The Reliability Equation

The Reliability Equation -- Larry Kirkpatrick
The Reliability Equation

A Response to Samuele Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues Newsletters #88/#89 and Their New Light About the
Supposed Operation of the Gift of Prophecy.
Larry Kirkpatrick
Document versions notes: September 13, 16, 18, 2002 drafts. Document may be updated.
Document Index. Note: This document was prepared to be read in sequence from beginning to end. However,
because of the quantity of material we have provided links for those who may only be able to read it in
sections.
● Introduction
● Concerns Regarding Rhetoric and Certain Charges
● Down Goes the Authority of Inspiration
● Bacchiocchi and His Idea Sources
● The 1919 Myth
● Enter Manuscript 16: The Articles on Inspiration that Ellen White Condemned
● The 1919 Truth
❍ Verbal Inspiration?
❍ The 1260 Years Prophecy
❍ Role of Daniells and Prescott in 1911 GC Revision
❍ Summary
● Other Misrepresentations and Charges

● Language of Limitation
● Ellen G. White 'As' or 'As Not' an Authority on History
● A Micro-Refutation?
● Other Loose Ends
● Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues #89
http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (1 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

● The Reliability Equation

● Conclusion
● ENDNOTES
Introduction
Samuele Bacchiocchi in his Endtime Issues newsletter (EI) #881 reacts to a controversy generated by his
departure from two of the 27 biblical teachings highlighted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.2 The Lord's
church, understanding the significance of the operation of the charisms in our midst, declares that among
those gifts, contemporary prophecy given through Ellen G. White is "a continuing and authoritative source of
truth."3 Bacchiocchi, in a series of retreats from truth,4 now proposes that inspiration operating through
prophets from the close of the Old Testament (OT) era onward is excluded from infallibility.5 Thus, our
teaching as a church that the Bible is an "infallible" revelation is denied. By severing the New Testament
(NT) from the infallibility statement, Bacchiocchi denies the first of all SDA fundamental beliefs.6
This document addresses primarily Samuele Bacchiocchi's EI#88. It will also deal with what appears to be a
very fundamental question at the root of his current thinking. This is what we may call the reliability
equation. The equation as Bacchiocchi's recent teaching would make it appear, works as follows:
scholar + record of history > prophet + inspiration
We will return to this and challenge it after a look at his two most recent newsletters.
Before we approach that point however, we want to investigate two major points along with some additional
points. The two major points are (1) the validity of his suggestion that the work of true prophets has within
itself mixture of truth and error that the listener must sort through in order to find truth, and (2) theories
surrounding the AD 1919 Bible Conferences and their relationship to the present discussion. However, there
are some additional points that we should also address, and we will start with those.
Concerns Regarding Rhetoric and Certain Charges

Although loath to bring it up, we are concerned about how Dr. Bacchiocchi has endeavored to format the
discussion. The Doctor's recent work raises several very serious questions and proposes approaches that are
altogether new to our faith. Instead of throwing these ideas into the wind before thousands of his newsletter
readers, it had been well for him to share them first with the denomination's men of experience.
The way we have always sought to operate as a movement is recognize that "There are a thousand
temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in
receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of
experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it,
yield to their judgment; for 'in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'"7 While it does not appear that this
counsel was followed, what also concerns us is the decidedly rhetorical approach. Rather than employing

sober, even-handed language, we find extreme portrayals more calculated to evoke indignant reaction.
Some passages illustrate this approach. "If Biblical research can only be conducted in strict adherence to the
interpretations found in Ellen G. White's writings, then no original investigation of Scripture is possible in the
Adventist Church."8 "Are Ellen G. White's writings to be used as a helpful guide in the study of the Bible or
as a straightjacket to ensure that no deviation occurs from historical interpretations? Are we as Adventists free
to investigate the Scriptures or are we boxed into a system of beliefs that admits no independent Biblical
research?"9 Statements such as these, interspersed with repeated questions about what our rights are in
interpreting Scripture are not calculated to produce sober reactions.
Is it really true that if we take the counsels of heaven through Mrs. White to us seriously, that "no original
investigation of Scripture is possible"? And do we want to pose Mrs. White's writings as a "straightjacket," or
do we really believe that treating them authoritatively means that we are locked-in to a collection of mere
"traditional interpretations" carrying no weight at all?10 Bacchiocchi admits that he is attempting "to address
the critical and serious question of the role of Ellen White in resolving doctrinal and historical disputes."11 Is
such evocative and fairness-questioning rhetoric the language best fitted for such an exploration? Why is such
language used?
Another constant refrain of Bacchiocchi is that Mrs. White is being used as the "last word." Either / or, he
proposes, our choice is between the Bible or her writings. If we take what she has written seriously, then we
are making her the ultimate authority. We could invest considerable space in exposing similar rhetoric in
EI#88, but we abbreviate this section by pointing out that Bacchiocchi even claims that Adventists may be at
risk of elevating Mrs. White to "a kind of Madonna, similar to the veneration of Mary in the Catholic
Church."12 Need we pause to present a discussion of how dissimilar are the Adventist view of Ellen G. White
and the Roman Catholic view of Mary in virtually every way? We think not. This is another example of the
doctor's inflammatory rhetoric.
We addressed Bacchiocchi's concern about Mrs. White's writings carefully in our previous paper, but those
paragraphs have simply been ignored. For Bacchiocchi, making her statements authority means he has no
"right to conduct a new investigation of these texts."13 Such a position is untenable. Had he lived in the time
of Christ, it seems that it would have meant paying the strictest attention to the OT prophets but ignoring John
the Baptist. But perhaps he means it as merely a rhetorical device and not to be taken seriously.
There is always an outer edge -- a boundary if you will -- around truth. We are free within that boundary,
since only error exists outside of this boundary, only bondage. It is never God who argues that true freedom
exists outside of His boundaries. Are we free to investigate the Scriptures or are we boxed in? We are
separated unto the gospel, joined to truth, and yes, bound by truth. There is no trail to be blazed outside of
truth. If we are going to blaze any new trails they need to be opened up according to God's guidance. We
ignore this at our own peril, and our scholars who publish ignore it at peril to the church.
We are concerned about what (at least bears the appearance) of an elitist attitude. Bacchiocchi discusses his
considerable concern over those Adventists who take "extreme positions"14 and who "idolize and glorify
Ellen White"15 He says that "A significant number of our Adventist fellow believers still hold to an idealized
and glorified view of Ellen White . . ."16 it sounds as if he is trying to say that he has classified "a significant

number of our Adventist fellow believers" as people embracing "extreme positions."
We fear that perhaps it is our friendly Doctor who has an extreme position, for the only view he seems
capable of taking is that we are caught between two mutually exclusive positions: either we must embrace the
view that we take the Bible with no constraints besides, or we must embrace the view that the writings of
Ellen G. White constrain with finality our interpretation of the Bible. No other ground is offered. Yet we need
not accept such a dichotomy.
That Bacchiocchi has indeed taken an untenable position here seems clear to us, for he goes so far as to insist
that the agreed upon expression of the world church is so flawed that it constitutes "An unresolved
dilemma."17 The damning words of Bacchiocchi are "our church wishes to affirm two conflicting beliefs
[Fundamental belief #1 and #17 mentioned in the first paragraph of this paper]."18 Actually, they do not
conflict. Millions of Adventists the world over have studied their Bibles and been well able to affirm both as
biblical. But Bacchiocchi's solution seems to be to break with both of them.
It is no help to busy pastors to have rogue scholars lingering on the sidelines and shouting that our
fundamental beliefs cannot be harmonized with the Bible or each other. These beliefs have been accepted by
the church for a long time; their supposed "conflicting" relationship is a mistaken notion. But the fact that
Bacchiocchi is pitching the situation this way contains an implicit admission that even he has recognized as
the fundamental non-reconcilability of his new light with the current understanding of the Bible's teachings as
held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
We have to agree with Bacchiocchi that there are two fundamental issues at stake in his newsletter. First, the
nature of the inspiration of Ellen G. White, and second, the question of the proper use of her writings.19 What
must be clearly understood is that the solution for the second named issue is determined very much by the
answer to the first.
Depending on how authoritative we find the writings of Ellen G. White, we'll understand how we should use
them. If they come with a high degree of authority, we must take them seriously, if with a low degree then we
can ignore them. However, as we have shown in our last paper, the phenomenon of inspiration operates in a
universal manner, whether OT, NT, or contemporary. Bacchiocchi knows this unity must be broken up if we
are to treat some portion of the inspired writings available to us as less inspired than others. The question
becomes, Can a convincing case be made biblically for such a position? We have already shown that it
cannot. But there are now new arguments added on to those previously addressed. Let us address them.
Down Goes the Authority of Inspiration

