The authority of Ellen White...

[hobie]

Many ask by what authority was Ellen White writing and who gave it to her? There are many in the church today which will not accept anything writing by her and will fight against it as we see with Ryan Day, and we can see the results. Ryan Day Departs 3ABN, Launches ‘Re-Think Adventism’ - Spectrum Magazine

He states that many members and leaders have this same view but keep it hidden much like he did till he was caught questioning what she said as not from scripture. 

So did Ellen White do her writings out of 'self' or from her own human thoughts and ideas, and we can lay it aside. What is the true origin of what has been spread across many books and how did she come to that understanding. If it wasn't from herself, by what authority was EGW writing/saying these things from and who gave it to her?

 

[Gustave]

Well, she became a militant anti-Trinitarian after her marriage to James White and with velocity she churned out spirit of prophecy teachings that were incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. Many SDA's today struggle with anti-Trinitarianism. I think Ellen White was extremely shrewd and understood the politics of all things "Church". Ellen rapidly identified the power players in the Adventist movement and produced "testimonies" that backed up the positions those power players were taking. 

I don't think its all bad however, somehow, through all the hoaxing Ellen White inspired a denomination that's today know for incredible advancements in medicine (high tech stuff). I believe the 1st heart transplant with a baboon or an ape was executed by SDA's in an SDA hospital. The SDA's have medical facilities all over the world and from what I understand they are among the best! 

There were some early Christians that mightily contributed to the Christian Faith in the 1st centuries of the Church that believed in some heretical things, yet people today still respect those individuals for what they accomplished - and they do it without claiming such and such early Christian was a "Prophet" who had more visions than everyone mentioned in the Bible. 

I remember growing up and hearing from classmates that some member of KISS  (the rock band) could jump 15 feet into the air and lift incredible weight like it was nothing! Turns out when KISS started out they circulated stuff like that to "build a buzz" and get things going. I think something similar happened with Ellen White and by the time she realized it the hoax was too far gone and that she was pressured into maintaining it. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Hobie:  The answers to your questions are more complex than the "either or" that you seem to suggest.

*  Ellen white clearly denied that God had dictated her written material, and she stated that her writings were in her chosen words and manner of expression.  Surely, I do not have to give you a citation for that.

* Her writings were often specific to an individual and not intended to apply to everyone.  She told one woman that she looked good in a red dress and should have such in her closet.  It would be foolish to say that such would apply to every woman.   In other cases, she gave opposite advice to different people.  

The bottom line is that after the death of Ellen White, human SDA leaders began to elevate the authority of her writings above what she would have agreed with when she was alive. 

In many ways EGW was a gift from God to this developing denomination.  We would not be what we are today in publishing, medical care, missions and education if it had not been for the guidance that she gave us.  But, she was not given to us to determine our theology.  She was not given to us to establish our doctrinal understandings.   She was not given to us to establish what the Bile taught.

In her personal life, over a period of years, she changed her understandings of the Biblical teachings in a number of areas.  In short, she was an imperfect human.  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Dr. George Knight, a SDA historian, has written a 140-page book on how to read and understand the writings of Kellen White.  I consider it to be of great value. It contains 22 chapters.  Amazon sells it for $11.  The following link takes you to that place.

*  The first 4-chapters deal with EGWs relation to the Bible.

*  The next 16 chapters deal with how to understand (Interpret) her writings.

*  The last 2 chapters deal with how to apply her writings to yourself and to others.

https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Ellen-White-Understand-Writings/dp/0828012636/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1H7FHPY751V0R&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.mhKYtLjNSDj8a6FaZxgFwefMcBLFO-brLPHKKRBlU09Xvt8tUCR8RMdjq4XSWrQTQeN_ORIcyQtufEKc_3xyLXs6aM-AGrdldCL9Ki14q5ihmqPedyMrn3KYmVwmFhhCZQMl7wmkxi89sBoWfEzpS9NokFU07mwgg1muAsX5347csZdi1ZQ4tAlgPr-is3PJ4uXPHv9__f6VoMCiDFwPYuwrP9B0VlY6yLheuAw94Vs.4BkUEUeDof7rx_U9Z73ywLBYnuj38w0OtXzGtz1QMYc&dib_tag=se&keywords=reading+ellen+white&qid=1757803665&sprefix=reqding+ellen+white%2Caps%2C178&sr=8-1

In short, this book deals with a balanced approach to the use of her writings while maintaining that the Bible is the standard for all living today.

[hobie]

I was going through the mail today and came across the story of Stephen Smith and his interaction with James and Ellen White. Amazing testimony, we need to understand how the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will come in these last days...

Stephen Smith and the Unopened Testimony - Adventist Review

 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

hobie said: So did Ellen White do her writings out of 'self' or from her own human thoughts and ideas, and we can lay it aside. What is the true origin of what has been spread across many books and how did she come to that understanding. If it wasn't from herself, by what authority was EGW writing/saying these things from and who gave it to her?

Ellen taught that Christ was capable of mutation, could have eternally ceased to exist and that the Divinity within Him was on-loan - not unlike a driver's license / privilege. If Ellen didn't come by these teachings herself by what authority did Ellen say / teach these things from and who gave them to her? 

[Asia Joe]

Stephen Smith and the Unopened Testimony - Adventist Review

Quote

In 1885 E. W. Farnsworth was holding revival meetings in the Washington church.  Stephen Smith walked 12 miles to attend the Sabbath meeting.

 

Amazing. 12 miles each way.  In who knows what kind of weather.   Life back then was very different. 

[hobie]

On 10/8/2025 at 10:56 AM, Gustave said:

Ellen taught that Christ was capable of mutation, could have eternally ceased to exist and that the Divinity within Him was on-loan - not unlike a driver's license / privilege. If Ellen didn't come by these teachings herself by what authority did Ellen say / teach these things from and who gave them to her? 

I think this is what you are referring to...

"Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 131.2}

 

Remember that Christ risked all; tempted like as we are, he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul. {GCB December 1, 1895, Art. B, par. 23}

 

Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour’s head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope. ST June 9, 1898, par. 14

[hobie]

On 9/13/2025 at 10:48 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Hobie:  The answers to your questions are more complex than the "either or" that you seem to suggest.

*  Ellen white clearly denied that God had dictated her written material, and she stated that her writings were in her chosen words and manner of expression.  Surely, I do not have to give you a citation for that.

* Her writings were often specific to an individual and not intended to apply to everyone.  She told one woman that she looked good in a red dress and should have such in her closet.  It would be foolish to say that such would apply to every woman.   In other cases, she gave opposite advice to different people.  

The bottom line is that after the death of Ellen White, human SDA leaders began to elevate the authority of her writings above what she would have agreed with when she was alive. 

In many ways EGW was a gift from God to this developing denomination.  We would not be what we are today in publishing, medical care, missions and education if it had not been for the guidance that she gave us.  But, she was not given to us to determine our theology.  She was not given to us to establish our doctrinal understandings.   She was not given to us to establish what the Bile taught.

In her personal life, over a period of years, she changed her understandings of the Biblical teachings in a number of areas.  In short, she was an imperfect human.  

 

I would say much like Peter and the Apostles and others in the Bible...

[Gustave]

On 7/27/2026 at 10:13 AM, hobie said:

I think this is what you are referring to...

"Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 131.2}

 

Remember that Christ risked all; tempted like as we are, he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul. {GCB December 1, 1895, Art. B, par. 23}

 

Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour’s head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope. ST June 9, 1898, par. 14

Yes, stuff like that. 100% incompatible with what the Bible teaches about Christ. 

[Asia Joe]

On 9/13/2025 at 8:35 PM, hobie said:

There are many in the church today which will not accept anything writing by her and will fight against it as we see with Ryan Day, and we can see the results.

I have seen many leave the church, claiming Ellen White was not a prophet.  I always said, what difference does it make? 

Do you want to follow the Bible 100%? If so, the Adventist church is the place to go. 

The truth is, many backsliders do not want to follow the Bible 100%. They only use Ellen White as an excuse.

When I first came into the church in Michigan, MANY years ago, I was puzzled by the reports about backsliders. It took me over 5 years to find the Adventist church. I could not understand why people would leave. Within a short time, I was ordained as an elder. Then I started visiting backsliders. It was interesting. None of them left the Adventist church for another church. They just stopped going altogether. 

 

[hobie]

On 7/28/2026 at 6:57 PM, Gustave said:

Yes, stuff like that. 100% incompatible with what the Bible teaches about Christ. 

Need to see what it teaches and the real issue here. Here is a good summary..:

Here’s the conundrum:

1. to suggest Jesus, as the God-Man, is unable to sin seems to denigrate His true humanity. This position seems to make the incarnation a farce – a foregone conclusion. It implies Jesus never felt the true force of the temptations. This position is known as impeccability.
2. but, to suggest Jesus could sin seems to denigrate His deity. This position is known as peccability.

So, what to do? The solution seems to be a qualified form of peccability, as follows:¹²

1. Jesus was genuinely tempted to sin,
2. not like us, but like the original Adam and Eve (morally neutral),
3. so, it was theoretically possible for Him to sin,
4. but He chose not to sin

[Gustave]

But God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) said unequivocally that Christ wouldn't sin. Why, because God CAN'T sin or God wouldn't be God. 

