The Reliability Equation

A Response to Samuele Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues Newsletters #88/#89 and Their New Light About the Supposed Operation of the Gift of Prophecy.

Larry Kirkpatrick

Document versions notes: September 13, 16, 18, 2002 drafts. Document may be updated.

Document Index. Note: This document was prepared to be read in sequence from beginning to end. However, because of the quantity of material we have provided links for those who may only be able to read it in sections.

• Introduction
• Concerns Regarding Rhetoric and Certain Charges
• Down Goes the Authority of Inspiration
• Bacchiocchi and His Idea Sources
• The 1919 Myth
• Enter Manuscript 16: The Articles on Inspiration that Ellen White Condemned
• The 1919 Truth
• Verbal Inspiration?
• The 1260 Years Prophecy
• Role of Daniells and Prescott in 1911 GC Revision
• Summary
• Other Misrepresentations and Charges
• Language of Limitation
• Ellen G. White 'As' or 'As Not' an Authority on History
• A Micro-Refutation?
• Other Loose Ends
• Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues #89
• The Reliability Equation
• Conclusion
• ENDNOTES

Introduction

Samuele Bacchiocchi in his Endtime Issues newsletter (EI) #88¹ reacts to a controversy generated by his departure from two of the 27 biblical teachings highlighted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.² The Lord's church, understanding the significance of the operation of the charisms in our midst, declares that among those gifts, contemporary prophecy given through Ellen G. White is "a continuing and authoritative source of truth."³ Bacchiocchi, in a series of retreats from truth,⁴ now proposes that inspiration operating through prophets from the close of the Old Testament (OT) era onward is excluded from infallibility.⁵ Thus, our teaching as a church that the Bible is an "infallible" revelation is denied. By severing the New Testament (NT) from the infallibility statement, Bacchiocchi denies the first of all SDA fundamental beliefs.⁶

This document addresses primarily Samuele Bacchiocchi's EI#88. It will also deal with what appears to be a very fundamental question at the root of his current thinking. This is what we may call the reliability equation. The equation as Bacchiocchi's recent teaching would make it appear, works as follows:

We will return to this and challenge it after a look at his two most recent newsletters.

Before we approach that point however, we want to investigate two major points along with some additional points. The two major points are (1) the validity of his suggestion that the work of true prophets has within itself mixture of truth and error that the listener must sort through in order to find truth, and (2) theories surrounding the AD 1919 Bible Conferences and their relationship to the present discussion. However, there are some additional points that we should also address, and we will start with those.

Concerns Regarding Rhetoric and Certain Charges

Although loath to bring it up, we are concerned about how Dr. Bacchiocchi has endeavored to format the discussion. The Doctor's recent work raises several very serious questions and proposes approaches that are altogether new to our faith. Instead of throwing these ideas into the wind before thousands of his newsletter readers, it had been well for him to share them first with the denomination's men of experience.

The way we have always sought to operate as a movement is recognize that "There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for 'in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'"⁷ While it does not appear that this counsel was followed, what also concerns us is the decidedly rhetorical approach. Rather than employing sober, even-handed language, we find extreme portrayals more calculated to evoke indignant reaction.

Some passages illustrate this approach. "If Biblical research can only be conducted in strict adherence to the interpretations found in Ellen G. White's writings, then no original investigation of Scripture is possible in the Adventist Church."⁸ "Are Ellen G. White's writings to be used as a helpful guide in the study of the Bible or as a straightjacket to ensure that no deviation occurs from historical interpretations? Are we as Adventists free to investigate the Scriptures or are we boxed into a system of beliefs that admits no independent Biblical research?"⁹ Statements such as these, interspersed with repeated questions about what our rights are in interpreting Scripture are not calculated to produce sober reactions.

Is it really true that if we take the counsels of heaven through Mrs. White to us seriously, that "no original investigation of Scripture is possible"? And do we want to pose Mrs. White's writings as a "straightjacket," or do we really believe that treating them authoritatively means that we are locked-in to a collection of mere "traditional interpretations" carrying no weight at all?¹⁰ Bacchiocchi admits that he is attempting "to address the critical and serious question of the role of Ellen White in resolving doctrinal and historical disputes."¹¹ Is such evocative and fairness-questioning rhetoric the language best fitted for such an exploration? Why is such language used?

Another constant refrain of Bacchiocchi is that Mrs. White is being used as the "last word." Either / or, he proposes, our choice is between the Bible or her writings. If we take what she has written seriously, then we are making her the ultimate authority. We could invest considerable space in exposing similar rhetoric in EI#88, but we abbreviate this section by pointing out that Bacchiocchi even claims that Adventists may be at risk of elevating Mrs. White to "a kind of Madonna, similar to the veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church."¹² Need we pause to present a discussion of how dissimilar are the Adventist view of Ellen G. White and the Roman Catholic view of Mary in virtually every way? We think not. This is another example of the doctor's inflammatory rhetoric.

We addressed Bacchiocchi's concern about Mrs. White's writings carefully in our previous paper, but those paragraphs have simply been ignored. For Bacchiocchi, making her statements authority means he has no "right to conduct a new investigation of these texts."¹³ Such a position is untenable. Had he lived in the time of Christ, it seems that it would have meant paying the strictest attention to the OT prophets but ignoring John the Baptist. But perhaps he means it as merely a rhetorical device and not to be taken seriously.

There is always an outer edge -- a boundary if you will -- around truth. We are free within that boundary, since only error exists outside of this boundary, only bondage. It is never God who argues that true freedom exists outside of His boundaries. Are we free to investigate the Scriptures or are we boxed in? We are separated unto the gospel, joined to truth, and yes, bound by truth. There is no trail to be blazed outside of truth. If we are going to blaze any new trails they need to be opened up according to God's guidance. We ignore this at our own peril, and our scholars who publish ignore it at peril to the church.

We are concerned about what (at least bears the appearance) of an elitist attitude. Bacchiocchi discusses his considerable concern over those Adventists who take "extreme positions"¹⁴ and who "idolize and glorify Ellen White"¹⁵ He says that "A significant number of our Adventist fellow believers still hold to an idealized and glorified view of Ellen White . . ."¹⁶ it sounds as if he is trying to say that he has classified "a significant number of our Adventist fellow believers" as people embracing "extreme positions."

We fear that perhaps it is our friendly Doctor who has an extreme position, for the only view he seems capable of taking is that we are caught between two mutually exclusive positions: either we must embrace the view that we take the Bible with no constraints besides, or we must embrace the view that the writings of Ellen G. White constrain with finality our interpretation of the Bible. No other ground is offered. Yet we need not accept such a dichotomy.

That Bacchiocchi has indeed taken an untenable position here seems clear to us, for he goes so far as to insist that the agreed upon expression of the world church is so flawed that it constitutes "An unresolved dilemma."¹⁷ The damning words of Bacchiocchi are "our church wishes to affirm two conflicting beliefs [Fundamental belief #1 and #17 mentioned in the first paragraph of this paper]."¹⁸ Actually, they do not conflict. Millions of Adventists the world over have studied their Bibles and been well able to affirm both as biblical. But Bacchiocchi's solution seems to be to break with both of them.

It is no help to busy pastors to have rogue scholars lingering on the sidelines and shouting that our fundamental beliefs cannot be harmonized with the Bible or each other. These beliefs have been accepted by the church for a long time; their supposed "conflicting" relationship is a mistaken notion. But the fact that Bacchiocchi is pitching the situation this way contains an implicit admission that even he has recognized as the fundamental non-reconcilability of his new light with the current understanding of the Bible's teachings as held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We have to agree with Bacchiocchi that there are two fundamental issues at stake in his newsletter. First, the nature of the inspiration of Ellen G. White, and second, the question of the proper use of her writings.¹⁹ What must be clearly understood is that the solution for the second named issue is determined very much by the answer to the first.

Depending on how authoritative we find the writings of Ellen G. White, we'll understand how we should use them. If they come with a high degree of authority, we must take them seriously, if with a low degree then we can ignore them. However, as we have shown in our last paper, the phenomenon of inspiration operates in a universal manner, whether OT, NT, or contemporary. Bacchiocchi knows this unity must be broken up if we are to treat some portion of the inspired writings available to us as less inspired than others. The question becomes, Can a convincing case be made biblically for such a position? We have already shown that it cannot. But there are now new arguments added on to those previously addressed. Let us address them.

Down Goes the Authority of Inspiration

In EI#88 Bacchiocchi argues for a difference in the operation of the phenomenon of inspiration between OT and NT periods, and places the manifestation of the prophetic gift through Ellen G. White's (EGW) life and ministry as falling in the same category as that of NT prophets. According to Bacchiocchi, NT prophets operated differently than OT prophets.

He focuses on what he feels are the limitations of NT prophets and prophecy. He proposes the following distinction:

Bacchiocchi says relatively little in regard to OT prophets, hardly enough for us to make a list. By implication many of the things he's stated in regard to NT prophets were mentioned in order to contrast the NT phenomenon with OT. There are few things he says fairly definitely. For example, OT prophets "exercised imminent authority."³⁵ The apparent implication is that for some unexplained reason, OT prophets bore messages that did not need evaluation (as he proposes NT prophet's messages do), nor were mixed but carried truth only; that OT prophets human limitations while prophesying were not meaningful; that they may have been infallible interpreters of scripture, could write doctrinally or work authoritatively with history, interpret prophecy, and so on.

If indeed such distinctions are intended, they appear very subjective and arbitrary. Among the Bible material given in support of this new light is 1 Corinthians 14:3, which says, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." The main issue in this section of the Bible is a comparison between speaking in tongues and prophesying. Paul's main argument is that prophesy builds up the church while tongues build up the individual. He argues that prophecy is of superior value in building up the church.

The point Bacchiocchi takes from the passage is that NT prophets are to function to encourage believers. But somehow he excludes their speaking of doctrinal, historical, or many other matters as building up the church.³⁶ This is arbitrary, and a distinction not supported by the Scripture evidence. Edifying the church, building her up is inclusive of doctrinal study and preaching.

According to Paul, edification includes instruction in doctrinal matters (1 Timothy 1:3-4; 4:13, 16; 2 Timothy 1:13; 3:16-17; 4:2) Bacchiocchi may argue that Timothy was a teacher and preacher and therefore edification is just fine for him (he says that in NT times teaching and dealing with doctrine and historical fulfillment was a ministry "fulfilled by teachers and preachers. Prophets were not an authority in doctrines or history"³⁷) But that is not our point here. Our point here is that edification, building up the church, includes doctrinal instruction. Thus we notice that Bacchiocchi's separation of doctrine as something apart from that which edifies is arbitrary and unbiblical.

Furthermore, a look at Ephesians four demonstrates again the error. In 4:11 several different particular offices are listed, including "prophets" and "pastors and teachers." But 4:13 shows us that for both these categories and the others given, the whole list of spiritual gifts mentioned in verse 12 is "for the edifying of the body of Christ." The Bible denies Bacchiocchi's arbitrary distinction made at 1 Corinthians 14:3.

Another text given by Bacchiocchi in support of his thesis is 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22. His argument is "Believers are admonished to evaluate the messages of the prophets (1 Thess 5:19-22; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29), because they could be mixed in quality, containing truths and errors."³⁸ However, this is a mistaken notion. The context in which the verse appears is a chapter where Paul has just warned against those who will come within the church preaching "peace and safety" (verse 3). Those who preach such a message are classed as bringing a message that will only be received by those in darkness (verse 4).

