"Both
in the [Battle Creek] Tabernacle and in the college the subject of
inspiration has been taught, and finite men have taken it upon
themselves to say that some things in the Scriptures were inspired
and some were not. I was shown that the Lord did not inspire the
articles on inspiration published in the Review, neither
did He approve their endorsement before our youth in the college.
When men venture to criticize the Word of God, they venture on
sacred, holy ground, and had better fear and tremble and hide
their wisdom as foolishness. God sets no man to pronounce judgment
on His Word, selecting some things as inspired and discrediting
others as uninspired. The testimonies have been treated in the
same way; but God is not in this." —Letter 22, 1889 (1 Selected Messages, 23)
"Sister White is not the originator of
these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework
God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting
light that God has graciously given His servant to be given to the
world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of
men and women, leading them to the Saviour." —Colporteur
Evangelist, 36
"You might say that this communication was
only a letter. Yes it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of
God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In
these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am
presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to
me."—5 Testimonies, 67
"There are many who interpret that which I
write in the light of their own preconceived opinions. You know
what this means. A division in understanding, and diverse
opinions, is the sure result. How to write in a way to be
understood by those to whom I address important matters, is a
problem I cannot solve . .
"Owing to the influence of mind upon mind,
those who misunderstand can lead others to misunderstand, by the
interpretation they place upon the subjects from my pen. One
understands them as he thinks they should be, in accordance with
his ideas. Another puts his construction upon the written matter,
and confusion is the sure result." —Letter 96, 1899
"There are many who interpret that which I
write in the light of their own preconceived opinions. You know
what this means. A division in understanding, and diverse
opinions, is the sure result. How to write in a way to be
understood by those to whom I address important matters, is a
problem I cannot solve . .
"Owing to the influence of mind upon mind,
those who misunderstand can lead others to misunderstand, by the
interpretation they place upon the subjects from my pen. One
understands them as he thinks they should be, in accordance with
his ideas. Another puts his construction upon the written matter,
and confusion is the sure result." —Letter 96, 1899
"The testimonies themselves will be the key that will
explain the messages given, as Scripture is explained by
Scripture." —1 Selected Messages, 42
Contents
Section One
Underlying Principles
The secret writers theory is fictitious, impossible, and a vicious
attack on Ellen White and God
Section Two
How the Writings Were Prepared
What actually occurred during the writing of the Spirit of Prophecy
books
Section Three
Further Information
Additional background on a theory intended to destroy confidence in
the Spirit of Prophecy
Section Four
Dates of Publication
When the Spirit of Prophecy books were first published
Underlying Principles
What is the charge? It is this:
"Other people changed some words in Ellen
White’s writings, wrote portions of her books, and even wrote entire
books and signed her name to them."
The ironic truth.
The theory begins with the
assumption that someone else changed the Spirit of Prophecy writings to
suit themselves. Those who accept this devastating error—then begin
trying to do it themselves! Fallible men and women are changing the
Spirit of Prophecy writings to suit their own opinions of what should be
written there. Words, sentences, and even whole chapters and books are
being discarded.
Evolutionists know wherein lies the strength of their
theory.
Evolutionists claim to know what happened long ago. It is
difficult to answer this challenge, since none of us were alive back
then.
The strength of the secret writers charge is the
same: It claims to know events which occurred in the past, when none of
us were alive.
Yet there are underlying principles involved in the
claims which, when considered, reveal their fallacy.
Basic premises.
Several of the following basic
premises must be accepted, in order to accept this theory:
• God does not care about His Inspired Writings and
has not protected them.
• Ellen White did not know her writings were being
changed, and God—who was always otherwise careful to instruct her what
to write—did not bother to tell her they were being changed by other
people.
• Ellen White did know the changes were being made,
but was too meek and yielding to put a stop to it. She had a personality
made of putty.
• Ellen White knew that changes were being made,
but did not consider it important enough to stop the ongoing corruption
of her writings.
• Ellen White just did not care what happened to
them.
• God permitted it to happen. He well-knew that if
it occurred, it would produce a terrible loss of confidence in her
writings; but He did not care.
• God was not wise or powerful enough to stop it
from happening.
• God does not really care about His Word.
There are several other premises which must also be
accepted, if we are to accept the secret writers charge:
• When we read a passage in God’s Word, anything
we disagree with must be wrong.
• We are well able to improve on everything we read
in the Spirit of Prophecy.
• We have the ability to correct and change it.
• We have a right to change it, and we should
change it.
• We help others when we change those writings, and
encourage others to do so too.
Obviously, only God has the authority to correct His
Word. Those of us who try to usurp that authority actually make little
popes of ourselves. It is because the pope of Rome tried to change
God’s Word, that Scripture predicted he would try to make himself God,
sitting in the temple of God (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
The anti-christ principle.
When men decide they
are capable of dissecting the Word of God, they have made themselves
into little gods. But we are basically rejecting the words of God. We
distrust God, for we distrust what He has done. The Spirit of Prophecy,
just as it reads, is not good enough for us. We demand that it be
improved upon, and we believe we are well able to do it. In attempting
this, we set ourselves above the God of heaven.
An insolence like that of the papacy.
This is
exactly what Rome did, when it decided it was not satisfied to reject
the Bible Sabbath which God had given and substitutes a different day in
its place.
The popes did not believe God did it right, when He
gave mankind the Sabbath. So they changed it. They omitted the second
commandment and changed the fourth. Those who accept the secret writers
charge actually do not believe God gave the Spirit of Prophecy right, so
they dare to omit sections and change words to read a better way.
Rome presumed to usurp the functions of God; and men
today, in trying to pick and choose and rewrite the Spirit of Prophecy,
are doing the same thing.
By accepting the secret writers charge, men decide
they can no longer rely on God or on His inspired messenger. They must
strike out on their own and work over, what they consider to be, the
scraps of inspired words before them and come up with a better volume of
Scripture.
Copy-catting Lucifer.
Lucifer in heaven did
essentially the same thing. "God did not make the law right,"
he charged. "I intend to improve on it." But God’s holy law
is part of His Word; it is an expression of what He is. In trying to
destroy confidence in and obedience to God’s law, Lucifer wanted to
make himself the object to be worshiped.
When men today accept the secret writers charge, they
either make themselves into gods or they look to another to redo
Scripture for them; and the one they look to becomes their god.
This effect is inevitable; for whenever we set
something else above God’s Word, of that we do make a god.
The garden deception.
Adam and Eve, in the
garden, had everything. But they chose to disbelieve the Word of God.
When men accept the secret writers charge, they also choose to
disbelieve the Word of God. The results are equally disastrous. Whereas
these men once had full confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy writings,
henceforth they no longer are sure what to believe. Every time they open
the books, they do so with doubt, wondering what is believable, what
must be rejected, and what was changed.
What this theory leads to.
We are told that some
changes have been made in the Spirit of Prophecy. Not knowing where they
all are, we start looking. The more we search, the more we seem to find
them. Everything becomes suspect. If we remain in this path, we
eventually join those ahead of us who have decided that most of her
books are suspect, cannot be trusted, and should be discarded.
When the initial excitement wears off, it becomes
tiring to keep searching for errors. So we just close the books
entirely.
This is higher criticism.
The secret writers
charge is based on the very same logic and approach as is used by deadly
higher criticism, which began in Germany a century ago. More on this
later.
Fundamental ways to deal with these charges.
1 - Be loyal to the one who has been so good to you.
Lucifer in heaven impeached God’s wisdom, motives, goodness,
character, and law. It was his word against God’s; which was right?
The solution was simple enough. The word of which one
had always brought them cheer and happiness, and provided for every
need? —It was God’s Word, not Lucifer’s.
These men who come to you, telling you to discard
whole Spirit of Prophecy books,—yet what did they ever do to help you as
those books have, over the years, which they now tell you to throw
away?
The same principle would have guided Adam and Eve to
a correct decision.
2 - Trust God and His Word.
Here was Lucifer and
here was God. The charges Lucifer raised were new and, frankly, somewhat
confusing. What should the angels do? Once again, the answer was simple
enough: Trust God and His Word! God and His Word are their own evidence,
their own raison d’etre (their own reason for existence; pardon
me for using a French phrase, but no English one says it quite as well).
What should Adam and Eve have done in the Garden?
Trust God and His Word, even if it appeared they were doubting their own
senses or reasoning powers to do so.
Trust God and His Word, even when we are not sure
about the darkness and puzzlement about us. Trust God and His Word!
3 - Not only believe, but obey God’s Word.
Take
it as it reads and obey it. Trust your life to the One who died to save
you. Do not be false-hearted. Be a humble disciple, not a doubting
rebel.
When Eve accepted the suggestion of the snake, she
imagined herself lifted into a new, higher realm of experience. The
serpent promised her better, more exalted knowledge. Accepting the lie,
she did receive a new experience, but it was neither exalted nor
pleasant.
Heretofore, she had peace of heart with the Word of
God. But henceforth she was to be plagued with doubts, fears, and
worries. Is that the kind of life you want? Depart from these Spirit of
Prophecy critics, and take your loved ones with you.
Those men who love to attack the Spirit of Prophecy
destroy souls. Before their arrival, a believer would come to the Spirit
of Prophecy writings as a child to its darling mother. But henceforth,
he is racked with worries each time he opens the books. He is soon
reading less in them. Gradually, at the suggestion of the critics, more
and more Spirit of Prophecy books are eliminated from his library.
When we choose to trust God and His Word, we have
peace of heart. When we choose the secret writers charge, all we get is
a temporary excitement as Satan places the chains of control on our
minds. He laughs, for he has won another victim.
It is with difficulty that you can pull someone away
from this delusion.
When a person is willing to give a higher
allegiance to a man than to the Spirit of Prophecy books, a terrific
deceptive power follows.
Example:
Go to someone who has accepted the
secret writers charge, and try to show him a passage in the Spirit of
Prophecy which disproves that error. He will reply, "Well, she
didn’t write that! That is one of those things someone else
wrote!"
What a misery! That poor soul has arrived at the
point where he will reject that which alone can free him from Satan’s
snare. What he is doing is rejecting God’s appointed agency for his
salvation. That is a dangerous thing to do!
The sin against the Holy Spirit.
Are we here
discussing a variant of the sin against the Holy Spirit? Recall that
which doomed King Saul. He arrived at a point in his life when he was
careful to avoid God’s prophet, Samuel. But that rejection led him to
a willingness to consult with demons in order to relieve his mind.
Saul’s rejection of God’s Inspired messages led to his destruction.
A key word here is "absolute."
God is
absolutely true, absolutely trustworthy,—and so is His Word.
But we live in a world today that is nihilistic.
People today are antagonistic to truth; and, under the banner of
"relative truth," they oppose the truth of God.
Everything is said to be relative; nothing
absolute—no standards, no solid truth, no trustworthy authority, and
no God. Your opinion is the authority, the standard in everything. This
spirit is in the very air we breathe today. This is the spirit found in
the secret writers charge.
The humble child of God accepts the Spirit of
Prophecy just as it reads. He accepts it as absolute truth.
Yet the one caught up in the secret writers charge
views the Spirit of Prophecy as only containing partial truths,—which
do not become absolute until he, the reader, in his great wisdom changes
portions and discards others.
When you, reader, do this,—you have made yourself
into a rebel like Lucifer who kept doubting God’s Word until he
arrived at the point where there was no one in heaven he could trust. He
only had himself to rely on. But, in his estimation, that was all right
because he considered himself very capable. He had become his own god.
You too can become a little god. It is not really
difficult to do. Just believe the words of the "serpents" who
tell you to distrust God and His Word.
How to know when you are headed for trouble.
How
can you tell when you are beginning to accept a false theory someone has
suggested? One test is this: When you can no longer accept the
entire Spirit of Prophecy writings, your new theory is wrong. When
you have to reject or change Spirit of Prophecy statements, in order to
support your theory,—you are deceiving yourself and your final end
will be a terrible one if you do not immediately acknowledge your
error and abandon it.
Once you accept the secret writers charge, you have
started on the downward path.
Your faith and trust in God’s Word
alone is at an end. You can no longer approach God directly through His
Word. Henceforth, you need someone to interpret the Spirit of Prophecy
for you,—or you have to muddle along and try to do it yourself. You
continually wonder which pages are safe to read.
Those who accept this error tend to dry up like a
prune.
Those who adhere to the secret writers charge tend to drop
out of active Spirit of Prophecy study and publication. There are a few
exceptions to this, but not many.
Indeed, even those secret writers’ advocates which
do publish, primarily focus on attacks against the books.
It is dangerous to reject the Spirit of Prophecy,
when once you have trusted it.
It is one thing to only know about
the Bible, but it is quite another to have known the wonderful writings
of the Spirit of Prophecy and then turn against most of them. Those who
do this place themselves on dangerous ground; and angels cannot guard
skeptics as they can God’s faithful, believing ones.
Having already set aside most of the Spirit of
Prophecy books, many eventually just give up everything and go on out
into the world. By rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, they have severed
their strong connection with God.
Which Spirit of Prophecy books are rejected?
Some
reject everything written after 1884 (over 90% of the Spirit of Prophecy
books were written after that time). Others reject everything written
after 1858. Still others accept only the tract, "Word to the
Little Flock."
It is said that changes were made in the Spirit of
Prophecy books. Who is said to have made those changes?
Here are
some of the varied and discordant charges: Some think that her son,
William C. White, changed and rewrote entire books. Others claim that
Uriah Smith changed and rewrote entire books. Still others think that
perhaps her helpers changed and rewrote entire books.
Those are the charges.
The charges claim that a lot of changing, rewriting,
and new writing was done, without the notice of God or Ellen White.
Quite obviously, in order for that to happen, both Ellen White and God
had to be quite negligent of what was taking place. For example, Volumes
7, 8, and 9 of the Testimonies were published in 1902, 1904, and
1909. Yet the critics charge that W. C. White or Uriah Smith wrote those
books and published them.
Can anyone really believe that those books were
written, printed, and widely sold—without the knowledge of Ellen White
and God? Can anyone believe that those busy men had time to write entire
books, do it totally secretly, and then publish them secretly, without
the books ever coming to the attention of God or Ellen White?
Is not such thinking a little foolish? The secret
writers charge is wholly imaginary and without ground to stand on.
It is also charged that the greater portion of the
Spirit of Prophecy books, published after 1884, were heavily rewritten
or changed before publication. Do you really think God would have
permitted this to occur? Do you really think that the angel would not
have told Ellen White to put a stop to it before it could get started?
Did the Lord protect the Bible for 2,000 years and
more, and not the Spirit of Prophecy for 150 years?
These charges are both baseless and senseless.
In order for others to add to or change those
writings, several of the following criteria would have to be true.
Let
us review them again:
• Ellen White did not know her writings were being
changed, and God—who was careful to tell her what to write—did not
tell her they were being changed.
• Ellen White did know the changes were being made,
but was too meek and yielding to put a stop to it.
• Ellen White knew that changes were being made,
but did not consider it important enough to stop it from continuing.
• Ellen White approved of others changing her
writings.
• Ellen White just did not care what happened to
them.
• God permitted it to happen. He well-knew that if
it occurred, it would produce a terrible loss of confidence in her
writings, but He did not care.
• God was not wise or powerful enough to stop it
from happening.
• God does not really care about His Word. He does
not care about His Inspired Writings and has never protected them.
How can we have certainty that we have the true,
correct Spirit of Prophecy writings?
Read again the above list. The charges require
that either Ellen White or God did not care about God’s Word, was
unable to protect it, or did not care to protect it.
Candidly ask yourself: Would God have allowed men to
change those books? Would Ellen White have allowed it?
First, would God have known if it were to happen?
Of course He would. He has all knowledge.
Second, would God have wanted to prevent the
corruption of Scripture to occur?
He very definitely would. The Lord
would know that, if He permitted Scripture to be ruined, mankind would
have no way to know His will or the pathway to heaven.
Third, would God have prevented Scripture to be
ruined?
Yes, He would. We have evidence from the history of the
transmission of the Bible down through the centuries that, although a
few copyist mistakes occurred from time to time (Ellen White says that
happened), none of them affected any crucial teaching in the plan of
salvation.
So, in answer to the question, "Would God have
allowed men to change the Spirit of Prophecy writings so we could no
longer trust them?" We can say this: If He would have permitted
that to happen, we could not trust the Bible either.
Fourth, would Ellen White have allowed men to change
her writings, if she knew about it?
Of course, she would not have permitted this to
happen.
But that leads us to several questions:
(1) Would Ellen White have known when such tampering
was occurring?
There are indications in her writings that, when
attempts were made to do so, she immediately took action to stop it.
(More on this later in this book.)
(2) Would Ellen White have been able to put a stop to
such tampering?
From comments she made, we know that when such
attempts were close to occurring, she immediately took action to stop
it. In each case, this was done.
(3) What if her efforts to stop tampering had been of
no avail?
She would then have taken the next step: She would have
gone public and told Advent believers everywhere what was being
attempted.
You will recall that, following the 1888 Minneapolis
meeting, a large number of leading brethren were lined up against her.
That did not daunt her in the least. Ellen White was no timid rubber
stamp. She took her case publicly to the people, holding meetings in
various places, informing them of the problem, and winning them to her
side. Whether or not they wanted to, within two years church leaders
capitulated.
If she did that about the message of righteousness by
faith, then how much more certainly she would have done it if the
leaders had decided to start changing her writings or writing new books
under her name.
(4) But what if Ellen White did not know that others
were changing her writings or writing entire books (as is now being
charged!) without her knowledge?
First, of course she would have known this,—for she
had many contacts and faithful friends.
Located in all our
institutions, publishing houses, and churches, they would have told her.
Second, even if no man told her about what was done
secretly in the darkest corner of night,—the God of heaven would have
told her!
If you do not believe that, then you do not believe in
the inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy. We have abundant evidence
that God instructed her about everything she needed to know,—even when
the brethren gave her erroneous reports.
Can the types of charges, which are leveled against
the Spirit of Prophecy, also be directed at the Bible and its writers?
Yes, every single false charge which men have
brought against the Spirit of Prophecy and Ellen White can be brought
against the Bible and its writers.
When Walter Rea spoke to a large audience of
Adventists in an auditorium near Walla Walla College, after completing
his talk he was about to sit down. But then he was impressed to walk
back to the microphone and say this, "Now don’t you do to the
Bible what I have just done to Ellen White’s writings."
Walter Rea knew that the same charges of plagiarism
(which we have solidly proven to be false; see our book Ellen White
Did Not Plagiarize, 84 pp., $8.00 + $1.50 p&h), which he leveled
against the Spirit of Prophecy, could be leveled (just as falsely)
against the Bible.
God lets the critics accuse all they want. It reveals
what they are like, and they will answer for it in the judgment. But He
carefully protects His Word.
What would be the effect if such changes actually did
occur?
Later in this book, we will quote Ellen White’s statement
that the effect would be disastrous and all confidence in the Spirit of
Prophecy writings would be lost. —Yet men today dare to stand up and
try to destroy the confidence of Advent believers in those hallowed
writings!
Men, women, young people, and children listen
attentively in the audience,—and leave with their faith in God’s
Word partially or fully shattered. I surely would not want to be in the
shoes of such critics in the great day of God’s judgment when He
punishes those who have tried to slay the bodies, or destroy the faith,
of His followers.
Why are some people inclined to accept the secret
writers charge?
This attack by Satan is aimed directly at
historic Adventists who deeply love the Spirit of Prophecy. Over the
years, these folk have lamented the changes introduced into our
denomination which are eroding confidence in our historic beliefs and
standards. So, when charges are made that leaders, a century earlier,
unscrupulously changed the Spirit of Prophecy writings, some consider it
a plausible possibility. Yet, as we have observed, upon careful
consideration, it is neither plausible nor possible. Neither God nor
Ellen White would have let it happen. It did not happen.
Is there another reason why some would accept such a
charge?
Unfortunately, there are also folk looking for an excuse not
to believe the Spirit of Prophecy. Frankly, those writings powerfully
reprove sin, and do so in detail. Some consider very helpful any excuse
for setting those books aside.
Is there another way we can be certain that such
changes were not made?
Yes, a powerful one. We can know it did not
happen because we have the Spirit of Prophecy books. Opening those
books, we do not find evidence of such change.
Men can claim that terrible errors have been inserted
into those precious writings; but, upon examination, we do not find the
terrible errors! Anywhere.
"But these men claim that the Spirit of Prophecy
books are full of terrible errors!
They say they have researched
hundreds of them." Those men are not telling you the truth. Upon
examination, you will find that the so-called "errors" which
they presume to have found—are not errors at all. They are generally
either variations in wording from other passages, or said to be errors
when they are not.
"What is one of the strongest evidences, given
by the critics, that her writings were changed?"
Ellen
White’s use of the word, "sacrament." The critics charge
that this was a word which could not have been in the original, since it
means something which is doctrinally wrong.
Because this is one of the very, very few examples of
possible inserted errors in the Spirit of Prophecy, let us examine it:
First, here are passages in which the word is used:
"Judas the betrayer was present at the
sacramental service. He received from Jesus the emblems of His broken
body and His spilled blood."—Desire of Ages, 653:4.
"From the sacramental supper he [Judas] went out
to complete the work of betrayal."—Desire of Ages, 655:1.
"The administration of the Sacrament was to keep
before the disciples the infinite sacrifice made for each of them
individually as a part of the great whole of fallen humanity."—Desire
of Ages, 659:0.
"All this Christ has taught in appointing the
emblems of His great sacrifice. The light shining from that Communion
service in the upper chamber makes sacred the provisions for our daily
life. The family board becomes as the table of the Lord, and every meal
a sacrament."—Desire of Ages, 660:3.
The word, "sacrament," is also used in
earlier Spirit of Prophecy manuscripts, one of which (2 Spiritual
Gifts, 97-98) dates back many years.
"Our first conference was at Volney in Bro.
Arnold’s barn. There were about thirty-five present, all that could be
collected in that part of the State. There were hardly two agreed. Each
was strenuous for his views, declaring that they were according to the
Bible. All were anxious for an opportunity to advance their sentiments,
or to preach to us. They were told that we had not come so great a
distance to hear them, but had come to teach them the truth. Bro. Arnold
held that the 1000 years of Rev xx[20] were in the past; and that the
144,000 were those raised at Christ’s resurrection. And as we had the
emblem of our dying Lord before us, and was about to commemorate his
sufferings, Bro. A. arose and said he had no faith in what we were about
to do; that the sacrament was a continuation of the Passover, to be
observed but once a year."—2 Spiritual Gifts, 97-98.
"The administration of the sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper is for the purpose of making a forcible illustration of
the infinite sacrifice made for a sinful world, and for us individually,
as a part of that great whole of fallen humanity, before whose eyes
Christ has evidently been set forth crucified among them."—Review,
June 28, 1898.
"This is a special service; and in its
observance there is to be a peaceful, grateful heart. Inasmuch as this
service, in the bread and wine, represents the body the Lord gave for
the sin of the world, the ministration of the sacrament is commemorative
of Christ’s humiliation, betrayal, and sufferings, as an offered
sacrifice. In symbol, Christ is set forth crucified among us. The
representative of Christ is present. No one can partake of the emblems
of the Lord’s sacrifice in behalf of the world, with his spiritual
sensibilities in full and free exercise, without recalling the whole
painful history connected with the scene of Christ’s communion with
His disciples. Before the mind passes the whole scene of His great agony
in the garden of Gethsemane. All the abuse and suffering that man could
heap upon his fellow man were endured by our Lord and Master."—Review,
June 28, 1898.
"But though Jesus knew Judas from the beginning,
He washed his feet. He who was to betray his Lord was privileged to
unite with Him in partaking of the sacrament. And today none who claim
to be Christians should be excluded from this service, for who can read
hearts? Who can distinguish the tares from the wheat?"—20
Manuscript Release, 149.
The charge is that "sacrament" could not
have been in the original manuscript, because the word is doctrinal and
means: (1) transubstantiation (the changing of the elements into the
actual body and blood of Christ), and/or (2) the Lord’s Supper is one
of a specified number of required "sacraments" which you must
receive from the priest for salvation.
We agree that, in certain denominations, these are
two of the meanings of the word, sacrament. But, the critics do not
realize (or do not want to admit) that "sacrament" has
another, broader meaning which is both very ancient and has been used by
many churches. It is this: The word, "sacrament," means an
actual object or action which symbolizes a deeply spiritual concept. If
you will carefully read the above quotations and all of Desire of
Ages, 659-660, you will see that Ellen White carefully adheres to
that definition of the word. An "emblem" is an object which
symbolizes something else.
Notice in Desire of Ages 660, quoted above,
that this definition causes even our daily meals to become sacraments!
Even the food we eat symbolizes Christ’s sacrifice for us! No priests
are around when we do that and, of course, no transubstantiation.
Of the original 16th century Reformers, only Ulric
Zwingli taught the correct view on the Lord’s Supper. He taught
exactly what Ellen White teaches in Desire of Ages, 659-660. Yet
Zwingli also spoke of it as a sacrament.
He was doing this in the
same sense that Ellen White did: as an object or action which symbolized
a spiritual truth.
"In his Exposition of the Faith, Zwingli
defines the sacraments as ‘signs and symbols of holy things, but not .
. the things of which they are the signs’ (p. 247) . . By the bread
and wine ‘Christ is Himself as it were set before our eyes, so that
not merely with the ear, but with eye and palate we see and taste that
Christ whom the soul bears within itself and in whom it rejoices’ (p.
248)."—Ulric Zwingli, quoted in Geoffrey W. Bromiley,
Historical Theology: An Introduction, 288.
"Since the human nature has ascended, Christ’s
body is not eaten naturally and literally [transubstantiation], much
less quantitatively. It is eaten sacramentally [symbolically] and
spiritually (p. 257)."—Ibid.
"The sacrament as a pledge binds us together as
‘one body by the sacramental partaking of His body, for we are one
body with Him.’ The saying, ‘This is My body’ must be taken as a
metonymy [the use of a word to represent or symbolize something else],
meaning ‘This is the sacrament of My body,’ or ‘This is My
sacramental or mystical body—the sacramental and representative symbol
of the body which I really assumed and yielded over to death’ (p.
265)."—Op. cit., 289.
The above passages clearly show that Zwingli used the
word, "sacrament," for the Lord’s Supper; and, by it, he
meant the ancient meaning of the word. For more evidence of this, see Bengt
Hagglund, History of Theology, 257:0-1.
