Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    Putting Prophetess of Health in Perspective

    The presuppositions and methodology used in writing Prophetess of Health deserve careful attention. The author has declared: “I have tried to be as objective as possible. Thus I have refrained from using divine inspiration as a historical explanation.”CBPH 10.1

    Yet Ellen White claimed divine inspiration. She declared that her work and writings were impelled and inspired by divine agency. How then can it be objective to rule out the possibility of divine inspiration from the very outset? Does not such an approach mean that from the very start Ellen White’s claims are presumed to be false?CBPH 10.2

    The author has, subsequent to writing the book, been quoted as saying: “Certainly, there is no reason to invoke a supernatural explanation when a natural explanation will suffice.... If Ellen White was inspired, she didn’t need to be inspired.”—Wisconsin State Journal, July 31, 1976.CBPH 10.3

    In his book the author states that in refraining from the use of divine inspiration as a historical explanation he has parted company with those Adventist scholars who insist on the following presuppositions: (1) that the Holy Spirit has guided the Advent movement since the early 1840s, (2) “that Ellen Harmon White was chosen by God as his messenger and her work embodied that of a prophet,” (3) “that as a sincere, dedicated Christian and a prophet, Ellen White would not and did not falsify,” and (4) that the testimony of Mrs. White’s fellow-believers “may be accepted as true and correct to the best of the memory of the individuals who reported.” It seems to me that such statements, particularly the last two, are more properly conclusions than presuppositions.—xi. xii.CBPH 10.4

    The most generous possible interpretation of these words would understand the author merely to be saying that these four points may or may not be true, but he does not choose to use them as presuppositions, rather they should be conclusions arrived at after the examination of the evidence. Yet this interpretation seems to be in conflict with the author’s earlier declaration that he has excluded divine inspiration as a historical explanation. If divine inspiration is excluded a priori, then one is left with nothing but a secularist-historicist interpretation of Ellen White’s life and with the implicit denial of the validity or truthfulness of her claim to divine inspiration. But even if these statements are interpreted generously to mean that they refer only to presuppositions, all the evidence in the book would tend to indicate that the author would also reject them as conclusions.CBPH 10.5

    If Ellen G. White is to be on trial, it should not be in a court of opinion where secularist rules prevail. To Ellen G. White, Christ and His church are everything, and she was a vital part of that church. And the church is not in every respect subject to the canons of human secular judgment. For the church in its innermost nature is a heavenly creation. Its members are the branches and the Lord is the vine. Its citizenship is in heaven. It is a spiritual planting and is of such a nature that it must be “spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is subject to the leading of the Spirit, and operates on the basis of faith, a factor which is not capable of being expressed in a secular formula.CBPH 10.6

    The secular mind is not in accord with many of the supernatural aspects of biblical faith, such as creation by the word of God, miracles, prophecy, the virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection, and ascension to heaven. As Seventh-day Adventists we accept the whole Bible as inspired and authoritative. This revelation, together with our faith and our experience with God gives us a type of confirmation and evidence which the secular historian—as a historian—is bound by the methods of his craft to reject. This we cannot help. We merely insist that there is more to life, more to truth, more to history than can be explained for in a secular, mechanistic, framework.CBPH 10.7

    White Estate StaffCBPH 10.8

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents