GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | GCO PRESS PRICE LIST | GCO Ministry Officers 2008-05-11 22:55Z

The Loss of Transcendence, Pt. 7

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:    2007-05-30 21:05Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-05-30 21:05Z

Type:        Book Review

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot7.php

Other Matters

Beyond the major points noted thus far, other issues raised in Bradford’s recent books merit attention. To these we now turn:

1. The Role of Ellen White’s Sources

The tone of Bradford’s thoughts on Ellen White’s use of uninspired sources changes markedly from Prophets Are Human to his later books.

As noted in my review of the former book (633), Bradford speaks there of Ellen White’s source usage as typical of that done by various Bible writers (634), declaring correctly that “originality is not a test of inspiration” (635). He likewise refutes the glaring misrepresentation by Ellen White critics of such statements which say, “The words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own” (636). Bradford rightly notes that this statement is not a general description by Ellen White of how she wrote our her visions, but instead is a specific reference to instruction given her regarding the length of women’s dresses (637), for which—to the present writer’s knowledge—no sources have ever been alleged.

But both in More Than a Prophet and People Are Human, Bradford moves beyond his earlier, positive tone. In fairness, he again affirms uncredited borrowing by Bible writers (638), the use of literary assistants by the same (639), and the fact that charges against Ellen White in this area would destroy the credibility of certain Bible writers also (640). At another point he rightly points out that a number of books Ellen White borrowed from were advertised in denominational papers (641), and writes elsewhere:

Neither James White nor the other Adventist leaders saw anything wrong with using the material from Hull. They all perceived what they wrote as belonging to a pool of common property with anyone free to dip into the pool (642).

But despite the above observations, other statements from Bradford’s later books make it clear he considers Ellen White’s source usage as having definite, negative impact on her authority within the church. Specifically addressing the authority issue, he writes:

What if she is not always totally original? She did borrow from others; who can sort out what is borrowed and what has been shown her? What if she is not always totally accurate? We know she did not always use the best sources available or use them correctly (643).

We know that some would want to give her formal authority. That is, her words are always taken to be true simply because she says so. To them she is the last word on the sciences of biology, geology and history, as well as theology.… But that type of authority is now gone forever as more Adventists become aware of her sources in those areas (644).

Elsewhere he writes:

Another thing to keep in mind is that she may be speaking when another of her gifts is operating, such as the gift of wisdom or discernment. When this is happening we would anticipate she would not have the same authority as when she has something directly revealed from God. 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 (645).

In other words, Bradford believes that for a prophet, source dependency means less authority. If this is true, is he prepared to apply this principle to Christ or the apostle Paul—both of whom, as we have seen, used uninspired sources without credit (646)?

In what seems a direct contradiction to the above statements, Bradford writes earlier in More Than a Prophet:

Regardless of the methods used, God still oversees the end product to make sure it conveys in a reliable manner the message He wishes His people to receive (647).

Really now? What does Bradford truly believe here? Is the blending of the human and divine in a prophet’s words so complete that one can’t be sure what to trust? Or does God oversee the process so as to make the finished product trustworthy? While—as we have seen—careful investigation demolishes Bradford’s claims of inconsistency on the part of Ellen White, the reader can’t help noticing the obvious inconsistency in Bradford’s own writings.

In another departure from the tone of his first book, Bradford now implies Ellen White was at times less than honest in admitting her use of sources. At one point he claims, “She may not have always been as open about her use of other sources as she could have been” (648). The evidence offered for this is nothing more than a published statement by Robert Olson that Ellen White “did not encourage discussion” of her occasional source dependency (649). But the burden of proof is on the critic to find evidence that she explicitly discouraged discussion of this subject. As both Olson and Bradford acknowledge (650), and as this review has likewise noted, Ellen White and church leaders specifically recommended the books she occasionally used as sources (651). Bradford also notes her statement acknowledging source usage in the introduction to The Great Controversy (652). Such facts carry far greater weight than the mere absence of full disclosure in this regard, especially in view of what the Bible writers did as well as the fact that in Ellen White’s day it was neither commonplace nor legally required that an author’s sources be meticulously credited.

Referring to Ellen White’s alleged denials of having used sources, Bradford cites Olson as saying that “many of these [Ellen White] statements have been misunderstood” (653). But Bradford hastens to add, “But some of them are puzzling” (654). However, he doesn’t say which ones. Again he casts a cloud over the prophet’s credibility while offering no evidence.

Referring to the Adventist salvation/Christology debate in the 1950s and 60s, Bradford makes the following, very dangerous statement:

Little was understood about how indebted she was to others in the thoughts and words she used to express her ideas. Later the White Estate released a document showing that she had used a significant amount of material from Henry Melville [sic]. He was her favorite preacher. She had a well-marked book of his sermons from which she drew ideas and expressions. In the document an effort is made to explain what Henry Melville [sic] meant by such expressions as “fallen human nature.” This was seen as a way of trying to understand what Ellen White meant by the term. Once this front was opened up, Adventist theology became a complicated mix of not only trying to understand the mind of Ellen White, but also of those she used as sources (655).

I well remember when this particular claim first arose regarding Ellen White’s Christology (656). Whatever the motives behind it, the assumptions it encourages are more than slightly disturbing. Is an inspired writer to be understood on the basis of the uninspired sources which may or may not have been used by the inspired writer? How does one harmonize such a method of study with the following Ellen White statement?

The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture (657).

In other words, inspired writings explain themselves. There is no need whatsoever of “getting inside” the minds either of inspired writers or of those they might have used as sources. One is never directed by any inspired writer to go to the uninspired sources such an author might have used as a means of correctly understanding the inspired writer’s meaning. Once an inspired writer borrows the words of an uninspired writer, the borrowed words become part of the corpus of Inspiration, and can only be understood by comparison with other inspired statements.

Must readers of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount go to Rabbi Hillel, from whom Christ seems to have borrowed the language of the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) (658), in order to truly understand what Christ meant by these words? Must readers of Paul’s epistles go to the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon, from whom Paul seems to have borrowed the language of certain passages (659), in order to understand Paul’s true meaning?

On what basis does Bradford claim Melvill was Ellen White’s “favorite preacher” (660)? Where does she say this? What evidence does Bradford offer for this claim? He gives no reference. And merely because she had a well-marked book of his sermons hardly means she was borrowing his theology! I have many books in my library, Bradford’s included, which are well marked up! This often means a reader is simply wishing to recall certain words and thoughts, whether the reader agrees with them or not. In no way does a marked book in one’s library offer plausible evidence that the one owning and marking the book agrees with the book’s ideas.

Ellen White’s Christology is not clarified by her sources. It is clarified by Scripture and her own writings (661). Students of this issue need to ask whether Ellen White’s language is truly hard to understand, or simply hard to accept.

Bradford quotes a former White Estate employee as alleging that at times, in her use of sources, Ellen White was “turning the speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact” (662). Bradford cites no examples, however, as evidence of this. Some years ago, the present writer inquired about this accusation in a letter to Robert Olson, then Secretary of the Ellen White Estate. Olson’s reply stated as follows:

Did Ellen White ever transform another author’s suppositions into an absolute?