[hobie]

8 hours ago, Gustave said:

But God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) said unequivocally that Christ wouldn't sin. Why, because God CAN'T sin or God wouldn't be God. 

So then you face the dilemma of if Christ became fully man or not when it comes to fully man and fully God,...

[Gustave]

13 hours ago, hobie said:

So then you face the dilemma of if Christ became fully man or not when it comes to fully man and fully God,...

There is no dilemma here because Christ was fully God and fully man, this is the mystery of godliness which is Christ. This is not something alien to Protestantism, it's only offensive to Arian (Adventist) groups. Luther would have violently disagreed with you, as would Calvin and any other Reformation Christian. Only Restorationist groups would agree with you in this. 

[hobie]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

There is no dilemma here because Christ was fully God and fully man, this is the mystery of godliness which is Christ. This is not something alien to Protestantism, it's only offensive to Arian (Adventist) groups. Luther would have violently disagreed with you, as would Calvin and any other Reformation Christian. Only Restorationist groups would agree with you in this. 

I think we are on solid ground, and we shall soon get all the answers..

[Gustave]

23 hours ago, hobie said:

I think we are on solid ground, and we shall soon get all the answers..

What I'm trying to show you here is that Martin Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, John Smyth categorically rejected the idea you are "on solid ground" and went so far as to define that you are not on solid ground. I understand that in order to support Ellen White as a real prophet requires that what God said was impossible had to be "possible" otherwise Ellen would be in the soup.

I'm only asking you to be honest with yourself and admit that SDA Christology is alien to Protestant Reformation Christology (which is identical to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) - SDA Christology instead aligns with "Restorationist Christology.  I'll admit it, where you claim that SDA's are on solid ground and that we (including me?) will find out soon when we (including me) will "get all the answers"? 

Martin Luther could read Greek, Latin and Hebrew - this is in stark contrast to a small group of anti-Trinitarians who couldn't identify the 1st three letters of the Greek Alphabet and taught that Father God had every member, organ and part that a perfect man has and that Christ had the possibility of sinning, loosing His salvation and eternally ceasing to exist. 

You seem to have zero problem in admitting all these things openly Hobie, and for that I have to respect you for having the courage of your convictions. I disagree with you obviously but I do respect for you for being so bluntly honest about it. Provided you don't try to pass off your Christology as any part of the Reformation there isn't much, I can say, aside from the many Scriptures I've been sharing. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, God can not sin.

[Hanseng]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Yes, God can not sin.

He cannot die,either. Jesus wasn't only God. He was God manifest in the flesh, the physical flesh of fallen humanity. Adam lost eternal life through sin. The man Jesus could have done the same. Doesn't mean that the divinity of Christ could or would have died. Had Jesus sinned, the tomb would not have been empty. The man Jesus would have been dead in there. His divinity would have  fled, leaving earth to satan. There are difficulties in Scripture. This isn't one of them.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes God can not sin.

Yes, humanity can sin.

Yes, Jesus was fully God.

Yes, Jesus was fully human.

Seventh-day Adventists have never agreed on what it meant for Jesus to be fully human.   They have always disagreed as to what it meant for Jesus to be both God and human.

.

[Gregory Matthews]

This tlhread begank anl la dlisclussion as to the aluthority of EGW.  I has gon koff in  the direction okf t he Trinity.  Tok get back to  her authority:

Yes, she had authority.  We a re  endebted to her for teh guidance that she gave thils Church (SDA) in manly ways.   She gave lmuch advlice as tko ministry and direction.  We would not be what we are today if it had not been for  her guidance.

*  She is not and was never intended to be the ullltimate, absolule authority as to doctrine and belief.

* Thea Bible, under the gulidance of the HOly Spirit is the ultimate,l absolute authority as to doctrine, not EGW.

*  In additionl,it can not be said that every word she wrote waws given to her by God.  Her writings clearly show lthat she was often endebted to the writings of other authors of her day.

 

 

   

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, Hanseng said:

He cannot die,either. Jesus wasn't only God. He was God manifest in the flesh, the physical flesh of fallen humanity. Adam lost eternal life through sin. The man Jesus could have done the same. Doesn't mean that the divinity of Christ could or would have died. Had Jesus sinned, the tomb would not have been empty. The man Jesus would have been dead in there. His divinity would have  fled, leaving earth to satan. There are difficulties in Scripture. This isn't one of them.

This isn't what Ellen White taught. Ellen taught that the Divine and human natures were "blended" (AKA mixed) and that Michael the archangel risked his future (and continued) existence on the outcome of the "conflict" subsequent to incarnating on the planet's surface.