The ancient meaning of "sacrament" has
nothing to do with the error (devised by certain theologians in later
centuries) of (1) transubstantiation or (2) the Lord’s Supper from a
priest as a requirement for salvation. Here is the ancient meaning of
the word, "sacrament," which was carried down through the
centuries and used by Zwingli and Ellen White:
"Originally Latin sacramentum meant a
soldier’s oath of allegiance, but in Christian usage it became the
equivalent of the Greek musterion, a mystery . . Sacraments
involve or imply a promise or a commitment, and they are mysteries in
the sense that they do not disclose their meaning to unbelieving
eyes."—Alan Richardson, Dictionary of Christian Theology, 300
(cf. pp. 116-120).
Quoted below are the four definitions of
"sacrament":
"Sacrament 1. A Christian rite considered
to be outward visible signs of inner spiritual grace. 2.
Consecrated bread and wine. 3. Something considered to have a
sacred character or significance. 4. One or more of seven
sacraments recognized by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and some Anglican
churches as having special doctrinal significance."—Macmillan
Dictionary.
We would agree with the first definition (it is a
visible sign of an inner experience with Christ), the second (the bread
and wine are prayed over for the occasion), and the third (it has a
sacred significance). But we would not agree with the fourth definition
which has its origins in a papal error.
What then is the problem with Ellen White’s use of
the word? Nothing at all. The problem is the critics’ misconception,
that "sacrament" could only mean the fourth definition;
whereas Ellen White correctly understood it the way primitive (pure)
Christians did.
Warning: Those who accept the secret writers charge
about the Spirit of Prophecy have no reason to believe that the Bible is
any less corrupt.
If God cannot protect the Spirit of Prophecy
books, He did not protect the Bible either.
Souls are going to be lost because they have accepted
and taught this fatal error, that the Spirit of Prophecy books are not
to be implicitly trusted and obeyed.
Yet they will be lost by their
own choice; remember that. No one forced them to bow down to this error.
By their own free will, they chose to do so. In the final Judgment, when
they must answer for their own soul and other souls they have ruined,
they will acknowledge this.
Fortunately, there is still time to repent and return
to the Lord.
It is a humiliating thing to bow in submission to God
and His Word, but there is no other avenue by which we may be saved.
Unless you and I, who know about the Spirit of
Prophecy books, implicitly trust and obey the Bible and Spirit of
Prophecy, we will be lost.
If I can bow down and, by the enabling grace of
Christ, obey the Word of God, then you can also. You are neither
stronger nor weaker than I am. Obedience is by grace; but the obedience
must be there, or the grace is useless.
No one will be saved who knowingly rejects the Spirit
of Prophecy and teaches others to do the same.
What is in Volumes 7, 8, and 9 of Testimonies that is
wrong?
One of the many charges is that someone else wrote those
books. We ought to be able to find erroneous teachings there, but we do
not find them.
What about Great Controversy?
That book is
attacked by the critics more than any other. Of course, this is to be
expected, since it unveils the devices of Satan more clearly than any
other book ever written! Read again chapter 37 (The Scriptures, a
Safeguard). If others had worked over that book, as the critics
charge, chapter 37 would have been omitted.
If changes were made in the Spirit of Prophecy, we
should be able to predict what they would be.
If you were a church
leader and wanted to change the Spirit of Prophecy, what changes would
you make?
I will tell you one type of change that definitely
would be made. And it would be inserted in many different places in all
of the "changed books."
Statements like this would be inserted:
"You need to appreciate church leaders more, and
submit to their decisions. They are wiser than you are.
"The Bible is a good book, yet it needs
interpretation. Only the leaders of the church are able to provide the
people of God with the correct interpretation.
"It is more than merely ‘brethren of
experience’ that we need to counsel with; we will find that the higher
the position held by a church leader, the wiser and more trustworthy he
has become. We can go to him in full assurance that his counsel will be
wise. He will not fail you in your hour of need.
"Trust church leaders. They can give you help
beyond that which you could ever find in Scripture.
"Never begin or engage in missionary work of any
type without first consulting with the appropriate church leaders. If
they tell you to abandon the project, you should immediately do so. The
saving of souls is of far less consequence than obeying
leadership."
Search as you might, you will never find such
concepts in either the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy.
The absence
of such popery-type remarks provides eloquent proof that all the
Inspired Writings were never changed
—Yet the secret writers charge is itself
papal in its intent! The charge by fallible humans, based on ridiculous
premises that Scripture is not trustworthy, requires that we place the
opinions ("traditions," if you will) of men above it. We must
look to men for guidance instead of to God’s Word. That is papal.