This is not a matter, as Bacchiocchi says, of believers testing the messages of the prophets "because at times even genuine prophets may be saying things that are inaccurate."³⁹ Rather it is a matter of determining which message is a message of light and which is a message of darkness. Whole messages are inspired, and either good or bad. Prophets are either true or false prophets.

Whether OT or NT, the Bible views prophets wholistically. Prophets are not said to be "false in part," but simply called "false prophets" (for example, Matthew 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1). Bacchiocchi's difference between OT and NT prophetic phenomenon opens a door so that Isaiah 8:20 can still be presented in almost all of its power -- at least as far as the gift of prophecy operating in the OT goes. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Note that Isaiah's view is wholistic -- all or nothing. Either the prophet speaks according to God's word and there is light in him, or he speaks not according to God's word and there is no light in him. That is, if what the prophet says is but 95% true, then there is no light in him. Isaiah says that even the small taint of error contaminates the whole testimony of the prophet.

Another confirmation of this wholistic sense is found in 1 John 4:1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." The reason given for testing the spirits is not because the prophets are confused in themselves between truth and error, but because many false prophets have gone out into the world. How are we going to define a "false prophet" if the message even of genuine prophets can be a mixed one containing both good and evil, truth and error? Satan mixes truth and error, for it is from truth that error acquires its strength. Would not God be playing right into Satan's hands to make the situation we face that of choosing not between true and false prophets, but from the whole range of would-be prophets with varying mixtures of truth and error?

I served as pastor of three churches in Utah and I can tell you that the dominant religion in that state is indeed Mormon. The Latter-day Saints (LDS) hold that Joseph Smith (and others) received the contemporary gift of prophecy. Now when you go through and read the many writings of Joseph Smith, you find in the Book of Mormon⁴⁰ (BOM) a blending of the Bible with other things.

Whole chapters of Isaiah are reproduced virtually unchanged in BOM. On the basis of Bacchiocchi's NT scenario of "mixed" prophetic messages, what would we do with Smith? His excerpts from Isaiah would be truth. Other writings by him we will find to contain obvious error. But if there is some truth, and if he fits into the NT prophet paradigm of Bacchiocchi, then his case will present a mixture of truth and error. Careful study of the writings of Joseph Smith convinces me that he is a false prophet, while careful study of the Ellen G. White writings convinces me she is a true prophet.

One of the troubles with Bacchiocchi's new light system of relating to the post OT operation of the prophetic gift is that it elevates subtle false prophets to "maybe status." Because Smith includes so much truth with so much error, under the Bacchiocchi system, hours stacked upon hours of thorough search would be required to determine how to classify him. The same would go for any other similarly-operating, self-proclaimed claimant to the prophetic gift.

Readers may be interested to know that virtually every week I receive e-mail from individuals I've never heard of before, claiming to be prophets. At my church I have developed a form for guests wishing to share new light with me to fill out who. Believe me, there is a parade of unusual people and false prophets who are out and about, restlessly searching for someone to examine their claims. Today, when there is so much for the church to be doing, and she is plagued by ill-advised evangelical adventures on one hand and some individuals departing into flaming fanaticism on the other, it is a poor time to open the floodgates to any prophetic claimant happening past, and invest hours and hours investigating the claims of those whose teachings are a mixture of truth and error.

The Isaiah 8:20 paradigm provides a better solution. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word there is no light in them." Are pastoral concerns only a part of Mr. Bacchiocchi's past? Indeed, we do not know whether he has ever served as a pastor. One thing we don't need out here on the front lines is to consume more energy with fanaticism. Regrettably, it has been our experience that some who teach feast-day observance have referred to Bacchiocchi's work on that point to sustain their views.⁴¹ (By no means do we wish to characterize all who observe feast days today as fanatics.)

But back to our discussion. If Bacchiocchi wishes to insist that somehow things have changed between OT and NT in the manifestation of the prophetic gift, he needs to provide the "missing text" that demonstrates this. Just as the call has gone out for the missing text giving the divine mandate for the change from Sabbath to Sunday, we ask him for the missing text showing the change in the gift of prophecy from OT phenomenon where the prophet apparently is understood to operate without mixture of truth and error,⁴² to the NT version where he says messages are mixed and contain truth and error.

Not only the Bible, but the writings of Ellen G. White consider the operation of the prophetic gift as a unity. "It is the voice of Christ that speaks through the prophets and patriarchs, from the days of Adam even down to the closing scenes of time. This truth was not discerned by the Jews who rejected Jesus, and it is not discerned by many professing Christians today. A beautiful harmony runs through the Old and New Testaments; passages which may seem dark at a first reading, present clear interpretations when diligently studied, and compared with other scripture referring to the same subject."⁴³ The voice of Christ speaks through the prophets, same voice, "from the days of Adam down to the closing scenes of time." Mr. Bacchiocchi has given texts to support his contention that "The gift of prophecy in the NT is somewhat different than the OT counterpart.⁴⁴ His explanation, however, is wanting.

Yes, God inspires the thoughts and the words are chosen by the human vessel; but only within the boundaries of the Holy Spirit's working. Remember, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit moved the prophet. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16).

All Scripture is inspired; all is profitable for doctrine. The pick-and-choose teaching (one Bacchiocchi says he opposes⁴⁵), making the competent scholar the "final" judge, should be anathema to him. How readily the claim to "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone) can be changed with the addition of a few letters to "scholar Scriptura!" (Scripture according to the scholar).

Where in all of this is the guardianship of truth by the Holy Spirit? "Truth is inspired and guarded by God. . ."⁴⁶ Indeed, under the Bacchiocchi model there is no such thing as a real difference between inspiration and illumination, a deficiency in his argument to which we referred in our last paper⁴⁷ but which remains unanswered.

Again it is interesting that Bacchiocchi makes the reverse error of LDS teaching. In Mormonism, the category of illumination drops out and utterances of church leaders and preachers are considered to be, in essence, spoken Scripture.⁴⁸ In a balanced position, we make a careful distinction between illumination and inspiration.⁴⁹ In the Bacchiocchi position, inspiration appears to drop out and most prophesy becomes illumination.⁵⁰

Readers will realize that the key difference between inspiration and illumination as phenomena is that under inspiration the work of the Spirit is guarded in particular from error, resulting in the claim for infallibility in inspired writings. Illumination is a special event of divinely-given illumination that reveals spiritual insight to one, perhaps as he is preparing a sermon. However, such speaking on God's behalf comes with no guarantee of infallibility. For this reason you can test pastors and scholars by the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings and not vice versa. By making over again the regular operation of inspiration into illumination, removing the infallibility distinction, Bacchiocchi removes a category.

Readers may be interested in how this works itself out. In an older newsletter Bacchiocchi writes, "I have reason to believe that were she [Ellen G. White] alive today, she would appreciate any additional corrections competent scholars could offer to her writings."⁵¹ But he continues, in speaking of the Bible to say, "The same is true of the Bible writers. For example, were the gospels' writers alive today, I have reason to believe that they would appreciate receiving help in correcting some of their inaccuracies. . . some of the inaccuracies are very glaring . . ."⁵²

It is of interest that the solution Bacchiocchi envisions for these deluded Bible writers is the help of "competent scholars."⁵³ Of course it is true that we should seek to understand these things together. But the ideal is consensus arrived at by group study as many minds are led of God, rather than by reliance upon an elite scholarly class who would serve as judges even of what is and is not inspired in the Bible!

He continues, "Like many other churches, our Adventist church today is plagued by self-proclaimed 'spiritual leaders' who claim to have new understanding of the Bible. They publish and distribute their papers, magazines, and books. In many cases what they teach is a plain misunderstanding of the teaching of the Bible based on their preconceived ideas. If they would only allow responsible scholars to evaluate their interpretation, they would spare themselves and the church much embarrassment."⁵⁴ Again he is correct in part. The danger comes in determining what is truth on the basis of scholars, when scholars so often have historically been the very ones to lead the church into darkness. For Bacchiocchi, is anything too hard for "competent scholars"?

A correspondent called my attention to a parallel between what Hal Lindsey was accused of by the doctor, and Bacchiocchi's own recent writings on prophecy. "One wonders, how could Lindsey make so many grossly mistaken predictions? The answer is quite simple. His predictions were shaped more by current trends than by the scripture. The political leadership of Egypt in 1970 was read back by Lindsey into Biblical prophecies. This arbitrary method of interpreting prophecy can only lead to disappointments besides undermining the value and permanent relevance of prophetic messages."⁵⁵

Bacchiocchi goes to 1 Corinthians 12:10 for another text in his mixture: "To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues." What he means to imply by repeatedly listing this text is unclear, for he cites the text several times,⁵⁶ but never gives a direct explanation of it. It may well be the "discerning of spirits" that here captures his attention. It is difficult to react to his text because his mention of it is indistinct.

Another text given by Bacchiocchi is 1 Corinthians 14:29: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge [diakrino]." The theory given here is that the judging is "to listen critically, sifting the good from the bad."⁵⁷ In our next section we will explore the source of Bacchiocchi's "new light" on this text.

Bacchiocchi and His Idea Sources

It may be of interest that Bacchiocchi's principle arguments in favor of his position appear to be adapted mostly from the work of two non-Adventist scholars. One of these major sources lists texts all presented by Bacchiocchi, and in the same order, that appear in a commentary selection pasted from one of David E. Aune's works -- a theologian who has surrounded himself with other Catholics and even taught New Testament theology at the Jesuit Loyola University.⁵⁸ Readers will note that it is Catholic dogma for the Bible to be interpreted by the church with Roman Catholic tradition taking precedence over Scripture. The revelation that a key source of Bacchiocchi's interpretation comes from an individual who has spent a substantial portion of his life to work closely with Jesuits⁵⁹ will do little to alleviate concerns about Bacchiocchi being a Jesuit plant,⁶⁰ We do not teach or propose that Bacchiocchi is a Jesuit. We do warn regarding his ideas. A destructive theological idea is far more dangerous than any single Jesuit.

What these revelations do help to explain are the reasons for the attractive nature of the idea. "Tradition judges the Scriptures" is not so different from "scholars judge the Scriptures" or "the congregation judges the prophets." The Roman Catholic Church makes tradition superior to Scripture as final determiner of truth. But how is that theory exercised? In practice, it is the scholars who gather and determine for the church what is truth. Bacchiocchi treads dangerously close to this paradigm. Another suggestion that Bacchiocchi has lifted elements of his view from Aune is that both give the text 1 Corinthians 12:10, but only Aune comments on it.⁶¹

Individuals must of course determine for themselves, who are true and who false prophets. But as we've already discussed, theirs is not to sift the mixed good and bad materials of individual prophets.

We do not find it comforting to know that Bacchiocchi's principle argument for downgrading the prophetic gift of Ellen G. White appears built upon mostly the ideas of two men, one seeking to make the charismatic movement palatable to evangelicalism, and another individual who taught theology at a core Jesuit University. Something seems wrong here.