In EI#88 Bacchiocchi argues for a difference in the operation of the phenomenon of inspiration between OT
and NT periods, and places the manifestation of the prophetic gift through Ellen G. White's (EGW) life and
ministry as falling in the same category as that of NT prophets. According to Bacchiocchi, NT prophets
operated differently than OT prophets.
He focuses on what he feels are the limitations of NT prophets and prophecy. He proposes the following

distinction:
● Messages need to be evaluated20

● True gift of prophecy can be mixed giving truth and error21
● Limitations present22
● Gift does not make possessor infallible interpreter of Scripture23
● Gift does not make possessor "a final authority on historical, exegetical, or prophetic questions."24
● Work is not doctrinal25
● Work more widespread26
● Work not to expound biblical texts27
● Work not to explain historical fulfillment of prophecies.28
● Did not serve as authorities "in doctrines or history."29
● Delivered messages of exhortation to holy living, personal encouragement, and testimonies.30
● Prophets subject to apostles31
● "At times even genuine prophets may be saying things that are inaccurate."32
● Human limitations33
● Infallibility not a NT test for prophet34
Bacchiocchi says relatively little in regard to OT prophets, hardly enough for us to make a list. By implication
many of the things he's stated in regard to NT prophets were mentioned in order to contrast the NT
phenomenon with OT. There are few things he says fairly definitely. For example, OT prophets "exercised
imminent authority."35 The apparent implication is that for some unexplained reason, OT prophets bore
messages that did not need evaluation (as he proposes NT prophet's messages do), nor were mixed but carried
truth only; that OT prophets human limitations while prophesying were not meaningful; that they may have
been infallible interpreters of scripture, could write doctrinally or work authoritatively with history, interpret
prophecy, and so on.
If indeed such distinctions are intended, they appear very subjective and arbitrary. Among the Bible material
given in support of this new light is 1 Corinthians 14:3, which says, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto
men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." The main issue in this section of the Bible is a comparison
between speaking in tongues and prophesying. Paul's main argument is that prophesy builds up the church
while tongues build up the individual. He argues that prophecy is of superior value in building up the church.
The point Bacchiocchi takes from the passage is that NT prophets are to function to encourage believers. But
somehow he excludes their speaking of doctrinal, historical, or many other matters as building up the
church.36 This is arbitrary, and a distinction not supported by the Scripture evidence. Edifying the church,
building her up is inclusive of doctrinal study and preaching.
According to Paul, edification includes instruction in doctrinal matters (1 Timothy 1:3-4; 4:13, 16; 2 Timothy
1:13; 3:16-17; 4:2) Bacchiocchi may argue that Timothy was a teacher and preacher and therefore edification
is just fine for him (he says that in NT times teaching and dealing with doctrine and historical fulfillment was
a ministry "fulfilled by teachers and preachers. Prophets were not an authority in doctrines or history"37) But
that is not our point here. Our point here is that edification, building up the church, includes doctrinal

instruction. Thus we notice that Bacchiocchi's separation of doctrine as something apart from that which
edifies is arbitrary and unbiblical.
Furthermore, a look at Ephesians four demonstrates again the error. In 4:11 several different particular offices
are listed, including "prophets" and "pastors and teachers." But 4:13 shows us that for both these categories
and the others given, the whole list of spiritual gifts mentioned in verse 12 is "for the edifying of the body of
Christ." The Bible denies Bacchiocchi's arbitrary distinction made at 1 Corinthians 14:3.
Another text given by Bacchiocchi in support of his thesis is 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22. His argument is
"Believers are admonished to evaluate the messages of the prophets (1 Thess 5:19-22; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29),
because they could be mixed in quality, containing truths and errors."38 However, this is a mistaken notion.
The context in which the verse appears is a chapter where Paul has just warned against those who will come
within the church preaching "peace and safety" (verse 3). Those who preach such a message are classed as
bringing a message that will only be received by those in darkness (verse 4).
This is not a matter, as Bacchiocchi says, of believers testing the messages of the prophets "because at times
even genuine prophets may be saying things that are inaccurate."39 Rather it is a matter of determining which
message is a message of light and which is a message of darkness. Whole messages are inspired, and either
good or bad. Prophets are either true or false prophets.
Whether OT or NT, the Bible views prophets wholistically. Prophets are not said to be "false in part," but
simply called "false prophets" (for example, Matthew 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2
Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1). Bacchiocchi's difference between OT and NT prophetic phenomenon opens a door so
that Isaiah 8:20 can still be presented in almost all of its power -- at least as far as the gift of prophecy
operating in the OT goes. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is
because there is no light in them." Note that Isaiah's view is wholistic -- all or nothing. Either the prophet
speaks according to God's word and there is light in him, or he speaks not according to God's word and there
is no light in him. That is, if what the prophet says is but 95% true, then there is no light in him. Isaiah says
that even the small taint of error contaminates the whole testimony of the prophet.
Another confirmation of this wholistic sense is found in 1 John 4:1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try
the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." The reason
given for testing the spirits is not because the prophets are confused in themselves between truth and error,
but because many false prophets have gone out into the world. How are we going to define a "false prophet"
if the message even of genuine prophets can be a mixed one containing both good and evil, truth and error?
Satan mixes truth and error, for it is from truth that error acquires its strength. Would not God be playing right
into Satan's hands to make the situation we face that of choosing not between true and false prophets, but
from the whole range of would-be prophets with varying mixtures of truth and error?
I served as pastor of three churches in Utah and I can tell you that the dominant religion in that state is indeed
Mormon. The Latter-day Saints (LDS) hold that Joseph Smith (and others) received the contemporary gift of
prophecy. Now when you go through and read the many writings of Joseph Smith, you find in the Book of
Mormon40 (BOM) a blending of the Bible with other things.

Whole chapters of Isaiah are reproduced virtually unchanged in BOM. On the basis of Bacchiocchi's NT
scenario of "mixed" prophetic messages, what would we do with Smith? His excerpts from Isaiah would be
truth. Other writings by him we will find to contain obvious error. But if there is some truth, and if he fits into
the NT prophet paradigm of Bacchiocchi, then his case will present a mixture of truth and error. Careful study
of the writings of Joseph Smith convinces me that he is a false prophet, while careful study of the Ellen G.
White writings convinces me she is a true prophet.
One of the troubles with Bacchiocchi's new light system of relating to the post OT operation of the prophetic
gift is that it elevates subtle false prophets to "maybe status." Because Smith includes so much truth with so
much error, under the Bacchiocchi system, hours stacked upon hours of thorough search would be required to
determine how to classify him. The same would go for any other similarly-operating, self-proclaimed
claimant to the prophetic gift.
Readers may be interested to know that virtually every week I receive e-mail from individuals I've never
heard of before, claiming to be prophets. At my church I have developed a form for guests wishing to share
new light with me to fill out who. Believe me, there is a parade of unusual people and false prophets who are
out and about, restlessly searching for someone to examine their claims. Today, when there is so much for the
church to be doing, and she is plagued by ill-advised evangelical adventures on one hand and some
individuals departing into flaming fanaticism on the other, it is a poor time to open the floodgates to any
prophetic claimant happening past, and invest hours and hours investigating the claims of those whose
teachings are a mixture of truth and error.
The Isaiah 8:20 paradigm provides a better solution. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not
according to this word there is no light in them." Are pastoral concerns only a part of Mr. Bacchiocchi's past?
Indeed, we do not know whether he has ever served as a pastor. One thing we don't need out here on the front
lines is to consume more energy with fanaticism. Regrettably, it has been our experience that some who teach
feast-day observance have referred to Bacchiocchi's work on that point to sustain their views.41 (By no means
do we wish to characterize all who observe feast days today as fanatics.)
But back to our discussion. If Bacchiocchi wishes to insist that somehow things have changed between OT
and NT in the manifestation of the prophetic gift, he needs to provide the "missing text" that demonstrates
this. Just as the call has gone out for the missing text giving the divine mandate for the change from Sabbath
to Sunday, we ask him for the missing text showing the change in the gift of prophecy from OT phenomenon
where the prophet apparently is understood to operate without mixture of truth and error,42 to the NT version
where he says messages are mixed and contain truth and error.
Not only the Bible, but the writings of Ellen G. White consider the operation of the prophetic gift as a unity.
"It is the voice of Christ that speaks through the prophets and patriarchs, from the days of Adam even down to
the closing scenes of time. This truth was not discerned by the Jews who rejected Jesus, and it is not discerned
by many professing Christians today. A beautiful harmony runs through the Old and New Testaments;
passages which may seem dark at a first reading, present clear interpretations when diligently studied, and
compared with other scripture referring to the same subject."43 The voice of Christ speaks through the
prophets, same voice, "from the days of Adam down to the closing scenes of time." Mr. Bacchiocchi has
given texts to support his contention that "The gift of prophecy in the NT is somewhat different than the OT

