Gilbert Jorgensen’s Weblog

Seventh-day Adventist apologetics is a fascinating chameleon-like field where one never quite knows what new gem of "truth" will present itself for our consideration. In an attempt to continually outdo themselves, Adventists generate more and more profound and contradictory statements, all the while attempting to make sure they don’t "shoot themselves in the foot" with Adventism’s own contradictions and checkered history.

A good friend of mine, Adventist apologist, Icyspark, in a moment of candor, shared with me the following insightful statement. "I have yet to see any criticism which, if consistently applied, cannot be shown to have a correspondingly negative impact on Bible authors." One might wonder why Adventist apologists have to hide behind pseudo-names. Perhaps it is so that they can adopt another pseudo-name if their apolgetics backfires.

As I considered the implications of Icyspark’s observation, I thought to myself, "Every so often Adventist apologists actually do deliver some profound conclusions.

Let’s try to consistently apply the following experience of Ellen White to a Bible prophet.

Icysparks asks, "Would it have a negative impact on a Bible author?" I can’t even imagine a Bible prophet experiencing the following:

It obviously comes as a shock to most Adventists to learn that Ellen White’s mental faculties were significantly impaired for some time. Here is how she describes it.

I had indulged the desire for vinegar. But I resolved with the help of God to overcome this appetite. I fought the temptation, determined not to be mastered by this habit. For weeks I was very sick; but I kept saying over and over, The Lord knows all about it. If I die, I die; but I will not yield to this desire. The struggle continued, and I was sorely afflicted for many weeks. All thought that it was impossible for me to live. You may be sure we sought the Lord very earnestly. The most fervent prayers were offered for my recovery. I continued to resist the desire for vinegar, and at last I conquered. Now I have no inclination to taste anything of the kind. This experience has been of great value to me in many ways. I obtained a complete victory." (Letter 70, 1911, reproduced in Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 485)

One can be sure that this was no ordinary vinegar like we use today.

Let’s examine how vinegar was made in the mid-1800s. Here are two recipes for homemade vinegar taken from Miss Leslie’s Directions for Cookery, published in 1851:

CIDER VINEGAR: Take six quarts of rye meal; stir and mix it well into a barrel of strong hard cider of the best kind; and then add a gallon of whiskey. Cover the cask, (leaving the bung loosely in it,) set it in the part of your yard that is most exposed to the air; and in the course of four weeks (if the weather is warm and dry) you will have good vinegar fit for use.

WHITE VINEGAR: Put into a cask a mixture composed of five gallons of water, two gallons of whiskey, and a quart of strong yeast, stirring in two pounds of powdered charcoal. Place it where it will ferment properly, leaving the bung loose till the fermentation is over.

As you can see from these recipes, vinegar in the mid-1800s was made with ingredients such as "strong hard cider" and "whiskey." In your grocery stores today the alcohol content of vinegar is much lower — around .5% alcohol, which is quite small. Can you imagine how much catsup you would have to consume to produce the effect that Ellen White’s "vinegar" produced!

One truly has to wonder if she was drunk at the time she wrote the following incoherant statement:

Human minds vary the minds of different education and thought receive different impressions of the same words and it is difficult for one mind to give to a different temperament education and habits of thought by language exactly the same idea as that which his clear and distinct in his own mind. (Manuscript 24, 1886, written in Europe in 1886)

Is this how God speaks?

Over time we will endeavor to identify the approximate time period that Ellen White was "under the influence", and which of her writings were produced during this time period. Her statement above certainly adds new meaning to the term "spirit" of prophecy. What "spirit" was she under?

We have a new site, VinegarVisions.com, which is dedicated to identifying which of Ellen White’s writings were produced while she was "under the influence" of what she preferred to called "vinegar".

Adventists are fond of finding ways to explain the inconsistencies between Ellen White’s various visions. The White Estate and other apologetic sites will attribute this to what they call "progressive truth". The thought they want to convey is that “later truth” should supersede “earlier truth”.

Some of the more creative excuses that I have heard are:

"I still do not want to judge her too harshly, though, because her understanding did grow a great deal during her lifetime."

"Maybe she was given insight to connect the evidence of Scripture."

"There is no contradiction. They are indeed talking about different things, because they aren’t talking about the same subject."

The one that unquestionably deserves first place is this gem:

"It is possible that she may have spoken something from her best judgment that was not correct. She herself gives us examples of this kind of thing–matters of judgment that God later revealed as being incorrect.

My first assumption is not that she is wrong, but that I have overlooked something myself. I don’t assume she is wrong every time I found an apparent contradiction. I have had enough evidence to see the genuineness of her relationship with Jesus and the reliability of her statements.