Here is Bacchiocchi's main citation of Aune: "In several places within his letters Paul directly addresses the subject of evaluating Christian prophecy (1 Thess 5:19-22; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29). These references are all-important since they constitute the earliest evidence that Christian prophecy was subject to some form of community control . . . The injunction to test everything is a general principle; in all circumstances and situations, including that of congregational prophecy, the will of God must be discerned so that the good may be accepted and the evil rejected . . . Rather than reject prophesying out of hand, Paul recommends that they allow the Spirit of God to speak through prophets and then retain that which is good and profitable and reject that which is regarded as evil and worthless. . . ."⁶² I've never read an interpretation like this anywhere in Adventist literature. This is new to Adventism. It is "new light." But the question remains, white light or black?

What's more, Bacchiocchi has embarked on an eclectic project, taking a position even Aune does not. Bacchiocchi has adapted Aune's views to fit into his new doctrinal scenario.⁶³ Unlike Bacchiocchi, Aune sees the testing of prophets as being between true and false prophets, not true or false utterances of a true prophet.⁶⁴ Unlike Aune, who speaking of the Thessalonians says that their reasons for taking a dim view of prophecy are "completely unknown to us,"⁶⁵ Bacchiocchi is ready to take a wild guess. "The human limitations and inaccuracies in the prophetic messages seem to have been so apparent that some Christians despised them."⁶⁶ Aune's honest admission that the reasons are "completely unknown to us" were ellipsied-out in the quotation presented by Bacchiocchi.⁶⁷

It may also be of interest that Aune suggests that "Although Paul does not ascribe such erroneous prophetic teaching to demonic or Satanic influence, it is difficult to think that he would not have, had he chosen to comment further on the subject."⁶⁸ Thus Aune's view is, in a sense more orthodox than Bacchiocchi. Aune maintains the distinction between true prophets and false, indicating that in his opinion, Paul would have thought erroneous teaching by a prophet was being demonically inspired. Bacchiocchi in contrast permits true prophets to give untrue teaching.

But as we've said, Aune is not alone. Wayne Grudem, another non-Adventist scholar, provides other key ingredients for Bacchiocchi's errant theological mixture. Grudem appears to be Bacchiocchi's source for the theory of a separation of the OT prophetic gift into two differentiated strains in the NT, that of apostle-prophets and that of fallible prophets. The theories of Grudem are dealt with and decidedly crushed by F. David Farnell in masterful manner.⁶⁹ Interested readers may prefer to download Farnell's paper from the link I've reproduced in the footnote. Because the difference between Grudem and Bacchiocchi is so slight, Farnell's paper almost as effectively crushes Bacchiocchi's thesis. It is interesting that apparently Grudem and Farnell both apparently hold in part or in full to verbal inspiration.⁷⁰

We have to agree with Farnell when he states that "The NT does not conceptualize any substantial differences in kind between prophetic expressions in the OT and those in the NT. . . . No attempt is ever made to distinguish between OT and NT prophetic expression in the vocabulary of introductions to NT prophecy."⁷¹ Farnell also shows that the supposedly high honor of OT prophets in relation to NT as presented by Grudem is unrealistic. He calls to our attention the words of Jesus who lamented "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her" (Matthew 23:37). Mostly OT prophets were disobeyed, slain, tortured, or otherwise mistreated within their lifetime, only afterward being viewed with any real honor.

The real rub comes when Farnell addresses to Grudem what we have already complained of in Bacchiocchi: "Such a relegation of prophecy to a lesser status raises the question of how the early church could have guarded itself against hopeless doctrinal confusion. If prophets at times were used to convey inspired revelations and at other times were non-authoritative and mistaken, who could distinguish their authoritative accurate messages from the other kind?"⁷² Did Bacchiocchi miss Farnell's analysis of Grudem for being unlisted in indexes because too new? No. Farnell's paper was originally published in 1991.

One of the fundamental pitfalls of relying upon scholars is that their views can become a cafeteria of options. The supposedly self-correcting nature of the scholarly enterprise, where serious research is prepared and poor theories weeded-out and refuted by better scholarship is more idealistic theory than practical reality. Often the scholarly task is embraced merely as justification for a proposed view. Grudem's view has nothing to do with Adventism, but does provide in him a major name whose authority was readily invocable on behalf of Bacchiocchi's new light.

The theory of fallible prophets and a fallible NT is a high price to pay so that Ellen White's confirmation of the 1260 year prophecy anchored to AD 538-1798 can be jettisoned and Islam incorporated into the little horn. Remember, Bacchiocchi says that NT prophets operate differently than OT prophets; that Mrs. White is classed with these fallible NT prophets, who although inspired cannot function as authority on history. Yet of the Bible, Ellen White says "The Bible is an inspired history. . ."⁷³

Thus we note a fundamental enigma. Adventism has, and rightly so, ever equated the contemporary operation of the gift of prophecy with the biblical manifestation of the same. Some today, however, want to press as far as possible the idea that Mrs. White's writings are no authority on history, while in inexplicable contrast the Bible is. The ultimate solution to this must inevitably be either granting historical authority to all inspiration or eliminating it from all inspiration. The latter solution would change our long-term view of the infallibility of Scripture. Perhaps the reader will now see that the issues before us are of the most decided importance.

The 1919 Myth

The 1919 Bible Conference has been a standard implement in the toolkit of Mrs. White's nay-sayers for some time. The issue of revelation and inspiration -- how heaven works through the prophets, and in particular, through Ellen G. White -- is consistently formatted as follows. Our early Adventists absorbed the common thinking of their day and as a whole were subscribers to the theory of verbal inspiration. Every word was in itself inspired directly by God and the prophet was more of a Dictaphone, more a pen than a pen-person. Our narrow, fearful-of-Bible-study believers of that day wanted things easy so they assumed all this and applied it to Ellen G. White.

Later, in 1919 there was a substantial discussion about all this and a consensus was achieved among the then-elite scholars in the church. But due to fear of the outcome, these results were hidden from the people. The stenographically recorded results were never published and the material was filed away to be lost out of sight for 55 years. When rediscovered in church archives in the 1970s, the material was widely hailed as a solution to the knotty-problems regarding Mrs. White's writings that her detractors relentlessly raise. Bacchiocchi perpetuates this view.

Advocates of this view press the thought-inspiration versus verbal-inspiration angle. According to them, modern Adventists suffer from the same problem, holding Mrs. Writings to be word-for-word inspired. For them this seems to explain why so many Adventists are serious about endeavoring to follow the counsels presented through her so closely. If the very words were inspired by God then what more is there to do but unthinkingly obey? So goes the theory.

Bacchiocchi's analysis is similar. He includes quotations mentioning the verbal inspiration issue in each of his recent newsletters,⁷⁴ along with several pages on the 1919 Conferences.⁷⁵ He claims that a policy of concealment has been followed for the past century, hiding from our people the real facts about the ministry of Ellen G. White, making her the infallible final interpreter of truth.

I can attest that the thrust of Bacchiocchi's theory in regard to 1919 is essentially the same as what I was presented with as a first year theology student at one of our most liberal SDA colleges. My coursework in a class on "The Writings of Ellen G. White" included some 600 pages of reading, about 60 of which was from Ellen White. The textbook we were required to purchase mentioned the 1919 Bible Conferences on several pages, and argued that God's prophets might be "graded" from A to C- but never any lower.

When Bacchiocchi argues for a distinction between different elements in Mrs. White's writings, taking her writings about salvation and the devotional life at full authority considering as less-inspired or not-inspired her remarks on doctrine, health, science, or history, he too is grading her -- arguing for recognition of a substantial distinction between the operation of inspiration at different points in her writings. But grading the inspiration of God's prophets is nothing new. Nor are we left in the dark as to how heaven views such attempts. Enter Manuscript 16.

Enter Manuscript 16: The Articles on Inspiration that Ellen White Condemned

When a church has functioning within it the living gift of prophecy, the ride can become tumultuous. The 1880s were an intense period in Adventism. Among events in the first half of that decade was a temporary falling out between Ellen White and Uriah Smith. Smith's reaction for a time was to distinguish between the visions of Ellen White, which he was willing to hold as fully inspired and authoritative, and anything else from her, which he held as being less authoritative and attributed to being derived merely from what others had told her.⁷⁶

George Ide Butler, a General Conference President hopeful of moderating the trouble,⁷⁷ wrote a series of 10 articles appearing in the Review on the topic of inspiration.⁷⁸ We'll take a look at these, because we will find that Mrs. White wrote a fascinating critique of them after their appearance in the Review!

Butler's fundamental theory was that inspiration differed in degree and quality, with different aspects of the phenomenon carrying different weight and authority. His first article opens the series by asking "Is there any of the human element mingled with the Divine in the Scriptures? Or is every word and every line equally infallible?"⁷⁹ and closes with "The Scriptures are the product of this combined action of the human and the Divine. They are given by inspiration of God. All writings thus inspired are authoritative in proportion to the degree of their inspiration."⁸⁰ We do not dispute that there is a mingling of the human and the divine in the phenomenon of inspiration. However we think that to jump from recognition of this fact to suggesting gradations of infallibility is dangerous and unwarranted. We also notice Butler's logical if erroneous step in that direction by positing degrees of inspiration.

In the second article we begin to see the theory working itself out. "God gave special light to Moses and Christ and to those connected with them. We believe these two persons were inspired in a higher sense than the ordinary prophet. The law of Moses and the discourses of Christ stand higher in our estimation than the book of Ruth, the Proverbs, or the Song of Solomon."⁸¹ In fact, in contrasting the degree of light in each of these separately-grouped writings, he adds, "The soft light of the moon is grateful to us, though we rejoice more in the fuller effulgence of the sun."⁸²

Enumerating no less than five styles of inspiration differing and sequentially graded from most inspired to least, he makes clear that he holds some inspiration as more heavily inspired and other as lightly inspired. For example, of the method of inspiration in those third category writings, Butler says "This method of inspiration however, was not so full and perfect as the preceding."⁸³ He repeats this distinction in these words: "There are varying degrees of inspiration; that is, the Lord gave to some of the writers of Scripture far greater and more direct, and therefore clearer, light than to others."⁸⁴

In the fourth article we find history singled out in the Bible as deriving from a different mode of inspiration. "Most of the New Testament, excepting the historical portions, were written by them [John, Paul and Peter], evidently from light derived by this means . . . We therefore conclude that all the New Testament, excepting the historical portions, were written by means of light received through visions from the Lord."⁸⁵ His next article continues to discuss this.

In the sixth article what Butler has intended becomes clearer. He writes, "The fact that prophets did this ["wrote out from their own knowledge facts which it was necessary should be preserved"] does not necessarily prove there was a special revelation through inspiration of the facts themselves; but that such were trustworthy persons whose testimony was worthy of confidence."⁸⁶

The seventh article continues to make speculative distinctions, as Butler suggests that the reader will notice "a difference between them ["Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and the book of Job"] and other books of the sacred canon," and that those books partake of "a different kind of inspiration from that of the other Bible writings."⁸⁷ Although professing great appreciation for the writings of Solomon, Butler reminds us "we cannot feel that they embody the spiritual lessons of deepest import to the same degree as do the sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ."⁸⁸ He closes stating "We do believe it is impossible to maintain the position that all parts of the book which we call the Bible is inspired in the same manner and in the same degree."⁸⁹

The eighth article deals largely with the issue of verbal inspiration theory, arguing against it. This reminds us that even in the early 1880s there was by no means a unanimous view that the Scriptures were inspired down to the level of words. This is a blow to the 1919 verbal inspiration thesis.