counterpart.44 His explanation, however, is wanting.
Yes, God inspires the thoughts and the words are chosen by the human vessel; but only within the boundaries
of the Holy Spirit's working. Remember, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit moved the
prophet. "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).
All Scripture is inspired; all is profitable for doctrine. The pick-and-choose teaching (one Bacchiocchi says he
opposes45), making the competent scholar the "final" judge, should be anathema to him. How readily the
claim to "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone) can be changed with the addition of a few letters to "scholar
Scriptura!" (Scripture according to the scholar).
Where in all of this is the guardianship of truth by the Holy Spirit? "Truth is inspired and guarded by God. .
."46 Indeed, under the Bacchiocchi model there is no such thing as a real difference between inspiration and
illumination, a deficiency in his argument to which we referred in our last paper47 but which remains
unanswered.
Again it is interesting that Bacchiocchi makes the reverse error of LDS teaching. In Mormonism, the category
of illumination drops out and utterances of church leaders and preachers are considered to be, in essence,
spoken Scripture.48 In a balanced position, we make a careful distinction between illumination and
inspiration.49 In the Bacchiocchi position, inspiration appears to drop out and most prophesy becomes
illumination.50
Readers will realize that the key difference between inspiration and illumination as phenomena is that under
inspiration the work of the Spirit is guarded in particular from error, resulting in the claim for infallibility in
inspired writings. Illumination is a special event of divinely-given illumination that reveals spiritual insight to
one, perhaps as he is preparing a sermon. However, such speaking on God's behalf comes with no guarantee
of infallibility. For this reason you can test pastors and scholars by the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy
writings and not vice versa. By making over again the regular operation of inspiration into illumination,
removing the infallibility distinction, Bacchiocchi removes a category.
Readers may be interested in how this works itself out. In an older newsletter Bacchiocchi writes, "I have
reason to believe that were she [Ellen G. White] alive today, she would appreciate any additional corrections
competent scholars could offer to her writings."51 But he continues, in speaking of the Bible to say, "The
same is true of the Bible writers. For example, were the gospels' writers alive today, I have reason to believe
that they would appreciate receiving help in correcting some of their inaccuracies. . . some of the inaccuracies
are very glaring . . ."52
It is of interest that the solution Bacchiocchi envisions for these deluded Bible writers is the help of
"competent scholars."53 Of course it is true that we should seek to understand these things together. But the
ideal is consensus arrived at by group study as many minds are led of God, rather than by reliance upon an
elite scholarly class who would serve as judges even of what is and is not inspired in the Bible!

He continues, "Like many other churches, our Adventist church today is plagued by self-proclaimed 'spiritual
leaders' who claim to have new understanding of the Bible. They publish and distribute their papers,
magazines, and books. In many cases what they teach is a plain misunderstanding of the teaching of the Bible
based on their preconceived ideas. If they would only allow responsible scholars to evaluate their
interpretation, they would spare themselves and the church much embarrassment."54 Again he is correct in
part. The danger comes in determining what is truth on the basis of scholars, when scholars so often have
historically been the very ones to lead the church into darkness. For Bacchiocchi, is anything too hard for
"competent scholars"?
A correspondent called my attention to a parallel between what Hal Lindsey was accused of by the doctor,
and Bacchiocchi's own recent writings on prophecy. "One wonders, how could Lindsey make so many
grossly mistaken predictions? The answer is quite simple. His predictions were shaped more by current trends
than by the scripture. The political leadership of Egypt in 1970 was read back by Lindsey into Biblical
prophecies. This arbitrary method of interpreting prophecy can only lead to disappointments besides
undermining the value and permanent relevance of prophetic messages."55
Bacchiocchi goes to 1 Corinthians 12:10 for another text in his mixture: "To another the working of miracles;
to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the
interpretation of tongues." What he means to imply by repeatedly listing this text is unclear, for he cites the
text several times,56 but never gives a direct explanation of it. It may well be the "discerning of spirits" that
here captures his attention. It is difficult to react to his text because his mention of it is indistinct.
Another text given by Bacchiocchi is 1 Corinthians 14:29: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the
other judge [diakrino]." The theory given here is that the judging is "to listen critically, sifting the good from
the bad."57 In our next section we will explore the source of Bacchiocchi's "new light" on this text.
Bacchiocchi and His Idea Sources

It may be of interest that Bacchiocchi's principle arguments in favor of his position appear to be adapted
mostly from the work of two non-Adventist scholars. One of these major sources lists texts all presented by
Bacchiocchi, and in the same order, that appear in a commentary selection pasted from one of David E.
Aune's works -- a theologian who has surrounded himself with other Catholics and even taught New
Testament theology at the Jesuit Loyola University.58 Readers will note that it is Catholic dogma for the Bible
to be interpreted by the church with Roman Catholic tradition taking precedence over Scripture. The
revelation that a key source of Bacchiocchi's interpretation comes from an individual who has spent a
substantial portion of his life to work closely with Jesuits59 will do little to alleviate concerns about
Bacchiocchi being a Jesuit plant,60 We do not teach or propose that Bacchiocchi is a Jesuit. We do warn
regarding his ideas. A destructive theological idea is far more dangerous than any single Jesuit.
What these revelations do help to explain are the reasons for the attractive nature of the idea. "Tradition
judges the Scriptures" is not so different from "scholars judge the Scriptures" or "the congregation judges the
prophets." The Roman Catholic Church makes tradition superior to Scripture as final determiner of truth. But

how is that theory exercised? In practice, it is the scholars who gather and determine for the church what is
truth. Bacchiocchi treads dangerously close to this paradigm. Another suggestion that Bacchiocchi has lifted
elements of his view from Aune is that both give the text 1 Corinthians 12:10, but only Aune comments on
it.61
Individuals must of course determine for themselves, who are true and who false prophets. But as we've
already discussed, theirs is not to sift the mixed good and bad materials of individual prophets.
We do not find it comforting to know that Bacchiocchi's principle argument for downgrading the prophetic
gift of Ellen G. White appears built upon mostly the ideas of two men, one seeking to make the charismatic
movement palatable to evangelicalism, and another individual who taught theology at a core Jesuit
University. Something seems wrong here.
Here is Bacchiocchi's main citation of Aune: "In several places within his letters Paul directly addresses the
subject of evaluating Christian prophecy (1 Thess 5:19-22; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29). These references are all-
important since they constitute the earliest evidence that Christian prophecy was subject to some form of
community control . . . The injunction to test everything is a general principle; in all circumstances and
situations, including that of congregational prophecy, the will of God must be discerned so that the good may
be accepted and the evil rejected . . . Rather than reject prophesying out of hand, Paul recommends that they
allow the Spirit of God to speak through prophets and then retain that which is good and profitable and reject
that which is regarded as evil and worthless. . . ."62 I've never read an interpretation like this anywhere in
Adventist literature. This is new to Adventism. It is "new light." But the question remains, white light or
black?
What's more, Bacchiocchi has embarked on an eclectic project, taking a position even Aune does not.
Bacchiocchi has adapted Aune's views to fit into his new doctrinal scenario.63 Unlike Bacchiocchi, Aune sees
the testing of prophets as being between true and false prophets, not true or false utterances of a true
prophet.64 Unlike Aune, who speaking of the Thessalonians says that their reasons for taking a dim view of
prophecy are "completely unknown to us,"65 Bacchiocchi is ready to take a wild guess. "The human
limitations and inaccuracies in the prophetic messages seem to have been so apparent that some Christians
despised them."66 Aune's honest admission that the reasons are "completely unknown to us" were ellipsied-
out in the quotation presented by Bacchiocchi.67
It may also be of interest that Aune suggests that "Although Paul does not ascribe such erroneous prophetic
teaching to demonic or Satanic influence, it is difficult to think that he would not have, had he chosen to
comment further on the subject."68 Thus Aune's view is, in a sense more orthodox than Bacchiocchi. Aune
maintains the distinction between true prophets and false, indicating that in his opinion, Paul would have
thought erroneous teaching by a prophet was being demonically inspired. Bacchiocchi in contrast permits true
prophets to give untrue teaching.
But as we've said, Aune is not alone. Wayne Grudem, another non-Adventist scholar, provides other key
ingredients for Bacchiocchi's errant theological mixture. Grudem appears to be Bacchiocchi's source for the
theory of a separation of the OT prophetic gift into two differentiated strains in the NT, that of apostle-
prophets and that of fallible prophets. The theories of Grudem are dealt with and decidedly crushed by F.