I think the best way I can answer this question is to show you the results of a study in which I engaged personally on the chapter in Desire of Ages, entitled “Lazarus, Come Forth.” I compared that chapter with nine books on Christ’s life that Mrs. White had in her personal library. You will notice that both Abbott and Edersheim speculate that Lazarus was younger than his sisters. Mrs. White does not comment on that point. Abbot speculates that Simon the leper was Lazarus’ father. Again, Mrs. White makes no comment. Both Abbott and McMillan declare that Christ often found rest at Lazarus’ home. This, of course, is strictly an assumption on their part. However, Mrs. White states it as fact. McMillan identifies Lazarus with the rich young ruler, but Ellen White does not. Both McMillan and Farrar state that Lazarus came from a wealthy family. In this case Ellen White agrees.

When I compare Mrs. White with all these authors, it is clear to me that she is not simply copying any of them, but she is writing her own story and expressing her own convictions. For example, on point number 13, when Jesus said to Martha, ‘Thy brother shall rise again,’ Edersheim, Farrar, and McMillan all believe that Christ told Martha that He would raise Lazarus right away. However, Sister White differs with them. She said that Christ meant the future resurrection of the just, not a present miracle (663).

As noted in my review of Prophets Are Human (664), the most pervasive, powerful evidence that Ellen White’s writings are very much her own, regardless of the extent to which other sources were used, is the commonality of language, phrases, terminology, even the patterns in her use of Bible texts. Whether in such as the Conflict Series, the Testimonies, other standard works, her periodical articles, published and unpublished manuscripts, and letters of counsel, the thematic structure and language is unmistakably Ellen White’s. Being an avid reader and writer myself, I can attest to the ease with which the style of an author can be detected. Ellen White’s style is Ellen White’s style—whether in The Desire of Ages, The Great Controversy, a chapter in the Testimonies, a Signs of the Times article, or a Manuscript Release.

Both in More Than a Prophet and People Are Human, Bradford quotes a researcher who claims Ellen White’s sources on the French Revolution were “anti-Catholic, anti-Democratic, strong on moral fervor and weak on factual evidence” (665). Bradford seeks somewhat to absolve Ellen White from blame in this regard, claiming she was simply borrowing from Uriah Smith and that he, supposedly, was the poor historian rather than she (666).

This particular claim regarding Ellen White’s sources on a specific subject deserves a brief digression, since it illustrates the kind of shoddy scholarship which too often characterizes criticism of Ellen White.

James A. Wylie, one of the Protestant historians used as a source by Ellen White, is declared unreliable by the researcher noted above because of his many books exposing papal errors and atrocities (667), and his strong support of the principles of Protestantism (668). Because of this, the above researcher writes, “Here is a man not to be trusted when he describes the Catholic persecution of French Protestants” (669).

Unfortunately for his case, this researcher gives no evidence as to Wylie’s unreliability in this regard. To tar a man as prejudicially “anti-Catholic” merely because he denounces the unscriptural teachings and blood-drenched persecutions of Catholicism, makes as much sense as calling someone anti-German who factually recounts the history of the Holocaust, or anti-American for factually recounting the history of slavery, racism, and the slaughter of native Americans at the behest of the United States. (Bias, by the way, is not the same as prejudice. To be prejudiced is to pre-judge, without considering evidence. Bias can, by contrast, be an opinion informed by evidence.) The above researcher seems not to consider that secular historians, who lack Wylie’s Protestant fervor, offer similarly graphic accounts of papal persecutions in the medieval and early modern period (670).

This is not to ignore the reality, since the Reformation, of anti-Catholic bigotry in various segments of Western culture. But the wrongful effort to marginalize people—socially, economically, or politically—because of their religious faith, should never be confused either with convictions about right and wrong based on Biblical teachings, or with the factual recounting of historical events. Certain Protestants have indeed been Catholic haters. Seventh-day Adventists are not. We simply point to the evidence of Scripture regarding the falsity of certain Catholic teachings, and the crimes committed by the papacy borne out by the historical record.

Other sources used by Ellen White on the French Revolution are denounced as having “Tory” or “monarchist” leanings, and thus presumably untrustworthy when offering what the researcher calls “sweeping moral condemnations of the French people” and a “virulently anti-French diatribe” (671). But the fact is that it makes no difference, at the bottom line, what political or cultural biases a reporter or historian might have. What matters is the reporting and research itself, and how it stacks up against the known facts. And one hardly needs to be a British Tory or French monarchist to deplore the bloody excesses of the French Revolution!

In free societies, where media reporters often disclose scandalous or other embarrassing information about politicians, it is often the practice of the latter to allege a certain bias on the part of such reporters. Such bias may in fact be real. But the evidence thus produced must still stand or fall on its own merit. If the sources used by Ellen White and/or Uriah Smith were unreliable, the evidence for such should be offered. Claims of their prejudices or research style prove nothing unless it is demonstrated their statements were inaccurate.

The researcher noted above collides with the plainest facts of history when he accuses Ellen White of inaccuracy—one never corrected, he notes, in the 1911 Great Controversy (672)—when she writes of how “thousands upon thousands of [French] Protestants found safety in flight” (673). Contrary to this researcher (674), Ellen White never claims all these thousands fled during the sixteenth century. Instead, she speaks of how this flight “continued for two hundred and fifty years after the opening of the Reformation” (675). The entire context of this statement describes the general persecution of Protestants in France following the Reformation, and how the effect of this persecution led to the later backlash of the Revolution (676). The number of Protestants who fled France following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 by Louis XIV, is well documented by history and very much in harmony with Ellen White’s statements. Olivier Bernier, in his recent biography of Louis XIV, speaks of at least 300,000 Huguenots fleeing from France during this time (677). The late historian Barbara Tuchmann, author of such acclaimed histories as The Proud Tower (678) and the Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns of August (679), estimates in her book The March of Folly that as many as 250,000 Huguenots fled France at this time (680). The impact of these departures is documented by these and other authors as devastating to France (681), leaving no alternative to Catholicism in the French mind except atheism (682). Just as Ellen White says (683).

Other Ellen White inaccuracies alleged by this researcher are trivial at best—whether, for example, one noted by Ellen White as a “priest of the new (Revolutionary) order” really was a priest, or just a metaphorical one (684), or whether the change from the 1888 to the 1911 Great Controversy of the word “millions” to “multitudes”—regarding those who died in the French Revolution—indicates a substantive shift (685). (I suspect that the “great multitude which no man could number” described in Revelation 7:9 very likely includes millions!)

For the careful student of history as well as Ellen White’s writings, a blend of mirth and tears often attends the review of claims like the above. It is hard not to conclude that such persons are so desperate to discredit Ellen White that neither the facts of history nor an objective study of what she really says make any difference. The case considered above offers no evidence that the historians used by Ellen White allowed prejudice of any kind—whatever it may have been—to affect their work. Rather, it is the prejudice of Ellen White’s critics that deserves closer scrutiny. Bradford’s use of such research in his effort to prove Ellen White’s fallibility lends no credence to his argument.

The argument for conceptual as opposed to verbal inspiration has clearly been settled by Ellen White herself. As in Prophets Are Human (686) Bradford quotes the following Ellen White statement in More Than a Prophet:

The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.… It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not upon the man’s words or his expressions but upon the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts (687).

