Ellen Whites doctrinal positions - did it ever change?

[Twilight]

Just some questions I would like to ask those who have studied this out.

Did Ellen White ever change her position on a doctrinal understanding?

Some people hold the view that all of her writings are inerrant.

Is that correct?

Or do they sometimes, as the reformers did, contain understandings that she had "inherited" and God never revealed the error to her?

Did she sometimes correct her doctrinal understanding?

Or is she different to say Luther and the reformers because she was specifically given the gift of prophecy?

Mark

[Stewart (SDA)]

I take the view that, as far as Mrs. White’s doctrinal positions are concerned, yes, her writings are inerrant – unerring.

Over the years there have been many attempts to show that Mrs. White did change her doctrinal understandings at times -- abandoning one view to take on another. But these attempts have all been vain, in my opinion.

I do not believe there is an instance where she ever corrected her doctrinal understanding, but when such a charge can be presented, I am interested to consider it.

One example of such a challenge comes from Dr. Bacchiochi. While he expressed respect for Mrs. White, his views on the supposed “historical inaccuracies” of Mrs. White’s writings have eagerly been taken up by many.

In the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy, Mrs. White wrote:

"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798." (p. 266)

In a later edition (1911), Mrs. White changed the sentence to read:

"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A. D. 538, and would terminate in 1798." (p. 266)

Some contend that Mrs. White was effectively forced [by historical fact] to back down on her original point.

Dr. Bacchiochi [and others] point out that the Papacy was “established” centuries before the A.D. 538 date, and that here was an obvious error on Mrs. White’s part.

But in my view such a challenge is unwarranted.

And I do not think it is difficult to understand Mrs. White’s meaning in the 1888 edition.

The power and influence of the church at Rome was established, in a sense, prior to A.D 538, but it was not until about A.D. 533 that Justinian gave his edict, making the “Bishop of Rome the head of all churches and of all bishops.” Prior to this the Papacy did not have the legal sanction or support of the State.

When Justinian made the decree (from Constantinople I think it was), Rome was in the hands of the Arian (and therefore the anti Catholic) Goths. It was not until AD 538 that the Goths were defeated and "plucked up" by the roots as it were.

Then it was that the Papacy was truly “established”. Only now could it take advantage of Justinian’s decree making the church of Rome the head of all the churches. [Every professed Christian was now given into the hands of the Beast.]

Some people imagine they see many historical errors in Mrs. White’s work, but often I think it is because they are looking for fault. And it is because of this that they inevitably find it.

Stewart.

[Guest]

Very informative. I agree.

[Stan]

Lots of positioned changed.. she kept on growing..

Remember, she started out as a porking eating, Sunday keeping... etc etc

She grew and grew, and would have kept on doing such.

[Gregory Matthews]

I am going to place some comments into the following citation. I will enclose my comments in brackets [ ] and with my initials.

I take the view that, as far as Mrs. White’s doctrinal positions are concerned, yes, her writings are inerrant – unerring.

[One fundamental aspect of the Christian life is that we grow in understanding of all aspects of the Christian life. I therefore have to say that EGW grew in her understanding and that this included her doctrinal understanding. EGW never took the position that her doctrinal positions were inerrant. To take this position today would be to differ with her. EGW's doctrinal understandings often did not come to her by direct revelation form God. They often came to her by the same means available to us--Bible study, sometimes in group and sometimes alone. As such she grew in understanding and changed. That should be a comfort to us--God leads and we do not need to wait for God to send us an angel to directly teach us--GM.]

Stewart.

[Bravus]

People tie themselves up in knots when they claim for EGW things she never claimed for herself.

[skyblue888]

At the age of 78 she was still toiling. "I have written many books, and they have been given a wide circulation. Of myself I could not have brought out the truth in these books, but the Lord has given me the help of His Holy Spirit. These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the past sixty years, contain light from Heaven, and will bear the test of investigation."

And then to those who asked if she still held the same views that she did years ago, she said, "I assured them that the message she bears today is the same that she has borne during the sixty years of her public ministry. She has the same service to do for the Master that was laid upon her in her girlhood. She receives lessons from the same Instructor. The directions given her are, 'Make known to others what I have revealed to you. Write out the messages that I give you, that the people may have them.' This is what she has endeavored to do." E.G. White, Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.35.

Of course her understanding grew but she never had to change her position as far as the messages given her from her Instructor are concerned.

