Uriah Smith’s Parable

“Do We Discard the Bible by Endorsing the Visions?” was the question posed by Uriah Smith in an editorial in an 1863 issue of the Review and Herald. He answers with a resounding “No!” and in the course of his treatment of the subject he tells an interesting parable to illustrate his position:IRWHW 83.11

“Suppose,” he proposes, “we are about to start on a voyage.” Before departure the ship’s owner gives the crew a “book of directions,” and assures them that its instructions are sufficient for the entire journey. If these instructions are heeded, the vessel will arrive safely at its destination.IRWHW 83.12

So the crew sets sail, and opens the book to learn its contents. They discover that, in general, the author has laid down basic principles to govern the conduct of the crew during the voyage, and has touched on various contingencies that might arise. However, the author points out that the latter part of the voyage may be particularly hazardous, for “the features of the coast are ever changing by reason of quicksands and tempests.” Because of this, the author has arranged for a pilot to join the crew to provide special help in guiding the ship safely into the final port.IRWHW 84.1

The author also counsels the crew to give heed to the directions and instructions of the pilot, “as the surrounding circumstances and dangers may require.”IRWHW 84.2

At the appointed time, the pilot appears, as promised. But, inexplicably, as he offers his services to the captain and crew, some of the sailors rise up in protest, claiming that the original book of directions is sufficient to see them through. “‘We stand upon that, and that alone; we want nothing of you,’” they declare.IRWHW 84.3

Smith then raises the rhetorical question, “Who now heed that original book of directions? Those who reject the pilot, or those who receive him, as that book instructs them? Judge ye.”IRWHW 84.4

Finally, anticipating the objection of some of his readers that he intended this parable to oblige the church to take Ellen White as their “pilot,” the editor attempts to forestall such complaint with this postscript:IRWHW 84.5

We say no such thing. What we do say is distinctly this: That the gifts of the Spirit are given for our pilot through these perilous times, and whenever and in whomsoever we find genuine manifestations of these, we are bound to respect them, nor can we do otherwise without in so far rejecting the Word of God, which directs us to receive them. ^{109The Review and Herald, January 13, 1863; cited in Robert W. Olson, 101 Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981), p. 40. The entire editorial appears as Appendix D in the Arthur White monograph.}

The position of General Conference President George I. Butler, in a Review and Herald article, is fairly typical of the apologetic response of early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers. To the objection that the Bible is sufficient because Paul declares that “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” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17), Butler’s rejoinder was:IRWHW 84.6

If all Scripture is profitable, we suppose those portions are which teach the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, and that tell us they will be in the church in the last days, and tell us how to distinguish between the false and genuine. These prove the visions under consideration to be of the right stamp. ^{110The Review and Herald, June 9, 1874; cited in White monograph, p. 12.}

Many who today sound the Protestant rallying call, “The Bible and the Bible Only,” seem to infer a false dichotomy, an either/or situation: If you have the Bible, you cannot have Ellen White; if you have Ellen White, you cannot have the Bible. This dichotomy is patently invalid.IRWHW 84.7

Some Seventh-day Adventists, including ministers and scholars, say, for example, “I cannot find the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment in the Bible.” These persons state, however, that they still accept the doctrine because of the legitimate hermeneutical rule that allows for a later prophet to enlarge the understanding of truth by an earlier prophet.IRWHW 84.8

What these people are really saying, in the opinion of this writer, is: “With my present theological a prioris and my present hermeneutical tools—my presuppositions and my predilections—I do not find that doctrine in Scripture.” However, other Seventh-day Adventist scholars, of equally impeccable academic pedigree, assert that they do find that doctrine in Scripture—in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, and in Jesus’ parables of the wedding garment and the net.IRWHW 84.9