Ellen White’s Emphasis on Sola Scriptura

Many nineteenth-century North American restorationists and revivalists emphasized the need to rediscover some teachings of the apostolic church. ^{42See Richard T. Hughes and C. Leonard Allen, Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630-1875 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism & Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).} But no other contemporary religious movement so consistently applied the sola Scriptura principle for restoring Bible truth as did Sabbathkeeping Adventists (founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church). ^{43See P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); Alberto R. Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages: Integrating Factors in the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series, vol. 5 (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1995)..} Crucial in this process was the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White, which, without replacing or overshadowing the Bible (as some critics claim), actually leads people to an unconditional commitment to the Bible as its own expositor. ^{44Zinke, “Faith-Science Issues,” 73-90, provides an insightful compilation of statements by Ellen G. White demonstrating her commitment to the Bible as “the foundational framework and authority for every aspect of our lives.”} This is evident in both her counsels on how Scripture should be interpreted and the way she actually interpreted it.GOP 295.2

Ellen White saw the interpretation of Scripture as a crucial matter within the great cosmic- historical controversy between good and evil. ^{45See, e.g., Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan: The Conflict of the Ages in the Christian Dispensation (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald®, 1911), 518-530.} She explained that “there is nothing that he [Satan] desires more than to destroy confidence in God and in His word.” ^{46Ibid., 526.} For example, in the Middle Ages “the circulation of the Bible was prohibited,” and “unprincipled priests and prelates interpreted its teachings to sustain their pretensions.” ^{47Ibid., 51.} Without mentioning by name the futurist and preterist theories, White upheld the Protestant historicist identification of the Papacy as the “little horn” of Daniel 7:8, 11, 21, 22, 24-26; 8:9-14, the antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, and the beast from the sea of Revelation 13:1-9. ^{48Ibid., 439, 443.} She also endorsed the view of the 1260 symbolic days of Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 (cf. Dan. 7:25; Rev. 11:2; 12:14; 13:5) as the period of papal supremacy between A.D. 538 and 1798. ^{49Ibid., 439; see also 54, 55, 266, 267.}GOP 295.3

On the other hand, Ellen White warned forcefully that faith in the Bible was “as effectually destroyed by the higher criticism and speculation . . . as it was by tradition and rabbinism in the days of Christ.” ^{50Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press®, 1905), 142.} She explained further: “The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God’s word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives.” ^{51Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles in the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press®, 1911), 474; idem, Education (Oakland: Pacific Press®, 1903), 227.}GOP 296.1

In contrast to the dispensationalist theory of splitting Bible history into several (usually seven) distinct dispensations, Ellen White spoke of two dispensations (the Old and the New Testaments), ^{52Ellen White referred to the two dispensations by such expressions as “the Old Testament dispensation” and “the New Testament dispensation” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, rev. ed. [Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald®, 1980], 7:953), the “Jewish” and the “Christian” dispensations (ibid., 6:1061), and “the Mosaic and the Christian” dispensations (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases [Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990], 4:402).} connected to each other by a typological interrelationship. She declared:GOP 296.2

There is no such contrast as is often claimed to exist between the Old and the New Testament, the law of God and the gospel of Christ, the requirements of the Jewish and those of the Christian dispensation. Every soul saved in the former dispensation was saved by Christ as verily as we are saved by Him today. Patriarchs and prophets were Christians. The gospel promise was given to the first pair in Eden, when they had by transgression separated themselves from God. The gospel was preached to Abraham. The Hebrews all drank of that spiritual Rock, which was Christ. ^{53The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, 6:1061.}GOP 296.3

Recognizing the existence of “different degrees of development” of God’s revelation to meet the needs of people in the different ages, White contends that in both dispensations “God’s claims are the same” and “the principles of His government are the same.” ^{54Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, as Illustrated in the Lives of Patriarchs and Prophets (Oakland: Pacific Press®, 1890), 373. This book was later retitled as The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets as Illustrated in the Lives of Holy Men of Old, and is usually known just as Patriarchs and Prophets.} “The Old Testament is the gospel in figures and symbols. The New Testament is the substance. One is as essential as the other.” ^{55Ellen G. White, Selected Messages (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald®, 1958), 2:104.} White explained that the fourth commandment, about keeping the seventh-day Sabbath (Ex. 20:8-11; cf. 31:12-18; Deut. 5:12-15; Luke 23:54-56; Heb. 4:4, 9-11; Rev. 14:7, 12), is “the great truth which unites the two dispensations, the Mosaic and the Christian, and the light upon the sanctuary shows their relation to each other.” ^{56Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 4:402. See also idem, The Acts of the Apostles, 14; idem, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students Regarding Christian Education (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press®, 1943), 462, 463.}GOP 296.4

Besides disclaiming the hermeneutical alternatives mentioned above, Ellen White also provided other insightful hints for a sola Scriptura interpretation of the Bible. Speaking of the Bible as “its own expositor,” she highlighted a few additional basic concepts. One is that the Bible should be studied within the framework of the great cosmic-historical controversy between God and Satan. She declared:GOP 297.1

The Bible is its own expositor. Scripture is to be compared with scripture. The student should learn to view the word as a whole and to see the relation of its parts. He should gain a knowledge of its grand central theme—of God’s original purpose for the world, of the rise of the great controversy, and of the work of redemption. He should understand the nature of the two principles that are contending for the supremacy, and should learn to trace their working through the records of history and prophecy, to the great consummation. He should see how this controversy enters into every phase of human experience; how in every act of life he himself reveals the one or the other of the two antagonistic motives; and how, whether he will or not, he is even now deciding upon which side of the controversy he will be found. ^{57Ellen G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, 462, 463.} GOP 297.2

Another basic concept is the proper balance between the exegetical study of a given passage and its interpretation in the light of the analogy of Scripture. From a more exegetical perspective, Ellen White wrote:GOP 297.3

But there is but little benefit derived from a hasty reading of the Scriptures. One may read the whole Bible through and yet fail to see its beauty or comprehend its deep and hidden meaning. One passage studied until its significance is clear to the mind and its relation to the plan of salvation is evident, is of more value than the perusal of many chapters with no definite purpose in view and no positive instruction gained. ^{58Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald®, 1896), 90.}GOP 297.4

With emphasis on the analogy of Scripture, she added:GOP 297.5

The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key that will unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning of the word. By comparing different texts treating on the same subject, viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning of the Scriptures will be made evident.GOP 297.6

Many think that they must consult commentaries on the Scriptures in order to understand the meaning of the word of God, and we would not take the position that commentaries should not be studied; but it will take much discernment to discover the truth of God under the mass of the words of men. . . .GOP 298.1

The jewels of truth lie scattered over the field of revelation; but they have been buried beneath human traditions, beneath the sayings and commandments of men, and the wisdom from heaven has been practically ignored; for Satan has succeeded in making the world believe that the words and achievements of men are of great consequence. ^{59Ellen G. White, “The Science of Salvation the First of Sciences,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Dec. 1, 1891, 737.} GOP 298.2

Reiterating elsewhere her emphasis on the analogy of Scripture, Ellen White confirmed its positive outcome: “The Bible is its own interpreter, one passage explaining another. By comparing scriptures referring to the same subjects, you will see harmony and beauty of which you have never dreamed.” ^{60Ellen G. White, “God’s Word Our Study-Book,” Youth’s Instructor, June 30, 1898, 505.} With these concepts in mind, we will now consider how she actually used the sola Scriptura principle to interpret the Bible.GOP 298.3