Talk:Inspiration of Ellen White

Much debate remains as to the relevance, authenticity of Mrs. White’s “prophetic gift.” The existence of a “spirit of prophecy,” has remained a delicate and somewhat awkward subject to many Adventist theologians since Mrs. White’s death, an open and much disputed question which D.M. Canfield, was quick to take advantage of, in his hostile book, The Life of Ellen G. White.

"From the beginning of their history, Seventh-day Adventists have claimed that they were the remnant church of Rev. 12:17, because they had a prophet among them; namely, Mrs. E.G. White. They have always insisted that they had the "spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). When those opposed to their views have contended that we have the "spirit of prophecy" in the writings of the prophets as recorded in the Holy Scriptures, they have denied it, and have, in the most dogmatic fashion, contended that to have the spirit of prophecy there must be a living prophet in the church. But now their prophet is dead. Where is their "spirit of prophecy" now? According to the long-used argument, they now have no spirit of prophecy, and therefore can not be the remnant church of Rev. 12:17. The death of Mrs. White killed their argument.

If they now say that they have the spirit of prophecy in her writings, they admit what they have always denied; namely, that the writings of the prophets contain the spirit of prophecy. If they have the spirit of prophecy in the writings left by their prophet, then we have always had the spirit of prophecy in the writings left by the prophets of the Bible. All who have the Bible, and believe in that, have the spirit of prophecy contained in its writings. Therefore, the claim made by Seventh-day Adventists that they are the only body of Christians who have the spirit of prophecy is proven false by their own admission. Their former theory of the spirit of prophecy would compel them to bring forth immediately another living prophet, or surrender their argument in defense of the "spirit of prophecy" as represented in Mrs. White. This would destroy their whole theory on this subject.

For a period of seventy years they have claimed to be the remnant church of Rev. 12:17, because they had a living prophet in the church. But now their prophet is dead, and they have none any longer, whereby to prolong the "spirit of prophecy." They are now in the same condition as the other churches, and, according to their own argument, can not now be the remnant church. Upon the Scripture, "Where there is no vision, the people perish," their stock argument has been that, in order that the people shall be safe and surely guided, so that they shall not perish, there must be visions, and these the visions of a living prophet. Now the person is dead in whom alone they centered all true or proper visions. And now to them where are the visions without which the people perish?

The author is indebted to Elder A.T. Jones, who was formerly the editor of their church paper, the Review and Herald, for the logical line or argument here presented. He rejected their narrow view on this subject, and was set aside without trial or hearing.

Up to the very last they were constantly appealing to Mrs. White for the settlement of new issues which kept arising among them. To the very close of her life, doctrinal disputes which were dividing the sympathies and allegiance of their leading men were all referred to her. As time goes on, who will now settle the new issues and questions constantly arising in their work? They will have to be settled by their uninspired, erring men, the same as in other churches. Hence they are just as liable to go wrong as are other churches."

After Mrs. White’s death, it was generally assumed that the “gift of prophecy” would abide within the SDA church, manifesting itself, as God saw fit. That this was the universal impression of most Adventists and non-Adventists at the 20th century’s commencement, is evidenced by an obituary of Mrs. White, in the New York Independent, entitled American Prophetess, and quoted favorably in the Church’s approved biography of her.

    “Of course, these teachings were based on the strictest 
    doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures. Seventh-day Adventism 
    could be got in no other way. And the gift of prophecy was to 
    be expected as promised to the "remnant church," who had held 
    fast to the truth. This faith gave great purity of life and incessant 
    zeal. No body of Christians excels them in moral character and 
    religious earnestness.”  {6BIO 444.1} Ellen G. White Volume 6 The Later Elmshaven Years.

Within one year of Mrs. White’s passing, Margaret Rowen, a resident of Los Angeles, California, claimed to be her spiritual successor. According to Herbert E. Douglass, in his book, the Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White:

“Her early “testimonies” had a superficial likeness to Mrs. White’s testimonies. In addition to these “messages,” the physical manifestations accompanying her visions were remarkably similar to those of Ellen White.”

