Defending the Prophetic Gift, 1851-1862
During the 1850s and the beginning of 1860s Sabbathkeeping Adventists faced new challenges related to Ellen White’s gift. These came partly because of internal controversies and the appearance of the first offshoots, the Messenger party and the “age-to-come” movements, over the validity of Ellen White’s prophetic claims. Although the controversies seemed to be initially personal in character, the objections rose to the level of a theological debate.GOP 256.5
The Messenger party emerged in 1853 as a result of a critical vision that Ellen White had toward H. S. Case and C. P. Russell, two Adventist ministers from Jackson, Michigan. Since they did not like the vision, they rejected Ellen White’s gift as false and unreliable. J. M. Stephenson and D. P. Hall in Wisconsin led the “age-to-come” group. The two men were first-day Adventist ministers who accepted the third angel’s message and joined the Sabbathkeepers, but continued to hold to the “age-to-come” theory. They believed that probation did not end with the Second Advent but continued during the “age-to-come,” or the millennium. When their views were refuted in the pages of the Review and Herald, Stephenson and Hall joined the Messenger party and turned against the Sabbathkeepers and the visions of Ellen White. Eventually Stephenson and Hall renounced their belief in the Sabbath and lost most of their followers among the Sabbathkeeping believers. GOP 256.6
The dissident groups began to publish their views in the Messenger of Truth, the first significant periodical critical of the Sabbatarian group and their acceptance of Ellen White’s visions. Along with the already examined questions from the previous period, the detractors offered several somewhat new arguments against the Sabbathkeeping position on Ellen White. First, they charged them of having another rule of faith—the vision, which was contrary to the sola Scriptura principle that Sabbath believers had claimed to uphold. Furthermore, the opposition claimed that the “testimony of Jesus” in Revelation 12:17 had nothing to do with the gift of prophecy in relation to the “remnant” people of God, as Sabbathkeeping believers uphold, but that it referred to the spirit of Christ in general. Third, they accused Sabbathkeepers of making the visions a test of fellowship. And fourth, they believed that Ellen White was from the wrong sex to claim prophetic manifestations. Sabbathkeeping Adventists had to respond to the new questions and defend further their acceptance of Ellen White’s gift. In the process, their belief in the gift of prophecy became much more concrete and solidified.GOP 257.1
As a response to the first objections related to the “Bible alone” principle, the Sabbathkeeping Adventists did not offer, in general, anything new. However, the new accusations helped them to clarify their position regarding the relationship between the Bible and Ellen White’s prophetic gift as they explained further its dynamics. In 1851 James White published the first extensive article justifying the Sabbatarian belief in the gift of prophecy. Although based on already established arguments, a main element of the article gave White’s explanation of the relationship between the Bible and the gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. Without giving any doubt about the Sabbatarian understanding on the issue, he noted that the gifts of the Spirit should all have their proper places. The Bible is an everlasting rock. It is our rule of faith and practice. . . . Every Christian is therefore in duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. The Word should be in front, and the eye of the church should be placed upon it, as the rule to walk by, and the fountain of wisdom from which to learn duty in “all good works.” But if a portion of the church err from the truths of the Bible, and become weak, and sickly, and the flock become scattered, so that it seems necessary for God to employ the gifts of the Spirit to correct, revive and heal the erring, we should let him work. GOP 257.2
Clearly, for James White and Sabbathkeepers, the Bible was their only guide for belief and doctrine. The gifts were never given for that purpose. On the contrary, the aim of the gifts was to lead people to the Bible and its teachings. Thus the “gifts of the Spirit” had corrective and assisting functions, but they were never considered on par with the Bible.GOP 258.1
James White reemphasized the sola Scriptura principle when he republished the article in 1854 after the Messenger controversy. In his explanatory note he stated that the reason for republishing it, was that “our readers may see for themselves what our position has ever been on this subject.” “The position that the Bible and the Bible alone, is the rule of faith and duty,” James continued, “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. We say, Let us have a whole Bible, and let that, and that alone, be our rule of faith and duty. Place the gifts where they belong and all is harmony.” GOP 258.2
Ellen White also affirmed the Sabbatarian position on the relationship between the Bible and her prophetic gift when she wrote in 1851: “I recommend to you, dear reader, the word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the ‘LAST DAYS’; not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of his people, and to correct those who err from bible truth.” Later on, when some believers tried to use her gift for guidance instead of going to the Bible, she advised:GOP 258.3