The matter of meat eating was a different issue. It was something she struggled with at first. It took some time before she was able to shake off the habit but what she taught at the beginning of her ministry she never had to change later or even sixty years after they were written as these statements above clearly show.

sky

[Gregory Matthews]

Stewart said:

Quote:

Over the years there have been many attempts to show that Mrs. White did change her doctrinal understandings at times -- abandoning one view to take on another. But these attempts have all been vain, in my opinion.

[Well, you are entitled to your opinon. My opinion is that you lack a historical understanding of the development of the SDA Church and how we arrived at our doctrinal positions. But, like you, that is simply my opinon-GM]

Stewart then gives us a lengthy reference comments that EGW made in The Great Controversey. The problem with that is that GC has extensive quotations from historians who wrote in the time of EGW. While EGW may have been given visions that covered some of what she cited, she did not recive the specifics in visions, as she has informed us. It should be noted that EGW approved, during her life time changes in her historical citations.

[Gregory Matthews]

People tie themselves up in knots when they claim for EGW things she never claimed for herself.

In my opinon, which I believe has been demonstrated, sets people up to reject the actual place that EGW filled in the development of the SDA Chruch. An example of this is the author of THE WHITE LIE. He held her to a standard that she did not claim and when he became convinced that she did not meet the standard to which he held her he totally rejected her.

[skyblue888]

She may have approved changes in the wording but not in the message itself.

sky

[Gregory Matthews]

Just tagging on here:

I think that we sometimes fail to recognize when EGW was simplly writing and when she was citing a vision that she had recived.

EGW speaks in a number of places of a 6,000 year age for the Earth. It is clear that she personally believed in a 6,000 year age for the Earth. Yet, her grandson, of the White Estate acknowledged that she was never given a vision that stated a 6,000 year age for the Earth. He goes on to say that undoubtedly EGW based her 6,000 year age on the work of Archbishop Ussher--who has been demonstrated to be wrong in his chronology.

God did not dictate what EGW wrote.

The central message in the above is that God created, Earth did not evolve independent of God. The central message is not a 6,000 year age.

[Stewart (SDA)]

I appreciate all these thoughts, and thank you Twilight, for the way you asked your opening questions.

Stewart.

[Stewart (SDA)]

People tie themselves up in knots when they claim for EGW things she never claimed for herself.

Something she did effectively claim:

"...in my old age the Lord continues to move upon me by His Holy Spirit to write the most important books that have ever come before the churches and the world."

(3SM 76-77)

Regards,

Stewart.

[Gregory Matthews]

I appreciate all these thoughts, and thank you Twilight, for the way you asked your opening questions.

Stewart.

There is nothing wrong in asking an honest question.

The beginning question was both honest and valid.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Stan and Gregory, I do agree with your thoughts about change and growth.

Mrs. White included herself in the following comment, I am sure --

"We are to be ever advancing from light to a greater light, holding fast what we have already received, and praying for more." {LHU 123.5}

But of course this kind of "change" is not change for the sake of correction.

Stewart.

[Gregory Matthews]

It is clear the EGW made changes in The Great Controversey for the sake of correction.

Of course that was in her historical citations.

[Twilight]

Is there not mention of Ellen White stating a position was such and such.

Then she had a vision to correct that, and had to state the changed position?

This is a vague memory I have, so could someone confirm if they know anything about this?

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

Just tagging on here:

I think that we sometimes fail to recognize when EGW was simplly writing and when she was citing a vision that she had recived.

EGW speaks in a number of places of a 6,000 year age for the Earth. It is clear that she personally believed in a 6,000 year age for the Earth. Yet, her grandson, of the White Estate acknowledged that she was never given a vision that stated a 6,000 year age for the Earth. He goes on to say that undoubtedly EGW based her 6,000 year age on the work of Archbishop Ussher--who has been demonstrated to be wrong in his chronology.

God did not dictate what EGW wrote.

The central message in the above is that God created, Earth did not evolve independent of God. The central message is not a 6,000 year age.

There are at least six statements in the book itself about the 6,000 years. One in the Introduction, p.X, then on pp.518,552,553,656,659, and 673.

In the one found on page 673 Mrs. White was in vision and looking back and here is what she saw:

"Satan's work of ruin is forever ended. For six thousand years he has wrought his will, filling the earth with woe and causing grief throughout the universe. The whole creation has groaned and travailed together in pain. Now God's creatures are forever delivered from his presence and temptations. "The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they [the righteous] break forth into singing." Isaiah 14:7. And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6.

