the written establisher of truth. But it does not claim all-sufficiency in terms of authoritative, elaborative counsel needed by the church.

Bradford uses another Ellen White statement, as have others (268), in support of his claim that she intended for Scripture only, and not her writings, to settle issues within the church:

Lay Sister White to one side; lay her to one side. Don’t you ever quote my words as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and you make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don’t you give a rap any more what ‘Sister White said’—‘Sister White said this,’ and ‘Sister White said that,’ and ‘Sister White said the other thing.’ But say, ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.’ (269).

This statement comes from an unofficial transcript of an informal meeting between Ellen White and various church leaders prior to the General Conference session of 1901 (270). The official transcript of this talk—found in Selected Messages, volume 3 (271)—uses the phrase, “Do not repeat,” as distinct from, “Don’t give a rap,” the former being more in harmony with Ellen White’s usual speech patterns (272).

Internal and contextual evidence reveals this to be a rebuke to those who, while not following Ellen White’s counsel themselves, were using it to further their own political ends (273). This becomes clear as she declares, just prior to the above statement: “How can the Lord bless those who manifest a spirit of ‘I don’t care,’ a spirit which leads them to walk contrary to the light which the Lord has given them?” (274). Her counsel that such ones “obey the Bible” had to do with their failure to follow the biblical formula for reconciliation among brethren (Matthew 18:15-17) (275), as well as their failure to practice the principles of health reform (276).

In the theology of Ellen White, obedience to the Bible always comes first. She does not say, in the above statement, not to quote her words at all, nor to refrain from using them as a means to settle controversy. She simply commands that the Bible be obeyed first and foremost, and that her words not be quoted until that happens. “When,” in her words, “you take the Bible and make it your food, and your meat, and your drink… you will know better how to receive some counsel from God” (277). She clearly understood her instructive words to the church as “counsel from God,” as statements such as the following make clear:

The Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures, and of the Spirit of Prophecy (278).

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework God has been giving her (279).

I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne (280).

The testimonies I have borne you have in truth been presented to me by the Lord. I am sorry that you have rejected the light given.

Are you betraying your Lord because in His great mercy He has shown you just where you are standing spiritually? He knows every purpose of the heart. Nothing is hid from Him. It is not I whom you are betraying. It is not I against whom you are so embittered. It is the Lord, who has given me a message to bear to you (281).

It is clear, then, that when she declared to the church leaders in 1901 not to say “Sister White said this,” etc. (282), she was not giving her writings less divine unction than those of the Bible. She was simply directing those present to the fact that God is the author of all inspired counsel, that the Bible is the foundation of the church’s faith and duty, and that once the Bible is obeyed we will be spiritually prepared to receive divine counsel as given through the Spirit of Prophecy.

Bradford again tries to make Ellen White appear contradictory when in one statement she writes that “the only teachers of their children until they have reached eight or ten years of age” should be the parents (283), then writes elsewhere:

Mothers should be able to instruct their little ones wisely during the earlier years of childhood. If every mother were capable of doing this, and would take time to teach her children the lessons they should learn in early life, then all children could be kept in the home school until they are eight, or nine, or ten years of age (284).

Ellen White then proceeded to rebuke certain ones who apparently, like Bradford himself, saw the first of the above statements as rigid and unbending. She wrote:

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things.… if there is a family that has not the capabilities of educating, nor discipline and government over children, requiring obedience, the very best thing is to put them in some place where they will obey (285).

The fact is that at no time did Ellen White present a rigid, inflexible rule regarding the age at which to send children to school. The two statements noted above, viewed in the context of the Ellen White consensus, are not at all contradictory. And Ellen White’s concern that some were saying, “Sister White has said so-and-so” regarding this matter (286), were obviously relative to the fact that the totality of her counsel on this subject—which had never offered an unbending rule on this point—was not being considered.

At another point, Bradford claims that many of Ron Numbers’ disputes with Ellen White’s health instruction, as found in his 1976 book Prophetess of Health (287), have since been proven correct despite the White Estate’s initial opposition to Numbers’ book (288). Yet Bradford fails to list a single instance in which this claim has been demonstrated.

Elsewhere, citing Numbers and another revisionist historian, Bradford claims that “Ellen White had changed her ideas on whether Adventists should consult physicians, don ‘reform’ clothing, or adopt a two-meal-a-day plan among other matters” (289). Once again we see an accusation leveled but no evidence provided. Not a single Ellen White statement can be found forbidding Adventists ever to consult physicians, nor was her stand on two meals a day ever presented as an ironclad rule. The following statements are typical of her counsel in this regard:

The practice of eating but two meals a day is generally found a benefit to health; yet under some circumstances, persons may require a third meal. This should, however, if taken at all, be very light, and of food most easily digested (290).