Many come to us with the inquiry: Shall I do this? Shall I engage in that enterprise? Or, in regard to dress, Shall I wear this or that article? I answer them: You profess to be disciples of Christ. Study your Bibles. Read carefully and prayerfully the life of our dear Saviour when he dwelt among men upon the earth. Imitate His life, and you will not be found straying from the narrow path. We utterly refuse to be conscience for you. If we tell you just what you must do, you will look to us to guide you, instead of going directly to Jesus for yourselves. GOP 259.1
According to Sabbathkeepers, therefore, the Bible was superior to the gifts. Ellen White’s messages bore divine origin, but they were not considered equal to the Bible. At the same time, there was a sufficient biblical evidence for the existence of the prophetic gift to the end of the ages. To deny that was to reject parts of the biblical record.GOP 259.2
One other interesting observation of the relationship between the Bible and Ellen White during the early 1850s was the decision of Sabbathkeeping Adventists to avoid publishing Ellen White’s visions in the Review and Herald, their main publication. On the one hand, this seemed to be a reaction against the accusations that Sabbathkeeping Adventist had “another rule of faith.” On the other hand, James White desired to make the Review and Herald a powerful tool for evangelism. He recognized that the attitude of many of the former Millerites, who became indifferent toward their belief in the second coming of Christ, had started to change. Thus in August 1851 he wrote, “Now the door is open almost everywhere to present the truth, and many are prepared to read the publications who have formerly had no interest to investigate. Now we may all do something for the Lord who has done so much for us.” GOP 259.3
Consequently, James White decided not to promote Ellen White’s visions in the Review, but to publish them in separate special issues, called Review and Herald Extra, intended only for Sabbathkeeping believers. In its inaugural edition, in July 1851, he explained that since “many are prejudiced against visions, we think best at present not to insert anything of the kind in the regular paper [Review and Herald]. We will therefore publish the visions by themselves for the benefit of those who believe that God can fulfill his word and give visions ‘in the last days.’ ” Intriguingly, however, we do not find any additional publications of the Review and Herald Extra. What did happen?GOP 259.4
Apparently, certain believers offered to pay for the publication of A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White, a small pamphlet containing the earlier visions of Ellen White. Then in 1854 a Supplement to the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White was published. A year later, in 1855, Ellen White’s testimonies also began to be printed individually in a small booklet format. The 1851 and 1854 booklets and the publication of the testimonies obviously proved to be the substitute for the Review and Herald Extra.GOP 259.5
While there were some legitimate reasons behind the decision not to publish Ellen White in the Review, this action also brought some undesirable consequences, as Sabbathkeeping leaders acknowledged a few years later. First, it seemed that while they professed a belief in Ellen White’s gift they showed a “timid spirit” in acknowledging it publicly. Second, such a decision led to a spiritual decline and negligence toward the gift of prophecy on the part of some believers. The Adventist leadership realized that change was needed. This came at the general conference in 1855.GOP 260.1
The delegates, who gathered at Battle Creek, appointed a committee composed of Joseph Bates, J. H. Waggoner, and M. E. Cornell “to address the saints in behalf of the conference on the gifts of the church.” The main concern, of course, was not the gifts in general, but the gift of prophecy in particular. The committee acted immediately and made their report to the leaders on the same day. Interestingly, they did not deal with apologetics concerning the gift of prophecy but suggested primarily practical application related to their attitude toward the visions of Ellen White. “Dear Brethren and Sisters in Christ,” the committee observed,GOP 260.2
while we have professed to stand upon the Word, and walk in “the whole counsel of God,” we feel to confess that we as a people have not obeyed the above divine injunction, nor have we appreciated the glorious privilege of claiming the gifts which our blessed Master has vouchsafed to his people . . . . While we hold these views [the visions] as emanating from the divine Mind, we would confess the inconsistency (which we believe has been displeasing to God) of professedly regarding them as messages from God, and really putting them on a level with the inventions of men. We fear that this has resulted from an unwillingness to bear the reproach of Christ (which is indeed greater riches than the treasures of earth), and a desire to conciliate the feelings of our opponents; but the Word and our own experience have taught us that God is not honored, nor his cause advanced, by such a course.” GOP 260.3
