Seventh Day Adventists and Sola Scriptura

There is a group of christians, known as the Seventh-Day Adventists:

Wikipedia Article


Official Church Site

Yeah, you are probably aware of who they are, and that they go to church on Saturday, and that they don't eat pork. Perhaps that is all you know about them. The Adventist Church has changed over the years, even during the time of it's founders. What has never changed however, is their failure to hold Scripture as their sole infallible rule of faith. Rather, they maintain that the writings of Ellen G. White are necessary to have the complete body of doctrine, which God  has delivered for His people.

Firstly, what do we mean by the term, 'Sola Scriptura'?

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
A A Hodge, on Sola Scriptura



In the following article, Adventist apologist Merlin D. Burt asserts and defends his belief that Seventh-Day Adventists hold to Sola Scriptura. Seventh-Day Adventists and Sola Scriptura.
The way he defends his belief, is by showing quote after quote, where the founders of his church claim to hold to the Scripture alone as their rule of faith and practice. Ofcourse, we are not satisfied by mere claims, and we will put those claims to the test.

Notice this statement:

While Seventh-day Adventists do not see a difference in the nature or character of Ellen White’s inspiration compared with the Bible writers, they are very clear on the difference between the role and function of Bible and her writings.

Interestingly, he says that Adventists believe Ellen G White's writings to be just as inspired as Scripture. Does he really believe that there are non-Scriptural writings which are also theopneustos? He then claims that even though Adventists hold White's writings to this level of authority and inspiration, the Adventist still believes in Sola Scriptura because White's writings are 'functionally' different than that of Scripture:

Thus Adventists and Ellen White clearly ascribe fundamental authority to the canon of scripture and do not see modern prophetic visions and dreams as additional scripture.23

He compares Ellen White to the Old Testament prophet Nathan, who was a prophet of God, but whose writings are not part of Scripture. This shows a misunderstanding of what the canon is. The teachings of Nathan were canonical, for everyone to whom God had delivered it unto. The writings of Nathan have not been delivered unto us today by God, and so they are not part of our canon today. However, we do have the writings of Ellen G White, and they are accessible all over the globe. If her writings really are theopneustos, how could they be regarded as anything less than Scripture, and if God has revealed theopneustos interpretation of Scripture through Ellen White, are these interpretations not for all to whom the Scriptures have been delivered, ie., the whole Church?

If Ellen White's writings are just as inspired as Scripture, then they must also be infallible -- simply because the words of God are always infallible. Perhaps though, the Adventist will say that Ellen White's writings are not a rule of faith or practice.  That would be absurd though, as what would be the purpose of the words of her writings, if not to communicate truth to us? What is the role and function of her writings if not to teach and correct us, and what does it mean to teach, other than to communicate truth? If her writings contain words which are true, and one can learn those truths from reading her writings, then it logically follows that her writings teach. How can the Adventist possibly believe that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but also believe that Ellen White's writings are also God's words which teach us truth?

The final defence the Adventist has, is to say that only the Bible can bind the conscience, whereas Ellen White's writings do not bind the conscience. If Adventists really believe though, that her writings are inspired and theopneustos, ie., they are the words of God -- how could the words of God in her writings not be binding upon our consciences? The very reason why the Bible is binding upon our consciences, is because the Scriptures are the word of God. If Ellen White was inspired of God to produce her writings, then the man or woman reading her writings is reading the very words of God, and must obey the command of His voice. The Adventist must answer the question, as to how the christian reading the writings of Ellen White, is not bound by conscience to believe and trust the words which the adventists claim to have been inspired by God.

The consistent Adventist then, must believe that the writings of Ellen White are infallible, are a rule of faith and practice, and are binding upon the conscience of the person receiving her writings. Such a person could not possibly believe that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, while at the same time believing that there is also another infallible rule of faith and practice, and therefore a consistent Adventist can not possibly hold to Sola Scriptura. Merlin D Burt claims that Ellen White's writings function differently than Scripture, but he does not offer any function or role to Ellen White's writings, which Scripture does not also have. Merlin D. Burt quotes and comments upon the words of a founder of Seventh-Day Adventism:

These statements are representative of the consistent early Seventh-day Adventist position on Sola Scriptura. Early Adventists steadfastly affirmed the unique authority of the Bible as normative in matters of faith and practice. Their reason for believing in the manifestation of the prophetic gift beyond the New Testament era was founded on biblical arguments. This early position has remained consistent to the present as demonstrated by the current Seventh-day Adventist statement of fundamental beliefs.

In 1868, James White remained consistent in his position on scripture. He wrote:

We now see the gifts of the Spirit occupying their proper place. They are not manifested to give a rule of faith and practice. We already have a rule that is perfect in the Sacred Writings. They [the gifts] were not designed to take the place of the Scriptures. And they are not given because the Scriptures are an imperfect rule of faith and practice. But in consequence of the errors of God’s professed people, in departing from the perfect rule, which he has given them, the gifts are manifested to correct the erring, and point them to the Bible as their lamp and guide.

The role or function of Ellen White's writings may be said to bring us back to Scripture, or to depend on Scripture as our guide, but Scripture itself commends itself as our guide. Perhaps the Adventist may claim that Scripture is sufficient to do this, whereas Ellen White's writings are helpful, but not necessary for all of us. The difference would be then, that Scripture is sufficient in itself, and Ellen White's writings are not necessary or needful. If that is the case, then the writings of Ellen White do not possess a role or function which the Scriptures do not have themselves. If however, the Adventist claims that Ellen White's writings are necessary, then the Scripture's must not be sufficient. There are 2 possibilities then, that the Adventist may claim:

1. Ellen White's writings either share a role or function with Scripture, in which case they are not essentially or practically different to Scripture,
2. Ellen White's writings have a role or function which Scripture does not have, in which case the Scriptures are not sufficient for us today.

Simply though, consider the Adventist in the pew who believes that Ellen White's writings are inspired and are the word of God. Compare such a person with a Jewish-Christian in the 1st Century, who believes the writings of the apostles to be the word of God. Is the Jewish-Christian anymore bound by conscience to believe the apostles, than the Adventist is bound by conscience to believe Ellen White?  What sense would it be for the 1st Century Christian to say that he holds the Old Testament alone, or to 'Sola Old Testament', all the while also believing that the New Testament is the inspired word of God? He may even say that he only believes the New Testament, because it is confirmed by the Old Testament. Being a believer that the apostles speak the words of God, the man obeys and believes those words, because his conscience calls him to obey his God. Such a believer would hold the writings of the New Testament to be binding and authoritative for belief and practice, would he not? Would not the Adventist consider it a sin to believe that Ellen White has written the words of God, but then to disbelieve those words?

We maintain though, that the Scriptures are thoroughly furnishing unto all good works and that the Scriptures are the only theopneustos body of truth that we have today. According to God's good providence, many Seventh-Day Adventists today ascribe to Ellen White's writings, no more authority or inspiration than a good but fallible commentary on the Bible. Oh, that they would all hold to the only body of truth once and for all delivered unto the saints.

 Troy Smalley