David Farnell in masterful manner.69 Interested readers may prefer to download Farnell's paper from the link
I've reproduced in the footnote. Because the difference between Grudem and Bacchiocchi is so slight,
Farnell's paper almost as effectively crushes Bacchiocchi's thesis. It is interesting that apparently Grudem and
Farnell both apparently hold in part or in full to verbal inspiration.70
We have to agree with Farnell when he states that "The NT does not conceptualize any substantial differences
in kind between prophetic expressions in the OT and those in the NT. . . . No attempt is ever made to
distinguish between OT and NT prophetic expression in the vocabulary of introductions to NT prophecy."71
Farnell also shows that the supposedly high honor of OT prophets in relation to NT as presented by Grudem
is unrealistic. He calls to our attention the words of Jesus who lamented "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills
the prophets and stones those who are sent to her" (Matthew 23:37). Mostly OT prophets were disobeyed,
slain, tortured, or otherwise mistreated within their lifetime, only afterward being viewed with any real honor.
The real rub comes when Farnell addresses to Grudem what we have already complained of in Bacchiocchi:
"Such a relegation of prophecy to a lesser status raises the question of how the early church could have
guarded itself against hopeless doctrinal confusion. If prophets at times were used to convey inspired
revelations and at other times were non-authoritative and mistaken, who could distinguish their authoritative
accurate messages from the other kind?"72 Did Bacchiocchi miss Farnell's analysis of Grudem for being
unlisted in indexes because too new? No. Farnell's paper was originally published in 1991.
One of the fundamental pitfalls of relying upon scholars is that their views can become a cafeteria of options.
The supposedly self-correcting nature of the scholarly enterprise, where serious research is prepared and poor
theories weeded-out and refuted by better scholarship is more idealistic theory than practical reality. Often the
scholarly task is embraced merely as justification for a proposed view. Grudem's view has nothing to do with
Adventism, but does provide in him a major name whose authority was readily invocable on behalf of
Bacchiocchi's new light.
The theory of fallible prophets and a fallible NT is a high price to pay so that Ellen White's confirmation of
the 1260 year prophecy anchored to AD 538-1798 can be jettisoned and Islam incorporated into the little
horn. Remember, Bacchiocchi says that NT prophets operate differently than OT prophets; that Mrs. White is
classed with these fallible NT prophets, who although inspired cannot function as authority on history. Yet of
the Bible, Ellen White says "The Bible is an inspired history. . ."73
Thus we note a fundamental enigma. Adventism has, and rightly so, ever equated the contemporary operation
of the gift of prophecy with the biblical manifestation of the same. Some today, however, want to press as far
as possible the idea that Mrs. White's writings are no authority on history, while in inexplicable contrast the
Bible is. The ultimate solution to this must inevitably be either granting historical authority to all inspiration
or eliminating it from all inspiration. The latter solution would change our long-term view of the infallibility
of Scripture. Perhaps the reader will now see that the issues before us are of the most decided importance.
The 1919 Myth

The 1919 Bible Conference has been a standard implement in the toolkit of Mrs. White's nay-sayers for some

time. The issue of revelation and inspiration -- how heaven works through the prophets, and in particular,
through Ellen G. White -- is consistently formatted as follows. Our early Adventists absorbed the common
thinking of their day and as a whole were subscribers to the theory of verbal inspiration. Every word was in
itself inspired directly by God and the prophet was more of a Dictaphone, more a pen than a pen-person. Our
narrow, fearful-of-Bible-study believers of that day wanted things easy so they assumed all this and applied it
to Ellen G. White.
Later, in 1919 there was a substantial discussion about all this and a consensus was achieved among the then-
elite scholars in the church. But due to fear of the outcome, these results were hidden from the people. The
stenographically recorded results were never published and the material was filed away to be lost out of sight
for 55 years. When rediscovered in church archives in the 1970s, the material was widely hailed as a solution
to the knotty-problems regarding Mrs. White's writings that her detractors relentlessly raise. Bacchiocchi
perpetuates this view.
Advocates of this view press the thought-inspiration versus verbal-inspiration angle. According to them,
modern Adventists suffer from the same problem, holding Mrs. Writings to be word-for-word inspired. For
them this seems to explain why so many Adventists are serious about endeavoring to follow the counsels
presented through her so closely. If the very words were inspired by God then what more is there to do but
unthinkingly obey? So goes the theory.
Bacchiocchi's analysis is similar. He includes quotations mentioning the verbal inspiration issue in each of his
recent newsletters,74 along with several pages on the 1919 Conferences.75 He claims that a policy of
concealment has been followed for the past century, hiding from our people the real facts about the ministry
of Ellen G. White, making her the infallible final interpreter of truth.
I can attest that the thrust of Bacchiocchi's theory in regard to 1919 is essentially the same as what I was
presented with as a first year theology student at one of our most liberal SDA colleges. My coursework in a
class on "The Writings of Ellen G. White" included some 600 pages of reading, about 60 of which was from
Ellen White. The textbook we were required to purchase mentioned the 1919 Bible Conferences on several
pages, and argued that God's prophets might be "graded" from A to C- but never any lower.
When Bacchiocchi argues for a distinction between different elements in Mrs. White's writings, taking her
writings about salvation and the devotional life at full authority considering as less-inspired or not-inspired
her remarks on doctrine, health, science, or history, he too is grading her -- arguing for recognition of a
substantial distinction between the operation of inspiration at different points in her writings. But grading the
inspiration of God's prophets is nothing new. Nor are we left in the dark as to how heaven views such
attempts. Enter Manuscript 16.
Enter Manuscript 16: The Articles on Inspiration that Ellen

White Condemned
When a church has functioning within it the living gift of prophecy, the ride can become tumultuous. The
1880s were an intense period in Adventism. Among events in the first half of that decade was a temporary

falling out between Ellen White and Uriah Smith. Smith's reaction for a time was to distinguish between the
visions of Ellen White, which he was willing to hold as fully inspired and authoritative, and anything else
from her, which he held as being less authoritative and attributed to being derived merely from what others
had told her.76
George Ide Butler, a General Conference President hopeful of moderating the trouble,77 wrote a series of 10
articles appearing in the Review on the topic of inspiration.78 We'll take a look at these, because we will find
that Mrs. White wrote a fascinating critique of them after their appearance in the Review!
Butler's fundamental theory was that inspiration differed in degree and quality, with different aspects of the
phenomenon carrying different weight and authority. His first article opens the series by asking "Is there any
of the human element mingled with the Divine in the Scriptures? Or is every word and every line equally
infallible?"79 and closes with "The Scriptures are the product of this combined action of the human and the
Divine. They are given by inspiration of God. All writings thus inspired are authoritative in proportion to the
degree of their inspiration."80 We do not dispute that there is a mingling of the human and the divine in the
phenomenon of inspiration. However we think that to jump from recognition of this fact to suggesting
gradations of infallibility is dangerous and unwarranted. We also notice Butler's logical if erroneous step in
that direction by positing degrees of inspiration.
In the second article we begin to see the theory working itself out. "God gave special light to Moses and
Christ and to those connected with them. We believe these two persons were inspired in a higher sense than
the ordinary prophet. The law of Moses and the discourses of Christ stand higher in our estimation than the
book of Ruth, the Proverbs, or the Song of Solomon."81 In fact, in contrasting the degree of light in each of
these separately-grouped writings, he adds, "The soft light of the moon is grateful to us, though we rejoice
more in the fuller effulgence of the sun."82
Enumerating no less than five styles of inspiration differing and sequentially graded from most inspired to
least, he makes clear that he holds some inspiration as more heavily inspired and other as lightly inspired. For
example, of the method of inspiration in those third category writings, Butler says "This method of inspiration
however, was not so full and perfect as the preceding."83 He repeats this distinction in these words: "There
are varying degrees of inspiration; that is, the Lord gave to some of the writers of Scripture far greater and
more direct, and therefore clearer, light than to others."84
In the fourth article we find history singled out in the Bible as deriving from a different mode of inspiration.
"Most of the New Testament, excepting the historical portions, were written by them [John, Paul and Peter],
evidently from light derived by this means . . . We therefore conclude that all the New Testament, excepting
the historical portions, were written by means of light received through visions from the Lord."85 His next
article continues to discuss this.
In the sixth article what Butler has intended becomes clearer. He writes, "The fact that prophets did this
["wrote out from their own knowledge facts which it was necessary should be preserved"] does not
necessarily prove there was a special revelation through inspiration of the facts themselves; but that such were
trustworthy persons whose testimony was worthy of confidence."86