Can it get any clearer than this?

sky

[Stewart (SDA)]

Is there not mention of Ellen White stating a position was such and such.

Then she had a vision to correct that, and had to state the changed position?

This is a vague memory I have, so could someone confirm if they know anything about this?

Mark :-)

Mark, there is this thought, relating to management of the work in the Southern field. It does not relate to a doctrinal position, but I think I know what you are referring to now, I will try to find it.

"During the night following our interview in my house and out on the lawn under the trees, October 19, 1902, in regard to the work in the Southern field, the Lord instructed me that I had taken a wrong position." (SpM 282)

Stewart.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Is there not mention of Ellen White stating a position was such and such.

Then she had a vision to correct that, and had to state the changed position?

This is a vague memory I have, so could someone confirm if they know anything about this?

Mark :-)

Mark, there is this thought, relating to management of the work in the Southern field. It does not relate to a doctrinal position, but I think I know what you are referring to now, I will try to find it.

"During the night following our interview in my house and out on the lawn under the trees, October 19, 1902, in regard to the work in the Southern field, the Lord instructed me that I had taken a wrong position." (SpM 282)

Stewart.

Thank you for that Stewart.

So that shows the Ellen White was not "inerrant" of herself and in this instance needed correction.

But did she ever change a doctrinal position?

In other words, should we accept every single doctrinal position she presented as totally without error?

Mark

[Stewart (SDA)]

Thank you for that Stewart.

So that shows the Ellen White was not "inerrant" of herself and in this instance needed correction.

But did she ever change a doctrinal position?

In other words, should we accept every single doctrinal position she presented as totally without error?

Mark

In that instance, yes, she needed correction.

But I stand by my opening comment in this thread:

"I take the view that, as far as Mrs. White’s doctrinal positions are concerned, yes, her writings are inerrant – unerring."

This is an interesting area for me, thanks again for raising it.

Stewart

[skyblue888]

Mark, you asked an honest question and I gave you an honest answer from Ellen herself which shows that she never had to change position on anything she has taught. I posted this earlier. Did you miss it?

At the age of 78 she was still toiling. "I have written many books, and they have been given a wide circulation. Of myself I could not have brought out the truth in these books, but the Lord has given me the help of His Holy Spirit. These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the past sixty years, contain light from Heaven, and will bear the test of investigation."

And then to those who asked if she still held the same views that she did years ago, she said, "I assured them that the message she bears today is the same that she has borne during the sixty years of her public ministry. She has the same service to do for the Master that was laid upon her in her girlhood. She receives lessons from the same Instructor. The directions given her are, 'Make known to others what I have revealed to you. Write out the messages that I give you, that the people may have them.' This is what she has endeavored to do." E.G. White, Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.35.

Of course her understanding grew but she never had to change her position as far as the messages given her from her Instructor are concerned.

The matter of meat eating was a different issue. It was something she struggled with at first. It took some time before she was able to shake off the habit but what she taught at the beginning of her ministry she never had to change later or even sixty years after they were written as these statements above clearly show.

sky

[Stewart (SDA)]

It is clear the EGW made changes in The Great Controversy for the sake of correction.

Of course that was in her historical citations.

Please could you refer me to an example, Gregory?

[Kevin H]

Mrs. White saw her basic message, the inspired framework that she received, then she worked on the presentation of this message including filler material that she would use as a running narative between the points she saw as important; as well as questions that people asked her that she saw as taking her away from working on her message so she wanted them published so that others could look at them and decrease the time she spent away on these side topics.

Mrs. White's frame work never changed, but the filler material she was much more flexable with. Sadly today the typical Adventist as well as the typical Adventist critic (both liberal and conservative) are ignorant of her framework and what she saw as important and focus on her filler and applications where she was more flexable and willing to grow, and on what she saw as side topics that was taking her away from her message.

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin: Good reply. Goes with what I have referenced as the central point of the message. As her grandson said: In regard to the evolution issue, the central point of her message was that God created, we did not evolve, and 6,000 years was not aa central point. That was likely based on the common acceptance of the work of Ussher.

In regard to requests that people have made for me to provide specific support/examples, don't hold your breath. I am traveling and about 1,100 miles away from home. I am not in a position to provide documentation.