The ninth article deals especially with "imperfections" in the inspiration of the Bible. Now that the series of articles is closing some of the ideas its author had long been preparing to touch come onto the page. Here we find new distinctions being made, such as "In the moral instructions of the Bible there is no flaw."⁹⁰ "The Bible is not complete or perfect as a historical record."⁹¹ "Prophecy gives us sufficient light to get safely through the darkness of earth, like a lamp in a dark night, and this is all it professes to do. Hence, we say, Prophecy is imperfect in the sense of quantity or degree, though the light which is given through it is of inestimable value."⁹²

"The bearing this has upon the subject is plain. God's method of communicating through Moses by directly speaking to him, and personally manifesting Himself to him, is much superior to that of speaking through visions and dreams. We conclude, therefore, that there must be some degree of imperfection in the latter method; for the former could not be more than perfect."⁹³ "We," Butler says, "draw the conclusion that there is some degree of imperfection, so far as clearness and fullness of light is concerned, in revelations from God through prophecy, ever remembering, however, that what is given is true and good."⁹⁴ At the close of his article, Butler returns to his theme from its beginning: "The great moral truths of the Bible are made very plain, so that any who desire to obey them can do so. Other portions of Scripture are not made so plain."⁹⁵

Finally, the tenth article attempts to draw conclusions. "We have shown also from the Bible itself that so far as clearness and fullness of light is concerned relative to history and prophecy, and things not directly connected with moral principle and our salvation, there is a degree of obscurity and imperfection."⁹⁶ And that "In view of all these facts brought to the attention of the reader in this series of articles, we cannot deny that when God chose human beings of flesh and blood to be channels through which to give light to mankind, the human element is mingled in measure with this light of heavenly origin, and that a degree of human imperfection is in some instances discernable in it in reference to points which are not specially connected with moral duty."⁹⁷

What has occurred is that in very subtle manner the argument has progressed from degrees of inspiration, to varying degrees of fallibility and authority, and closed with sharply truncated utility for the present operation of the gift of prophecy. How much impact Butler's steady flow of articles in the Review during this period contributed toward the denominational collision in 1888 wherein Mrs. White's gift was very widely ignored by delegates to that General Conference session cannot be known with certainty. But it does give one pause.

That Butler's purpose for the ten articles was really to find a via media⁹⁸ for the place of the Spirit of Prophecy is clarified by the very last paragraph in the last article: "We believe also that God is giving light in this age of the world through the Spirit of Prophecy among His people. We believe that the same characteristics are discernible in it that are seen in those who had visions of old. There is the same fullness and plenitude of moral and spiritual instruction, which leads to the development of a perfect moral character, and a sufficient degree of light on other points to help us when we need help, if we will faithfully use it."⁹⁹

That might sound a very fair and reasonable conclusion. But in a moment we'll hear from Mrs. White's conclusion. They are not the same.

Butler's articles were published and events rolled on. Smith purportedly returned to a better view on Ellen White's inspiration. But in the fall of 1888 came that debacle when G.I. Butler and others found themselves aligned on the opposite side from Mrs. White. In early 1889, in correspondence with R.A. Underwood Mrs. White had occasion to mention the problematic views on inspiration that had been published by Butler in 1884. We find in these letters the origin point of Ellen G. White's MS. 16, 1889 which we will now share.¹⁰⁰

This document provides decided insight into Mrs. White's views on inspiration. Consider how it begins. "Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White's opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine."¹⁰¹

She continues in the next paragraph. "If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White's human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human -- Sister White's opinions. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition."¹⁰²

"Brother B." is a mild obscuration for the name of former General Conference President George Ide Butler.¹⁰³ We note here that Mrs. White identified the particular problem she was discussing as one she had met "many times." It was the attitude of a certain class who acknowledged that her testimonies were from God, but who cut and carved those testimonies into divinely inspired fragments and humanly inspired fragments, so that unwanted statements from her pen were attributed as merely her own opinion or judgment in an uninspired sense.

She candidly pointed out a common reason for the practice by that class. Not merely a matter of reproof, but correction was involved. When their "ideas are crossed," says Mrs. White, "they have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine." With this current issue over the inspiration of Ellen G. White, we appear to have a classic case of the same issues as here described a century ago. Dr. Bacchiocchi's ideas have been crossed and now he is finding occasion to weigh Mrs. White's writings and to specify which parts are divinely inspired and which are human. Now he has "occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine."

The second paragraph in MS. 16 restates the same thing, and again we find that it exactly echoes what has here happened. Bacchiocchi spends many pages "defining what is Sister White's human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord." In fact, it is of interest that where her ideas harmonize with his own, he finds them to be correct, but where they counteract his own, he finds them to be human.

The prophetic analysis of this? "They [those who engage in this practice of cutting and carving] make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition." Here Mrs. White classes the theories of inspiration that endeavor to determine what is human and what is divine in the Scriptures as setting aside the divine will and as being equivalent to mere tradition. The authority of scholarship is equated with that of tradition, and placed in exact competition with the authority of God in the inspired writings!

She continues: "Brother B. is on the wrong track. God has not given the work into his hands to set up his human wisdom to put his hand on the sacred ark of God. When sitting in judgment upon the living oracles of God, did he consider that God had placed upon him the work to pass judgment as to what is inspired in the Word of God and what is not inspired? Has God committed the work to him to state what sort of degrees of inspiration attend some utterances and what is wanting in others?"¹⁰⁴

How could she use more serious language than this? Ellen White saw this work of Butler's as setting up his human wisdom and as putting his hand on the sacred ark of God. The Bible event to which she refers is found in 2 Samuel 6 where Uzzah puts his hand on the ark to steady it when the cart carrying it is joggled. Upon touching the ark he is slain by the Lord. It was already offensive to God that His ark was being transported in an improper manner (Numbers 7:9), but when unholy hands touched the ark -- the repository of God's will -- God had to act. Death was the only proper response of the holy God toward the irreverent Uzzah.¹⁰⁵

The ark also had divine and human elements. God had given the instructions for its design and the people had obeyed in constructing it. There is a readily apparent intersection of the human and the divine in the ark of God. But it contained His Ten Commandments law, His will. Although it had both divine and human elements, God chose to emphasize the divine. Uzzah was not permitted to touch the ark even though it had in it human components. The death of Uzzah was not to emphasize the human, but the divine. Ellen White wrote, "God can accept no partial obedience, no lax way of treating His commandments."¹⁰⁶ Subdividing and determining what is from God and what is from man in the Scriptures is treating them lax, for in making such distinctions, almost inevitably a door is opened for but partial obedience to that which is assigned status as having "lesser" inspiration than another part.

Ellen White is very clear. Her rhetorical questions about whether God has given the work to G.I. Butler of determining what "in the word of God" is inspired and what is not inspired are answered firmly in the negative in the next paragraph of the manuscript. "Did God put the burden upon him? I answer, No, He never gave any such burden to any mortal man."¹⁰⁷ No mortal man, not even our great¹⁰⁸ contemporary Adventist scholars, have been assigned this work. Some of them may think they have, but they have not.

In fact, Butler's downfall in late 1888 was no surprise to Mrs. White, for even by the time back in 1884 when he set himself to write the inspiration articles he had somehow come to a disturbingly high opinion of himself, for she adds, "And if he had not become exalted he would never have dared to put his hand on sacred things to cut and carve the sacred Scriptures as he has ventured to do."¹⁰⁹ Reading his personal letters he seems subdued, but reading his articles one sees him, with kindness and gentleness, still crossing a line that God has disapproved.

Ellen White continued and next wrote, "The words spoken to Joshua are applicable to Elder B. 'Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy.' Josh. 5:15. You are led astray by the enemy, and while you have been doing a work the Lord has never committed to mortal minds to do, you have been wonderfully zealous in regard to any difference of opinion being presented upon the law in Galatians. You speak of the position I have taken upon it and the letter I wrote you being the cause of your sickness. This may be your own interpretation of the matter, but I have reason to lay your sickness to causes that you do not see."¹¹⁰

According to Mrs. White, "God [was] not pleased with your work. His condemnation [was] upon it. And these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration have been taught in our college and have been printed in our church paper. The seeds have been springing up and you must reap the harvest. These sentiments should never have seen the light of day. They should never have been put into the paper. Have God's people put out their eyes, that they cannot distinguish between truth and error, the sacred and the profane? Elder B. you will never want to meet your harvest in the day of God."¹¹¹

Butler had the most definite views in regard to the law in Galatians and in part they had led to the collision in 1888. Here was a worker acting on his views of inspiration and contradicting the messages of the Lord's messenger. She had been sustaining the views presented by Waggoner and Jones, he and the old guard suppressing them. The view of Butler already indicated, had been that his degrees of inspiration argument applied not only to the prophets and writers of Scripture but also to Mrs. White. We concur that whatever applies to the prophets and writers of Scripture applies to Mrs. White, but we decidedly disagree with the doctrine of inspiration Butler had applied to those Scriptures.

Now comes one of Mrs. White's strongest points. "And these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration have been taught in our college and have been printed in our church paper."¹¹² That Mrs. White is here discussing the Butler articles is made very clear by comparing documents.¹¹³

Mrs. White's concern centers upon "these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration." That is, ideas that are characterized by skepticism; ideas that are fundamentally undermining in their nature; ideas that in themselves undermine "all" inspiration -- canonic or contemporary, the Bible and also those of Ellen G. White.

Her manuscript next addresses conflict over whether A.T. Jones would preach at the Battle Creek Church, but we shall pass over that to the next section of special interest to us. But a few lines past this, Mrs. White returns again to the topic of inspiration. "The Bible presents beautiful truths that all may understand, and at the same time it deals in deep mysteries and doctrines which will require deep thought to understand. But nothing is to be misinterpreted, misapplied, or weakened as lightly inspired if inspired at all. God does nothing by halves. His Word is inspired. And God designs that men shall take the Scriptures as His inspired Word, and any man that shall venture to distinguish between the portions of God's Word, exalting one and belittling another, and taking away from another, places himself in a dangerous position."¹¹⁴

What was the problem? Not only being so audacious as to define what in God's word is and is not inspired, but what is "lightly inspired if inspired at all." Worse than simply saying this is and this isn't inspired was the saying that something was less inspired than something else. There was the chief undermining idea.

Bacchiocchi's current theories pivot upon the same theme.

"Nothing" says Mrs. White, is to be "weakened." Weakened how? "Weakened as lightly inspired if inspired at all. God does nothing by halves. His Word is inspired." We must be clear. This position which is characterized by skepticism weakens the authority of God's Word by attacking it at a very fundamental level. But "God does nothing by halves." In direct contrast to "lightly inspired if inspired at all" comes the firm assertion that God does nothing by halves. Ellen G. White rejects "lesser inspiration" for some portions of inspired writing, rejects God's doing anything by halves. She rejects the finely nuanced but essentially blasphemous humanly-assigned distinctions between "the human and the divine."

The view advocated by her is clear: "His Word is inspired." Not in part but in whole. "And God designs that men shall take the Scriptures as His inspired Word, and any man that shall venture to distinguish between the portions of God's Word, exalting one and belittling another, and taking away from another, places himself in a dangerous position." Not to mention those who might read and absorb the undermining idea!

When she writes of their difficulty in distinguishing the holy from the profane, she is not discussing sorting out the truth and the error in the testimony of a given prophet, but she is addressing how the Scriptures are treated. She is discussing "these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration" versus what? Versus a correct doctrine of inspiration, one that refuses to humanly cut and carve God's Word and drop the scraps into assorted little buckets.