Writes R.W. Schwarz in his book, Light Bearers to the Remnant

“Both her followers, including several medical doctors, and skeptics agreed that these visions were supernaturally inspired. The question in dispute was: With which supernatural power did they originate?”

To substantiate her avowal of being Mrs. White’s spiritual heiress, Mrs. Rowen and her followers engaged in a bizarre scheme to plant a letter in the deceased woman’s vault. This letter purported to be an endorsement of Mrs. Rowen as Mrs. White’s designated successor. The scheme failed, as did Mrs. Rowens prophecies. When Christ’s Second Coming failed to materialize, on the date which she had set; February 6, 1925, Mrs. Rowen’s supporters melted away, and she was eventually convicted of attempting to murder to Dr. Bert Fullmer, one of her leading adherents and defenders, as documented by Larry White, in his book, “Margaret W. Rowen, Prophetess of Reform and Doom,” and Martin Gardner, in his essay“The Incredible Flimflams of Margaret Rowen.” After serving her sentence at San Quentin Penitentiary, she vanished into obscurity. Though Margaret Rowen is today but a footnote in the history of the Adventist Church, her influence upon its psyche is indelible. Since the 1920s, the Adventist Church has been reluctant to accept the very idea of a Living Prophet, within the Church, and overtly hostile to anyone who claims to be possessed with the Spirit of Prophecy. While conservative Seventh Day Adventists defend Mrs. White’s reputation as a prophetess, and the authority of her books on doctrinal and theological questions, they must also clarify her claims that a successor would follow her, contrasted with their own, that Mrs. White was the last prophet to the SDA Church.

"Prophecy must be fulfilled. The Lord says: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." Somebody is to come in the spirit and power of Elijah, and when he appears, men may say: "You are too earnest, you do not interpret the Scriptures in the proper way. Let me tell you how to teach your message."

There are many who cannot distinguish between the work of God and that of man. I shall tell the truth as God gives it to me, and I say now, If you continue to find fault, to have a spirit of variance, you will never know the truth. Jesus said to His disciples, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Testimonies to Ministers, page 475.

In 1930, Victor T. Houteff, a Bulgarian immigrant and businessman used this quote from Mrs. White’s book as a catalyst to begin his own movement within the Adventist Church. He published a book entitled, The Shepherd's Rod which caused great dissensionin the Adventist Church, far more extensive and significant than Mrs. Rowen’s opportunistic pretensions could muster.

In the preface of his book, Houteff wrote,

“It is the intention of this book to reveal the truth of the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7 but the chief object of this publication is to bring about a reformation among God's people. The truth herein contained is divided into seven sections, giving proof from seven different angles, to prevent any doubt or confusion. This subject is made clear by the use of the Bible and the writings given by the Spirit of Prophecy.The truth revealed here is of great importance to the church just now because of the foretold danger which God's people are soon to meet. It calls for decided action on the part of the believers to separate themselves from all worldlings and worldliness; to anchor themselves on the Solid Rock by obedience to all the truth known to this denomination, if we must escape the great ruin. "The Lord's voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: Hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it." Micah 6:9.”

By “the writings given by the Spirit of Prophecy,” Houteff perceptibly meant those of Mrs. White, for he quoted liberally from her “Testimonies” and other books. In his Introduction, he declares:

“THIS publication contains only one main subject with a double lesson; namely, the 144,000, and a call for reformation. The object in view is to prepare God's people for the impending doom of Ezekiel's prophecy, chapter 9. There is no new doctrine taught, neither does it condemn the ones we have. The wonderful light between its pages shines upon a large number of scriptures which we have had no understanding of heretofore. The interpretation of these scriptures is supported entirely by the writings of Sr. E.G. White, that is termed the Spirit of Prophecy.This publication does not advocate a new movement, and it absolutely opposes such moves. It brings out a positive proof which cannot be contradicted that the Seventh-day Adventist church had been used by God to carry on His work since 1844.”