But the controversy over verbal versus thought inspiration, though repeatedly noted by Bradford as an allegedly decisive issue in the Ellen White controversy (688), is not a decisive issue at all. The decisive issue is authority—whether the prophetic voice, canonical or otherwise, transcends the play of ideas and vagaries of experience in the life of the church and of individuals. If in fact a prophet’s words are consistent with prior prophetic revelation, the prophet’s authority is established. Whether Ellen White’s statements on the significance of 1844 were verbally or conceptually inspired, makes no difference. Whether her counsel about various health practices was verbally or conceptually inspired, makes no difference. Whether her counsel on the management of institutions was verbally or conceptually inspired, makes no difference. Either way, the ideas presented are authoritative. Either way, the prophet’s counsel becomes clear through comparison with itself and with the Bible. And the Christian’s duty in either case is to claim heaven’s power to hear and obey.

2. The Travail of Adventist Youth

Perhaps no feature of Bradford’s recent books evokes so much pain as the words he places in the mouths of Adventist young people (689).

In the mythic world of liberal Adventism, youth and young adults couldn’t possibly be passionate about the original Adventist faith. The Great Controversy theme and its answer to the problem of evil—which Bradford mentions but can’t understand (690) on account of his salvation theology (691), the antitypical Day of Atonement in progress since 1844, the joyful hope of complete victory over sin this side of heaven, the doctrinal and lifestyle witness rooted in Scripture and clarified in the writings of Ellen White—none are thought to hold any interest for the young. The stereotype fabricated by “progressives” of the “coming generation” is one presumably incapable of seeing (much less experiencing) the glory of classic Adventism, “since in most areas they don’t dress like their elders, sing like them, or even think like them” (692). Bradford enhances this stereotype with the following comment:

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 (693).

It was Ellen White that told us to teach the youth to be ‘thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men’s opinions.’ This we are doing, and as a consequence the youth are thinking different ideas from their parents (694).

Some of the ideas that ignited our forefathers, as they saw how Adventism related to the society in which they lived, do not ignite us or our young people today (695).

The fictional youth of Bradford’s dialogue in People Are Human fit this stereotype perfectly. Grief and rage suffused my heart as I read their scripted comments, their thoughts never straying from the liberal Adventist playbook. Though they admit having read little or nothing on their own from Ellen White’s writings (696), they nevertheless label her “an old lady with a stern face” whose writings have “no relevance to us today” (697). One of them states, “I’ve never read anything she wrote,” then goes on to describe a fair amount he has read about her from critical Internet sites (698). (So much for giving someone a fair hearing!) Abysmally ignorant of Ellen White’s work, declaring it irrelevant for being a century old (699), one of them insists he “won’t let” church members quote Ellen White to him as an authority ever again, that he will now tell them, “You must show me what you are saying is true from the Bible” (700).

Never mind, of course, that if we’re talking relevance and cultural distance, the Bible is much more remote than the writings of Ellen White. Whether Bradford is right in saying that “the decade before the year 2000 saw more social, political, economic, and religious changes than have taken place since Abraham came out of Ur of the Chaldees” (701), might perhaps be disputed. But one can’t dispute that the 2,000 years since the Bible was written cover a much longer time-span than the 100 years since Ellen White.

The fictional teen-ager “Michael” asks at one point, “Why are people for or against her? Frankly, I couldn’t care less” (702). The fictional professor (Bradford perhaps?) responds by saying:

What you’ve both just said doesn’t surprise me. In fact, what you’ve said probably represents what many or maybe even most young Adventists think (703).

Once again, no evidence is offered for a most serious claim. But whether supportable or not, this claim remains sadly popular in the contemporary church. A recent article in Spectrum magazine, marking the 25th anniversary of Glacier View, made similar observations:

The three or four college students who had braved our crowd of oldsters in the morning clearly had had enough and did not return. They, more than any of the points of theology or church politics our group discussed, remain on my mind as I write. They are on my mind not only because the students have been in my classes or in my home, but also because they had, and have, almost no idea what my age cohorts and I were talking about.

These are bright, thoughtful, inquisitive young adults, active in campus ministries and clubs, the kind of people we invest our hopes in when we think of the future of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America and beyond. Two of them sat on the floor in the back of the morning session and then came to me to ask who and what we were all talking about and why.…

The young people’s lack of comprehension or interest is about more than just the ‘normal’ American gap between generations. These are young people who do not quite know what Seventh-day Adventism has to do with who they are discovering themselves to be. They know about Ellen White and know that their church believes they ought to feel something about her, but they do not know what they ought to feel or why she or their allegiance to her or the movement she founded ought to be so important to them.

Some of them are rather deeply annoyed at the combination of so much vague ‘ought’ with so little clear ‘why.’ Words and phrases like sanctuary and investigative judgment, moreover, elicit just plain blank stares. At an even deeper level, the theological conflict of twenty-five years ago is something virtually incapable of engaging these students’ minds and hearts—on either side of the divide that seemed so momentous to us then (704).

How much this portrait of today’s Adventist youth is the above author’s wishful imagination, and how much tragically accurate, may be arguable. But perhaps it is beyond his capacity to consider that the students in question may have left this meeting because they found no soul-nourishment in the cynical intellectualism, moral cluelessness, and self-accommodation of a cheap-grace gospel and a view of ultimate reality lacking clarity or purpose.

The participants in Bradford’s dialogue may be contrived, but one cannot but be curious about the faith-grounding and spiritual education of an Adventist family whose parents were so badly shaken by the Internet attacks against Ellen White. (Few fictitious characters are truly fictitious, by the way.) As one intimately familiar with criticism of Ellen White and her writings, having closely followed the debate on these issues for the past quarter-century, I remain convinced that one who daily immerses himself in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy writings, taking to heart by God’s grace the counsel received, is all but invulnerable to these attacks. If one’s Adventist faith has been truly made one’s own, information which on the surface seems disturbing will not shake one’s foundations. Answers—and I mean the real ones—can be found if one looks diligently enough. (After all, the Ellen G. White Estate, with which any avid Ellen White reader should be familiar, also has a Web site, with excellent answers to most objections (705).)

What is more, these challenges to Ellen White are nothing new. The past several decades in Adventism—especially, I might add, in Bradford’s native land—have been dominated by these controversies. How could careful, godly Seventh-day Adventist parents, one an elder in his local church who gained great blessing from Ellen White’s writings in the past (706), not familiarize themselves with these attacks on her integrity and thus diligently seek to instill an informed faith in their son and daughter?

Sadly, the parents in Bradford’s dialogue seem not to have done this. “Doug” is depicted as one converted to Adventism in his youth, who—while having gleaned great benefit from Ellen White’s books early on (707)—has clearly lapsed into a status-quo spirituality which sees the quest for doctrinal purity as more a nuisance than a priority (708). His wife “Jean” is a lifelong Adventist, presumably raised with great confidence in Ellen White (709), yet who later gushes revulsion at her “very legalistic upbringing” in which Ellen White supposedly was “literally drilled into us”—an upbringing which now, due to discovering the prophet’s alleged “fallibility,” she feels free to cast off (710).

One must truly pity children raised in a home like this. Why wasn’t the beauty, passion, and destined glory of Adventism—so splendidly articulated by Ellen White—carefully and gently nurtured in the earliest awareness of these young people? (Having been reared in a home where such nurturing did occur, and having seen it in other faithful Adventist families, I know whereof I speak.) How could the first exposure of a bright young Adventist mind to Ellen White be through some faith-destroying Web site? While the parents in this dialogue do seem to have tried to interest their children in Ellen White’s writings (711), the young people’s comments give evidence that this happened far too late. The time to start an Adventist child’s spiritual education is infancy, not adolescence. In the case of “Michael” and “Sharon,” the parents clearly dropped the ball long before “Doug” turned on his computer.

