Extra-biblical Prophecy and Sola Scriptura

On the Adventist.org website the 28 fundamental beliefs are introduced as follows: “Upholding the Protestant conviction of Sola Scriptura (“Bible only”), these 28 Fundamental Beliefs describe how Seventh-day Adventists interpret Scripture for daily application.”[1]

Adventist theologians emphasize sola scriptura (the Scriptures alone) through all their theological work. Yet Christians from other denominations—and admittedly some within our own—express a certain uneasiness regarding our acceptance of the presence and authority of an extra-biblical prophet, as well as her messages to humanity and to the Adventist Church in particular. How can we profess to be obliged to the Protestant Reformers’ sola scriptura and yet at the same time accept still another source of divine messages that is—technically speaking—extra-biblical? By this, of course, we refer to Ellen G. White and her writings.[2]

For 70 years Ellen G. White played a significant role within the Adventist Church, of which she was a founding member. By fellow Adventists she was accepted as a prophet. Much of what she wrote resulted from visions, audible messages, and dreams. Her role as a special messenger of the Lord was a stumbling block for many Protestant fundamentalists, who otherwise would have agreed with many Adventist principles and convictions.[3]

A Misunderstanding

But is it truly justified to view her ministry as a hindrance for Protestant fundamentalists, or are we confronted with a simple misunderstanding? Have Seventh-day Adventists left the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation and replaced it with an end-time prophet?[4] If Ellen White is really a messenger chosen by the Lord, did God break the sola scriptura principle Himself?

A contradiction between the existence and message of writings inspired by the Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible, which was inspired by the same Spirit, cannot logically be established. Neither in theological theory nor in exegetical practice. The testimony of Jesus cannot be placed above, beside, or below Scripture, but it is beyond any doubt rooted in Scripture itself.[5] Those who truly want to take a stand in favor of sola scripturahave therefore no choice: they must accept the testimony of Jesus.[6] It is because of our earnest belief in the Bible that we accept the Spirit of Prophecy wherever and whenever we meet it, even at the time of the end. Those who want to separate the testimony of Jesus from Scripture violate the very principle they profess to defend. If “Scripture alone” is a valid claim, then all the biblical teachings are valid, including the teaching concerning the Spirit of Prophecy. Creating an artificial contradiction between the two leads to a paradox. This is the unanimous testimony of our pioneers:

“I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the ‘last days’; not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth. Thus God dealt with Peter when He was about to send him to preach to the Gentiles. (Acts 10.)”[7]

“The position that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of faith and duty does not shut out the gifts which God set in the church. To reject them is shutting out that part of the Bible which presents them. We say, Let us have a whole Bible, and let that, and that alone, be our rule of faith and duty. Place the gifts where they belong, and all is harmony.”[8]

“ ‘The Bible, and the Bible alone,’ ‘The Bible in its purity,’ ‘The Bible a sufficient and only reliable rule of life,’ etc., etc., is now the great cry of those who are giving vent to their opposition to the visions, and are working with their might to prejudice others against them. This course reminds us of the low tricks and maneuvers resorted to by political demagogues to gain their nefarious ends. . . . The Protestant principle, of ‘The Bible and the Bible alone,’ is of itself good and true; and we stand upon it as firmly as one can; but when reiterated in connection with outspoken denunciation of the visions, it has a specious appearance for evil. So used it contains a covert insinuation, most effectually calculated to warp the judgment of the unguarded, that to believe the visions is to leave the Bible, and to cling to the Bible, is to discard the visions. . . .

A contradiction between the existence and message of writings inspired by the Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible, inspired by the same Spirit, cannot logically be established. Neither in theological theory nor in exegetical practice.

“When we claim to stand on the Bible and the Bible alone, we bind ourselves to receive, unequivocally and fully, all that the Bible teaches. This being a self-evident proposition, we pass on to inquire what the Bible teaches concerning the outpouring of the Spirit its operations, the gift of prophecy, visions, etc.”[9]

“Now it is plain that those who reject the work of the Spirit of God under the plea that the Scriptures are sufficient do deny and reject all that part of the Bible which reveals the office and work of the Holy Spirit. . . . We therefore do not test the world in any manner by these gifts. Nor do we in our intercourse with other religious bodies who are striving to walk in the fear of God, in any way make these a test of Christian character. Upon none of these persons do we urge these manifestations of the Spirit of God, nor test them by their teaching. There is such a thing, however, as men having in the providence of God an opportunity to become acquainted with the special work of the Spirit of God, so that they shall acknowledge that their light is clear, convincing, and satisfactory. To such persons we consider the gifts of the Spirit are clearly a test. . . . In all such cases, spiritual gifts are manifestly a test that cannot be disregarded except at the peril of eternal ruin.”[10]

