There is perhaps no subject more misunderstood in Seventh-day Adventist beliefs than the question of the proper relationship between the writings of Ellen G. White and those of Scripture.IRWHW 72.1

A comparison of the writings of Christian authors such as Walter R. Martin, ^{1Walter R. Martin, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960).} Norman F. Doughty, ^{2Norman F. Doughty, Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1962).} and others who have written critically about the doctrinal beliefs of Adventists, with some of the statements often quoted from Adventism’s own writers which appear to present differing, if not conflicting, positions, makes one wonder if we in the church may not ourselves be responsible for causing some of the confusion outside!IRWHW 72.2

For example, take the definition of two words we have often used in this three-part presentation: inspiration and revelation. Former Adventist minister Walter Rea, following Webster, sees inspiration as “the divine influence directly or immediately exerted upon the mind or soul of men.” Rea labels this as “subjective.” Revelation is seen as “God’s disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures“: this Rea labels as “objective.” ^{3Stenographic transcript of Walter Rea’s lecture on “White Lies,” San Diego, Calif.: Association of Adventist Forums (February 14, 1981), p. 9.}IRWHW 72.3

After further defining objective and subjective, Rea alleges that this objective revelation possesses authority, whereas subjective inspiration does not. Objective revelation, in Rea’s eyes, is concerned with fact and policy, whereas subjective revelation is seen as associated with values and personal opinions.IRWHW 72.4

Rea then draws the conclusion that Ellen White’s utterances convey mostly subjective inspiration. That is, they consist mainly of personal values or opinions (either hers, those of persons who influenced her, or authors from whom she copied). As such, her writings possess virtually no authority from God unless they can be proved from other sources, preferably Scripture. ^{4Ibid. Walter Rea refused to grant copyright permission to cite verbatim statements from the transcript. His remarks, therefore, are paraphrased.}IRWHW 72.5

John J. Robertson, in his book, The White Truth, ^{5John J. Robertson, The White Truth (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1981).} takes issue with this subjective/objective dichotomy. For him, “Revelation represents God’s activity as the sender of a message to His chosen prophet. Inspiration represents God’s activity upon or within the prophet, who then becomes the transmitter of that revelation to His people.” ^{6Ibid., p. 79.}IRWHW 72.6

This writer also takes issue with the subjective/objective dichotomy projected by Walter Rea, but would prefer to define the terms—as was done in part 1 of this series—somewhat differently than Robertson. Borrowing in part from Raoul Dederen, we suggested that inspiration may be thought of as a process by which God enables the prophet to receive and communicate His message, whereas revelation is seen as the content of the message thus communicated. ^{7The Journal of Adventist Education, vol. 44, No. 1 (October-November 1981), p. 18.}IRWHW 72.7

A stranger to Adventism, reading these three sets of definitions, might perhaps be forgiven for wondering if the church really has its theological act together! It has been much the same with our pronouncements on the relationship of the writings of Ellen White to Scripture.IRWHW 72.8

Inside the church there has also been some confusion about, as well as abuse and misuse of, Mrs. White’s writings. Some members have indeed made a second Bible of them, often seeming to make Mrs. White the more important of the two. Some ministers and teachers have quoted Mrs. White ten or more times for every quotation from Scripture; some have even preached “freight-train” sermons (the locomotive is the sermon’s introduction, followed by a string of freight cars—quotations from Mrs. White; bringing up the rear is the caboose, the conclusion of the sermon). The frustration and irritation experienced by a motorist who is held up by a long, slow freight train is almost identical to the feelings of exasperation and anger on the part of one forced to listen to this kind of homiletical monstrosity.IRWHW 72.9

Mrs. White’s writings have also been misused by parents, teachers, and preachers who have used statements from them as a theological club with which to bludgeon an offender into submission.IRWHW 72.10

However, such misuse, whether by proponents of the “second-Bible” view (or even the “addendum to the Bible” idea) or by other misapplications, is not the position of the Seventh-day Adventist church even if these positions are adopted by some of its well-intentioned, though ill-informed, members. And, as John Quincy Adams was wont to say, “Arguments, drawn from the abuse of any thing, are not admissible against its use.” ^{8John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States and part-time Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory (1806-1809) at Harvard College. From a series of 37 lectures on rhetorical theory and practice, Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, recently republished (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962), pp. 62-67.} In other words, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water!”IRWHW 72.11

What, then, is the position of the denomination with regard to the proper relationship between the writings of Mrs. White and sacred Scripture? As I understand it, we hold that Ellen G. White was inspired in the same manner and to the identical degree as were the prophets of the Bible; but—and this will be paradoxical to some—we do not make of her writings a second Bible, or even an addition to the sacred canon of God’s Word. Let me explain.IRWHW 73.1

Conclusion

Chapter 1—God’s Word Through the Prophets