One is amazed how Bradford’s portrayal of this fictional family illustrates, whether he knows it or not, the abject failure of the revisionism he teaches:

During the next week the whole family discusses the subject. Doug and Jean are happy that Michael and Sharon are involved in the discussion at mealtimes. While they still do not see any relevance of Ellen White to their lives and are still not inclined to want to read anything she had written, they were following with interest the history of the church. At least that’s something, thought Jean (712).

It isn’t much! The revisionist history being poured into these young minds will neither nourish their faith nor give them resolve in the struggles of life. The Christian blog sites and contemporary literature they spend time with (713)—not the Bible, I notice—will likely render them helpless in the cross-currents of peer pressure, cultural trends, and the constant cry of self for gratification. More than likely, once they get older they will bid their church a not-so-fond farewell. The blank silence with which they greet the new Ellen White paraphrases, written to interest the youth in her writings, is not surprising (714). Only a thorough conversion, probably through a crisis, holds any chance of arresting the downward course of such persons and causing them at last to internalize the great truths of the Advent faith.

Bradford’s revisionist reverie may soon be crashed by the looming reality of a growing, powerful youth movement in the church, determined to recover our fundamental doctrines and uphold their attendant lifestyle witness (715). When Bradford speaks of today’s Adventist youth becoming “thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men’s opinions” (716)—as if the “real” Ellen White were a precursor of postmodernism—he fails to consider that most youthful doubters in Adventism are very much like the fictional ones in his dialogue. They haven’t read and studied Ellen White for themselves, and then concluded—on the basis of careful research and weighed evidence—that her writings aren’t for them. In most cases, speaking as one long acquainted with campus life and youth ministry in the church, they simply parrot the doubts and disbelief they hear from pastors and professors. The campuses, churches, and various ministry venues of contemporary Adventism are soon to encounter a new genre of youthful thinkers among us—those who study Scripture and Ellen White daily, and whose lives are willingly, joyfully dedicated to being part of the final generation foreseen by inspired writings and the teachings of such as M.L. Andreasen.

Repeatedly in Bradford’s dialogue, “Michael” and “Sharon” express their longing for the liberal, pluralistic pipe dream—a church where “our relationship with God doesn’t depend on having everything perfectly right” (717), and where “those old conservatives” need to “mellow a little” in their demand for accountability (718). Were I present in a discussion such as this, I would ask these young people if they would expect a boyfriend or girlfriend, once committed to a serious relationship, to willingly limit certain associations on their part. I would ask them, “Does a committed relationship involve limits?” If they answer Yes, I would continue by saying that once a believer experiences commitment to God through His revealed, written will, that commitment involves limits as well. Most young people that age understand this principle, very well.

3. The Limits of Freedom

While “Michael” and “Sharon,” when pressed, might understand the limits of freedom, it seems Bradford does not.

His books include tales of Ellen White critics allegedly mistreated by the church (719), and of narrow-minded “conservatives” allegedly choking off discussion of issues (720). The age-old cry of “progressive” Adventists for unqualified (or near-unqualified) academic freedom is echoed by Bradford as he seeks to liberate his church from the modern prophet’s definitive counsel. In his own words:

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 (Ellen White) 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? (721).

The big issue here is, “Are Seventh-day Adventists a free people?” Are they free to go to the Scriptures and seek truth as did their founding fathers? Or are they locked into the traditional teachings of their past? (722).

A.G. Daniells, is quoted as saying the same thing regarding Ellen White’s influence on the church:

It looks to me as though we have another question to settle, and that is whether we are a free people, in the matter of biblical research, and in the matter of following the light that comes to us from such research (723).

Another, more recent scholar is quoted as saying of Ellen White:

Let her writings be our guide but not our jailer, our shield but not our straitjacket. The Scriptures comprise God’s final word to us (724).

Bold and brave as these words sound, they make no sense. If a philandering husband or wife is confronted by a shocked spouse, it would be foolish for the former to ask in protest, “Am I free or not?” As we noted earlier, commitment involves the willing—and in the case of marriage, one would hope loving—limit of one’s freedom. Other commitments likewise involve the voluntary sacrifice of certain liberties. If one works for Chrysler and decides to sell Fords, he or she will likely be fired. If one works for a political campaign and publicly declares an opponent more worthy of support, the same consequences are likely. This is not intolerance. It is integrity.

According to Scripture, our relationship with God is defined and governed by the written counsel of God (Deuteronomy 30:14; Psalm 119:11; Jeremiah 31:31-34; John 8:31; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 8:8-10). And as Scripture itself bears witness, the prophetic Word—whether spoken or written—is not limited to the Sacred Canon (1 Chronicles 29:29). The testimonies of Deborah, Nathan, Elijah, Huldah, John the Baptist, and Ellen G. White have no less authority over the conscience than those of Moses, Isaiah, Paul, or Peter. The church therefore has the right—indeed, the obligation—to expect willing and joyful conformity by its members to the inspired, authoritative testimony thus revealed. Which is why Fundamental Belief No. 18, held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, identifies the writings of Ellen White as “a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction” (725). It is why church leaders at Glacier View, when confronting the challenge of Desmond Ford to Ellen White’s doctrinal authority, declared:

We believe that her authority transcends that of all noninspired interpreters (726).

The Word of the living God is not open-ended. Though new insights are ever welcomed, and will be the eternal joy of the redeemed (727), contradictory ones are not. Human opinions and traditions, no matter how old and venerable, must remain open for possible disagreement and contradiction. But not the transcendent Word of God as revealed through His prophets. The aversion of Adventism’s founders to a formal creed, noted more than once by Bradford (728), was not a rejection on their part of absolute, incontrovertible truth. The Adventist pioneers were not postmodern. When our fundamental doctrines were challenged, as in such cases as Ballenger and Kellogg, they didn’t fail to protect their church from falsehood, nor did they mistake such protection as ”creedalism.” The open-ended, unfettered tolerance of doctrinal diversity is the heritage of Ernst Troeltsch and his higher-critical compatriots (729). It is not the heritage of biblical Christianity, nor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

No one is calling for the uninformed acceptance of the classic Adventist faith. No one favors the silencing of honest questions. No one is asking for the end of discussion. We are simply asking for the willing, joyful, unqualified acceptance of God’s written counsel within God’s church. The Bible demands no less (Galatians 1:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15; 1 Timothy 1:3, 4). And if we’re talking about relevance, some perhaps may need reminding that those denominations which practice open-ended tolerance of theological and lifestyle variations are in free-fall decline, while those demanding clarity and rectitude continue to gain and grow (730).

4. The Paraphrase Peril

Here I run the risk of offending some, including some at the Ellen White Estate, who may see value in the recent paraphrases of certain of Ellen White’s writings. With all due respect, I must nevertheless maintain my conviction that such endeavors are fraught with grave peril.

While one can rightly fault Bradford’s criticism of Bibles which contain Ellen White comments in the margins (731), this criticism being based on his rejection of Ellen White’s authoritative interpretation of Scripture (732), the present writer is compelled to agree with his attack on The Clear Word (733), a recent biblical paraphrase “which puts her (Ellen White’s) extra comments in the text itself” (734). Whatever the motive of its author, whom I count as an esteemed friend, this paraphrased version has given dangerous cannon fodder to the church’s enemies (735). To give even the slightest credence to the claim that Seventh-day Adventists, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have developed their own version of the Bible, is not at all helpful.