The Same Source

The phrase “the Bible, and the Bible alone” was never used among Adventists to create a contradiction between the Holy Scriptures and the testimony of Jesus. Both testify to one another, both lead to one another, both have the same Source, which is the Spirit of God. Correctly used, this battle cry of the Reformation has the power to discern teachings that are not in harmony with the biblical testimony. Teachings that are rooted in human tradition, and teachings held by “spiritually led” fanatics who believe that they don’t need Scripture anymore because of having received the Spirit. The Reformers used sola scriptura to wage a war against both fronts: Roman Catholic tradition, and Scriptureless spiritualism. Today sola scriptura continues to be the believer’s weapon against both ideological pitfalls.

“The Roman Church has not relinquished her claim to supremacy; and when the world and the Protestant churches accept a sabbath of her creation, while they reject the Bible Sabbath, they virtually admit his assumption. They may claim the authority of tradition and of the Fathers for the change; but on so doing they ignore the very principle which separates them from Rome—that ‘the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.’ ”[11]

“The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. Says the apostle John, ‘Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.’ 1 John 4:1. . . .

“Great reproach has been cast upon the work of the Holy Spirit by the errors of a class that, claiming its enlightenment, profess to have no further need of guidance from the Word of God. They are governed by impressions which they regard as the voice of God in the soul. But the spirit that controls them is not the Spirit of God. This following of impressions, to the neglect of the Scriptures, can lead only to confusion, to deception and ruin. It serves only to further the designs of the evil one. Since the ministry of the Holy Spirit is of vital importance to the church of Christ, it is one of the devices of Satan, through the errors of extremists and fanatics, to cast contempt upon the work of the Spirit and cause the people of God to neglect this source of strength which our Lord Himself has provided.”[12]

Ellen G. White: A Paradox?

In the writings of Ellen G. White you can find numerous more examples.[13] She uses sola scriptura in the same way as the Reformers[14]: against purely human ideas,[15] apostasy, the human religion of words, formalism,[16] tradition and “creeds” of human beings,[17] traditions of the Roman Catholic Church,[18] traditions of Protestantism,[19] a theology disobedient to God’s law,[20] the sayings and doings of humanity,[21] human wisdom (which leads to the road of perdition),[22] even against the false visions of Anna Phillips.[23] Ellen White explains that the Bible alone allows us to understand end-time events in history and politics today,[24] and that the Bible only gives us a correct understanding of eschatology.[25] She is saying this in harmony with the obvious and well-known fact that she herself wrote extensively on eschatological subjects, explaining last-day events.[26]

“The Bible contains all that is needful for the saving of the soul.”[27] And yet she expresses herself also in the following way: “Study it [the Bible] and the testimonies God has given; for they never contradict His Word.”[28] Would this be a contradiction, a paradox? By no means! “God has given”—that is primordial, both the Bible and the extra-biblical prophet come from the same Source: the Spirit of God! Sola scriptura is the principle and alarm cry against those who want to supersede and replace the Bible to make it powerless, be it through human tradition that contradicts the Bible or through delusions of the “Spirit” where the Bible would no longer be needed. These are the enemies toward which the battle cry of sola scriptura is directed, to defend and vindicate the Bible and its authority against those who try to belittle and overcome it!

It is because of our earnest belief in the Bible that we accept the Spirit of Prophecy wherever and whenever we meet it, even at the time of the end.

“One of Satan’s most effective techniques has been to discredit one truth by pretending to exalt another. Here is a classic example. Ellen White is attacked by people who claim to want to hear only the Bible, but who reject that portion of the Scriptures that foretells the gift of prophecy in the last days. . . .

“Remember, too, that the Son of God was crucified at the insistence of theologians who rejected His message with the concept of sola scriptura. They had Moses; they had no intention of listening to a Galilean carpenter. And thereby they rejected the Creator Himself.

“The expression sola scriptura arose out of the Protestant Reformation. The question then was What is the source of prime authority in matters of faith and practice? For Rome, it was the church. For Protestants, it was the Bible and the Bible alone—not the Bible and tradition. Recognizing that conflict as the origin of the expression sola scriptura, we cannot allow it to split the Bible away from its own doctrine of spiritual gifts. ‘The Bible and the Bible alone’ was never meant to pit Scripture against the gift of prophecy, for both arise from the same Holy Spirit.”[29]

Ellen White herself argued vigorously and with fervor against the enemies of sola scriptura. With the Bible raised up in her hand, she virtually judges both human tradition and “spiritual enlightenment.” There cannot be the genuine Spirit of God, through any argumentation whatsoever, where the Bible is neglected or even bypassed and contradicted. Sola scriptura maintains the Bible against all those who don’t want to follow the Bible fully.