The seventh article continues to make speculative distinctions, as Butler suggests that the reader will notice "a
difference between them ["Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and the book of Job"] and other books
of the sacred canon," and that those books partake of "a different kind of inspiration from that of the other
Bible writings."87 Although professing great appreciation for the writings of Solomon, Butler reminds us "we
cannot feel that they embody the spiritual lessons of deepest import to the same degree as do the sayings of
our Lord Jesus Christ."88 He closes stating "We do believe it is impossible to maintain the position that all
parts of the book which we call the Bible is inspired in the same manner and in the same degree."89
The eighth article deals largely with the issue of verbal inspiration theory, arguing against it. This reminds us
that even in the early 1880s there was by no means a unanimous view that the Scriptures were inspired down
to the level of words. This is a blow to the 1919 verbal inspiration thesis.
The ninth article deals especially with "imperfections" in the inspiration of the Bible. Now that the series of
articles is closing some of the ideas its author had long been preparing to touch come onto the page. Here we
find new distinctions being made, such as "In the moral instructions of the Bible there is no flaw."90 "The
Bible is not complete or perfect as a historical record."91 "Prophecy gives us sufficient light to get safely
through the darkness of earth, like a lamp in a dark night, and this is all it professes to do. Hence, we say,
Prophecy is imperfect in the sense of quantity or degree, though the light which is given through it is of
inestimable value."92
"The bearing this has upon the subject is plain. God's method of communicating through Moses by directly
speaking to him, and personally manifesting Himself to him, is much superior to that of speaking through
visions and dreams. We conclude, therefore, that there must be some degree of imperfection in the latter
method; for the former could not be more than perfect."93 "We," Butler says, "draw the conclusion that there
is some degree of imperfection, so far as clearness and fullness of light is concerned, in revelations from God
through prophecy, ever remembering, however, that what is given is true and good."94 At the close of his
article, Butler returns to his theme from its beginning: "The great moral truths of the Bible are made very
plain, so that any who desire to obey them can do so. Other portions of Scripture are not made so plain."95
Finally, the tenth article attempts to draw conclusions. "We have shown also from the Bible itself that so far
as clearness and fullness of light is concerned relative to history and prophecy, and things not directly
connected with moral principle and our salvation, there is a degree of obscurity and imperfection."96 And that
"In view of all these facts brought to the attention of the reader in this series of articles, we cannot deny that
when God chose human beings of flesh and blood to be channels through which to give light to mankind, the
human element is mingled in measure with this light of heavenly origin, and that a degree of human
imperfection is in some instances discernable in it in reference to points which are not specially connected
with moral duty."97
What has occurred is that in very subtle manner the argument has progressed from degrees of inspiration, to
varying degrees of fallibility and authority, and closed with sharply truncated utility for the present operation
of the gift of prophecy. How much impact Butler's steady flow of articles in the Review during this period
contributed toward the denominational collision in 1888 wherein Mrs. White's gift was very widely ignored
by delegates to that General Conference session cannot be known with certainty. But it does give one pause.

That Butler's purpose for the ten articles was really to find a via media98 for the place of the Spirit of
Prophecy is clarified by the very last paragraph in the last article: "We believe also that God is giving light in
this age of the world through the Spirit of Prophecy among His people. We believe that the same
characteristics are discernible in it that are seen in those who had visions of old. There is the same fullness
and plenitude of moral and spiritual instruction, which leads to the development of a perfect moral character,
and a sufficient degree of light on other points to help us when we need help, if we will faithfully use it."99
That might sound a very fair and reasonable conclusion. But in a moment we'll hear from Mrs. White's
conclusion. They are not the same.
Butler's articles were published and events rolled on. Smith purportedly returned to a better view on Ellen
White's inspiration. But in the fall of 1888 came that debacle when G.I. Butler and others found themselves
aligned on the opposite side from Mrs. White. In early 1889, in correspondence with R.A. Underwood Mrs.
White had occasion to mention the problematic views on inspiration that had been published by Butler in
1884. We find in these letters the origin point of Ellen G. White's MS. 16, 1889 which we will now share.100
This document provides decided insight into Mrs. White's views on inspiration. Consider how it begins.
"Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who
acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were
Sister White's opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if
their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine."101
She continues in the next paragraph. "If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in
being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate
between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White's human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord.
Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human --
Sister White's opinions. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition."102
"Brother B." is a mild obscuration for the name of former General Conference President George Ide
Butler.103 We note here that Mrs. White identified the particular problem she was discussing as one she had
met "many times." It was the attitude of a certain class who acknowledged that her testimonies were from
God, but who cut and carved those testimonies into divinely inspired fragments and humanly inspired
fragments, so that unwanted statements from her pen were attributed as merely her own opinion or judgment
in an uninspired sense.
She candidly pointed out a common reason for the practice by that class. Not merely a matter of reproof, but
correction was involved. When their "ideas are crossed," says Mrs. White, "they have occasion to explain the
difference between the human and the divine." With this current issue over the inspiration of Ellen G. White,
we appear to have a classic case of the same issues as here described a century ago. Dr. Bacchiocchi's ideas
have been crossed and now he is finding occasion to weigh Mrs. White's writings and to specify which parts
are divinely inspired and which are human. Now he has "occasion to explain the difference between the
human and the divine."
The second paragraph in MS. 16 restates the same thing, and again we find that it exactly echoes what has

here happened. Bacchiocchi spends many pages "defining what is Sister White's human judgment, and what
is the word of the Lord." In fact, it is of interest that where her ideas harmonize with his own, he finds them to
be correct, but where they counteract his own, he finds them to be human.
The prophetic analysis of this? "They [those who engage in this practice of cutting and carving] make of none
effect the counsel of God by their tradition." Here Mrs. White classes the theories of inspiration that endeavor
to determine what is human and what is divine in the Scriptures as setting aside the divine will and as being
equivalent to mere tradition. The authority of scholarship is equated with that of tradition, and placed in exact
competition with the authority of God in the inspired writings!
She continues: "Brother B. is on the wrong track. God has not given the work into his hands to set up his
human wisdom to put his hand on the sacred ark of God. When sitting in judgment upon the living oracles of
God, did he consider that God had placed upon him the work to pass judgment as to what is inspired in the
Word of God and what is not inspired? Has God committed the work to him to state what sort of degrees of
inspiration attend some utterances and what is wanting in others?"104
How could she use more serious language than this? Ellen White saw this work of Butler's as setting up his
human wisdom and as putting his hand on the sacred ark of God. The Bible event to which she refers is found
in 2 Samuel 6 where Uzzah puts his hand on the ark to steady it when the cart carrying it is joggled. Upon
touching the ark he is slain by the Lord. It was already offensive to God that His ark was being transported in
an improper manner (Numbers 7:9), but when unholy hands touched the ark -- the repository of God's will --
God had to act. Death was the only proper response of the holy God toward the irreverent Uzzah.105
The ark also had divine and human elements. God had given the instructions for its design and the people had
obeyed in constructing it. There is a readily apparent intersection of the human and the divine in the ark of
God. But it contained His Ten Commandments law, His will. Although it had both divine and human
elements, God chose to emphasize the divine. Uzzah was not permitted to touch the ark even though it had in
it human components. The death of Uzzah was not to emphasize the human, but the divine. Ellen White
wrote, "God can accept no partial obedience, no lax way of treating His commandments."106 Subdividing and
determining what is from God and what is from man in the Scriptures is treating them lax, for in making such
distinctions, almost inevitably a door is opened for but partial obedience to that which is assigned status as
having "lesser" inspiration than another part.
Ellen White is very clear. Her rhetorical questions about whether God has given the work to G.I. Butler of
determining what "in the word of God" is inspired and what is not inspired are answered firmly in the
negative in the next paragraph of the manuscript. "Did God put the burden upon him? I answer, No, He never
gave any such burden to any mortal man."107 No mortal man, not even our great108 contemporary Adventist
scholars, have been assigned this work. Some of them may think they have, but they have not.
In fact, Butler's downfall in late 1888 was no surprise to Mrs. White, for even by the time back in 1884 when
he set himself to write the inspiration articles he had somehow come to a disturbingly high opinion of himself,
for she adds, "And if he had not become exalted he would never have dared to put his hand on sacred things
to cut and carve the sacred Scriptures as he has ventured to do."109 Reading his personal letters he seems
subdued, but reading his articles one sees him, with kindness and gentleness, still crossing a line that God has