One need not endorse verbal inspiration in order to object to tampering with the inspired Word. Placing inspired words at the disposition of uninspired minds runs the definite risk of blurring the line between changing words and changing thoughts. Even if a paraphraser’s motive is simply to help people understand the Word better, there will always be those who will use such writings as if they were the Word itself. When the Living Bible paraphrase was first published in the 1970s (736), faithful Adventists dutifully warned one another against its doctrinal errors (737). Some may protest that The Clear Word is a paraphrase which—unlike the Living Bible—does not blend truth with error. Perhaps, but it is a most unnecessary stumblingblock in the way of honest truth-seekers. The Bible by itself is sufficient to establish the foundation of Seventh-day Adventist theology. Ellen White’s elaborating, clarifying commentary should still be kept distinct from the biblical text. Ellen White comments are fine in the margins. But they shouldn’t be blended with Scripture itself.

The newly-published Ellen White paraphrases (738), mentioned earlier as an effort to reach the youth in contemporary language (739), are likewise perilous. One must wonder at the perceived need for such adaptations; Ellen White’s English is hardly distinguishable from the English of today, even with a few words now and then which today are used differently. (We still expect English literature students to understand Shakespeare. Why is Ellen White suddenly so hard?) As one who often works with young people in the church, I have seen no evidence that these new paraphrases have made Ellen White’s writings more popular among the youth. Indeed, those inclined to study Scripture as well as Ellen White’s writings will naturally want the exact text of both for devotional as well as expository purposes. I see no evidence that these paraphrases have produced greater interest among those with a more marginal commitment.

The line between the altering of mere words and the altering of thoughts is already, in the present writer’s view, being transgressed by the effort to make some recent Ellen White publications “gender inclusive” (740). One can hardly claim this is merely an issue of language and not of ideas. The Bible repeatedly refers to God as Father, never as Mother. (A recent liberal Adventist manifesto repeatedly refers to God as “He/She” (741).) But just as the Bible offers sufficient evidence of God’s transcendence of human gender, so the writings of Ellen White offers more evidence than can be quoted of the equal spiritual standing of men and women before God. There is no need to alter the words of inspiration to convey this truth. When the National Council of Churches first published a “gender inclusive” Bible version, many even among moderates and liberals were concerned, declaring that “the Bible must be preserved as a historical text, however it might be interpreted today” (742). One New Testament scholar rightly asked, “Is it the role of the translator to be a leader in social action?” (743). Inspired writings should be rendered exactly as they read, leaving to the consensus of those writings the determination of their ultimate meaning.

With the various theological cross-currents now present in Adventism, the prospect of Ellen White’s books being rewritten in contemporary language should be cause for grave concern. A day could come in which Ellen White’s writings on such subjects as character perfection, the humanity of Christ, various lifestyle and worship issues, and other controversial subjects could be re-phrased in ways fundamentally different from the original text. And the more such paraphrases are published and circulated, certain ones will come to prefer them over the originals just as some foolishly prefer Bible paraphrases over translations. I have lately been troubled even at pastoral seminars to listen to lecturers using Ellen White references as found in these paraphrases. At a time when challenges to the inspired Word, such as those of Bradford, are proliferating all around, clinging tenaciously to the actual text of the inspired writings becomes imperative.

Without rancor or malice, I would suggest the White Estate devote its resources to causes more worthy.

5. Brief Answers to Objections

Perhaps it would help to offer some brief responses to a list of objections to Ellen White’s writings noted by Bradford at the beginning of More Than a Prophet (744). Some objections have been addressed already, in this review as well as the review of Prophets Are Human. But below are others which, since they are stated up front and so early in Bradford’s largest book, deserve rejoinders both fast and substantive.

According to Bradford, the following objections are taken from a variety of anti-Ellen White Web sites:

Plagiarism: Where did Ellen White get the material for her books? (745).

A more extensive answer to this question can be found in my review of Prophets Are Human (746). But as Bradford himself acknowledges, a number of Bible writers used uninspired sources while giving no credit (747), just as Ellen White occasionally did. The meticulous crediting of one’s sources was not a common practice in human literature until very recent times. And as we noted earlier in the present review, the phrases, thematic structure, use of Bible texts and language, and general tone of Ellen White’s books is identifiable in all her writings. Whatever sources she may have used at times, she was doing her own work.

The Great Controversy: White copied both words and pictures (748).

Again, not an issue when one understands this was a practice both common and legal throughout most of human history, including Ellen White’s day. Such a practice was no more illegal nor unethical than for a rock collector to keep for himself a pebble discovered on the side of a road in public land, or an undersea archeologist to keep for himself treasures discovered in international waters.

Proof that White’s “I was shown” visions were even copied (749).

We find this in Scripture also. Consider the following comparisons between certain passages of Revelation and the Pseudepigraphic book of Enoch:

After that I saw… a multitude beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits (Enoch 40:1; cf. Revelation 7:9). And I saw… and behold a star fell from heaven (Enoch 86:1; cf. Revelation 9:11 (750).

Due to the apostle Jude’s quoting of the book of Enoch (Jude 14, 15) (751), it would appear at least a portion of the book of Enoch contained authentic references to the antediluvian prophet himself. The bottom line is that we see evidence of uncredited borrowing in the above verses from Revelation, just as some have alleged in the visions of Ellen White. The question we must ask is not, once again, whether an inspired statement is original, but whether or not it harmonizes with the revealed Word of God.

Prophecy blunders of Ellen White: In the 1850s Mrs. White said Jesus was to return in a few months. Adventists living in 1856 would be alive to see Jesus return. She would be alive when Jesus returns. Christ would return before slavery was abolished (752).

Jesus declared, after telling His disciples of the signs to precede His second coming: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34; see also Mark 13:30). Like the prophecy of Nineveh’s overthrow in Jonah’s day (Jonah 3:4), this prediction of our Lord was conditional on a spiritual response. The timing of the Second Advent depends, as we have already noted, on the perfecting of the character of God’s people (Zephaniah 3:13; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Revelation 10:7; 14:5), making possible a credible proclamation of the gospel to all mankind (Matthew 24:14). This did not happen in Christ’s day, nor in Ellen White’s day. Nor has it happened yet. Which accounts for the delay of our Lord’s return.

Jesus was certainly not a false prophet, any more than Jonah was, because a spiritual response (or lack thereof) delayed the fulfillment of His words. Neither is Ellen White a false prophet, for the same reason.

The fact that Ellen White speaks in the first person as being present at the coming of Christ (753), likewise fails to prove her a liar. The apostle Paul himself declared, speaking of Christ’s return: “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:17). (Bradford, to his credit, points this out in More Than a Prophet (754).) Both Paul and Ellen White can be seen either as speaking of themselves as part of the collective body of Christ which will witness this event, or in terms of the advent’s timing based on the church meeting the required conditions.

Ellen White’s language in this regard no more makes her a false prophet than do the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 make him the same.

The slavery issue we have already addressed in this review. Slavery hasn’t been abolished in our world yet (755), nor is it likely to be before the return of Christ.

Mrs. White saw Enoch on Jupiter and Saturn (756).

Both in this review and the previous one (757), this point has already been answered. Ellen White never states, at any time, what planet she saw in this particular vision. Nor did she identify the planet as in our solar system.