I think you are saying, is there a principle of interpretation that allows her to be wrong on a major doctrine but still believable. Is that correct?

If there isn’t such a principle, and I deem something she teaches unbiblical, does that not disqualify her?

Judging her as false on the basis of my own particular view of a passage or on the basis of the most negative view of her own words is not being fair to her. I must recognize the possibility that my view is lacking particulars that she was privileged to see." (SDA Pastor Kevin Morgan)

This apologetic is broad enough that it can easily include Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy and anyone else you feel inclined to include.

What ultimately matters is not how clever the SDA apologetics might be, but how God really communicates through His prophets.

A good friend of mine, former SDA Pastor Dale Ratzlaff, made the following observation:

Progressive revelation is truth being revealed in increments. However, incremental truth is not error, nor do later revelations contradict former revelations.

Progressive revelation is not a continuum from black to gray to white. Black is not white, nor is white black, even if they are linked by bands of gray. Neither is error truth, nor truth error, even if they are linked by a number of intermediate positions. Progressive truth cannot be internally inconsistent or contradictory.

Adventist "progressive revelation" is actually quite similar to the Islamic understanding.  The Christian concept of progressive revelation differs from the Islamic understanding in which successive revelations of God might annul former revelations, completely replacing them with a new truth. The Christian model within biblical theology sees the concept of progressive revelation as progressive revelation of new truth which supports, expands, and stands upon former revelations of God’s truth like brick laying. This progressive revelation ultimately climaxes in Christ, and ends with the New Testament acts of the Apostles under the direction of the Holy Spirit awaiting the Second Coming of Jesus.

I recently had an opportunity to reviewed Jud Lake’s missive titled, "Answers to Dale Ratzlaff’s Fourteen Questions". This is Jud Lake’s response to former SDA pastor Dale Ratzlaff’s "Open Letter to Jud Lake". I guess that the best way to label my reaction is to say that I was "underwhelmed".

Jud Lake has been teaching in the School of Religion at Southern Adventist University since 1997. Prior to this he served as a pastor for ten years in the Gulf States Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and two years as youth pastor/Bible teacher at Broadview Academy in the Illinois Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. As a leading Seventh-day Adventist apologist, he maintains a website at http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/ where he endeavors to provide answers to questions and concerns regarding SDA prophetess Ellen G. White.

"Answers to Dale Ratzlaff’s Fourteen Questions" leaves the reader with more questions than answers. In areas he tends to get carried away with his exaggerations. For example, his statement that Dale Ratzlaff "goes to great lengths to show the erroneous nature of Miller’s ‘15 proofs’ in light of Ellen White’s strong endorsement" is a bit of an overstatement. I have read Dale’s observations regarding each of the proofs, and I seriously doubt that the text of his observations exceeds that of the proofs themselves!

I found Dale’s observations to be enlightening, objective and accurate. Just because Jud doesn’t like the conclusions that Dale arrives at is no reason to find fault with every aspect of Dale’s research. In that regard I feel that Jud does more damage to his own case, than to Dale’s.

Suggesting that the reader refer to the (almost) impossible-to-get out-of-print book "for a helpful and objective analysis of Miller’s 15 proofs" by Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism: Millerite Hermeneutic of Time Prophecies in the Old Testament, is a clever way of putting his purported "evidence" out of the reach of most people. Actually the book, is anything but complimentary to historic Adventism and the 1844 Sanctuary Message, as a casual reading of the title will indicate. The fact that it was written by a denominational scholar hasn’t helped build support for the denomination’s 1844 interpretation either.

I should note here that I have posted all 15 Proofs in our very own DefendingTheGospel.com Library at http://defendingthegospel.com/library/.

It is also interesting to note that Jud Lake, while referring to the them as "the problematic 15 proofs", would conveniently chose to ignore the fact that proof #7 is the very one that uses Daniel 8:14 for its source. It would have put him in an awkward position indeed, to on the one hand denigrate William Miller’s 15 proofs, while at the same time mentioning that proof #7 is the Daniel 8:14 proof!

Through additional "slight-of-hand" he conveniently re-adjusts Ellen White’s focus (in her book Early Writings) from the 1843 chart and William Miller’s 15 proofs, to William Miller’s "two-year" intensive study of the Bible from 1816 to 1818. How convenient. Stating his assumptions as fact, he assures us, "In Mrs. White’s discussion of William Miller’s early experience, her focus was on his two-year intensive study of the Bible from 1816 to 1818." He further states that "A careful reading of Mrs. White’s 1858 depiction of this period in Miller’s life reveals a dependence on Miller’s personal narrative published in Bliss’s Memoirs. By the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy, Mrs. White is citing this narrative." He then proceeds to supply the reader with almost a full page of points (eg "The Bible is a revelation from God.") which no reader would disagree with, and postulates that this, not the proofs, is actually what Ellen meant by "perfect chain of truth." How convenient!