The heart of the secret writers charge is doubt of
God’s Word and distrust of His care for that Word.
Those who want
to live with their doubts will die with their doubts. And they will have
only themselves to blame for the harvest of lost souls who have followed
their example.
The secret writers charge is actually higher
criticism.
Here, briefly, is the story behind that devastating
attack on God’s holy Word:
Although this 19th-century German attack was directed
toward the Bible, yet the method of attack is essentially the same as
that used by the current secret writers charge against the Spirit of
Prophecy.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831) carried liberal thought into
a new direction. He introduced the concept of evolution into history and
religion. His idea of two opposing forces (the thesis and antithesis),
producing a final blend (synthesis), got other minds thinking
that each portion of the Bible was not merely written once,—but
written by some, then changed by others; and the synthesis is our
tattered Bible today.
Hegelian philosophy strongly influenced Ferdinand C.
Baur (1792-1860) and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) in their critical
studies of the Bible. Higher criticism was thus born, in which
previously accepted views of Bible authorship were questioned. The
impact of the Wellhausen school was devastating to modern Christianity,
just as the effect of Herman Hoehn’s strange theory, now called the
secret writers charge, is destroying many Adventist believers today.
Baur, at the University of Tubingen, developed a
historical-critical method (which he called a "tendency
theory") for New Testament study, based on Hegelian principles. He
looked for contradictory elements (words and phrases) to support his
theory, which was this: Some people wrote part of each section, to which
others, who did not agree with his views, would then add or change them
(sound familiar?). The result was a book written, in conflict, by
overlapping writers and redactors who disagreed with one another. His
theory led Baur to conclude the New Testament was not divinely inspired
after all; so he and his followers in Europe and America rejected
historic New Testament doctrines.
Whereas Baur focused on Paul and Peter’s writings,
David Strauss (1808-1974), a student of Baur, worked on the Gospels, and
decided various men wrote, rewrote, changed, and modified them.
Strauss’ multiple writers attack led him to declare that the Bible was
filled with "myths." He said that, since one man wrote a
portion, and then another came along and changed and added some more,
there probably never lived a real person called "Jesus."
Harnack and Kaftan at the School of Ritschl amplified and spread
Baur’s theories more widely.
Adolph Von Harnack (1851-1930) decided that Greek
thinking had been interwoven into the Gospels. Can you see how similar
that is to Herman Hoehn and Vern Bate’s theory, that W. C. White and
other church leaders interwove their ideas into Ellen White’s books?
Jean Astruc (1684-1766) had earlier developed
theories which became the basis for documentary hypothesis in the Old
Testament. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) took this further, and gained
dubious fame by becoming the leading attacker of the Old Testament.
Various secret writers were assigned to different parts of the Mosaic
books; and, just as was being done to the New Testament by other
critics, many of the books were said to have been written by men other
than the traditional ones. For example, Daniel was said to have been
written centuries later, and "Daniel" himself was just a
fictional character.
This higher critical approach did much to destroy the
historically held views concerning the authorship of the Biblical books.
The secret writer theorists among us declare that we
must throw out the paragraphs and books which were written by others, in
order to find the original Ellen White.
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) used this same method on
the Bible. Bultmann developed a radical criticism of the text, and
called it "form criticism." He said that we must try to figure
out the words and paragraphs which were not in the original (sound
familiar?), so we could find the remnants of the original New Testament.
Bultmann called this "demythologizing" them; that is,
strip them of the myth with which the early church had cloaked the
gospel writings. Bultmann said the problem was that other men had
"embellished" (changed and added to) the original records. So,
in his human wisdom, he searched for the additions of the so-called
"redactors" and tossed them out.
It was from such men that modern preachers got the
idea of telling their congregations to cut out the pages of the Bible.
Irresponsible men among us are telling us that we, today, must cut out
the pages of the Spirit of Prophecy. I do not intend to do it. What are
you going to do?
The secret writers theory of Baur, Strauss, and
Wellhausen did to the Bible what Herman Hoehn and Vern Bates’ secret
writers theory is doing to the Spirit of Prophecy today. German higher
criticism became the basic study in every liberal theological seminary
in Europe and America. If you go to one of them today, that is what you
will be taught.
This evening for personal worship, I read once again a beautiful
passage in the Spirit of Prophecy. They are all so wonderful. Yet,
tonight as I read, I found myself near tears. I thought of all the fine
Advent believers who no longer will read such words. Thieves have come
and stolen the precious writings away from them.
CONTINUE
- Part 2