Mrs. White said that we have animal organs in our brains and the wearing of wigs would cause insanity (758).

The term “animal organs” as used by Ellen White simply refers to the desires of the fleshly, lower nature (759), not to organs presumably identical to those in animals. On the issue of wigs and insanity, the reader is referred to my review of Prophets Are Human, in which it is documented how the wigs she is describing were made of injurious substances which public reports verified had produced exactly the consequences Ellen White described (760). Moreover, the use of lead powder was also common in the wigs of Ellen White’s day (761), a substance known to cause brain damage in humans (762).

Mrs. White did not practice what she preached regarding unclean foods (763).

Some of the Bible writers didn’t always practice what they preached either. I seem to remember King David declaring, “O how I love Thy law! it is my mediation all the day” (Psalm 119:97). (Does this include King David on the palace rooftop the evening he saw Bathsheba?) A prophet’s personal life may include failings of this kind. It is the written counsel a prophet gives, if in harmony with the revealed prophetic Word, that ultimately determines trustworthiness.

On the issue of unclean meats, the understanding of Adventists on this point took time to develop (764). And Ellen White’s struggle to give up flesh foods in general took time as well. Some seem to forget that in those days, before the advent of refrigeration, if one didn’t eat meat one ran the risk of not eating at all (765). But again, even a prophet’s occasional shortcomings do not rescind prophetic authority, if the Bible record is our guide.

Mrs. White contradicts herself: Pork is a nourishing, strengthening food. Pork should never be eaten under any circumstances (766).

We have already noted, in the present review, that the first of these statements is nonexistent. The reference Bradford gives for this alleged statement does not contain the statement at all (767). All available evidence indicates it is totally fictitious.

Mrs. White taught the door of salvation is forever shut (768).

Absolutely false. This is clearly demonstrated in my review of Prophets Are Human (769), and has been noted in this review also. Dr. Herbert Douglass’ book Messenger of the Lord contains perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of this charge, and the absence of evidence for it (770).

Mrs. White taught some races are a mixture of man and beast (771).

Though, as we have noted in this and the previous review (772), Ellen White does speak of the amalgamation of man and beast both before and after the Flood (773)—statements acknowledged by Bradford himself as more credible in our day than some have thought, in view of recent genetic experiments (774)—Ellen White at no time identifies any race of humans as part animal. Nor does she ever teach that any races are to be treated as subhuman. Ellen White’s record on the racial issue is one of sterling commitment to equality and justice (775).

Mrs. White said her writings never contradict the Bible. She said, “There is one straight chain of truth, without one heretical sentence in that which I have written (776).

Absolutely true. Not a thing Bradford or any other critic has cited has proved this statement false.

Mrs. White taught: There was only one Herod. The Tower of Babel was built before the Flood (777).

Wrong again.

Ellen White never says there was only one Herod. This allegation has been made regarding the following statement from Early Writings:

Herod’s heart had grown still harder; and when he heard that Christ had risen, he was not much troubled. He took the life of James, and when he saw that this pleased the Jews, he took Peter also, intending to put him to death. But God had a work for Peter to do, and sent His angel to deliver him. Herod was visited with the judgments of God. While exalting himself in the presence of a great multitude, he was smitten by the angel of the Lord, and died a most horrible death (778).

This is the only Herod mentioned in the chapter in question, and there is no mention of this being the same Herod before whom Christ was brought, or who took the life of John the Baptist. The latter person was Herod Antipas, while the one who killed James and imprisoned Peter is identified elsewhere by Ellen White as Herod Agrippa (779). There is no reason not to believe the entire statement cited above from Early Writings is a reference to Herod Agrippa, since no reference in this chapter is found to the Herod who murdered John the Baptist or before whom Jesus was abused.

Regarding the claim that the Tower of Babel was built before the Flood, here is the statement in question:

The Lord first established the system of sacrificial offerings with Adam after his fall, which he taught to his descendants. This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel (780).

One is obviously not compelled to conclude that this statement teaches the tower of Babel was built before the Flood. One can just as easily read this as describing the corruption of the sacrificial system by a collective group of persons across the sweep of centuries who disobeyed God and perverted His requirements. One is not forced to conclude these were the exact same people, or that all the statement is describing took place prior to the Flood.

Elsewhere in her writings Ellen White is clear when the Tower of Babel was built (781). Evidence of contradiction would only be credible if a number of statements clearly teaching a pre-Flood Tower of Babel could be found, in contrast with others teaching a post-Flood Tower. No proof can be found from the above statement that Ellen White believed the Tower of Babel was built before the Flood.

In an attempt both to make Ellen White look extreme and her followers inconsistent, another source cited by Bradford offers a long list of practices from which Adventists would abstain if they faithfully followed Ellen White’s counsel:

They wouldn’t have photographs of loved ones displayed in their homes (782).

Another lie. The consensus of Ellen White’s counsel on this subject is both balanced and considerate of the cost of such pictures in her day (783). Ellen White never labeled pictures of all kinds as idolatry, nor did she urge that all such representations be discarded.

What is both sad and reprehensible on Bradford’s part is how he lists this and other extreme perceptions of Ellen White’s counsel from negative Web sites, yet offers no evidence as to why these representations of her counsel are false. By his silence he leaves the reader with the erroneous impression that these characterizations of Ellen White’s instruction are correct, thus lending credence to the false perception of her teachings as archaic and fanatical.

They wouldn’t ride bicycles (784).

Wrong again. Ellen White only condemned what she called the “bicycle craze” (785), referring to the obsession and financial extravagance surrounding this particular fad at that time. At no time does she teach that the riding of bicycles, in and of itself, was offensive to God and thus to be avoided under any circumstances. If we let the words of Inspiration speak for and explain themselves, the wisdom and balance thus presented becomes clear. Again we must remember the biblical principle noted earlier of two or three witnesses being necessary 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). For any doctrine or standard to be clearly established by Inspiration, multiple references are needed.

They wouldn’t play tennis (786).

Again, what Ellen White forbids in this regard is idolatrous obsession. Her counsel explicitly does not forbid “the simple exercise of playing ball” (787). (The more vigorous forms of athletic rivalry, such as inter-school sports, can rightly be called a separate issue.) Faithful conservative Adventists of the present writer’s acquaintance might differ here, but my own study of the writings of Ellen White fails to find support for total abstinence from ball-playing of every kind, tennis included.

They wouldn’t play chess, checkers, or cards (788).

Ellen White’s references to these games appears, from the present writer’s study, to be in the context of gambling (789). Some might make arguments here regarding the wisest use of time, especially as the shortness of time grows more obvious. But the counsel of Ellen White specifically condemns the extreme position of those who “consider all recreation and amusement a sin” (790), and writes elsewhere:

It is not essential to our salvation, nor for the glory of God, to keep the mind laboring constantly and excessively, even upon religious themes (791).

On the subject of amusement and the use of leisure time, the Ellen White consensus again reveals superb, splendid balance.

They wouldn’t dance (792).

Very true. Who could deny the contemporary relevance of the following Ellen White statement:

In our day dancing is associated with folly and midnight reveling. Health and morals are sacrificed to pleasure (793).

Lest some imply, as certain ones have, that Ellen White’s counsel on this subject could be used to forbid husbands and wives from dancing together in private (794), let all be assured that nothing in Ellen White’s counsel on dancing says anything whatsoever about the private intimacy of husbands and wives.

They wouldn’t eat meat (795).