She closes the manuscript calling to mind the weakness of men and the necessity of our having the most humble views of our own wisdom. She at last reasserts her messenger status: "God has heretofore spoken to me at sundry times and in divers manners."¹¹⁵ A comparison with Hebrews 1:1 demonstrates that she is reaffirming her prophetic mantle.

In his fourth article Butler had claimed, "If the subject [inspiration] was better understood, we believe it would save many candid persons from falling into skepticism and infidelity."¹¹⁶ It is of interest to compare this with Bacchiocchi's claim: "Most of the issues raised by Walter Rea and a host of former Adventists who have constructed websites devoted exclusively to defame Ellen White as a false prophet, could have been avoided if church members had been told about the extensive use of sources by Ellen White and her limitations on historical and doctrinal questions [i.e. how inspiration works]."¹¹⁷

When were such questions asked of Bible prophets, or when did such theories aid in leading people or nations to repentance historically? We realize, on no occasion.

Ellen White's testimony in 1889 now frames our exploration of the real truth about 1919.

The 1919 Truth

We cannot understand 1919 aright if we accept the conventional spin. We want to look at 1919 in the light of what Mrs. White wrote in 1889. The primary mythology surrounding the Bible Conference 1919 has already been mentioned. But our task now is to clarify what are the facts from that conference. To accomplish this we will refer to essentially the same materials as given by those who promote the mythical view. But we will present some facts and references that they have not given.

Verbal Inspiration?

Perhaps our best first stop is the claim that verbal inspiration was the key issue. It was an issue repeatedly addressed in the discussion. But is it true that this was the decisive problem there, that the leaders held it as being a major problem for our Adventist believers? F.M. Wilcox, whom it has been mistakenly claimed was a believer in verbal inspiration,¹¹⁸ stated the opposite during this discussion.

F.M. Wilcox: "I have known for long years the way in which Sister White's works were brought together and her books compiled. I have never believed in the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies. I must say, however, that last Wednesday evening and also since then, some remarks have been made without proper safeguarding, and I should question the effect of those statements and positions out in the field. I know that there is considerable talk around Takoma Park over positions that have been taken here, and there will be that same situation out in the field. As brother Wakeham suggested the other day, I think we will have to deal with a very delicate question, and I would hate terribly to see an influence sweep over the field and into any of our schools that the Testimonies were discounted."¹¹⁹

The concern of Wilcox was that doubts would be generated and arise from the meeting. He was well aware of the already high level of distrust regarding W.W. Prescott and A.G. Daniells, who had stirred up much dust and trouble over the years with their advocacy of varied positions usually begun by the ever exploring and loose mind of Prescott. For example, Daniells had been led by Prescott into a high-level airing of the so-called "new view" of the daily not many years past. Wilcox said some more, and when he stopped, next came C.L. Benson:

C.L. Benson: "The question that has raised itself in my own mind . . . seems to me it is almost a logical step. That is this: If there are such uncertainties with reference to our historical position, and if the Testimonies are not to be relied on to throw a great deal of light upon our historical positions, and if the same is true with reference to our theological interpretation of texts, then how can we consistently place implicit confidence in the direction that is given with reference to our educational problems, and our medical school, and even our denominational organization? If there is a definite spiritual leadership in these things, then how can we consistently lay aside the Testimonies or partially lay them aside when it comes to the prophetic and historic side of the message? And place these things on the basis of research work?"¹²⁰

After him Waldorf and then Anderson spoke. Anderson proposed that most of the people believed in verbal inspiration. Then C.L. Taylor responded with the following:

C.L. Taylor: "With regard to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies, I would say that I have heard more about it here in one day than ever before in my life. I think we have made a great big mountain of difficulty to go out and fight against. I do not believe that our people generally believe in the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies. I think that the general idea of our people is that the Testimonies are the writings of a sister who received light from God. As to verbal inspiration, I think they have a very ill-defined idea. I think they believe that in some way God gave her light, and she wrote it down, and they do not know what verbal inspiration means. But I do see a great deal in the question Professor Benson raises, and that is if we must lay aside what sister White has said interpreting history, or what we might call the philosophy of history, as unreliable, and also lay aside as unreliable expositions of Scripture, the only natural conclusion for me, and probably for a great many others, would be that the same authorship is unreliable regarding organization, regarding pantheism, and every other subject that she ever treated on; that she may have told the truth, but we had better get all the historical data we can to see whether she told the truth or not. That is something I would like to hear discussed. I do not believe we shall get to the foundation of the question unless we answer Professor Benson's question."¹²¹

Immediately in response to Taylor, A.G. Daniells uttered the following:

A.G. Daniells: "Shall we consider some points as settled, and pass on? Take the matter of verbal inspiration. I think it is very much as Brother Taylor says, that among most of our people there is no question. It is not agitated. They do not understand it, and they do not understand the technical features of the inspiration of the Bible, either. And the power of the Bible and its grip on the human race does not depend on a technical point as to their belief in it, whether it is verbally inspired or truth inspired."¹²²

Benson warned that a loose view on the authority of Ellen G. White called into question everything that had been connected with them in one way or another. He saw where the loose view would lead -- to their being treated merely as research fodder and bearing no more authority than anything else. Taylor said he'd heard more in one day about verbal inspiration than in his whole life. He asserted that as a general point, our people were not believers in verbal inspiration.

Daniells immediately seconded Taylor's analysis: "Take the matter of verbal inspiration. I think it is very much as Brother Taylor says, that among most of our people there is no question. It is not agitated. They do not understand it, and they do not understand the technical features of the inspiration of the Bible, either." But said Daniells, "The power of the Bible and its grip on the human race does not depend on a technical point as to their belief in it, whether it is verbally inspired or truth inspired."

The president of the General Conference confirmed that Taylor's view was correct. Taylor had heard more there in one day on verbal inspiration than in his whole life. He said this was not the general position of our people in 1919. Our workers could see the logical connections between theory on inspiration and the authority of inspiration. The issue really wasn't verbal inspiration per se, but the authority of an inspired writer not included in the Bible canon. Other participants also stated at various occasions in the discussion that verbal inspiration was not the problem. It was a topic, yes, but it was not the main challenge faced. Therefore, to pull this rusty sword today and try to make it out as the issue with EGW is to lead into false alleys. Indeed, Daniells' published report of the meetings hardly even mentioned Ellen White.¹²³ He himself had stated that he did not view the question of verbal inspiration as being the key.

The 1260 Years Prophecy

Bacchiocchi informs his readers that "Even the 1919 Bible Conference discussed a dozen of doctrines, including a new interpretation of the 1260 days prophecy."¹²⁴ He uses the 1919 conference as source for his attack on the authority of the Ellen G. White writings, but does not share with readers the result of their discussion on the 1260. Because Bacchiocchi is adamant that he will soon be addressing the 1260 in depth, we will give a portion of our space here to what was said in 1919.

There were at least two substantial occasions where the 1260 days/years topic was discussed during these conferences. One was the general discussion we have been following here. Here are a few lines from that discussion.

C. L. Benson: This is my query, and it underlies all of her writings: How did she determine upon the philosophy of history? If she endorsed our interpretation of history, without any details, do we dare to set that aside? I understand she never studied medical science; but she has laid down certain fundamental principles; and that she has done the same with education and organization.

A. G. Daniells: Sister White never has written anything on the philosophy of history.

C. L. Benson: No, but she has endorsed our 2300 [meant 1260] day proposition, from 538 to 1798.

A. G. Daniells: You understand she did that by placing that in her writings?

C. L. Benson: Yes.

A. G. Daniells: Yes, I suppose she did.

C. A. Shull: I think the book "Education" contains something along the line of the philosophy of history.

W. E. Howell: Yes, she outlines general principles.

C. M. Sorenson: Nobody has ever questioned Sister White's philosophy of history, so far as I know, -- and I presume I have heard most of the questions raised about it, -- along the line of the hand of God in human affairs and the way the hand of God has been manifested. The only question anybody has raised has been about minor details. Take this question as to whether 533 has some significance taken in connection with 538. She never set 533, but if there is a significance attached to it in human affairs, it certainly would not shut us out from using it, and that would not affect the 1260 years. Some people say antichrist is yet to come, and is to last for three and one-half literal years. If you change those positions, you will change the philosophy.

W. W. Prescott: Do I understand Brother Benson's view is that such a statement as that in "Great Controversy," that the 1260 years began in 538 and ended in 1798, settles the matter infallibly?

C. L. Benson: No, only on the preaching of doctrines in general. If she endorses the prophetic part of our interpretation, irrespective of details, then she endorses it.

W. W. Prescott: Then that settles it as being a part of that philosophy.

C. L. Benson: Yes, in this way: I do not see how we can do anything else but set up our individual judgment if we say we will discount that, because we have something else that we think is better evidence¹²⁵.

We may notice that the issue here is Mrs. White's endorsement of the 1260 day/year position at AD 538/1798 in her writings. A feint appears to have been made at this point by A.G. Daniells with the possibility that she never prepared a philosophy of history and therefore we simply don't know how to interpret her. But Benson refuses to settle for that and after he reasserted that she endorsed the date, Daniells agrees. Sorenson makes a careful point about what in his understanding would or would not violate White's endorsement of 538/1260/1798. A shift of the date had been proposed years earlier by Prescott to 533/1260/1793. Sorenson is clear that reapplying the time period or deaffixing it from 538/1260/1798 would violate the endorsement of Mrs. White.

Prescott here chimes in with a question and a ploy identical to Bacchiocchi a century later.¹²⁶ He takes this endorsement and prompts Benson as to whether what Mrs. White had said settles the matter infallibly. No one had suggested that. Benson's careful answer refuses to engage that question but simply reaffirms what he already said: "No, only on the preaching of doctrines in general. If she endorses the prophetic part of our interpretation, irrespective of details, then she endorses it." Prescott changes his wording, and philosophy of history differs from infallibility. It hits the question at a more approachable angle. Benson agrees that Mrs. White's use of this locks it in. He says, "I do not see how we can do anything else but set up our individual judgment if we say we will discount that, because we have something else that we think is better evidence."

Benson sees the issue clearly. If we are going to fall into the trap Mrs. White warned of in 1889, declaring this or that is more inspired and from God, and this and that less inspired and containing merely Mrs. White's human opinion, we are setting up our individual judgment.

The discussion continued with Prescott asserting his large influence in the 1911 revision. We'll return to that, but let's move to another discussion during the 1919 meetings on another occasion. That was an occasion where the very purpose of the meeting was specifically to discuss the 1260. A pastor H.S. Prenier was the main presenter on the topic.¹²⁷ And W.W. Prescott was sitting in the meeting, which was no surprise to anyone.

Readers may recall in our previous paper, "Shall Any Teach God Knowledge," (SATGK) we addressed at some length how Prescott had urged Mrs. White to change her teaching from 538/1260/1798 to 533/1260/1793 in 1910 when the work of revision was going forward with the Great Controversy.¹²⁸ She had refused.

In this light again, the outcome of the 1919 1260 topic discussion is of interest. As above, during the discussion phase, Prescott threw onto the table another of the very same questions Bacchiocchi is asking. Prescott wanted to cover the issue of "whether it is an open question for historical study [the 1260] or whether we are shut off from historical study."¹²⁹ Then as now, no one really said that we were forever blockaded from additional study by the prophetic gift operating in our midst. Such an assertion is, as we have pointed out, a faulty representation of the issue.