disapproved.
Ellen White continued and next wrote, "The words spoken to Joshua are applicable to Elder B. 'Loose thy
shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy.' Josh. 5:15. You are led astray by the
enemy, and while you have been doing a work the Lord has never committed to mortal minds to do, you have
been wonderfully zealous in regard to any difference of opinion being presented upon the law in Galatians.
You speak of the position I have taken upon it and the letter I wrote you being the cause of your sickness.
This may be your own interpretation of the matter, but I have reason to lay your sickness to causes that you
do not see."110
According to Mrs. White, "God [was] not pleased with your work. His condemnation [was] upon it. And
these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration have been taught in our college and have been printed in
our church paper. The seeds have been springing up and you must reap the harvest. These sentiments should
never have seen the light of day. They should never have been put into the paper. Have God's people put out
their eyes, that they cannot distinguish between truth and error, the sacred and the profane? Elder B. you will
never want to meet your harvest in the day of God."111
Butler had the most definite views in regard to the law in Galatians and in part they had led to the collision in
1888. Here was a worker acting on his views of inspiration and contradicting the messages of the Lord's
messenger. She had been sustaining the views presented by Waggoner and Jones, he and the old guard
suppressing them. The view of Butler already indicated, had been that his degrees of inspiration argument
applied not only to the prophets and writers of Scripture but also to Mrs. White. We concur that whatever
applies to the prophets and writers of Scripture applies to Mrs. White, but we decidedly disagree with the
doctrine of inspiration Butler had applied to those Scriptures.
Now comes one of Mrs. White's strongest points. "And these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration
have been taught in our college and have been printed in our church paper."112 That Mrs. White is here
discussing the Butler articles is made very clear by comparing documents.113
Mrs. White's concern centers upon "these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration." That is, ideas that
are characterized by skepticism; ideas that are fundamentally undermining in their nature; ideas that in
themselves undermine "all" inspiration -- canonic or contemporary, the Bible and also those of Ellen G.
White.
Her manuscript next addresses conflict over whether A.T. Jones would preach at the Battle Creek Church, but
we shall pass over that to the next section of special interest to us. But a few lines past this, Mrs. White
returns again to the topic of inspiration. "The Bible presents beautiful truths that all may understand, and at
the same time it deals in deep mysteries and doctrines which will require deep thought to understand. But
nothing is to be misinterpreted, misapplied, or weakened as lightly inspired if inspired at all. God does
nothing by halves. His Word is inspired. And God designs that men shall take the Scriptures as His inspired
Word, and any man that shall venture to distinguish between the portions of God's Word, exalting one and
belittling another, and taking away from another, places himself in a dangerous position."114
What was the problem? Not only being so audacious as to define what in God's word is and is not inspired,

but what is "lightly inspired if inspired at all." Worse than simply saying this is and this isn't inspired was the
saying that something was less inspired than something else. There was the chief undermining idea.
Bacchiocchi's current theories pivot upon the same theme.
"Nothing" says Mrs. White, is to be "weakened." Weakened how? "Weakened as lightly inspired if inspired at
all. God does nothing by halves. His Word is inspired." We must be clear. This position which is
characterized by skepticism weakens the authority of God's Word by attacking it at a very fundamental level.
But "God does nothing by halves." In direct contrast to "lightly inspired if inspired at all" comes the firm
assertion that God does nothing by halves. Ellen G. White rejects "lesser inspiration" for some portions of
inspired writing, rejects God's doing anything by halves. She rejects the finely nuanced but essentially
blasphemous humanly-assigned distinctions between "the human and the divine."
The view advocated by her is clear: "His Word is inspired." Not in part but in whole. "And God designs that
men shall take the Scriptures as His inspired Word, and any man that shall venture to distinguish between the
portions of God's Word, exalting one and belittling another, and taking away from another, places himself in a
dangerous position." Not to mention those who might read and absorb the undermining idea!
When she writes of their difficulty in distinguishing the holy from the profane, she is not discussing sorting
out the truth and the error in the testimony of a given prophet, but she is addressing how the Scriptures are
treated. She is discussing "these skeptical ideas that undermine all inspiration" versus what? Versus a correct
doctrine of inspiration, one that refuses to humanly cut and carve God's Word and drop the scraps into
assorted little buckets.
She closes the manuscript calling to mind the weakness of men and the necessity of our having the most
humble views of our own wisdom. She at last reasserts her messenger status: "God has heretofore spoken to
me at sundry times and in divers manners."115 A comparison with Hebrews 1:1 demonstrates that she is
reaffirming her prophetic mantle.
In his fourth article Butler had claimed, "If the subject [inspiration] was better understood, we believe it
would save many candid persons from falling into skepticism and infidelity."116 It is of interest to compare
this with Bacchiocchi's claim: "Most of the issues raised by Walter Rea and a host of former Adventists who
have constructed websites devoted exclusively to defame Ellen White as a false prophet, could have been
avoided if church members had been told about the extensive use of sources by Ellen White and her
limitations on historical and doctrinal questions [i.e. how inspiration works]."117
When were such questions asked of Bible prophets, or when did such theories aid in leading people or nations
to repentance historically? We realize, on no occasion.
Ellen White's testimony in 1889 now frames our exploration of the real truth about 1919.
The 1919 Truth

We cannot understand 1919 aright if we accept the conventional spin. We want to look at 1919 in the light of
what Mrs. White wrote in 1889. The primary mythology surrounding the Bible Conference 1919 has already
been mentioned. But our task now is to clarify what are the facts from that conference. To accomplish this we
will refer to essentially the same materials as given by those who promote the mythical view. But we will
present some facts and references that they have not given.
Verbal Inspiration?
Perhaps our best first stop is the claim that verbal inspiration was the key issue. It was an issue repeatedly
addressed in the discussion. But is it true that this was the decisive problem there, that the leaders held it as
being a major problem for our Adventist believers? F.M. Wilcox, whom it has been mistakenly claimed was a
believer in verbal inspiration,118 stated the opposite during this discussion.
F.M. Wilcox: "I have known for long years the way in which Sister White's works were
brought together and her books compiled. I have never believed in the verbal inspiration of the
Testimonies. I must say, however, that last Wednesday evening and also since then, some
remarks have been made without proper safeguarding, and I should question the effect of those
statements and positions out in the field. I know that there is considerable talk around Takoma
Park over positions that have been taken here, and there will be that same situation out in the
field. As brother Wakeham suggested the other day, I think we will have to deal with a very
delicate question, and I would hate terribly to see an influence sweep over the field and into any
of our schools that the Testimonies were discounted."119
The concern of Wilcox was that doubts would be generated and arise from the meeting. He was well aware of
the already high level of distrust regarding W.W. Prescott and A.G. Daniells, who had stirred up much dust
and trouble over the years with their advocacy of varied positions usually begun by the ever exploring and
loose mind of Prescott. For example, Daniells had been led by Prescott into a high-level airing of the so-
called "new view" of the daily not many years past. Wilcox said some more, and when he stopped, next came
C.L. Benson:
C.L. Benson: "The question that has raised itself in my own mind . . . seems to me it is almost a
logical step. That is this: If there are such uncertainties with reference to our historical position,
and if the Testimonies are not to be relied on to throw a great deal of light upon our historical
positions, and if the same is true with reference to our theological interpretation of texts, then
how can we consistently place implicit confidence in the direction that is given with reference
to our educational problems, and our medical school, and even our denominational
organization? If there is a definite spiritual leadership in these things, then how can we
consistently lay aside the Testimonies or partially lay them aside when it comes to the prophetic
and historic side of the message? And place these things on the basis of research work?"120
After him Waldorf and then Anderson spoke. Anderson proposed that most of the people believed in verbal
inspiration. Then C.L. Taylor responded with the following:
C.L. Taylor: "With regard to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies, I would say that I have