Why, then, would sola scriptura be used against those who fight to uplift and defend the Bible? How, then, could the sola scriptura principle be used against a genuine prophet who, beyond any doubt, fights herself as a friend and follower of sola scriptura against its foes and oppressors? This is a paradox and devoid of any logic.

Do we really want to cry “the Bible and the Bible alone” against the modern prophet and thus silence God Himself, who wants to reach us in the last days through an instrument of His choice, whose message is in complete harmony with the Bible?[30]

[1] https://adventist.org/beliefs

[2] See fundamental belief #18, The Gift of Prophecy, at https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-18.

[3] U.S. Catholic, September 1965, pp. 27ff.

[4] As it is the case with Joseph Smith of the Latter-day Saints, or with Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church.

[5] Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:8, 9f.; Eph. 4:4-16; 2:20. The Bible itself is nothing else than the “testimony of Jesus,” testified to by God-fearing people through the Spirit of Prophecy (1 Peter 1:10, 11).

[6] For this reason the idea of “biblical Canon versus spirit of prophecy” is by definition nonsensical. Both come forth from the same Spirit, both came into existence in a similar way. Both are words from God.

[7] Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1882, 1945), p. 78. The binding authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, therefore, tends to increase the more we err from Bible truth.

[8] James White, in Review and Herald, Oct. 3, 1854.

[9] Uriah Smith, in Review and Herald, Jan. 13, 1863. (Emphasis added.)

[10] John N. Andrews, in Review and Herald, Feb. 15, 1870. Thus, in the early days of the Advent movement the position of the church leaders with regard to the Spirit of Prophecy and sola scriptura was very clear and to the point. Could it be that nowadays many have lost much of this clarity and discernment?

[11] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1911), p. 448.

[12] Ibid., pp. vii, viii. (Emphasis added.)

[13] Compare, for example, ibid., pp. 145-170, 335-342, 395-399.

[14] The Reformers of the sixteenth century did not invent the sola scriptura principle. It is enrooted in the Bible itself (e.g. Isa. 8:19, 20; Matt. 15:7ff.), but the Bible never applies it against true prophecy—be it biblical or extra-biblical (compare Jer. 26:16-19).

[15] Ellen G. White, Selected Messages (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1958, 1980), book 1, p. 416; in Review and Herald, Feb. 27, 1908.

[16] Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1917), pp. 623-628.

[17] Ellen G. White, in Review and Herald, Mar. 25, 1902; The Great Controversy, pp. 594ff.; Prophets and Kings, pp. 623-628.

[18] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 447ff., 594ff., 204ff.; in Review and Herald, Jan. 5, 1886.

[19] Ellen G. White, in Review and Herald, Feb. 6, 1900, and Jan. 5, 1886; The Great Controversy, pp. 447ff.

[20] Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville: Southern Pub. Assn., 1923), p. 126.

[21] Ellen G. White, Counsels on Sabbath School Work (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1938), p. 84.

[22] E. G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 200.

[23] E. G. White, Selected Messages, book 2, pp. 85-95. Sola scriptura cannot possibly be used against the visions of an authentic prophet. If that were possible, no other prophet could have been sent after Moses, nor could there have followed another composition of sacred writings after the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 4:2 could be interpreted that way—which obviously would be sheer nonsense). On the contrary, God knew from the very beginning that there would be more revelation still (Deut. 18:15; compare also Prov. 30:5, 6). God knew from the very beginning that He would send a whole chain of prophets to support His people.

[24] E. G. White, Prophets and Kings, p. 537.

[25] Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1903), pp. 179ff. In Ellen White’s own understanding, her eschatological teachings are deeply rooted in Bible eschatology (compare an interesting relationship of different biblical/extra-biblical prophets in the story of Jeremiah 26, referred to already in note 14 above).

[26] One of the most impressing examples is her book The Great Controversy.

[27] Ellen G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1913), p. 448; in Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1896.

[28] E. G. White, Selected Messages, book 3, p. 32. (Emphasis added.)

[29] Lewis R. Walton, Decision at the Jordan (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1982), pp. 39, 40.

[30] That’s what the people of Israel did in their days, thus rejecting God’s grace! “Then I raised up some of your sons to be prophets, and some of your young men to be Nazirites. Is this not so, you sons of Israel? declares the Lord. But you made the Nazirites drink wine, and you commanded the prophets, saying, ‘You hall not prophesy!’ ” (Amos 2:11, NASB). Thus the Israelites silenced God Himself. Yet “certainly the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret plan to His servants the prophets. . . . The Lord God has spoken! Who can do anything but prophesy?” (Amos 3:7, 8, NASB).