During the discussion on the topic, Prescott eventually made this statement regarding his own views: "I have not discarded 538 or 1798, but in my own mind I place the emphasis on 533 and 1793."¹³⁰ Prescott was still trying to have things both ways. Bacchiocchi does the same. "The aim of this study [EI#87] is not to discard our traditional interpretation [538/1260/1798], but possibly to broaden it by including the historic antichristian manifestation of Islam."¹³¹ This "possible" change in our view to "broaden" it is now declared by Bacchiocchi as follows: "You will [in his forthcoming newsletter #90] see that this sevenfold prophecy extends beyond the supremacy of the Papacy from 538 to 1798, to encompass other Antichrist powers as well as the witness of the church from the First to Second Advent."¹³²

Butler saved the intended purpose behind his 1884 Review articles to the last ones in the series. We hope that others are not doing a similar work.

But again, to pull this together, we want to turn to the words of president Daniells after the discussion on the 1260 in this meeting specifically dealing in depth with the topic was drawing to a close. Here was his analysis: ". . . In the last ten or fifteen years we have been plowing deeper and deeper in this and getting a lot of valuable information. And it has not overthrown the position we held, but it has given us more evidence and given us more ground to stand on . . . . we are landed right back to our position that the 1260 years actually date from 538 and end in 1798 . . ."¹³³

So there we are. Ellen G. White rejected the proposed changed view on the 1260 in 1910-1911, and in the 1919 Conferences it was rejected again. The issue had been carefully looked into, Ellen G. White's quotations notwithstanding, and the church was "landed right back to our position" 538/1260/1798. Yet Bacchiocchi says he will not be landing right back to our position.

Role of Daniells and Prescott in 1911 GC Revision

Bacchiocchi repeatedly asserts that Prescott and Daniells were deep, close-in participants in the 1911 revision of Great Controversy, working very closely with Ellen White and apparently on the best of terms with her.¹³⁴ Prescott's supposedly very major role in the revision is emphasized. But what are the facts?

The facts are that Prescott and Daniells are two of the more controversial figures of those years of Adventism. They were not always on the best of terms with Ellen White. We already shared how Prescott's role in the revision of the Great Controversy was actually relatively minor.¹³⁵ Regarding Daniells, there was a period during 1910 while the revision work was underway, during which Mrs. White even refused to speak with him.¹³⁶ Furthermore, while his role was essentially limited to sitting with groups by virtue of his position as GC president,¹³⁷ his own testimony in regard to the revision is that his role was minimal: "We General Conference men did not create it [the issue of the revised Great Controversy], for we did not make the revision. We did not take any part in it. We had nothing whatever to do with it."¹³⁸ Bacchiocchi has substantially stretched their involvement, possibly to grant their statements more credibility. The facts don't support his contention.

Summary

Other incorrect analysis of events and consenses developed at the 1919 Bible Conferences might be presented, but for now we shall limit ourselves to these.

We appreciate the forethought of F.M. Wilcox who came with some quotations from James White for the group. Here's part of what he shared with them. "The position that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of faith and duty, does not shut out the gifts which God set in the church. To reject them is shutting out that part of the Bible which presents them."¹³⁹ The above and other points might be derived from a careful look at the text of the 1919 Bible Conferences. We recommend anyone wishing to get a grip on 1919 to peruse a text copy of the 1919 Conferences for themselves.

In summary, we find that no consensus arose that verbal inspiration was the main problem; it is in fact arguable that consensus in the opposite was much closer. We find that the issue of the 1260 dating was thoughtfully canvassed and reaffirmed as 538/1260/1798. We discover that the roles of both Daniells and Prescott in the Great Controversy revision have both been greatly inflated and that on a factual basis they had considerably less to do with it than has been thought.

The story of 1919 has been presented by some, including Bacchiocchi, in what seems to us a one-sided manner. The above paragraphs have, in some measure, been necessary to give more perspective. Remember, we need to view the 1919 discussions in the light of Mrs. White's careful remarks in MS. 16, 1889, specifically about inspiration. A careful reading of Manuscript 16 reveals that the direction the discussion in 1919 often took turned where we expect she would have warned participants that they were putting their hands on the sacred ark, at risk of embarking upon a work that had never been committed to mortal man. The free-wheeling dialogue of Daniells and Prescott ought to be viewed with caution. The 1919 Bible Conference records do not support the spin bequeathed them by Bacchiocchi and liberal Adventist scholars today.

Other Misrepresentations and Charges

One of Bacchiocchi's more grievous suggestions is his vague charge that a "policy of concealment"¹⁴⁰ has been in play by unnamed agencies, that somehow there is a deficiency in the church regarding "telling the truth about Ellen White."¹⁴¹ Over and over again he repeats these accusations.¹⁴² Among his key assertions is that because of pressure from fanatical conservatives, Daniells was unable to publish the record of the 1919 Conferences.¹⁴³

However, had Bacchiocchi simply read Douglass' book, he'd have discovered that this charge was erroneous. Douglass presents historical facts not available to Mr. Bacchiocchi because he had not read the book, or even the chapter in Messenger of the Lord dealing with the 1919 Conferences. Douglass points out the spirited discussions that were occurring at the conferences, and of A.G. Daniells' suggestion that the stenographic records of the conference be "locked up," this some two weeks before the discussions regarding Ellen G. White's writings had even occurred.¹⁴⁴

Is this simply poor scholarship? Is it indifference about denominational publications? Is it something else, like an overly busy schedule? We do not know. But to have such destructive charges cast about is a bit like juggling dynamite. Please don't do it indoors Mr. Bacchiocchi.

The doctor's recent work is plagued, we do not claim intentionally, by numerous misrepresentations. For example, he claims that "Some rejected a priori my proposal, not because it violated the relevant Bible texts, but because I contradicted EGW's writings."¹⁴⁵ Surely this is a correct statement. Surely among the numerous e-mails he received there were some where our people rejected his Islam-as-little-horn theory because of the Ellen G. White statements affirming the AD 538-1798 1260 interpretation. However, I know of several individuals who e-mailed Dr. Bacchiocchi biblical concerns about his interpretations. These include myself and also Kevin Paulson. It was by no means all rejection on the basis of only EGW statements! It is true that many who wrote about the Bible issues also presented some of the EGW quotations. But it seems wrong to us to represent the situation as if there were few Bible issues but that we were all caught in the EGW "straightjacket."

Bacchiocchi's recent work comes complete with pejorative charges of cultism, fanaticism, extremism, and representations appearing at least to carry the implicit threat that disagreement with his unlikely new views will mean our being branded as extreme.¹⁴⁶ Again, when the facts are not on your side, this is a way you can go. But let us remember that J.S. Washburn and others so labeled by Bacchiocchi are not here to defend themselves. Nor are widely known the foibles of Daniells and Prescott which which might give us pause.

Included in Bacchiocchi's recent newsletters are not only destructive theories regarding Ellen White, but damning charges that our enemies will enjoy. For example, Bacchiocchi charges that "we have brilliant Adventist scholars today who are not free to examine Scripture because of the constraints of the Spirit of Prophecy."¹⁴⁷ Also, in veiled reference to the SDA church, "Any religion that discourages fresh investigation and settles all differences by silencing differing viewpoints, ultimately becomes victim of superstition and blind credulity."¹⁴⁸

But in the background some of us have been seeking to communicate with this author, only to be told not to send anything more until his next newsletter was published. It seems to some of us that it is the silence of acquiescence that he prefers. Before publishing this response I interacted with Dr. Bacchiocchi and sent him materials such as MS. 16, 1889. But recall the statement given near the beginning of this letter about new light. "There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for 'in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'"¹⁴⁹

Those, whether the lowest or the highest, raising concerns, have been similarly received. We are asked to hear Bacchiocchi, but our concerns are countered with misstatements or inflamed rhetoric about how "cultic" our view is. It is most difficult to carry on a constructive dialogue in such a setting.

Language of Limitations

Readers of the two responses I have written to the recent theories of Samuele Bacchiocchi on inspiration and EGW may note my reticence to dwell upon what are being called her "limitations." I would like to explain this. My position is simply that the predominant sphere of my response has been at the level of the doctrine of inspiration, a more general level, rather than the specific alleged examples of this in the White writings. Already we have observed¹⁵⁰ that Mrs. White is human and therefore subject to such limitations as all humans are subject to. But it seems that people are missing the fact that we are discussing not the doctrine of human fallibility but of inspiration, of a divine aspect containing infallibility. We are looking at a phenomenon in which God guards what He has incited the prophet to utter or write.

The fact is that the inspired materials we have in hand, the Bible and the Ellen G. White writings do not themselves focus on human fallibility and human limitations, but on the trustworthiness of that which is divinely inspired. You simply will not find this language of limitations in these writings. It is but scarcely referred to. We already observed that when George Butler touched on this topic he was rebuked. Mrs. White told him plainly that "You are led astray by the enemy, and . . . you have been doing a work the Lord has never committed to mortal minds to do . . ."¹⁵¹

"Brother B. is on the wrong track. God has not given the work into his hands to set up his human wisdom to put his hand on the sacred ark of God. When sitting in judgment upon the living oracles of God, did he consider that God had placed upon him the work to pass judgment as to what is inspired in the Word of God and what is not inspired? Has God committed the work to him to state what sort of degrees of inspiration attend some utterances and what is wanting in others?"¹⁵² Indeed, Mrs. White told him to take the shoes off his feet, for the place where he was standing (discussing the intersection of the divine and human in the inspiration phenomenon) was holy ground.

I've sought for this language of limitations in the Bible and in the records of the Ellen G. White CDROM and I do not find it. So I have avoided it. We are counseled that these are "skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration."¹⁵³ Therefore those who wish to put their focus on this aspect will have to do so without me. I am not anxious to lay my hands upon this sacred ark. The story of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6) is an accurate record of a factual historical event. God is serious about this topic. He does not intend that we shall put our human hands on the sacred ark of His word.