heard more about it here in one day than ever before in my life. I think we have made a great
big mountain of difficulty to go out and fight against. I do not believe that our people generally
believe in the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies. I think that the general idea of our people is
that the Testimonies are the writings of a sister who received light from God. As to verbal
inspiration, I think they have a very ill-defined idea. I think they believe that in some way God
gave her light, and she wrote it down, and they do not know what verbal inspiration means. But
I do see a great deal in the question Professor Benson raises, and that is if we must lay aside
what sister White has said interpreting history, or what we might call the philosophy of history,
as unreliable, and also lay aside as unreliable expositions of Scripture, the only natural
conclusion for me, and probably for a great many others, would be that the same authorship is
unreliable regarding organization, regarding pantheism, and every other subject that she ever
treated on; that she may have told the truth, but we had better get all the historical data we can
to see whether she told the truth or not. That is something I would like to hear discussed. I do
not believe we shall get to the foundation of the question unless we answer Professor Benson's
question."121
Immediately in response to Taylor, A.G. Daniells uttered the following:
A.G. Daniells: "Shall we consider some points as settled, and pass on? Take the matter of
verbal inspiration. I think it is very much as Brother Taylor says, that among most of our people
there is no question. It is not agitated. They do not understand it, and they do not understand the
technical features of the inspiration of the Bible, either. And the power of the Bible and its grip
on the human race does not depend on a technical point as to their belief in it, whether it is
verbally inspired or truth inspired."122
Benson warned that a loose view on the authority of Ellen G. White called into question everything that had
been connected with them in one way or another. He saw where the loose view would lead -- to their being
treated merely as research fodder and bearing no more authority than anything else. Taylor said he'd heard
more in one day about verbal inspiration than in his whole life. He asserted that as a general point, our people
were not believers in verbal inspiration.
Daniells immediately seconded Taylor's analysis: "Take the matter of verbal inspiration. I think it is very
much as Brother Taylor says, that among most of our people there is no question. It is not agitated. They do
not understand it, and they do not understand the technical features of the inspiration of the Bible, either." But
said Daniells, "The power of the Bible and its grip on the human race does not depend on a technical point as
to their belief in it, whether it is verbally inspired or truth inspired."
The president of the General Conference confirmed that Taylor's view was correct. Taylor had heard more
there in one day on verbal inspiration than in his whole life. He said this was not the general position of our
people in 1919. Our workers could see the logical connections between theory on inspiration and the authority
of inspiration. The issue really wasn't verbal inspiration per se, but the authority of an inspired writer not
included in the Bible canon. Other participants also stated at various occasions in the discussion that verbal
inspiration was not the problem. It was a topic, yes, but it was not the main challenge faced. Therefore, to pull
this rusty sword today and try to make it out as the issue with EGW is to lead into false alleys. Indeed,
Daniells' published report of the meetings hardly even mentioned Ellen White.123 He himself had stated that

he did not view the question of verbal inspiration as being the key.
The 1260 Years Prophecy
Bacchiocchi informs his readers that "Even the 1919 Bible Conference discussed a dozen of doctrines,
including a new interpretation of the 1260 days prophecy."124 He uses the 1919 conference as source for his
attack on the authority of the Ellen G. White writings, but does not share with readers the result of their
discussion on the 1260. Because Bacchiocchi is adamant that he will soon be addressing the 1260 in depth,
we will give a portion of our space here to what was said in 1919.
There were at least two substantial occasions where the 1260 days/years topic was discussed during these
conferences. One was the general discussion we have been following here. Here are a few lines from that
discussion.
C. L. Benson: This is my query, and it underlies all of her writings: How did she determine
upon the philosophy of history? If she endorsed our interpretation of history, without any
details, do we dare to set that aside? I understand she never studied medical science; but she has
laid down certain fundamental principles; and that she has done the same with education and
organization.
A. G. Daniells: Sister White never has written anything on the philosophy of history.
C. L. Benson: No, but she has endorsed our 2300 [meant 1260] day proposition, from 538 to
1798.
A. G. Daniells: You understand she did that by placing that in her writings?
C. L. Benson: Yes.
A. G. Daniells: Yes, I suppose she did.
C. A. Shull: I think the book "Education" contains something along the line of the philosophy
of history.
W. E. Howell: Yes, she outlines general principles.
C. M. Sorenson: Nobody has ever questioned Sister White's philosophy of history, so far as I
know, -- and I presume I have heard most of the questions raised about it, -- along the line of
the hand of God in human affairs and the way the hand of God has been manifested. The only
question anybody has raised has been about minor details. Take this question as to whether 533
has some significance taken in connection with 538. She never set 533, but if there is a
significance attached to it in human affairs, it certainly would not shut us out from using it, and
that would not affect the 1260 years. Some people say antichrist is yet to come, and is to last for

three and one-half literal years. If you change those positions, you will change the philosophy.
W. W. Prescott: Do I understand Brother Benson's view is that such a statement as that in

"Great Controversy," that the 1260 years began in 538 and ended in 1798, settles the matter
infallibly?
C. L. Benson: No, only on the preaching of doctrines in general. If she endorses the prophetic
part of our interpretation, irrespective of details, then she endorses it.
W. W. Prescott: Then that settles it as being a part of that philosophy.
C. L. Benson: Yes, in this way: I do not see how we can do anything else but set up our
individual judgment if we say we will discount that, because we have something else that we
think is better evidence125.
We may notice that the issue here is Mrs. White's endorsement of the 1260 day/year position at AD 538/1798
in her writings. A feint appears to have been made at this point by A.G. Daniells with the possibility that she
never prepared a philosophy of history and therefore we simply don't know how to interpret her. But Benson
refuses to settle for that and after he reasserted that she endorsed the date, Daniells agrees. Sorenson makes a
careful point about what in his understanding would or would not violate White's endorsement of
538/1260/1798. A shift of the date had been proposed years earlier by Prescott to 533/1260/1793. Sorenson is
clear that reapplying the time period or deaffixing it from 538/1260/1798 would violate the endorsement of
Mrs. White.
Prescott here chimes in with a question and a ploy identical to Bacchiocchi a century later.126 He takes this
endorsement and prompts Benson as to whether what Mrs. White had said settles the matter infallibly. No one
had suggested that. Benson's careful answer refuses to engage that question but simply reaffirms what he
already said: "No, only on the preaching of doctrines in general. If she endorses the prophetic part of our
interpretation, irrespective of details, then she endorses it." Prescott changes his wording, and philosophy of
history differs from infallibility. It hits the question at a more approachable angle. Benson agrees that Mrs.
White's use of this locks it in. He says, "I do not see how we can do anything else but set up our individual
judgment if we say we will discount that, because we have something else that we think is better evidence."
Benson sees the issue clearly. If we are going to fall into the trap Mrs. White warned of in 1889, declaring
this or that is more inspired and from God, and this and that less inspired and containing merely Mrs. White's
human opinion, we are setting up our individual judgment.
The discussion continued with Prescott asserting his large influence in the 1911 revision. We'll return to that,
but let's move to another discussion during the 1919 meetings on another occasion. That was an occasion
where the very purpose of the meeting was specifically to discuss the 1260. A pastor H.S. Prenier was the
main presenter on the topic.127 And W.W. Prescott was sitting in the meeting, which was no surprise to
anyone.
Readers may recall in our previous paper, "Shall Any Teach God Knowledge," (SATGK) we addressed at