No fooling! Actually, unless they eat their meat kosher like the orthodox Jews, people who follow the Bible alone wouldn’t eat meat either (see Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:29).

They wouldn’t wear wigs (796).

We have already addressed several times the issue of Ellen White’s statements on wigs and insanity. But no Ellen White statement categorically forbids the wearing of artificial hair under any and all circumstances.

They wouldn’t eat cheese (797).

If the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20), and if our physical health is as important to God as our spiritual condition (3 John 2), then food which endangers health should properly be discarded by the Christian. On the issue of cheese, Ellen White’s warnings are qualified by the consensus of her writings as referring to the strong, aged cheeses, a point which was clarified when the German edition of The Ministry of Healing was prepared (798).

Of course, Ellen White is also clear that before the end of time, animal products of all kinds will be unsafe for use (799). This would apply to cheese as well as other such products when in fact this time arrives, as many believe it has already.

They wouldn’t eat ice cream (800).

The wholesale combination of milk and sugar is indeed forbidden in the writings of Ellen White (801). Again, health is not irrelevant to the Christian’s spirituality, and to allege that carefulness in this area is somehow fanatical is both ridiculous and unscriptural. (For me, I thank God for Tofutti!)

They wouldn’t go bowling (802).

Ellen White’s negative references to this practice are in the context of drinking, as when she writes of the “bowling saloon” (803). The game of bowling by itself is not condemned in the writings of Ellen White.

They wouldn’t attend movies (804).

Bradford himself admits how many movies these days have immoral themes (805). If one applies the principle of Philippians 4:8, very little of what Hollywood produces would be patronized by Christians.

They wouldn’t attend opera (806).

Again, apply the principle of Philippians 4:8. How many operas pass muster with this verse?

They wouldn’t eat between meals (807).

My, my, aren’t the followers of Ellen White deprived! All the obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and so much else they miss out on by following her counsel! Who can doubt that eating between meals and similar practices are a major cause of the health problems that beset our society and increase the cost of care for everyone?

They wouldn’t wear a wedding ring (808).

The counsel of Ellen White on bodily ornaments is based firmly on biblical teaching (Exodus 33:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:9, 10; 1 Peter 3:3, 4). Ellen White does say the wedding ring should not be an issue “in countries where the custom is imperative” (809), though many in North America—including the present writer—fail to see such an imperative in the church’s home Division.

They wouldn’t use black pepper (810).

Is black pepper healthy? Can someone produce evidence to that effect? If its impact is injurious, why is Ellen White’s counsel against it an example of extremism?

They wouldn’t eat vegetables and fruit at the same meal (811).

Not quite true. Ellen White makes a distinction between those whose stomachs can handle this combination and those who cannot. She says very clearly, “If the digestion is feeble, the use of both [fruits and vegetables] will often cause distress and inability to put forth mental effort” (812). Again, God’s concern for the health of His people, especially as time grows short and issues grow more serious, is fully understandable.

They wouldn’t take out life insurance (813).

Another misleading claim. A paper produced by the Ellen White Estate is recommended, which places all Ellen White statements on this issue together (814). This paper demonstrates that Ellen White was not in principle opposed to insurance, as evidenced by her counsel regarding buildings in our institutions: “If the house is not insured, it should be at once” (815). The problem with life insurance at that time was its lack of governmental regulation, at least in America (816). Again, when the consensus of her counsel is considered, the overall balance emerges.

They wouldn’t drink tea or coffee (817).

Caffeinated beverages make their users irritable, cranky, and intemperate. Common sense again comes to the prophet’s rescue. But perhaps the widespread criticism of Ellen White’s common-sense counsel affirms the truth of the popular adage that “common sense is uncommon.”

Bradford quotes one of these anti-Ellen White Web sites which, after citing a number of alleged disagreements between Scripture and her writings, declares:

We have clearly shown you just a few examples that prove Mrs. White does not fulfill the biblical tests of a prophet. A prophet needs only one false prophecy to be disqualified” (818).

But if the above are any clue, Ellen White’s critics are batting zero. And no matter how many times zero is multiplied, it still equals zero. GCO