Jud Lake also notes that after 1858 Ellen White dropped the word "perfect" from her description. Yes. Given enough time, we can explain away anything. Let it never be said that Ellen White got anything wrong. Absolutely not! Denial. Denial. Denial.

He then attempts to cement this new interpretation in place with the statement, "Thus, Ellen White’s focus was on what she believed William Miller got right, not what he got wrong." I am just aghast at his free use of assumptions. Since when did Ellen make Jud Lake her personal confidant? Is he receiving visions as well? I prefer to let her speak for herself — preferably without the passage of time to fine-tune her memory.

Like so many of the other "editorial enhancements" added to her other books (Prologue to Early Writings comes to mind), everything can be solved by the introduction of time. If she didn’t have it right by 1858, that is no problem. Let’s allow her more time to correctly interpret "what the Lord showed" her. Perhaps by 1911 she will have it all figured out! What amazing logic!

Footnote 7 is also enlightening. It matter-of-factly states that "Ellen White’s use of Bliss’s Memoirs over the years is a classic example of literary borrowing, not plagiarism." It’s comforting to note the distinction. "No, Mr. Police Officer. I was not stealing it. I was just borrowing it."

Next Jud Lake turns to our dear friend, and master 1844 obfuscator, Clifford Goldstein, for support. He states, "As Clifford Goldstein observed in his response to CSDA, guidance from God and His angels does not mean theological infallibility. In spite of the fact that Miller got some things wrong, God led him to some powerful theological truths, as the above list shows." It’s too bad his interpretation of Daniel 8:14 wasn’t among them!

Jud Lake, uses the most amazing chameleon-like logic, one moment criticizing William Miller’s conclusions, the next moment redefining William Miller’s understanding to repurpose the clear conclusions of Ellen’s Writings at the time. This second-rate essay, pawned off as a scholarly dissertation, absolutely amazes me. In a moment of deep introspection, Jud Lake confides to us in a footnote at the bottom of the page, "Admittedly, she does not say much here, and it is open to interpretation. Her later statements on Miller’s "chain of truth", however, provided the needed clarification on what she meant by "perfect chain of truth." (Needed perhaps by Jud Lake.)

Here are some more gems:

• "she affirmed the basic calculations of Miller, which despite some errors, were essentially right."
• "The "preaching of a definite time" was not a specific date in this context.
• Regarding "the pastors of the churches Ellen White refers to (that) opposed the preaching of a definite time", Jud Lake assures us that "Mrs. White’s focus is on these pastors fight against Millerism’s ‘radical spirituality’, its call to embrace Christ and His imminent coming without any reservations." My! This sounds very similar to her description of how she and her family were disfellowshipped from the Methodist Church. Oh, yes! They loved God too much, and were looking forward to a second coming. When will Adventism ever stop the prevarication that started with the White Party? I suppose that it is unreasonable to expect the branches to be different from the trunk they grew from.
• "Miller’s message was ’saving’ for many." "Miller’s 1822 statement of faith, articles 6-12 address the salvation Christians are to have in Jesus Christ and his redemptive works."
• "she writes about God’s honest children" in the other churches who rejected the 1844 sanctuary message. While she doesn’t elaborate on it, the obvious implication is that God would not consider the prayers of his "honest children" as "useless". Obvious? What is obvious is that Jud Lake is "circling around" the facts.
• "Her consistency in this matter cements my conclusion that she had the genuine prophetic gift." Yes. Why she consistently denied the facts (eg., almost totally contradictory Israel Dammon newspaper account vs. hers in Early Writings), I would hardly consider that to be evidence of "the genuine prophetic gift." How much better we are to rely on God’s Word!
• "As to the vindication of the character of God, Ellen White saw this in the larger framework of the plan of redemption. In her thought, the death of Christ on the cross was the major victory for God’s character that will be realized ultimately at the completion of the plan of redemption." What a bunch of double-talk. It is so comforting to know that we have Jud Lake and his minions to redefine the intent of Ellen White’s writings. Imagine if all of this energy were instead invested in sharing the Gospel!

I must admit that I was deeply disappointed in Jud Lake’s attempted apologetic. It’s good fodder for those who want to give themselves emotional reasons why they should believe in Ellen White, but it isn’t sound scholarship.