Though Houteff was careful to avoid any direct comparison or claim to Mrs. White’s “prophetic gift,” it is quite clear that his followers believed him to be a prophet in the mold of Ellen G. White.

In 1934, the Seventh Day Adventist Church’s Pacific Union Conference Committee gave Houteff a hearing. They rejected his doctrines out of hand, after his initial presentation, releasing a pamphlet entitled A Reply to The Shepherd's Rod which demonstrated several errors in Houteff’s book, that appeared to contradict the writings of Mrs. White, whom he claimed to support.

The Shepherd's Rod

"The exile of Pope Pius VI, in 1798, and his death at Valence, France, Aug. 19, 1799, is not [italics author's] the receiving of the wound, no more than the death of any other pope before or after."-The Shepherd's Rod, Vol. 1, page 215.

The Spirit of Prophecy

"I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. The infliction of the deadly wound points to the downfall of the papacy in 1798."-The Great Controversy, page 653 (new edition).

In rebuttal, Houteff complained that his written statements had been taken out of context. Shortly after this, he and many of his followers, including two ex-Conference presidents, were disfellowshipped from the Adventist Church. Houteff then began his own movement within a movement; the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. Houteff considered his group to be part of the Adventist Church and not a separate denomination. Consequently, his followers were to proselytize exclusively within the SDA Church, teaching their doctrine, which is known as The Shepherd's Rod Message. Houteff purported to answer many open, doctrinal questions in the Church, some of which, had been partially addressed by Mrs. White, such as the subject of the 144,000 of Revelation 7, the Judgment of the Living, and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary. The foundation of Houteff and his follower’s belief that a “prophetic gift” would always exist, so long as the world lasted. While they believed in the progression of “new light,” that God would inspire certain “prophets” with original and innovative views on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy; that the “prophet’s” “inspired” interpretations of Biblical prophecy and symbolism would precede end of times and should be heeded by the Adventist Church leadership.

They elevated the importance of Mrs. White’s writings, believing that it was impossible for individuals to independently interpret scripture with any degree of success. The Davidians based their beliefs on a verse from 2 Peter.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”— 2 Peter 1:20.

Houteff’s followers base their belief on the fact that “private interpretation” of the Bible by church theologians and the laity, alike, would lead to conflicting views on nearly every point at hand—and would therefore lead to a divisive and divided church. Rather, Davidians believe, the “prophetic gift” bestowed first to Mrs. White, and later to Mr. Houteff, must alone determine Scriptural prophecies and doctrine, in order to preserve harmony and a common structural doctrinal belief within the Church. In support of their position, they quote extensively from Mrs.’s White’s writings: particularly her book, Testimonies to Ministers.

“No one should claim that he has all the light there is for God's people. The Lord will not tolerate this. He has said, 'I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.' Even if all our leading men should refuse light and truth, that door will still remain open. The Lord will raise up men who will give the people the message for this time.”Testimonies to Ministers, page 107.

“I said further: As the word of God is walled in with these books and pamphlets, so has God walled you in with reproofs, counsel, warnings, and encouragements. Here you are crying before God, in the anguish of your souls, for more light. I am authorized from God to tell you that not another ray of light through the Testimonies will shine upon your pathway until you make a practical use of the light already given. The Lord has walled you about with light; but you have not appreciated the light; you have trampled upon it. While some have despised the light, others have neglected it, or followed it but indifferently. A few have set their hearts to obey the light which God has been pleased to give them.”-Testimonies to the Church Volume 2 606.1

“These words,” wrote Mr. Houteff, in Volume 1 of his book, the Shepherd’s Rod, “suggest that there is more light to shine, and light is truth.” Combined with Houteff’s later, oral defense of his movement within the Adventist Church, it is a virtual summation of his position