In regard to the third meal, do not make eating but two meals compulsory. Some do best healthwise when eating three light meals, and when they are restricted to two, they feel the change severely (291).

I eat only two meals a day. But I do not think that the number of meals should be made a test. If there are those who are better in health when eating three meals, it is their privilege to eat three (292).

No statement of Ellen White’s can be produced which eschews the balance and clarity of the above passages.

Regarding the so-called “reform dress,” the internal evidence of her original counsel on this point indicates that this attire was designed to counter the particular extremes that existed in the popular women’s clothing of the day (293). Since these particular extremes—dresses dragging the ground on the one hand, and others worn by “a certain (notorious) class” reaching about to the knees on the other—were not destined to last forever, her later counsel makes perfect sense that Adventist women were not to resume advocacy of the reform dress (294). Regarding the dress question, the prophet’s words embody both balance and a respect for the conscience when declaring:

No one precise style has been given me as the exact rule to guide all in their dress (295).

No statement can be found, anywhere in Ellen White’s writings, which speaks contrary to the above counsel.

Bradford likewise follows the path of other Ellen White critics in disputing her oft-repeated statement that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old (296). Once again, scholars—not the Bible—are his authority for disbelieving Ellen White in this regard. Two of these, as quoted by Bradford, have stated regarding this point:

If Ellen White were alive today, she would no doubt advocate that chronology that holds the closest fidelity to the scriptural record (297).

There is no indication that she (Ellen White) was ever told in vision that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Why then six and not eight or ten thousand years? The explanation is most likely found in the fact that whenever she opened her King James Bible she saw on every page in the margins Usher’s dates (298).

Once again, we confront raw human speculation. It would be one thing if this were some peripheral detail mentioned but once, like the question of which bell tolled to signal the start of the St. Bartholomew Massacre (299). But at least thirty-two statements are known to the present writer in which Ellen White declares the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old. Eighteen of these speak of 6,000 years (300), while fourteen speak of 4,000 years from the time of creation to the first advent of Christ (301). The biblical principle regarding two or three witnesses being needed to establish a matter (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 1 Corinthians 14:29; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28) is more than satisfied here.

One scholar quoted by Bradford says Ellen White couldn’t possibly have disagreed publicly with the 6,000-year age of the earth, since in her day this was a key assumption of Bible-believing creationists who were fighting against evolution:

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the history of man upon earth was actually ten thousand years, could we really expect God to have revealed this fact to Ellen White and had her incorporate this figure into her writings? How would this have been accepted in the nineteenth century by Bible-believing Christians who, with their backs to the wall, fought off the attack of infidel geologists and the rising tide of liberal theologians?… Could we expect Ellen White to come out with something different and demolish what was for them an important pillar in their defense of the Bible? (302).

Certainly we can. Each of Adventism’s pillar doctrines—the Sabbath, the perpetuity of the law of God, conditional immortality, the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, the three angels’ messages—strike at key presuppositions held by conservative Christians both then and now. By far the majority of Adventist disputes with other Christians, as articulated by Ellen White and the church at large, expose errors in the teachings of fellow Bible-believing, theological conservatives. (After all, what do theological liberals, who question the very existence of the supernatural, care about which day one keeps or whether one’s eternal reward is received immediately at death or not till the resurrection?) To suggest that Ellen White would have avoided teaching something that would cause discomfort to other embattled Bible-believing Christians, when in fact she and the Adventist body as a whole were doing this on a wide range of other issues, is belied by the clearest evidence of Adventist history and theology.

We have seen already, from Ellen White’s pen, how closely the Lord guided the preparation of her writings. For an inspired messenger to state something thirty-two times is most difficult to dismiss as unimportant. We are simply asked to choose between the word of an inspired prophet and the words of uninspired scholars. Which will it be?

Again following the lead of other Ellen White critics, Bradford cites her statements on the role of coal beds in the geological formation of volcanoes (303), declaring, “This concept was largely believed in her day, but now has no credibility” (304).

Wrong again.

In his book Messenger of the Lord, to which Bradford refers several times (305), Herbert Douglass lists noteworthy scientific sources—all written many years after Ellen White wrote the statements in question—which have confirmed her observations in this regard (306). Otto Statzer, in his 1940 book Geology of Coal, speaks much as Ellen White did in describing the role of subterranean fires in coal beds producing spontaneous combustion, the melting of nearby rocks, and consequent volcanic activity (307). Research conducted in the western United States nearly a century after Ellen White wrote on this subject, has uncovered findings much the same as hers (308). Another paper, published by the United States Geological Survey, includes verification of Ellen White’s comments on certain iron ore deposits being formed to some extent through the burning of coal (309).

It is equally important to note—as does Douglass—that Ellen White does not say all volcanic activity is the result of such causes (310). What is significant is that no one has yet cited any human source for Ellen White’s statements in this regard (311), and that her statements on this subject were written long before scientists would find the verification noted above which supports her observations.