Ellen G. White 'As' or 'As Not' an Authority on History

Bacchiocchi repeatedly quotes W.C. White and A.G. Daniells' statements on the lines that "[Ellen White] has never claimed to be an authority on history."¹⁵⁴ But there are other statements from the pen of Mrs. White that he does not quote. Consider the following:

On the Creation:

"In six days the great work of creation had been accomplished."¹⁵⁵

"Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and brought down to us through Bible history. God Himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation; upon the seventh, God rested, and He then blessed this day and set it apart as a day of rest for man."¹⁵⁶

On the 120 years and the flood:

"When the Lord sends light to His people, He means that they shall be attentive to hear and ready to receive the message. In great forbearance, He waits for man to come to His terms. For 120 years He waited for the people of the old world to receive the warning of the flood. Those who rejected the message turned His long forbearance and patience into an occasion of scorn and unbelief. The message and messenger became the butt of their ridicule."¹⁵⁷

"A correct education had been given them [the sons of the prophets] in regard to the living God. The past history of the people of God, the fall of Adam and Eve through transgression, the preaching of Noah, the extended probation of 120 years, and the final destruction of the old world by a flood was known to them."¹⁵⁸

"For 120 years He sent them warnings through His servant Noah."¹⁵⁹

On 457 BC:

"The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, as completed by the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (see Ezra 6:14; 7:1, 9, margin), went into effect in the autumn of B. C. 457."¹⁶⁰

On AD 27:

"From this time four hundred and eighty-three years extend to the autumn of AD 27. According to the prophecy, this period was to reach to the Messiah, the Anointed One. In AD 27, Jesus at His baptism received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and soon afterward began His ministry. Then the message was proclaimed. 'The time is fulfilled.'"¹⁶¹

On AD 31:

"Then, said the angel, "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [seven years]." For seven years after the Saviour entered on His ministry, the gospel was to be preached especially to the Jews; for three and a half years by Christ Himself; and afterward by the apostles. "In the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Dan. 9:27. In the spring of A. D. 31, Christ the true sacrifice was offered on Calvary. Then the veil of the temple was rent in twain, showing that the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service had departed. The time had come for the earthly sacrifice and oblation to cease."¹⁶²

On AD 34:

"The one week -- seven years -- ended in A. D. 34. Then by the stoning of Stephen the Jews finally sealed their rejection of the gospel; the disciples who were scattered abroad by persecution "went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4); and shortly after, Saul the persecutor was converted, and became Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.¹⁶³

On AD 538/1260/1798:

"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A.D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798."¹⁶⁴

On AD 1844:

"The blood of Jesus was then shed, which was to be offered by Himself in the heavenly sanctuary. As the priest entered the most holy once a year to cleanse the earthly sanctuary, so Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation, and thus to cleanse the sanctuary."¹⁶⁵

The aforementioned quotes, a mere sampling, show that Mrs. White spoke decidedly in regard to events in history and prophecy and doctrine. She writes concerning virtually every time prophecy addressed in Adventist teaching. Did she seek for these statements to be used as authority on these points? We do not think so. However, neither do we expect that she meant her statements to be disregarded, whether in personal testimonies or in her published works. Her counsel that her writings not be brought to the front came in the context, not of that which is mixture containing truth and error, but in terms of how we substantiate the teachings of Scripture as we share them with others.

"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. Great care should be exercised by all believers to advance these questions carefully, and always stop when you have said enough. Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God."¹⁶⁶ Interestingly, these statements come from Letter 12, 1890, involving an individual who claimed to be having visions that were from God but were not. These spurious visions were being presented in public meetings. It is in this context that the above words were penned.

Mrs. White not only presented her writings in public and in testimonies to others her exhortation and encouragement, but she freely addressed doctrinal matters. She wrote two testimonies to Professor John Bell who, like Bacchiocchi had been reapplying prophetic periods connected to the movement.¹⁶⁷ She dealt plainly with history and prophecy.

It would be absurd for the Lord to burden Ellen G. White with a heightened sense of the need to complete volumes like the Great controversy, if they were to be of no import. "The Lord has set before me matters which are of urgent importance for the present time, and which reach into the future. The words have been spoken in a charge to me, 'Write in a book the things which thou hast seen and heard, and let it go to all people; for the time is at hand when past history will be repeated.' I have been aroused at one, two, or three o'clock in the morning, with some point forcibly impressed upon my mind, as if spoken by the voice of God . . . . I was assured that there was no time to lose. The appeals and warnings must be given . . . . I was shown that much of my time had been occupied in speaking to the people, when it was more essential that I should devote myself to writing out the important matters . . . . . Is this work of the Lord? I know that it is, and our people also profess to believe it. The warning and instruction of this book [Great Controversy] are needed by all who profess to believe the present truth."¹⁶⁸

We do not find Mrs. White's reported statement that her writings are not to be understood as authority on history as being of universal or global application to all of her writings in its most absolute sense. Those who wish to press for such use of the statement tend to abuse it in order to negate her prophetic authority. When we do evangelism or Bible studies with others of course we will not bring her writings to the front because we are giving the evidences for the faith of Adventism by means of the Bible. Such is as it should be. But to misuse such statements to create tunnels through which scholars can pass to and fro like ants to the errors of Babylon, under the denominational doors, would not be wise. It would not be true to our faith, which holds her writings as a continuing and authoritative source of truth.

A Micro-Refutation?

Doctor Bacchiocchi replied to Kevin Paulson's original objections given in EI#86 (HTML|PDF "Stampeded Interpretation") with his EI#87. But he really didn't. Paulson's article in a nutshell was (A) on the Biblical level, Bacchiocchi's thesis was wrong, (B) it was a cavalier attack on the authority of the writings of Ellen G. White, (C) neither does the historical evidence begin to substantiate the view now being presented by the doctor, and (D) what Bacchiocchi propounds is merely a false interpretation stampeded by the temperature level of current events. Most of Kevin's 10 pages are devoted to historical and biblical evidence that counters Bacchiocchi. Only about 10% of the paper discusses the evidence from contemporary inspiration through Ellen G. White.

In response to EI#87, I wrote (HTML|PDF "Shall Any Teach God Knowledge," or SATGK). My basic arguments were that numerous aspects of his theses regarding how to interpret Ellen White were incorrect. I pointed out that (A) prophets instruct the scholars and not vice versa, (B) Inspired writings may not be hacked into separate categories such as salvation, doctrine, history, science, etc, with some parts treated as less inspired if inspired at all, (C) A fundamental reason why scholars must listen to prophets is because the phenomenon of inspiration is operating in the prophets and illumination (hopefully) in the scholars, (D) EGW endorsed the view of 538/1260/1798 as of God and it is no mere "traditional interpretation," (E) Mrs. White's writings are of much more than "devotional" authority, (F) Bacchiocchi is promoting a view that is at odds with the expressed belief of the worldwide SDA body, (G) the many historical problems cited by Bacchiocchi are not only unconvincing, but remarkably unconvincing, (H) acceptance of the authority of the writings of Ellen G. White does not detract from the preeminence and finality of the Bible as our authority, (I) Bacchiocchi's interpretation of the phenomenon of inspiration operating in the gift through Mrs. White is based upon several distortions and mistaken conclusions he has read into the 1911 revision of the book Great Controversy, which scenario we discussed and corrected at length, (J) the changes in that revision were peripheral and minor, (K) it had already been suggested that Mrs. White change her endorsement from 538/1260/1798 to 533/1260/1793 and she rejected that proposal, (L) arguing for degrees of inspiration as Bacchiocchi does is incompatible with the Bible facts, (M) the nasty bugbear especially feared by liberal Adventist academics as responsible for our problems today, verbal inspiration theory, is not the problem, (N) Bacchiocchi's claim that Mrs. White's use of literary workers is unlike that of prophets in the Bible is false, (O) the fallibility statements of Mrs. White are stretched by Bacchiocchi, (P) the peripheral matters mentioned by Bacchiocchi in the latter portion of EI#87 are unpersuasive, (Q) Bacchiocchi's proposed "criteria" for the balanced use of Ellen White's writings are so flawed as to be unusable, (R) the true cultish mentality is the idea that Bacchiocchi has endorsed rather than the inspired writings, making scholars the final arbiters of truth, (S) the fact that to carve-out a place for his Islam-as-included-in-little-horn view he has launched a destructive assault on Ellen G. White's writings that negates their authority in itself argues against any idea that the source of his views is indited by heaven, (T) that flaws in Bacchiocchi's methodology and conclusions may be alleviated by certain constructive criticism sought for and offered, (U) that emphasis upon what one may perceive to be Mrs. White's "limitations" puts one onto dangerous ground. I closed with an appeal to reconsider and retreat from the views he has recently spread abroad.

His response was to comment very briefly on a passing sub-argument presented under my "A." He complained that my rhetorical question ("God could have brought improved historical information to light in Ellen G. White's day. He could have caused great Adventist scholars to arise in her day and bring to light these improved facts at that time -- before Great Controversy ever saw print. Was God behind because He did not do this?") was mere "gratuitous assumption."¹⁶⁹

Perhaps the reader will agree that Bacchiocchi has avoided the broader scope of evidence and argumentation. In any case, he has certainly not repeated our criticism of his statements such as "If Ellen White were alive, I would love to sit down with her and share all this historical information that is missing in The Great Controversy. I have no doubt that she would be grateful for the opportunity to learn more about how the change came about from Sabbath to Sunday in early Christianity, and to update her account in The Great Controversy. After all, she was a truth-seeker who recognized her limitations and gratefully accepted the help from competent people," and "If Ellen White was alive today, would she welcome the service of competent scholars willing to correct the remaining inaccuracies found in The Great Controversy and other publications? There is no reason to think otherwise, because she was a woman who recognized her limitations, and was committed to the search for truth. On my part I would be glad to offer my services to her, because I can never stop thanking God for the inestimable contributions she has made to my spiritual life and to the message and mission of our Adventist church."¹⁷⁰

All we can say is that his answer is yet more gratuitous: "But the fact is that God chose to do it differently. Don't ask me why. I wish I knew it."¹⁷¹ That is, he is asserting in turn that God did raise up "great Adventist scholars" to "bring to light these improved facts" now rather than in her day. And who might that be? It must be Samuele Bacchiocchi! To our "did not" he answers "did so." But he has also dodged the main argument which is that God guides prophets in a manner that he does not necessarily guide scholars. We repeat, it is not prophets who need to sit down and listen to scholars, but scholars that need to sit down and listen to prophets.

His response reaffirms his incorrect assumption that the revision of the Great Controversy was undertaken because of supposed historical inaccuracies due to the operation of the prophetic gift through Mrs. White. We have pointed out at some length the facts surrounding the 1911 "revision" which do not support his claims. He simply refuses to acknowledge them.

His assertion that the operation of the gift of prophecy in Mrs. White is for exhortation and kindred purposes only is, as we have shown, denied by Mrs. White's practice. She did comment on various historical events and dates and did so in an authoritative manner. She preferred her writings not be used to settle such historical disputes because of her recognition that to do so would carry little weight with the non-Adventist.

She was operating on a very practical basis. If Moses can comment on history (ex. Genesis 1-11), and John the Baptist can comment on history (Matthew 3), and Paul can comment on history (2 Thessalonians 2), and do so authoritatively, then Ellen White can comment on history (Great Controversy). The phenomenon is the same. The authority is the same. Canonicity is not the same, so the Bible remains the final acid test.

Ellen White did have recourse to various historical sources and an aspect of the inspired phenomenon is divinely-guided selection. We do not dispute these things. Readers are invited to peruse the detailed treatment of this subject and others in the book we have already mentioned, Douglass' Messenger of the Lord -- the book that would have saved Bacchiocchi much time, saved the church much embarrassment, and which Bacchiocchi has promised us he will read. There are also a variety of very helpful materials scattered through the EGW books themselves, both in the Testimonies¹⁷² and in other places.¹⁷³

It seems hardly correct to state that "the whole argument" we presented is based on "gratuitous assumptions which are negated by the divine way of operating."¹⁷⁴ This is the question. And his answer about "the divine way of operating" is no fresh research on his part but an amalgamation of the theology of David E. Aune and Wayne Grudem with his own. He continues to leave even some of the most basic questions unanswered. On what basis will he determine what carries the authority of inspiration and what is mere "traditional interpetation"? Is there any difference between the phenomenon of inspiration and of illumination? These are only a sample of points that his theories create.