“We…have not pulled away from the Denomination, but have been cast out of our respective churches and forced to go by another name, Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, -- and all this for no other reason than for

embracing the additional Heaven-born Truth which gives power and force to the Advent message (Early Writings, pg. 277), and which makes us better Seventh-day Adventists than we have been or could otherwise be. Now, if we be "offshoots" for walking in the light which heaven sends from time to time to lead God's people in the way of Truth and Righteousness, then I should like to know what our brethren think they themselves are, for by the same token of logic the Mother Denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist, is itself an offshoot from another denomination. Moreover, this is also true of all the Protestant denominations, for they are the offshoots of the Catholic; and the Apostolic is an offshoot of the Jewish. Who, then, outside of the Jews is not an offshoot? In fact, if we go as far back as Abraham's time, we will find that even the Jews were an offshoot of something before their time. If offshoots are therefore to be shunned, hated, and abhorred, then why are there any Christians at all? And if this is an eye-opener to those who think themselves something other than an offshoot, they should now without delay apply for admission to the Synagogue, or else begin to behave like God's men.”-Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 43.

The history of Victor Houteff and that of his followers is a long and tenuous one. Though residual, fragmented portions of his movement remain, all of whom still revere both Mr. Houteff and Mrs. White, but loathe one another and remain at odds with the Adventist Church; at least one faction of the Davidians met a much more poignant, sordid, and better publicized end than even those followers of Margaret Rowen. David Koresh, a former Adventist turned Davidian, developed his own, highly unique and bizarre adaptation of Mr. Houteff’s doctrine, a doctrine which brought him followers, notoriety and an eventually infamous end.

Few have claimed the prophetic gift of Mrs. White, in the past fifty years. Mrs. Jeanine Sautron, may claim to be the exception to the rule. An elderly woman of African descent, and a long-time resident Saint-Julien, France, she has many years distributed her “messages” from the Holy Spirit within the Adventist Church., heralding the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

“In a dream, me he was shown that if Mrs. White lived at our time, brothers and sisters of the Adventista Church of the Seventh official Day would hesitate in believing in the messages that it would disclose to them for our time.” ([1]P. 308)

The question of whether Mrs. White’s “gift of prophecy,” was inheritable is, of course, controversial, when aligned by the debatable point of whether it in fact existed at all.

But the church fully realizes that a rejection of Mrs. White, means an entire reevaluation of it’s every doctrinal stance, from the Three Angel’s Message to the End Times, a renovation of its Fundamental Beliefs, and sure division over points of Scriptural prophecy and doctrine, previously closed from debate, by Mrs. White’s interpretations, which were sacrosanct from criticism or censure within the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The Adventist Church has suffered heavily from its position, upholding and defending both the writings of Mrs. White, and her claim to a “prophetic gift.” The claims of her would-be successors over the past century, have created a great controversy within the church, leading to bad press and mass defections by church ministers and members alike.

Many, like Dale Ratzlaff justify their defection by declaring their complete lack of faith in the validity of Mrs. White’s writings. Ratzlaff writes,

“One cannot understand the Bible correctly when continuing to read the writings of Ellen White,”

But admits,

“Where the Bible is clear we can and should be certain. Where the Bible is unclear or honestly open to several interpretations we must be tentative,”

thus illuminating the great divide the great separation between Evangelical Christians; namely those who stake their entire basis of belief upon 2d Peter 1:20-21,

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost,”

and those who are skeptical of professed prophets and prophetesses, and also of the existence of a “prophetic gift,” of the variety which Mrs. White claimed to possess. These Christians, many of them now former-Adventists believe that an individual and independent interpretation of the scriptures is all that is necessary to ensure their salvation and understanding of Biblical prophecies. They also base their position upon Holy Writ:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect,thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”—2d Timothy 3:15-17.