Mention is made by Bradford of minor changes in the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy, some of which seem to have been suggested by W.W. Prescott (312). We have noted one of these changes already, regarding the question of which bell tolled at the start of the St. Bartholomew Massacre (313). Another one mentioned by Bradford is a small difference between the 1888 and 1911 editions on the subject of the Waldenses. The 1888 edition reads:

The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures (314).

The 1911 edition reads:

The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures (315).

As all can see, this discrepancy is completely peripheral. In fact, a case can be made that the two statements aren’t in conflict at all, but that Ellen White might have implemented this small change merely to avoid controversy over a minor matter.

Bradford also makes reference to an Adventist pastor in the former Czechoslovakia, who in 1982 is said to have asked a history professor at Prague University to evaluate Ellen White’s historical recounting of the Waldenses, Wycliffe, Huss, and Jerome (316). The professor is said to have noted a number of “errors regarding the facts of history” in Ellen White’s work (317). Unfortunately for his case, Bradford lists none of these errors. Allowing, as we have noted already, for peripheral discrepancies in inspired writings, recent studies encountered by the present writer give evidence of far greater accuracy on Ellen White’s part in surveying the historical period in question. Papers by a Dutch Adventist pastor, researching this topic at length, are available on request (318).

Elsewhere Bradford alleges contradiction between Ellen White’s statement in the 1888 Great Controversy that the fall of Babylon “cannot refer to the Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen condition for centuries” (319), in contrast with the 1911 edition which says Babylon “cannot refer to the Romish Church alone” (320). But let us remember again the biblical principle that two or three witnesses are needed to establish matters (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 1 Corinthians 14:29; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). A single word, no matter how significant it may seem, cannot by itself prove a contradiction in one's belief system. Unless one can prove with several or more statements that Ellen White’s understanding of Babylon’s identity was contradictory at different points in her ministry, such a contradiction cannot be substantiated.

In his discussion of Ellen White’s comments on the French Revolution, which we will address further at a later point, Bradford makes the following statement:

We also know that the Bible was not banned for 3 1/2 years as applied to the prophecy (of Revelation 11) in The Great Controversy (321).

Though Bradford gives no reference for the Great Controversy statement to which he refers, it reads as follows:

God’s faithful witnesses, slain by the blasphemous power that ‘ascendeth out of the bottomless pit,’ were not long to remain silent. ‘After three days and a half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them which saw them.’ Revelation 11:11. It was in 1793 that the decrees which abolished the Christian religion and set aside the Bible passed the French Assembly. Three years and a half later a resolution rescinding these decrees, thus granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted by the same body (322).

Notice how Ellen White doesn’t say the Bible was completely banned, only that it was set aside, along with the Christian religion in general. Bradford’s doubts notwithstanding, the beginning and end of this prophetic time period is clearly documented by historians outside Adventism. The repudiation of Christianity by the French National Assembly in the fall of 1793 (323), and the restoration of religious rights by the same body—three and a half years later—in the summer of 1797 (324), are facts of history.

As in Prophets Are Human (325), Bradford declares in More Than a Prophet how Ellen White was presumably captive to her culture in giving counsel against wigs and masturbation (326), in her alleged support for phrenology (327), in stating a connection between swine’s flesh and leprosy (328), in her statements about astronomy (329), and in her comments on genetic amalgamation in the days of Noah (330). The reader is referred to my review of Prophets Are Human for an in-depth consideration of each of these points (331). In addition, Douglass’ Messenger of the Lord includes an entire chapter addressing most of the issues noted above (332), and Robert Olson’s One Hundred and One Questions speaks to the issue of astronomy and the planetary moons which Ellen White saw in vision (333). The latter issue is perhaps easiest to settle, since Ellen White never said what planet she saw, nor did she indicate that the planet she saw—with its seven moons (334)—was in our solar system. All the speculation cited by Bradford regarding which planet she may or may not have seen, the number of moons then known around various planets in our solar system, and the alleged congruence of Ellen White’s statements with the scientific knowledge of her day (335), is therefore completely pointless.

Among those health counsels which Bradford claims “we would consider to be wrong today” are Ellen White’s statements “that women tightening their waists into what was called ‘wasp waists’ could be passed on to their daughters” (336). But the key here is the phrase “could be.” In each of the statements where she speaks of the unhealthiness of this practice she uses the word “may” regarding the possibility of genetic transmission, focusing primarily on the health risks to a child’s future if a mother’s breathing is constricted by such clothing (337).

Like others who have sought for years to reduce Ellen White’s authority, Bradford assures the church that it need not be troubled by occasional errors in her statements or counsel, because, “after all, she never claims to be infallible” (338). He then quotes Ellen White as saying:

In regard to infallibility, I have never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning (339).