We wonder if Bacchiocchi's most recent scholarship suggests PhD level work. EI#85 was mostly a recounting of information, EI#86 a rather unconvincing "tentative" interpretation adding Islam to the little horn of Daniel seven, EI#87 was a downgrading of Ellen G. White based mostly upon one not particularly noteworthy historical paper, and EI#88 was the scene of a shameful downgrading of the prophetic authority of New Testament prophets attempted so as to sustain the new downgraded view on EGW. Those theories appear to have been prepared based upon a few passages stripped from convenient Bible commentary paragraphs. A review of Aune and Grudem's works that provide the sources of Bacchiocchi's proposed view shows that there is very little original thinking occurring. Where he has not copied from Aune or Grudem, he has copied from W.W. Prescott. Most of his complaints against Ellen White are repetitions of Prescott's. In any case, There are enough PhD's who can't tell their left from their right that we must recognize in any case that such is not the measure of truth.

Other Loose Ends

The similarity between the message of some of the anti-Ellen White "attack sites" and Bacchiocchi is interesting. One site upon which one such detractor has spent many hours in a FAQ publishes this statement about her writings: "I do not think reading these writings will harm anyone, so long as they recognize that she was human and prone to error just like the rest of us." Right. They may not harm anyone if they are viewed thusly. But the point is that they may not help anyone either.

Then what would we have? It would finally be true that the enemy had triumphed by making the testimony of the Spirit of Jesus of none effect. Indeed, the attack sites are already rejoicing in the recent work of Bacchiocchi and republishing it.¹⁷⁵

Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues #89

In EI#88 he gave five letters of support¹⁷⁶ and in EI#89, ten. In #89 Bacchiocchi mostly lapsed into a study of alcohol in the Scriptures and made little progress in addressing the concerns that many Adventists have expressed about his recent theories. Even so, approximately a third of the substance of that newsletter is devoted to the current issue, and most of this is excerpts from letters he has receive in favor of his views. What an interesting assortment of supporters turn up in his newsletters. Ranging from (according to Bacchiocchi) a recently retired NAD union president to a Presbyterian church member, those quoted appear to unite behind the present work of the Doctor. What do we read in this regard inEI#89?

Among those quoted by Bacchiocchi in his defense are a former NAD Union president who equates Adventist conservatives with Lucifer¹⁷⁷, an Adventist scientist who is sharing Bacchiocchi's newsletter with several non-Adventist friends,¹⁷⁸ a retired Adventist pastor who buys Bacchiocchi's version of the cover-up,¹⁷⁹ an elder who does the same,¹⁸⁰ an Adventist from Australia who appears to accept Bacchiocchi's caricatures of Adventists refusing to accept the humanity of Ellen White and who reject the idea of any new study,¹⁸¹ two persons who consider his views a breath of fresh air and that victory is not far ahead,¹⁸² and an Adventist lawyer who swallows the EGW-as-straightjacket rhetoric.¹⁸³

There is little new here except that Bacchiocchi is endeavoring to retain his views and retreat behind the opinions of other Adventists -- a tactic those with recollection of another crisis in Adventism introduced by an errant scholar over 20 years ago will find of interest. He is now claiming (and this is preposterous) that "those who accuse me of discrediting Ellen White, in reality are rejecting the ongoing efforts of our Adventist church to tell the truth about Ellen White."¹⁸⁴

According to Bacchiocchi, "What I wrote in the last newsletter about the nature of Ellen White's inspiration and the limitation of her authority on historical and doctrinal questions, is essentially what our Adventist church has been trying to communicate during the past 20 years."¹⁸⁵ He mentions Adventist scholars such as George Knight, Herbert Douglass, and Fred Veltmann as though they are all in support of what he has recently written. However, I have been in touch with some of these individuals and I can tell you that this is not necessarily the case.

Indeed, while Bacchiocchi claims that the church has been trying to get his new light ideas across for 20 years, he admits that he has not read recent books by George Knight¹⁸⁶ and Herbert Douglass. How does he know what the church has been trying to get across for the past 20 years when he is not reading what are, in some cases, primary textbooks? Herbert Douglass' Messenger of the Lord is an up-to-date college level textbook penned by Herbert Douglass in connection with the White Estate. It does not teach what Bacchiocchi teaches. Bacchiocchi says Douglass wrote to him stating that that book "discusses the same problems I [Bacchiocchi] presented in my newsletter. In fact, he [Douglass] went as far as to say that had I read his book, I could have saved the time and effort of writing the newsletter."¹⁸⁷ Indeed. I have read both Bacchiocchi's newsletters and Douglass' book, and I concur with Douglass. But not for the reasons that Bacchiocchi may expect. It is because a perusal of Messenger of the Lord (an excellent volume I most highly recommend) would have kept Bacchiocchi from making so many queer assertions about Mrs. White and the 1919 Bible Conferences.

Actually we have the idea that the doctor has been reading far more from non-Adventists such as David Aune and Wayne Grudem than from workers in our own denomination! Unfortunately, because of his failure to check sources and maintain the scholarly edge the SDA denomination has been subject to the latest heretical approach to Ellen G. White. Fortunately for us, we can report that Doctor Bacchiocchi has indicated that he plans to read Douglass' book.¹⁸⁸ Someday.

The weakness of Bacchiocchi's overall argument is clarified by his presentation of letters of support, as if truth is determined by posing stacks of positive and negative responses against each other. The fact is that truth is not determined by vote. Inspired writings present the baseline for truth. Nothing else. In the end, this brings us back to what we may call the question of the reliability equation.

The Reliability Equation

Although it has been necessary to devote the bulk of this paper to a refutation of what the evidence shows is a seriously-flawed viewpoint, we want to approach the close of this presentation with something constructive. We wish to provide an alternative reliability equation. Remember, Dr. Bacchiocchi's reliability equation appears to function as follows:

Doctor Bacchiocchi is teaching that prophets are tested by scholars; that the advances in scholarship and the improved pooling of historical data provide a measure for truth that excels that of inspired writings. Scholarship has advanced, it seems, so far that we no longer limit our work to determining what the text is. Now we take the text as it stands and subject it to our fallible judgment and scholarly foibles. Now we cut and carve the text in a manner akin to Bultmann, and hand over what's left with our scholarly OK.

Scholarship is a good thing. When it is God's scholarship. But scholarship that denies the authority of His prophets is not His scholarship. Under the current theory, Bacchiocchi pits the weight of the scholars of Babylon against the authority of Ellen G. White. We propose that such a model is not only deeply-flawed, but likely to launch souls into oblivion. Actually, we believe in a different reliability equation. As we understand the teaching of Scripture, the math is more like this:

The prophet plus inspiration is greater than a scholar plus the record of history. The working of inspiration on the prophet is a supernatural phenomenon, such that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). Indeed, the testimony of inspired writings is that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

Note that this passage of Scripture is very clear. It denies the substantial entrance of human fallibility into the inspiration equation. It reminds us that there is such a thing as the moving, the guiding, the protecting of prophesyings and holy writings by the Holy Spirit. This is the testimony of Scripture which the Bacchiocchi theories contravene.

Indeed, we shall go farther. The equation as we propose it also works like this:

The prophet plus inspiration is greater than the scholar, even one who is experiencing the phenomenon of illumination. Inspiration is divinely guarded in a manner which does not adhere to illumination. In fact, it is precisely at the point of human fallibility that these phenomena differ.

But we will go one step further again. Let's give everything we can to the scholar:

There is little more we can give him than this. And still we hold that the prophet plus inspiration is greater than the scholar plus illumination plus the record of history. All the same reasons already given still hold. In fact, even if we grant inspiration to the scholar it will be inspiration by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophet. The testimony of both individuals will harmonize. Fundamentally we hold to the infallibility of the Scriptures and the inspiration of Ellen G. White with no degrees of difference.

Will we trust God or not?

Conclusion

At one place in his newsletter Bacchiocchi chides the reader and hints that the conflicting doctrines of Adventism have robbed us of a careful study of the book of revelation he or another of our advanced scholars might have done if only they had not been bound by our straightjacket views.¹⁸⁹ Friends, we have not been robbed. We have been spared.

At the beginning of this paper we pointed out that the result of Bacchiocchi's view is that he effectively attacks two key Bible teachings held by Adventists and capsulized in our first and 17th Fundamental Belief statements. Since the Bible is the foundational authority of Seventh-day Adventism, the theories of Bacchiocchi cannot be left unaddressed. Adventist scholars need to stand up and make clear that they reject the stale innovations that have been adapted mostly from the views Grudem and Aune, who's view even comes connected with his work at the Jesuit Loyola University.

We remind readers that the stack of unaddressed questions is growing ever taller with each new newsletter produced by Bacchiocchi. When will he address the questions that his views have raised?

A friend pointed out to me the expected failure of any attempt to defend Ellen G. White with Ellen G. White. We concur. In both of our papers we have referred to several Bible Scriptures in our discussion. But the intent of this paper has not been to defend Mrs. White by the use of Mrs. White. We have sought to provoke thought by the use of the Bible, reason, and yes, some sections from Ellen G. White. If detractors will be honest they will admit that the view of inspiration developed by Bacchiocchi is largely rooted in his preconceptions about how this gift worked. Besides, this document is written not for Bacchiocchi alone but for any who care to read and weigh it. It may be a help to some to consider these words from the pen of inspiration.

"When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light, which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat, and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard bearers who have fallen in death are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time."

"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God."¹⁹⁰

One of the special points of our faith -- indeed, perhaps the only reason it has survived past the assaults of higher criticism that have gutted the mainline denominations to this day -- has been the operation of the gift of prophecy in our midst. It is not Mrs. White we should lift up, but our heavenly Father and His watchcare. He is directly responsible for His gift to the church. All Mrs. White did was say "Yes Lord, I will speak in Your behalf." An attack on the gift of prophecy is an attack upon our Lord and not upon Mrs. White. We hope none will forget this.

We are reminded of the old story of the country judge who, in the telling moment after the conclusion of the trial, looked across from the bench after the verdict had been read and said to the defense lawyer, "You're good. You're very good. But you aren't better than the truth." Some of our scholars are good. Some are very good. But they are not better than the truth. God grant them humility.

ENDNOTES

1. Published online by Samuele Bacchiocchi at http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_88.pdf on August 22, 2002. All page numberings keyed to PDF formatted document downloads.
2. In order that persons outside of the Adventist community of faith may have a helpful description of teachings highlighted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, from time to time belief statements are prepared. These statements are not creedal, for in Adventism the Bible alone functions as creed. These statements can be and have been changed from time to time (three statements have been prepared so far, in 1872, 1932, 1980). Earlier statements were prepared with a more explanatory motivation while more recent statements have been prepared with, we think, more of a boundary-defining motivation. This makes sense because in 1872 the church was still quite young and at a practical level, people simply didn't understand what Adventism was about or what beliefs were highlighted by us in any shorthand form. Again, the 1980 (current) set of beliefs came as the Desmond Ford crisis was climaxing and he and his supporters were endeavoring to revamp Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Bible's teaching concerning the investigative judgment. Neither do we here wish to use the fundamental beliefs as a creed to condemn Mr. Bacchiocchi, but we do think readers will find it helpful to compare the consensus statement of our church's beliefs with Mr. Bacchiocchi's current theological offerings.
3. Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs #17: "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." 1980 ed.
4. The backwards march began with EI#86 and Bacchiocchi's "thinking out loud" view that Islam should be included in the little horn of Daniel seven and actually fits better than the papacy. He also expressed at that time that the 1260 year prophetic p