The committee’s response obviously reflected the Messenger controversy, which caused a lot of disunity and stir among churches and believers. Sabbathkeepers were ready for a new direction in their attitude toward the visions of Ellen White and their publicity. The intended change, however, did not come immediately. Sabbathkeeping Adventists continued to be cautious because of outside prejudices against Ellen White’s gift and its relationship to the Bible. It took them another decade until a complete change of direction concerning publicizing Ellen White’s messages would take place. The 1855 conference, nevertheless, became a turning point in the new direction.GOP 260.4
The relationship between the Bible and Ellen White’s prophetic writings continued to be argued beyond the 1850s. But Seventh-day Adventism, including Ellen White, had always pointed out the supremacy of the Bible and had always made a distinction between the function of the Bible and the purpose of the gifts.GOP 261.1
A second point made by Sabbathkeeping Adventists in relation to their acceptance of the gift of prophecy during this period was their interpretation of Revelation 12:17. The Sabbathkeeping Adventists disagreed with the interpretation offered by their critics and made two important observations. First, they stated the gift of prophecy was a necessary characteristic and an “identifying mark” of God’s end-time people, what they called the “remnant.” And second, they argued that Revelation 12:17 had to be interpreted in light of Revelation 19:10. Thus James White wrote that “God has by the prophet Joel promised to do great things for the REMNANT” just before His coming. “It is the remnant that is to witness these things,” he continued. “It is the remnant (or last portion of the church) that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (which is the spirit of prophecy, Rev xix, 10).” GOP 261.2
Using the same connection, B. F. Robbins noted that when the apostle John “saw the remnant mentioned in this prophecy [Rev. 12:17],” he revealed “their peculiar characteristics so that they need not be mistaken amid the multitude of nominal Christians.” “How is this remnant characterized?” Robbins asked. “By keeping the commandments of God,” and by “having the testimony of Jesus Christ,” which is the “spirit of prophecy.” This interpretation, thereafter, became a standard proof of the general Sabbatarian understanding that the true remnant people of God had to possess the gift of prophecy and that Ellen White’s gift was a legitimate confirmation of their claim to be “the remnant.” GOP 261.3
A third important question discussed during this period was the whether the gift of prophecy should be considered a test of fellowship. Although Sabbath believers were not officially organized until 1863, the question came into discussion by the mid-1850s mainly because of the Messengers and the “age-to-come” controversies. The critics noted that many former believers who were part of the Sabbathkeeping group were denied fellowship because they questioned or expressed unbelief in the visions of Ellen White. Sabbathkeeping Adventists, including Ellen White, however, denied that they had ever made Ellen White’s gift of prophecy a test of fellowship.GOP 261.4
James White set the initial understanding in 1855. He refuted the charge of the objectors entirely. “There is a class of persons,” he wrote, “who are determined to have it that the REVIEW and its conductors make the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. It may be duty to notice these persons on account of the part they are acting, which is calculated to deceive some.” White then quoted a statement written by a Sabbatarian group (most probably the Battle Creek believers) concerning their attitude toward the visions of Ellen White: “This certifies that we have been acquainted with Bro. and Sr. White, and their teachings, and labors in church trials, and have never known them to urge the visions on any one as a portion of religious faith, or make them a test of fellowship.” Furthermore, James White noted that all of the beliefs held by the Sabbathkeepers “were brought out from the Scriptures before Mrs. [White] had any view in regard to them.” He then went on to accuse the critics as being the ones who made the visions a test. While the Sabbatarian leaders were engaged in teaching the Word of God, the objectors were busy dividing and separating churches by criticizing Ellen White and her visions. Thus Sabbathkeeping Adventists made it clear that the Bible, not the visions, was their “test” and “rule of fellowship.”GOP 261.5
The test question was refined further as Sabbathkeeping Adventists continued to explore its relationship to the gift of prophecy during the late 1850s. One important nuance was the difference that they began to make between two groups of believers: those who accepted Ellen White’s gift and those who were unsure or doubted her gift. When some expressed concerns that the visions were not considered a test, James White made a slightly different statement than previously and wrote:GOP 262.1