Notice, however, the distinction Ellen White draws between herself on the one hand, and God and His Word on the other. No created being is ever infallible—not even the sinless angels, who according to the inspired record cherished sympathy for Satan until the cross unmasked him (340). But the inspired Word is an entirely different matter. And while a scholar quoted by Bradford cites disapprovingly the statement of one Adventist that “the Testimonies sent are God’s word” (341), consider the following Ellen White statement:

Do not, when referring to the Testimonies, feel it your duty to drive them home. In reading the Testimonies, be sure not to mix in your filling of words; for this makes it impossible for the hearers to distinguish between the word of the Lord to them and your words (342).

Of course, in using such words as infallibility, we need to let Inspiration define its own vocabulary. Ellen White is clear that, just as the Bible is its own interpreter, so are her writings: “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture” (343). Regarding the Bible’s infallibility, the following statement is offered by Ellen White:

In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as the authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience (344).

And yet she writes elsewhere, concerning the Bible:

Some look at us gravely and say, ‘Don’t you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?’ This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. Yes, they would just as easily stumble over plain facts that the common mind will accept, and discern the Divine, and to which God’s utterance is plain and beautiful, full of marrow and fatness. All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth (345).

In other words, infallibility as defined by Ellen White doesn’t mean the absence of peripheral shortcomings, such as the discrepancy between the Old and New Testaments regarding how many of Jacob’s family moved to Egypt (Genesis 46:27; Acts 7:14), Ellen White’s statement regarding how many rooms were found in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium (346), or the minor differences we noted earlier between successive editions of The Great Controversy (347). The difference between the peripheral and the substantial is determined by the underlying harmony of the inspired consensus, buttressed by the two-or-three witnesses principle we have noted already in the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 1 Corinthians 14:29; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). The inspired writings interpret themselves (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Isaiah 28:9, 10) (348), thus disclosing the transcendent teachings, principles, and instructive counsel sent by God to men and women.

Bradford mentions perceived lapses in Ellen White’s personal life—family difficulties, occasional forgetfulness and despondency, etc. (349). These, of course, hardly make Ellen White unique among inspired writers, since many Bible writers themselves experienced personal failings. But occasional lapses of this kind are not the issue here. The issue before us is the prophet’s message when speaking under inspiration. In the following statements Ellen White draws a clear contrast between the mistaken idea that all she ever did or say, publicly or privately, was “as inspired as the Ten Commandments,” and the reality that what God revealed to her was in fact thus inspired:

In your letter you speak of your early training to have implicit faith in the testimonies and say, ‘I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word that you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the Ten Commandments.’

My brother, you have studied my writings diligently, and you have never found that I have made any such claims, neither will you find that the pioneers in our cause ever made such claims (350).

In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a plain ‘thus saith the Lord.’ The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God upon the tables of stone (351).

In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne (352).

Notice the clear difference between the false claim that all she ever said or wrote, in public or private, is as inspired as the Ten Commandments, and her claim that the truths in her books and other inspired writings were as indelibly traced on her heart as was the law of God upon the tables of stone. A prophet is allowed to have a personal life, without every word or deed bearing the superscription of the divine. Notice she doesn’t say every letter she ever wrote, under any and all circumstances, was inspired by God. But when she wrote letters of spiritual counsel and instruction—as distinct from friendly, social, or merely informational letters to friends and family—these come with divine authority.

A supporter of Bradford’s theology, in a letter to Ministry, tries to make an issue out of the word “infallible” in the SDA Fundamental Belief concerning the Bible, and the absence of this word with reference to Ellen White (353). “The definite and indefinite articles are vital,” he claims, regarding the words “the infallible revelation” concerning the Bible, and the words “an authoritative source of truth” concerning Ellen White (354).

Unfortunately, the author in question seems to forget that a proposal to include the word “only” regarding the Bible’s infallible revelation, was voted down at the same General Conference session which adopted these Fundamental Beliefs (355). And the indefinite article regarding Ellen White’s authority is quite beside the point when one considers how this belief statement affirms Ellen White’s role in giving “comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction” (356). If the prophet’s corrective role, as affirmed by this statement, is subjected—as Bradford claims (357)—to the vagrant “wisdom” and “discernment” of believers, such a role can have no meaningful application within the church. Certainly the Church’s Fundamental Beliefs give no credence to purported “wisdom” or “discernment” picking and choosing among a prophet’s messages.

The above respondent also seems unaware of the fact that if Bradford’s inspiration theology is accepted, the Bible itself ceases to be infallible. We have seen already that in Bradford’s view, even the canonical prophets of Scripture could misinterpret and misapply God’s messages (358), that “not all Scripture carries the same redemptive value” (359), and that Jeremiah “plagued the life out of people with his doomsday predictions” (360). Far from staying “within the boundaries of the fundamental beliefs,” as the above respondent claims (361), Bradford’s theology calls into question his faith in the very first of these beliefs, which declares: “The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of [God’s] will” (362).