As a child going to school at Andrews University Elementary School, I remember how we had good teachers who had our best interests at heart, and earnestly wanted to see that someday we would grow up to be responsible adults. For the faculty, including my father who was a professor of graduate math at the University, it was a mission field — not only a modest paycheck, but a commitment to the spiritual growth of each student. Part of that mission included giving us homework, and teaching us to be responsible citizens. As an adult, I can now identify with those lofty objectives. At the time each of us had our own agenda, which included having fun in various ways that were not always conducive to learning the subject under consideration.

In the early grades it did not take much of the teacher’s energy to keep us on task. While we each had our own agenda, in our innocence we would readily defer to the teacher’s desires, and behave ourselves. As we grew older we would become more sophisticated at appearing to be conforming to the teacher’s desires, while at the same time accomplishing the objectives our own agendas.

I remember in 8th grade being fascinated with ham radio and Morse code. Up through 8th grade at Andrews University Elementary School we had a single teacher for all of our subjects, except art, music, and shop or home economics. Now that I look back, I wonder why the teachers didn’t experience early burnout. Having a common teacher and classroom for most of our classes meant we had a "home room" with a desk that was ours for the school year. It was the kind with a big lid we could raise and put all of our stuff inside. The rows of desks ran in typical fashion from the front of the classroom to the back. I sat near the back of one row, and a good friend of mine who was also interested in ham radio and Morse code sat near the front.

Having reached the advanced maturity of eighth graders, a friend of mine and I devised a plan to give the appearance of listening to the teacher, while pursuing our own agenda which was to send messages back and forth to each other. I brought two Morse code keys (paddle switches we could flip back and forth with a flick of the wrist) from home, a battery, a small spool of insulated wire and two small lights to school. This was back in the 1960’s when we would drool over all the cool stuff we could order from Allied Corporation — parts such as Fahnestock clips, battery connectors, tiny screw-in light bulbs, transistors, and all kinds of other cool stuff. One code key and light went into the desk of my classmate who sat in the front of our row about 10 feet away from the teacher’s desk. The other code key, light and battery went in my desk. We ran the small thin wire across the floor under the H-shaped center floor support of the student’s desks in between so we could hook the two installations together.

Viola! We had a way we could send messages back and forth to each other, while giving the appearance (to the teacher at least) of listening with rapt attention to the knowledge he was trying to help us retain. Being a smarter teacher than we gave him credit for, it wasn’t too far into the day before he discerned that we had a slightly different agenda than that of the other students. While he admired our creativity, he encouraged us to pursue our extracurricular interests in a more hospitable environment outside of school hours.

As I observe the various levels of Adventist apologetics from the inception of Adventism, I can’t help but notice how similar it is to the cleverness we thought we possessed as students in continuing to pursue our own agenda, while maintaining an appearance of honorable studiousness.

In the formative days of pre-Adventism — the late 1840’s — what you saw was pretty much the way it was. While the theology kept changing to adapt to continuing failures at predicting the date for the Second Coming, the published materials from this time pretty much told things as James and Ellen White wished them to be viewed by their followers. In the case of the Israel Dammon affair, the official newspaper reports of the courts witnesses differed dramatically from Ellen White’s self-congratulatory rendition. There was no doubt though that something had indeed taken place that caught the attention both of the neighbors, and the municipal authorities. The White Party’s theology was still in its formative stages.

By the early 1860’s James White had become an accomplished business manager, and leveraged his wife Ellen White’s visions as a catalyst for determining who was "faithful" and who was not. Acceptance of these "visions" determined in the minds of the White Party leadership who was a "true" follower, and who was not. While Ellen came up with very little original material, she would faithfully deliver visions on demand conveying to the "faithful" the stamp of God’s approval on whatever the leading brethren decided was "God’s will".

Ellen’s husband, James White rallied support for a second level of delegated administration in the White Party’s power structure through appointed "leaders" over various states. As the organization grew, similar to an Amway marketing network, it became more challenging for new recruits to "capture" the full vision that Ellen White was frequently revising. Like the driver on the back of a hook-and-ladder fire truck, she would try to match James’ pace of growth with a continued deliver of fresh "visions" — purportedly from God.

A built-in sense of urgency was achieved by exclaiming that time was almost out, and what had been done previously in years would now need to be done in days and weeks. First it was 1843, then 1844 then 1851 — each attempt at date setting bringing its own string of failures and disillusionment for White Party followers. Those who were more distant had an even harder time maintaining the White Party’s vision, as the outer fringes of James White’s empire continued to expand. This required ever more frenetic apologetics to support Ellen White’s continued failures at producing reliable "visions".

In part 2 we will examine more closely the state-of-the art in Adventist apologetics in the 1860’s — the first years of the official Seventh-day Adventist Church, as the White Party came to be known in 1863.