Endnotes

633. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
634. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, pp. 47-52.
635. Ibid., p. 43.
636. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37; vol. 3, p. 49, quoted by Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 41.
637. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 41.
638. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 32-35.
639. Ibid., pp. 37, 38.
640. Ibid., p. 104; People Are Human, p. 148.
641. ________, Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 96.
642. Ibid., p. 95.
643. Ibid., p. 127.
644. Ibid., p. 128.
645. Ibid., p. 112.
646. See Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 43; Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 159, 160, 162.
647. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 35.
648. Ibid., p. 90.
649. See Olson, “Ellen White’s Denials,” Ministry, February 1991, p. 18, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 90.
650. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 90, 96, 249.
651. See Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, pp. 68, 69.
652. White, The Great Controversy, p. xii, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 96.
653. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 122.
654. Ibid.
655. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 189.
656. Tim Poirier, “Sources Clarify Ellen White’s Christology,” Ministry, December 1989, pp. 7-9.
657. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
658. Olson, “Ellen G. White’s Use of Uninspired Sources” (White Estate Paper), p. 17.
659. Metsger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, pp. 159, 160, 162.
660. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 189.
661. See Paulson, “The Lower and Higher Natures: The Key to Resolving the Adventist Christology Debate,”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-lhnature.php3.
662. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 106.
663. Olson, letter to Kevin Paulson, April 17, 1984, p. 1.
664. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?:
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
665. William S. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, pp. 57-69, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 102, 103, 195, 196; People Are Human, pp. 118, 119.
666. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 103, 196; People Are Human, pp. 118, 119.
667. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 61.
668. Ibid.
669. Ibid.
670. See Will Durant, The Age of Faith (New York: MJF Books, 1950), p. 784; Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Reason Begins (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961), pp. 350-355; The Age of Louis XIV (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963), pp. 69-75; William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire (New York: Little, Borwn, & Co, 1993), pp. 7, 8, 34-36, 201, 202; Miroslav Hroch and Anna Skybova, Ecclesia Militans: The Inquisition (Leipzig, Germany, 1988; translated from the German by Janet Fraser, published by Dorset Press, a division of Marboro Books Corp., 1992).
671. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 62.
672. Ibid., p. 65.
673. White, The Great Controversy, p. 278, quoted by Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.
674. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.
675. White, The Great Controversy, p. 278.
676. Ibid., pp. 276-288.
677. Olivier Berneir, Louis XIV: A Royal Life (New York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 232.
678. Barbara W. Tuchmann, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (New York, Ballantine Books, 1994).
679. ________, The Guns of August (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1962).
680. ________, The March of Folly from Troy to Vietnam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), p. 22.
681. Ibid., pp. 21, 22; Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life, p. 232.
682. Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, pp. 74, 75.
683. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 276-288.
684. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.
685. Ibid.
686. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 21, quoted by Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 30.
687. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 21, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 171; People Are Human, pp. 103, 104.
688. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 152-156, 168, 171-173, 198, 273; People Are Human, pp. 19-22, 79, 81, 82, 155, 156.
689. ________, People Are Human, pp. 53-164.
690. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 232.
691. Ibid., pp. 25, 177, 186, 188, 190, 191.
692. George Knight, “If I Were the Devil,” Adventist Review, January 2001, p. 10.
693. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 127.
694. Ibid., p. 227.
695. ________, People Are Human, pp. 70, 71.
696. Ibid., p. 52.
697. Ibid., pp. 52, 53.
698. Ibid., p. 52.
699. Ibid., pp. 53, 75, 76.
700. Ibid., p. 141.
701. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 227.
702. ________, People Are Human, p. 53.
703. Ibid.
704. Gregory Schneider, “Twenty-Five Years After Glacier View and Who Cares?” Spectrum, Winter 2005, pp. 6, 7.
705. http://www.whiteestate.org.
706. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, pp. 14, 15, 19.
707. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, pp. 14, 15.
708. ________, People Are Human, p. 107.
709. ________, Prophets Are Human, p. 14.
710. ________, People Are Human, pp. 93, 94.
711. Ibid., p. 52.
712. Ibid., p. 107 (italics original).
713. Ibid., p. 75.
714. Ibid., p. 164.
715. Reference here is to the growing Youth Conference movement in contemporary Adventism, focused on the recovery of the church’s fundamental beliefs and lifestyle witness as set forth in Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. This grassroots movement today consists in a dozen or more autonomous entities in North America and internationally with similar goals of fealty to Scripture and faithfulness in living and giving the Third Angel’s Message.
716. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 227.
717. ________, People Are Human, p. 128; see also p. 60.
718. Ibid., p. 108.
719. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 152-156, 279; People Are Human, p.121.
720. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 154-156, 162, 163, 198, 280; People Are Human, pp. 62, 63, 64, 84, 115, 127, 130.
721. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 127.
722. Ibid., p. 202.
723. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 218; People Are Human, p. 156.
724. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 177, 218.
725. Fundamental Belief, No. 18, quoted by Bradford, People Are Human, p. 186.
726. “The role of the Ellen G. White writings in doctrinal matters,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 15.
727. White, The Great Controversy, p. 677.
728. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 225; People Are Human, pp. 67, 68.
729. Ernst Troeltsch, quoted by Van Austin Harvey, The Historian and the Believer (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 14, 30: “Our judgments about the past cannot simply be classified as true or false but must be seen only as claiming a greater or lesser degree of probability and as always open to revision.” “Every manifestation of true or value [is] relative and historically conditioned.”
730. See Dean M. Kelley, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing (New York: Harper & Row, 1982). John Dart, “Mainline Church Strength Shrinks,” Los Angeles Times, April 6, 1985, Part 1-A, pp. 1-8; Kenneth L. Woodward, “From Mainline to Sideline,” Newsweek, Dec. 22, 1986, pp. 54-56; Ostling, “The Church Search,” Time, April 5, 1993, pp. 46, 47; Woodward, “Dead End for the Mainline?“ Newsweek, Aug. 9, 1993, pp. 46-48.
731. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 211; People Are Human, p. 142.
732. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 210, 211; People Are Human, pp. 141, 142.
733. Jack J. Blanco, The Clear Word (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1994).
734. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 283; People Are Human, p. 142.
735. See Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource/An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), pp. 306-318.
736. Kenneth N. Taylor, The Living Bible (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971).
737. See Don F. Neufeld, “The Danger of an Uncritical Use of Bible Translations,” Review and Herald, Feb. 15, 1973; “Use Determines Choice of Versions,” Review and Herald, Feb. 22, 1973; Leo Van Dolson, “Bible Versions and Paraphrases,” Ministry, August 1974, pp. 3, 41.
738. Jerry Thomas, Messiah: A contemporary adaptation of the classic work on Jesus’ life: The Desire of Ages (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 2003); A Call to Stand Apart: Challenging Young Adults to Make An Eternal Difference (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 2002); True Education (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 2000); The Ministry of Health and Healing (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 2004).
739. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 164.
740. See Ellen G. White, Christ Triumphant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1999), p. 6.
741. Steve Daily, Adventism for a New Generation (Portland, OR: Better Living Publishers, 1993), pp. 88, 100, 101, 167, 296, 297.
742. Ostling, “O God Our [Mother] and Father,” Time, Oct. 24, 1983, p. 57.
743. Ibid.
744. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 17, 18.
745. Ibid., p. 17.
746. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
747. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 32-35; see also Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, pp. 105-107.
748. Ibid., p. 17.
749. Ibid.
750. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 106.
751. Ibid.
752. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
753. White, Early Writings, pp. 15-20.
754. Ibid., pp. 57, 58.
755. See Deann Alford, “Free at Last,” Christianity Today, March 2007, pp. 30-37, which estimates at least 27 million slaves in the world today.
756. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
757. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?:”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php. See also Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 63.
758. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
759. See White, The Adventist Home, pp. 127, 128.
760. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
761. See Max Joseph, A Short History of Cosmetics (New York: E.B. Treat & Co, 1910), p. 44; Charles De Zemler, Once Over Lightly: The Story of Man and His Hair (New York, 1939), p. 81. Those wishing further documentation for the reasons behind Ellen White’s counsel on this point are encouraged to contact the Loma Linda University Branch (Loma Linda, CA) of the Ellen G. White Estate. Telephone: (909) 558-4942; Web: www.llu.edu\llu\library\heritage. E-mail: jklittle@dwebb.llu.edu.
762. “Lead Poisoning,” Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 17 (Danbury, CT: Grolier Inc, 2002), p. 100.
763. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
764. See Ron Graybill, “The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats
     www.whiteestate.org/issues/Clean-Uncl.html.
765. See Roger W. Coon, Ellen White and Vegetarianism: Did She Practice What She Preached? (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1986), p. 27.
766. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
767. See Ron Graybill, “The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats, www.whiteestate.org/issues/Clean-Uncl.html.
768. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
769. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
770. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, pp. 500-512.
771. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
772. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
773. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 64, 75.
774. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 65; More Than a Prophet, pp. 133, 134.
775. White, Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 253-260, 264-268, 355-368, 533, 534.
776. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 53, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 17.
777. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
778. White, Early Writings, pp. 185, 186.
779. ________, Acts of the Apostles, p. 143.
780. ________, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 266.
781. ________, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 117-124.
782. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
783. White, Messages to Young People, pp. 316-319; Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 330, 331.
784. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18; People Are Human, p. 150.
785. White, Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 51.
786. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
787. White, The Adventist Home, p. 499.
788. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
789. White, The Adventist Home, p. 518.
790. ________, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 565.
791. Ibid., p. 514.
792. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
793. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 707.
794. Andy Nash, “Making Sense of Standards,” South Pacific Division Record, April 24, 1999, p. 8.
795. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
796. Ibid.
797. Ibid.
798. Letter of W.C. White to L.R. Conradi, March 27, 1906, quoted by W.C. White, “The Use of Cheese,” (White Estate Paper), pp. 2-4.
799. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 353, 358, 411.
800. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
801. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 330, 331.
802. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
803. White, Messages to Young People, p. 398.
804. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
805. ________, People Are Human, p. 151.
806. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
807. Ibid.
808. Ibid.
809. White, Testimonies to Ministers, p. 181.
810. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
811. Ibid.
812. White, The Ministry of Healing, pp. 299, 300.
813. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
814. Arthur L. White, “Some Reflections and Comments Concerning Insurance,” (White Estate Paper, Jan. 8, 1964).
815. Ellen G. White, Letter 40, 1884, quoted by Arthur L. White, “Some Reflections and Comments Concerning Insurance,” p. 2.
816. Ibid., pp. 7-10.
817. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 18.
818. Ibid.

© 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. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin has also since 2003 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.