To say unqualifiedly that they are a test, and carry out the principle with those who know nothing of their teachings, spirit and fruit, at the time when the world is full of manifestations as near the genuine as Satan can get up, would be the wildest fanaticism. On the other hand, for those who profess to believe them to say they will in no wise be tested by them, is most irrational. . . . I believe them to be the property of the church, and a test to those who believe them from Heaven. GOP 262.2
As such, James White began to view the visions as a test but only for those who accepted Ellen White’s gift as having a divine origin.GOP 262.3
In 1861 Uriah Smith came up with a new nuance on the “test” issue when he made a distinction between the doctrine of spiritual gifts and the specific gift of Ellen White. While Smith saw the belief in spiritual gifts to be a test of fellowship, he did not consider Ellen White’s specific gift as such. Thus Sabbathkeeping Adventists made various modifications on the “test” question. But what is remarkable to note is that the first Sabbatarian leaders, including Ellen White, were willing to show a spirit of tolerance toward people who were honestly searching for the truth concerning the gift of prophecy. As Ellen White wrote:GOP 262.4
There should be no trial or labor with those who have never seen the individual having visions, and who have had no personal knowledge of the influence of the visions. Such should not be deprived of the benefits and privileges of the church, if their Christian course is otherwise correct, and they have formed a good Christian character Such must not be set aside, but long patience and brotherly love should be exercised toward them until they find their position and become established for or against. GOP 262.5
Believers, of course, were expected to accept Ellen White’s gift as genuine after examining it. At the same time, those who had “no knowledge” of her visions but blindly fought against them and caused unnecessary divisions were to be disfellowshipped for the sake of unity among believers. Evidently the approach in dealing with people who doubted her visions depended on their honesty and sincerity. Because of its complexity, the “test” question continued to be discussed and examined in subsequent years.GOP 263.1
Another concern that Sabbathkeeping Adventists had to address in this period was the “gender” objection to Ellen White’s gift. This argument did not appear to be so controversial during the 1850s as in the later years. Nevertheless, it seemed that it was a sufficiently important issue that Sabbathkeeping Adventists felt they needed to address by publishing multiple articles on the issue.GOP 263.2
As early as 1855, David Arnold noted that based on Joel 2 God’s plan was “to ‘pour out his Spirit,’ not only upon the sons, but also upon the daughters,’ and they shall prophesy.” The gift of prophecy, Arnold argued, did not depend upon one’s gender. S. C. Welcome also wrote a major piece on the “gender” question in 1860. After a lengthy examination of 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 (“Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”), Welcome noted that the passage had nothing to do with the gift of prophecy but with certain order in the churches at Corinth. He then gave numerous examples from the Bible of female prophets and concluded:GOP 263.3
We are informed on the authority of divine revelation that male and female are one in Christ Jesus; that in the relation in which they both stand to him, the distinction is as completely broken down as between Jew and Gentile, bond and free. Thus revelation has made known the important truth, and reason will bear testimony to the same thing. . . . Then let no stumbling block be thrown in their [female] way, but let them fill the place that God calls them to fill, let them not be bound down to silence by church rules, but let their tongues speak forth the praises of God, and let them point sinners to the Lamb of God, and grieve not the holy Spirit by silence in the congregation. GOP 263.4
Although Welcome did not mention Ellen White specifically, his intent to defend her prophetic gift despite her gender was evident.GOP 264.1
Similarly, D. T. Bourdeau noted that according to numerous examples from the Bible, it was “lawful for women to speak in meetings, and that our [Seventh-day Adventist] position in regard to the gift of prophecy that is among us, is not invalidated” by the biblical account. He went on to say that “the most pious and consecrated among us testify that they have been blessed” by the visions manifested among us, and that “the same influence that attended the word that converted them, attended the visions.” Hence Sabbathkeeping believers argued that according to the biblical evidence women had the right to the gift of prophecy as much as men.GOP 264.2
By the beginning of the 1860s Sabbathkeeping Adventists had a well-formulated biblical and theological position concerning the prophetic gift. The first controversies did not shake but rather gave Sabbathkeeping Adventists an opportunity to defend and explain further their acceptance of Ellen White. The new denomination continued to affirm its belief in modern manifestation of the gift of prophecy in the following years, and it became a part of their overall theological platform.GOP 264.3