Seeking, it appears, to magnify the prophet’s “fallibility quotient” in the minds of his readers, Bradford foolishly implies a certain “mental deterioration” on Ellen White’s part in her later years, the assumption being that perhaps all that was published under her name at this time wasn’t necessarily reliable. In his words:

One does get the impression, from the letters of Prescott and Crisler, however, that there was an attempt by her helpers to assist and not give any impression of mental deterioration. Books were still being rushed out for publication just prior to her death, and after as well.

Many Adventists, as well as those who are antagonistic to Ellen White’s writings, have failed to take into account that she did start out a young and in many respects immature girl to whom great responsibility was given. Nor do they take into account that she did grow old and suffer with the frailties that accompany those who live into their 80s (363).

But nothing Bradford cites, including the quotes from his scholar-friends (364), offers any proof that anything published or sent out under Ellen White’s name during this time, reflected the frailty here alleged. These allegations of supposed youthful immaturity and elderly infirmity on Ellen White’s part, remind me of a comment by a professor-friend of mine in college, who spoke of how on one occasion he had quoted a statement from Early Writings to a colleague whose view of Ellen White’s authority was more lax than his own. The colleague replied that Ellen White was young and immature when she wrote the statement in question. My professor-friend asked in return, “How old was the Holy Spirit?”

Bradford seeks to wrap up his case for the denial of Ellen White’s authoritative role by claiming his view to be “the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church” (365). Again, as with his comments on the so-called “denominational position” on the law in Galatians (366), Bradford betrays a serious lapse of awareness regarding how Adventism adopts “official” stances on any issue.

The statement containing what Bradford calls the church’s “official position” on Ellen White’s authority, is taken from a document prepared by an ad hoc committee of the General Conference in the early 1980s, subsequently published in both the Adventist Review and Ministry (367). Bradford has reproduced this entire document in Appendix D of People Are Human (368). He seems, however, not to have noticed the introductory statement by the Biblical Research Institute, which clarifies that this is “not a voted statement” (369)—in other words, not one approved by the General Conference in business session. Which means, obviously, that it is not an official pronouncement of the Adventist world body, and therefore not the church’s “official” position, since only statements voted by the world body at a duly-called global session qualify as official.

Not that any conflict exists between this statement and what we have seen thus far from both Scripture and Ellen White regarding prophetic authority. Following is the full list of the statements, affirmations and denials, as published in Appendix D of People Are Human:

Affirmations

We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed Word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.

We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.

We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.

We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.

We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.

We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.

We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We believe that Ellen White’s use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.

Denials

We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of Sacred Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation, and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.

We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.

We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are the product of mere Christian piety.

We do not believe that Ellen White’s use of literary sources and assistants negates the inspiration of her writings.

We conclude, therefore, that a correct understanding of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White will avoid two extremes: (1) regarding these writings as functioning on canonical level identical with Scripture; or (2) considering them as ordinary Christian literature (370).

Unfortunately, when declaring in More Than a Prophet that the above statement is the church’s “official position” (371), Bradford quotes only five of the above affirmations and denials—just one of the former and four of the latter:

Affirmations

We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

Denials

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the canon and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.

We do not believe that Scriptures can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture (372).

While none of the above statements contain error, on the basis of our review of the inspired evidence, they present by themselves an imbalance which the other affirmations and denials correct. Especially is this true with Affirmations 7-9, which use such phrases as “applicable and authoritative” regarding Ellen White’s writings, the statement that those writings include “guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of those teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life,” and which declare acceptance of Ellen White’s prophetic gift as “important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

In no way does this statement withhold from Ellen White the role affirmed by No. 17 of the church’s 28 Fundamental Beliefs—that “her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction” (373). Nor does it contradict the affirmation of the Glacier View Consensus Statement of 1980, which declares that Ellen White’s authority “transcends that of all noninspired interpreters” of Scripture (374). And no portion of this statement denies to Ellen White the role her writings define for themselves—that of simplifying and magnifying the Scriptures (375), and correcting those who err from them (376). The modern prophet’s divine mandate to “correct specious errors, and to specify what is truth” (377), is not at all disallowed by the statement in question.

Most of all, this statement does not deny the Bible truth that the authoritative, transcendent gift of prophecy is alive and well in the church of the last days (1 Corinthians 1:7; Revelation 12:17; 19:10; 22:9).

