False Teachings
Application of the test “to the law and to the testimony,” some critics say, shows that Ellen White taught some things that are not in the Bible, or were contrary to Bible teachings. In view of earlier statements regarding details found in her writings but not in the Bible, no further comment on that point is needed here. What about the matter of teachings supposedly contrary to the Bible?APAY 416.2
In chapter 14 reference was made to the method of applying this test to the writings in order to prove them by the Bible. To deal adequately with this type of criticism two things are necessary: (1) a thorough knowledge of what the Bible teaches on the subject, and (2) a complete cross section of what Ellen White has said on the subject in her various works. The major problems in this area are caused by the fact that she differs from some traditional points of view on Bible teachings which have been held by many individuals, and by the fact that brief portions of passages are sometimes taken out of their setting and made to stand alone. Every doctrine taught by Ellen White will stand the closest scrutiny and comparison with the Scriptures.APAY 416.3
Suppression. It is at times charged that Ellen White taught points of view which she later discovered to be incorrect. Then, it is claimed, she changed her teaching, and withdrew from circulation or suppressed the writings containing the error. As examples, certain early works are quoted, which, when they were reprinted, lack some sentences or sections contained in the earlier publication. Or it is urged that certain books were discontinued and others issued in their place to hide the false teachings of the former. Again, what are the facts? Space here permits but a brief summary of the facts presented in detail in Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 267 ff.APAY 417.1
It is true that in later publications some portions of earlier ones were omitted. It is also true that some books were replaced by new ones that did not contain every sentence and expression found in the old books. Does this prove that some teachings were suppressed? Not at all. Charges of deletion and suppression are largely made with reference to three items: (1) a tract, “A Word to the Little Flock,” (2) an article in the Present Truth of August, 1849, and (3) the book Sketches From the Life of Paul. Reasons for the omissions at the time of republication are given by F. D. Nichol in his discussion of this topic. But because of the desire of some persons to have copies of these early documents in their original form, both of the first two items have been reproduced in facsimile form and are easily accessible. Whatever the reasons for the original deletions, they had nothing to do with the suppression of teachings, for the church has no question about circulating them today. APAY 417.2
The third item, Sketches From the Life of Paul, is said to have been withdrawn from circulation because of a threatened lawsuit over alleged plagiarism. Actually, there was no threatened lawsuit, and no critic has ever presented evidence of such action, although the name of a publisher is sometimes mentioned in this connection. A letter from the publisher said to have been involved shows that there was no threatened suit and no grounds for one. Ibid., p. 456. The edition of Sketches was completely sold out, and no copies were recalled. No more were printed, for Ellen White intended to write more fully on the subject of the ministry of the apostles. Work on the new volume was delayed for a number of years because of other responsibilities and bookwork, but in 1911 the new book, The Acts of the Apostles, was published.APAY 417.3
The early teaching most frequently said to have been suppressed by the removal of portions of early publications is that of the “shut door.” Did the first writings teach something different from the later revelations? Again the facts clear away the confusion.APAY 418.1
After the disappointment of October 22, 1844, their understanding of the events that had taken place led those who soon became Sabbatarian Adventists to be classified as the “Sabbath and shut-door” brethren, in contrast with the First-day Adventists who were called the “open-door” Adventists. The reason was this: The Adventist group approaching October 22, 1844, believed that the Lord would appear and probation would close for all men. For a time after the disappointment, those who did not repudiate their belief in the advent message still believed that probation had closed and there was no longer mercy for sinners.APAY 418.2
However, with the passage of time, they began to recognize that this position was not founded on the Bible, and that there was still a work to be done for sinners. They continued to use the term “shut door,” but it came to have a different meaning to them. It took on this significance: Christ had now entered on the second phase of His ministry as High Priest—ministry in the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary; therefore, He had shut the door to the holy place and opened the door to the most holy. The announcement of this change in phases of ministry was, they felt, the responsibility God had given them. What was Ellen G. White’s relation to these teachings regarding the “shut door”? She explains, in a letter addressed to J. N. Loughborough, a portion of which is quoted here.APAY 418.3
“With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four I did believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them in the charges they have made against me upon this point.APAY 419.1
“It was on my first journey east to relate my visions that the precious light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary was opened before me and I was shown the open and shut door. We believed that the Lord was soon to come in the clouds of heaven. I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it. Our brethren could not understand this with our faith in the immediate appearing of Christ. Some accused me of saying my Lord delayeth His coming, especially the fanatical ones. I saw that in ‘44 God had opened a door and no man could shut it, and shut a door and no man could open it. Those who rejected the light which was brought to the world by the message of the second angel went into darkness, and how great was that darkness.” Ellen G. White Letter 2, 1874. The letter in facsimile form appears in F. M. Wilcox, The Testimony of Jesus, pages 106, 107.APAY 419.2
In The Great Controversy Mrs. White, since 1884, has unhesitatingly and frankly kept before the world the shut-door experience of our early believers and the reasons for the position they took. See The Great Controversy, 428-432. It is largely the failure on the part of the critics to recognize the change in the significance of the term “shut door” as employed by our pioneers that creates the problem in this case. They make no distinction between Ellen White’s early personal belief and what was soon revealed to her, on the basis of which she changed her point of view. F. D. Nichol presents several exhibits revealing that Mrs. White’s earliest writings contain clear indications of her belief that there was still opportunity for men to accept the Lord.—F. D. Nichol, op. cit., pages 239 ff. See also F. M. Wilcox, The Testimony of Jesus, pages 90 ff. In the face of facts, the “shut-door” charge collapses.APAY 419.3