Alberto R. Timm
Seventh-day Adventists have always subscribed to the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone). 1For a more in-depth study of the various nuances of the sola Scriptura principle, see, e.g., Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001); E. Edward Zinke, “Faith-Science Issues: An Epistemological Perspective,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 63-90; Rolf J. Pöhler, “Adventisten, Ellen White und das Sola-Scriptura-Prinzip,” Spes Christiana 17 (2006):45-68; Joel R. Beeke et al., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Orlando, Fla.: Reformation Trust, 2009); Graham Cole, “Sola Scriptura: Some Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,” Churchman 104, no. 1 (1990): 20-34; Aleksandar S. Santrac, “The Sola Scriptura Principle in the Current Debate,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 24, no. 1 (2013): 107-126; Kwabena Donkor, “Contemporary Responses to Sola Scriptura: Implications for Adventist Theology,” Reflections—The BRI Newsletter 41 (January 2013): 5-8; John C. Peckham, “Sola Scriptura: Reductio ad absurdum?” Trinity Journal 35NS, no. 2 (Fall 2014): 195-223. See also G. R. Evans, Problems of Authority in the Reformation Debates (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). As early as 1847 James White stated that the Bible is “a perfect, and complete revelation” and “our only rule of faith and practice.” 2[James White], in James White, ed., A Word to the “Little Flock” (Brunswick, Maine: [James White], 1847), 13. Statement 3 of the 1872 A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists affirmed that “the Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” 3A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists (Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1872), 5. And in 1884 Ellen White added, “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.” 4Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4: The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan From the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Controversy (Oakland: Pacific Press®, 1884), 413. GOP 289.1
At the same time, Seventh-day Adventists also accept the writings of Ellen White as an end-time manifestation of the true gift of prophecy. But some critics argue that the acceptance of those writings undermines the Seventh-day Adventist claim of strict adherence to the sola Scriptura principle. D. M. Canright, a longtime critic of Adventism, went so far as to claim that Seventh-day Adventists have “another Bible”—Ellen White’s writing—and “they have to read our old Bible in the light of this new Bible.” 5D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced After an Experience of Twenty-eight Years by a Prominent Minister and Writer of That Faith (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, 1889), 136. Cf. William H. Branson, In Defense of the Faith: The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism. A Reply to Canright (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald®, 1933), 327-367. Dale Ratzlaff, another vociferous critic, stated that Seventh-day Adventists have two equal “sources of authority, two sources of truth: the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White.” 6Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists (Sedona, Ariz.: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), 33. (Italics original.) Some helpful studies have responded to these criticisms, 7See, e.g., T. Housel Jemison, A Prophet Among You (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press®, 1955), 371; Arthur L. White, “The Position of ‘The Bible, and the Bible Only’ and the Relationship of This to the Writings of Ellen G. White,” at www.andrews.edu/library/car/ (accessed Dec. 2, 2014); Herbert E. Douglas, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press®, 1998), 408-433; Merlin D. Burt, “Ellen G. White and Sola Scriptura” (paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Presbyterian Church USA Conversation, Office of the General Assembly PC [USA], Louisville, Ky., Aug. 23, 2007), at adventistbiblicalresearch.org (accessed Dec. 2, 2014); Jud Lake, Ellen White Under Fire: Identifying the Mistakes of Her Critics (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press®, 2010), 132-178; George R. Knight, “Bible, Ellen G. White’s Relationship to the,” in Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, eds., The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald®, 2013 [2014]), 647-649; R. Clifford Jones, “Ellen White and Scripture,” in Merlin D. Burt, ed., Understanding Ellen White: The Life and Work of the Most Influential Voice in Adventist History (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press®; Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. White Estate, 2015), 45-54. but there is room to further assess the relationship between the sola Scriptura principle and the writings of Ellen G. White from a broader historical perspective. GOP 289.2
The present article surveys basic concepts related to (1) the Roman Catholic claim to being the only true interpreter of Scripture; (2) the Protestant response through the sola Scriptura principle; (3) new hermeneutical alternatives that undermine that principle; (4) Ellen White’s reemphasis of the sola Scriptura principle; and (5) how she uses it in her expositions of Scripture. Such concepts can provide a useful framework for understanding Ellen White’s crucial end-time role in uplifting the sola Scriptura principle. GOP 290.1