In short, Bradford’s claim that Ellen White’s corrective authority in doctrinal and spiritual matters was not envisioned by her, but was rather invented by conservative Adventists following her death (378), is one of the most fantastic delusions ever foisted on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We have seen from the prophet’s own pen that such authority is part of her God-given role, and have likewise seen the alleged errors and contradictions in her writings collapse for lack of evidence. The protest of one of Bradford’s scholar-friends against those “regarding the statements of the Bible and those of Ellen White as of equal force” (379), is countered by the biblical reality that all prophets—canonical and otherwise—speak with identical force.

We cannot state it often enough: God does not have junior prophets. The prophetic voice is the prophetic voice, whether inside or outside the canon. Bradford’s “real” Ellen White—ambiguous and pliable, “progressive” in the vernacular of the modern church, changing with the times while staying captive to her culture—is, quite simply, a work of fiction. GCO

Endnotes

140. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 126, 127.
141. ________, letter to Ministry, April 2007, p. 25.
142. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 46, 47, 52.
143. Ibid., p. 112.
144. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 151-173; People Are Human, pp. 27-116.
145. ________, People Are Human, pp. 18, 19.
146. Ibid., p. 84.
147. Ibid., p. 115.
148. Ibid., p. 7.
149. Arthur Patrick, “Graeme Bradford and Ellen White’s Inspiration,”
     www.spectrummagazine.org/onlinecommunity/
     featuredcolumns/070405patrick.html.
150. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 15.
151. G.B. Thompson, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 154; People Are Human, p. 22.
152. Ibid., pp. 93, 94.
153. George R. Knight, From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A.T. Jones (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1987), p. 69, quoted by Bradford, People Are Human, p. 57.
154. Fritz Guy, Thinking Theologically (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999), pp. 123, 124, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 208.
155. Fred Veltman, Life of Christ Research Project, vol. 3, pp. 957, 958, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 219.
156. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 100, 101, 108, 134, 151-156, 205, 206; People Are Human, pp. 20-22, 30-38, 98, 133.
157. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 105, 127-129.
158. ________, letter to Ministry, April 2007, p. 25.
159. James E. Matheson, letter published by Bradford, People Are Human, p. 3.
160. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 15.
161. White, Early Writings, p. 78.
162. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32.
163. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
164. ________, Colporteur Ministry, p. 126.
165. ________, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98, 99.
166. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655, 656.
167. ________, Gospel Workers, p. 302.
168. ________, This Day With God, p. 126.
169. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
170. Fritz Guy, Thinking Theologically (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999), pp. 123, 124, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 208.
171. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
172. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30.
173. ________, Life Sketches, p. 198.
174. ________, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 364.
175. ________, Gospel Workers, p. 302; Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 124, 125.
176. ________, Letter 12, 1890 (Evangelism, p. 256); The Great Controversy, p. 595; Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 706, 707.
177. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 125, 126.
178. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 125.
179. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 125.
180. White, Evangelism, p. 256.
181. ________, The Great Controversy, p. 595.
182. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 68; Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 671.
183. ________, The Great Controversy, p. 595.
184. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 125.
185. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 706, 707.
186. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 16, 121; People Are Human, p. 59.
187. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 37.
188. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 123.
189. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 43-45.
190. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 123.
191. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 52, 53.
192. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 123.
193. Ibid., p. 124.
194. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 43-45.
195. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 124.
196. See W.R. Lesher, “Landmark Truth Versus ‘Specious Error,’” Review and Herald, March 6, 1980, pp. 4-7; “Truth Stands Forever,” Review and Herald, March 13, 1980, pp. 6, 7; E.E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1912).
197. Paulson, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Parts 1-3;
     “1844: Embattled Yet Enduring”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-sdcb1.php.
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-sdcb2.php.
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-sdcb3.php.
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-1844.php.
198. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 69.
199. Ibid.
200. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 124.
201. Alden Thompson, “From Sinai to Golgotha,” Parts 1-5, Adventist Review, Dec. 3-31, 1981, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 116; People Are Human, p. 71.
202. See White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 705; vol. 2, p. 81; Early Writings, p. 71; Signs of the Times, Nov. 24, 1887.
203. ________, Acts of the Apostles, p. 482; Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 972; Review and Herald, June 26, 1900; Signs of the Times, Nov. 15, 1899.
204. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, pp. 13, 57, 58.
205. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 118.
206. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
207. Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1998), quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 89, 211; People Are Human, pp. 13, 24, 129, 142.
208. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, pp. 500-512.
209. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 118, 257.
210. Ibid.
211. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
212. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 118.
213. Ibid.
214. Ibid., p. 122.
215. White, Early Writings, p. 74.
216. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 122.
217. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 164 (italics supplied).
218. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 122.
219. Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White (Washington, D.C: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981), pp. 54, 55.
220. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 122.
221. Ibid.
222. Ron Graybill, “The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats,”
     www.whiteestate.org/issues/Clean-Uncl.html quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 122, 259.
223. White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 207.
224. ________, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 124.
225. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 121, 122.
226. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 18; 1888 Materials, vol. 1, p. 21.
227. ________, Sketches from the Life of Paul, pp. 189-193.
228. ________, quoted by Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 56.
229. Ibid.
230. Ibid.
231. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 233.
232. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 122.
233. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 18; 1888 Materials, vol. 1, p. 21.
234. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 233.
235. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 208-211; People Are Human, p. 138.
236. Ibid., p. 211.
237. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 209; People Are Human pp. 138, 139.
238. Ibid.
239. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 208, 209; People Are Human, p. 138.
240. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 209.
241. Ibid., p. 210.
242. White, The Great Controversy, p. 504.
243. ________, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 49; Education, p. 198.
244. ________, Ministry of Healing, p. 335.
245. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 209.
246. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 414; The Great Controversy, p. 398.
247. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 209.
248. Ibid., p. 122.
249. Ibid.
250. Denis Fortin, “Sixty-six Books—or Eighty-one? Did Ellen White Recommend the Apocrypha?” Adventist Review, March 28, 2002, pp. 9-12.
251. Ibid., p. 10.
252. Ibid.
253. Now published in Early Writings, pp. 11-83.
254. Fortin, “Sixty-six Books—or Eighty-one? Did Ellen White Recommend the Apocrypha?” Adventist Review, March 28, 2002, p. 10.
255. White, Manuscript 4, 1850, quoted by Fortin, “Sixty-six Books—or Eighty-one? Did Ellen White Recommend the Apocrypha?” Adventist Review, March 28, 2002, p. 11.
256. Fortin, “Sixty-six Books—or Eighty-one? Did Ellen White Recommend the Apocrypha?” Adventist Review, March 28, 2002, p. 11.
257. Jon Paulien, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 210; People Are Human, p. 140.
258. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 338.
259. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 206.
260. Ibid.; People Are Human, p. 134.
261. White, Early Writings, p. 78; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98, 99; Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.
262. ________, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 364; Life Sketches, p. 198.
263. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665; Colporteur Ministry, p. 126.
264. ________, Early Writings, p. 78; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98, 99; Gospel Workers, p. 302.
265. ________, Ministry of Healing, p. 330.
266. Gary Land, Adventism in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmann’s, 1986), pp. 158-161, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 166; People Are Human, p. 97.
267. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 663.
268. See Desmond Ford, Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith (Goodlettsville, TN: Jack D. Walker, Publisher, 1976), pp. 42, 43; Martin Weber, Who’s Got the Truth? Making sense out of five different Adventist gospels (Silver Spring, MD: Home Study International Press, 1994), p. 202.
269. Transcribed remarks of Ellen White at Battle Creek College library, General Conference of 1901, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 207; People Are Human, p. 135.
270. See Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 46; also A. Leroy Moore, The Theology Crisis (Corpus Christi, TX: Life Seminars, Inc, 1980), p. 354.
271. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 33.
272. Moore, The Theology Crisis, p. 354.
273. Ibid.; See also Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 46.
274. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 33.
275. Moore, The Theology Crisis, p. 354.
276. Ibid.
277. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 33.
278. Ibid., p. 30.
279. Ibid., p. 50.
280. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67.
281. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 84.
282. Ibid., p. 33.
283. ________, Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 137, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 216; People Are Human, p. 149.
284. ________, “Counsel on Age of School Children,” Manuscript Release #405, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 216; People Are Human, pp. 149, 150.
285. Ibid.
286. Ibid.
287. Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row, 1976).
288. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 132, 260.
289. Gary Land, “From Apologetics to History: The Professionalization of Adventist Historians,” Spectrum, March 1980, pp. 93, 94, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 196; People Are Human, p. 121.
290. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 176.
291. Ibid., p. 178.
292. Ibid.
293. ________, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 464.
294. ________, Manuscript 167, 1897, quoted in D.E. Robinson, The Story of Our Health Message (Nashville: Southern Publishing Assn, 1965), pp. 441-445.
295. ________, Evangelism, p. 273.
296. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 135; People Are Human, p. 154.
297. Warren Johns, Ministry, April 1984, p. 23, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 134.
298. Gerhard Pfandl, “Ellen G. White and Earth Science,” p. 18 (paper presented at International Faith and Science Conference, Aug. 23-29, 2002), quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 135.
299. See Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905-1915 (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1982), pp. 330, 331.
300. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 92; Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 172; vol. 3, pp. 138, 492; Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 93; vol. 4, p. 371; The Great Controversy, pp. x, 518, 552, 553, 656, 659 (twice stated), 673; Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 51, 342; Counsels on Health, p. 19; The Desire of Ages, pp. 413 (twice stated).
301. ________, The Great Controversy, pp. vii, 328, 546; Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 267 (twice stated), 269, 280; The Desire of Ages, pp. 49, 117, 652, 759; Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 88; Review and Herald, Aug. 18, 1874; Manuscript 43, 1897.
302. Pfandl, “Ellen G. White and Earth Science,” p. 18 (paper presented at International Faith and Science Conference, Aug. 23-29, 2002), quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 135.
303. See White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 108, 109; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 79, 80.
304. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 135.
305. Ibid., pp. 89, 211; People Are Human, pp. 13, 24, 129, 142.
306. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, pp. 492, 493.
307. Otto Stetzer, Geology of Coal, translated by Adolph Noe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 309, 310.
308. E.E. Thurlow, “Western Coal,” Mining Engineering 26 (1974), pp. 30-33.
309. G. Sherburne Rogers, “Baked Shale and Slag Formed by the Burning of Coal Beds,” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 108-A (1918).
310. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 492.
311. Ibid.
312. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 103; see also Arthur White, The Later Elmshaven Years, pp. 307, 310.
313. Arthur White, The Later Elmshaven Years, pp. 330, 331.
314. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 65, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 103.
315. Ibid.
316. Prof. Dr. Amedeo Molnar, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 102.
317. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 102.
318. Pastor Jan Voerman, “Historical Difficulties in The Great Controversy,” “Dr. Bacchiocchi’s criticism on Ellen White’s book The Great Controversy, provided with notes and some additional information on the contrary.” Both papers are available on request, be e-mail, from the present writer at kevin@quovadismagazine.org.
319. ________, The Great Controversy, p. 383, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 103.
320. Ibid.
321. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 139.
322. White, The Great Controversy, p. 287.
323. See Alphonse Aulard, Christianity and the French Revolution (London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1927), pp. 102-109; The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1963), pp. 386, 387; Adrien Dansette, Religious History of Modern France, vol. 1 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1961), pp. 94, 95.
324. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. IV, pp. 387, 388; John Adolphus, The History of France (London: George Kearsley, 1803), vol. 2, pp. 316-319.
325. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, pp. 13, 63-65.
326. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 133.
327. Ibid.
328. Ibid.
329. Ibid., pp. 135, 136.
330. Ibid., pp. 133, 134.
331. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
332. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, pp. 486-499; Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, pp. 62, 63.
333. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 63.
334. Ibid.
335. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 136.
336. Ibid., p. 111.
337. See White, Healthful Living, pp. 59, 60; Review and Herald, Oct. 31, 1871; Health Reformer, Nov. 1, 1871; Youth’s Instructor, Sept. 14, 1893.
338. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 111, 112.
339. Letter 10, 1895 (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37), quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 112.
340. White, The Desire of Ages, pp. 758-761; Christ Triumphant, p. 11.
341. Gary Land, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 166.
342. White, Testimonies, vol. 6, pp. 122, 123.
343. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
344. ________, The Great Controversy, p. vii.
345. ________, Selected Messages, vol, 1, p. 16.
346. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 59.
347. Arthur White, The Later Elmshaven Years, pp. 322-337.
348. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
349. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 90.
350. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 24.
351. ________, Colporteur Ministry, p. 126.
352. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67.
353. Milton Hook, letter to Ministry, April 2007, p. 27.
354. Ibid.
355. “Fourteenth Business Meeting,” Adventist Review, May 1, 1980, p. 18; “Fifteenth Business Meeting,” Adventist Review, May 1, 1980, pp. 20, 23.
356. Fundamental Belief, No. 17, quoted by Bradford, People Are Human, p. 186.
357. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 77-84, 215-217; People Are Human, p. 149.
358. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 46, 47, 52.
359. Ibid., p. 41.
360. Ibid., p. 54.
361. Hook, letter to Ministry, April 2007, p. 27.
362. Fundamental Belief, No. 1, quoted by Bradford, People Are Human, p. 186.
363. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 119, 120.
364. Ibid., p. 119.
365. Ibid., p. 207; People Are Human, pp. 135, 136.
366. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 121.
367. “The Inspiration and Authority of the Ellen G. White Writings,” Adventist Review, July 15, 1982, p. 3; Ministry, August 1982, p. 21.
368. Bradford, People Are Human, pp. 186-188.
369. Ibid., p. 185.
370. Ibid., pp. 186-188.
371. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 207.
372. Ibid., pp. 207, 208.
373. Fundamental Belief, No. 17, quoted by Bradford, People Are Human, p. 186.
374. “The role of the Ellen G. White Writings in doctrinal matters,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 15.
375. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67; Colporteur Ministry, p. 126.
376. ________, Early Writings, p. 78; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, pp. 98, 99; Gospel Workers, p. 302.
377. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32.
378. ________, Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 105, 156, 165-169, 183; People Are Human, pp. 15, 16, 77-106, 127, 130.
379. Gary Land, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 166.

© 2007 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. Kevin has also since 2002 served as 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.