some length how Prescott had urged Mrs. White to change her teaching from 538/1260/1798 to
533/1260/1793 in 1910 when the work of revision was going forward with the Great Controversy.128 She had
refused.
In this light again, the outcome of the 1919 1260 topic discussion is of interest. As above, during the
discussion phase, Prescott threw onto the table another of the very same questions Bacchiocchi is asking.
Prescott wanted to cover the issue of "whether it is an open question for historical study [the 1260] or whether
we are shut off from historical study."129 Then as now, no one really said that we were forever blockaded
from additional study by the prophetic gift operating in our midst. Such an assertion is, as we have pointed
out, a faulty representation of the issue.
During the discussion on the topic, Prescott eventually made this statement regarding his own views: "I have
not discarded 538 or 1798, but in my own mind I place the emphasis on 533 and 1793."130 Prescott was still
trying to have things both ways. Bacchiocchi does the same. "The aim of this study [EI#87] is not to discard
our traditional interpretation [538/1260/1798], but possibly to broaden it by including the historic
antichristian manifestation of Islam."131 This "possible" change in our view to "broaden" it is now declared
by Bacchiocchi as follows: "You will [in his forthcoming newsletter #90] see that this sevenfold prophecy
extends beyond the supremacy of the Papacy from 538 to 1798, to encompass other Antichrist powers as well
as the witness of the church from the First to Second Advent."132
Butler saved the intended purpose behind his 1884 Review articles to the last ones in the series. We hope that
others are not doing a similar work.
But again, to pull this together, we want to turn to the words of president Daniells after the discussion on the
1260 in this meeting specifically dealing in depth with the topic was drawing to a close. Here was his
analysis: ". . . In the last ten or fifteen years we have been plowing deeper and deeper in this and getting a lot
of valuable information. And it has not overthrown the position we held, but it has given us more evidence
and given us more ground to stand on . . . . we are landed right back to our position that the 1260 years
actually date from 538 and end in 1798 . . ."133
So there we are. Ellen G. White rejected the proposed changed view on the 1260 in 1910-1911, and in the
1919 Conferences it was rejected again. The issue had been carefully looked into, Ellen G. White's quotations
notwithstanding, and the church was "landed right back to our position" 538/1260/1798. Yet Bacchiocchi
says he will not be landing right back to our position.
Role of Daniells and Prescott in 1911 GC Revision
Bacchiocchi repeatedly asserts that Prescott and Daniells were deep, close-in participants in the 1911 revision
of Great Controversy, working very closely with Ellen White and apparently on the best of terms with her.134
Prescott's supposedly very major role in the revision is emphasized. But what are the facts?
The facts are that Prescott and Daniells are two of the more controversial figures of those years of Adventism.
They were not always on the best of terms with Ellen White. We already shared how Prescott's role in the

revision of the Great Controversy was actually relatively minor.135 Regarding Daniells, there was a period
during 1910 while the revision work was underway, during which Mrs. White even refused to speak with
him.136 Furthermore, while his role was essentially limited to sitting with groups by virtue of his position as
GC president,137 his own testimony in regard to the revision is that his role was minimal: "We General
Conference men did not create it [the issue of the revised Great Controversy], for we did not make the
revision. We did not take any part in it. We had nothing whatever to do with it."138 Bacchiocchi has
substantially stretched their involvement, possibly to grant their statements more credibility. The facts don't
support his contention.
Summary
Other incorrect analysis of events and consenses developed at the 1919 Bible Conferences might be
presented, but for now we shall limit ourselves to these.
We appreciate the forethought of F.M. Wilcox who came with some quotations from James White for the
group. Here's part of what he shared with them. "The position that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of
faith and duty, does not shut out the gifts which God set in the church. To reject them is shutting out that part
of the Bible which presents them."139 The above and other points might be derived from a careful look at the
text of the 1919 Bible Conferences. We recommend anyone wishing to get a grip on 1919 to peruse a text
copy of the 1919 Conferences for themselves.
In summary, we find that no consensus arose that verbal inspiration was the main problem; it is in fact
arguable that consensus in the opposite was much closer. We find that the issue of the 1260 dating was
thoughtfully canvassed and reaffirmed as 538/1260/1798. We discover that the roles of both Daniells and
Prescott in the Great Controversy revision have both been greatly inflated and that on a factual basis they had
considerably less to do with it than has been thought.
The story of 1919 has been presented by some, including Bacchiocchi, in what seems to us a one-sided
manner. The above paragraphs have, in some measure, been necessary to give more perspective. Remember,
we need to view the 1919 discussions in the light of Mrs. White's careful remarks in MS. 16, 1889,
specifically about inspiration. A careful reading of Manuscript 16 reveals that the direction the discussion in
1919 often took turned where we expect she would have warned participants that they were putting their
hands on the sacred ark, at risk of embarking upon a work that had never been committed to mortal man. The
free-wheeling dialogue of Daniells and Prescott ought to be viewed with caution. The 1919 Bible Conference
records do not support the spin bequeathed them by Bacchiocchi and liberal Adventist scholars today.
Other Misrepresentations and Charges

One of Bacchiocchi's more grievous suggestions is his vague charge that a "policy of concealment"140 has
been in play by unnamed agencies, that somehow there is a deficiency in the church regarding "telling the
truth about Ellen White."141 Over and over again he repeats these accusations.142 Among his key assertions is
that because of pressure from fanatical conservatives, Daniells was unable to publish the record of the 1919
Conferences.143

However, had Bacchiocchi simply read Douglass' book, he'd have discovered that this charge was erroneous.
Douglass presents historical facts not available to Mr. Bacchiocchi because he had not read the book, or even
the chapter in Messenger of the Lord dealing with the 1919 Conferences. Douglass points out the spirited
discussions that were occurring at the conferences, and of A.G. Daniells' suggestion that the stenographic
records of the conference be "locked up," this some two weeks before the discussions regarding Ellen G.
White's writings had even occurred.144
Is this simply poor scholarship? Is it indifference about denominational publications? Is it something else, like
an overly busy schedule? We do not know. But to have such destructive charges cast about is a bit like
juggling dynamite. Please don't do it indoors Mr. Bacchiocchi.
The doctor's recent work is plagued, we do not claim intentionally, by numerous misrepresentations. For
example, he claims that "Some rejected a priori my proposal, not because it violated the relevant Bible texts,
but because I contradicted EGW's writings."145 Surely this is a correct statement. Surely among the numerous
e-mails he received there were some where our people rejected his Islam-as-little-horn theory because of the
Ellen G. White statements affirming the AD 538-1798 1260 interpretation. However, I know of several
individuals who e-mailed Dr. Bacchiocchi biblical concerns about his interpretations. These include myself
and also Kevin Paulson. It was by no means all rejection on the basis of only EGW statements! It is true that
many who wrote about the Bible issues also presented some of the EGW quotations. But it seems wrong to us
to represent the situation as if there were few Bible issues but that we were all caught in the EGW
"straightjacket."
Bacchiocchi's recent work comes complete with pejorative charges of cultism, fanaticism, extremism, and
representations appearing at least to carry the implicit threat that disagreement with his unlikely new views
will mean our being branded as extreme.146 Again, when the facts are not on your side, this is a way you can
go. But let us remember that J.S. Washburn and others so labeled by Bacchiocchi are not here to defend
themselves. Nor are widely known the foibles of Daniells and Prescott which which might give us pause.
Included in Bacchiocchi's recent newsletters are not only destructive theories regarding Ellen White, but
damning charges that our enemies will enjoy. For example, Bacchiocchi charges that "we have brilliant
Adventist scholars today who are not free to examine Scripture because of the constraints of the Spirit of
Prophecy."147 Also, in veiled reference to the SDA church, "Any religion that discourages fresh investigation
and settles all differences by silencing differing viewpoints, ultimately becomes victim of superstition and
blind credulity."148
But in the background some of us have been seeking to communicate with this author, only to be told not to
send anything more until his next newsletter was published. It seems to some of us that it is the silence of
acquiescence that he prefers. Before publishing this response I interacted with Dr. Bacchiocchi and sent him
materials such as MS. 16, 1889. But recall the statement given near the beginning of this letter about new
light. "There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the
only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first
submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer;
and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for 'in the multitude of counselors there is safety.'"149

Those, whether the lowest or the highest, raising concerns, have been similarly received. We are asked to hear
Bacchiocchi, but our concerns are countered with misstatements or inflamed rhetoric about how "cultic" our
view is. It is most difficult to carry on a constructive dialogue in such a setting.
Language of Limitations
Readers of the two responses I have written to the recent theories of Samuele Bacchiocchi on inspiration and
EGW may note my reticence to dwell upon what are being called her "limitations." I would like to explain
this. My position is simply that the predominant sphere of my response has been at the level of the doctrine of
inspiration, a more general level, rather than the specific alleged examples of this in the White writings.
Already we have observed150 that Mrs. White is human and therefore subject to such limitations as all
humans are subject to. But it seems that people are missing the fact that we are discussing not the doctrine of
human fallibility but of inspiration, of a divine aspect containing infallibility. We are looking at a
phenomenon in which God guards what He has incited the prophet to utter or write.
The fact is that the inspired materials we have in hand, the Bible and the Ellen G. White writings do not
themselves focus on human fallibility and human limitations, but on the trustworthiness of that which is
divinely inspired. You simply will not find this language of limitations in these writings. It is but scarcely
referred to. We already observed that when George Butler touched on this topic he was rebuked. Mrs. White
told him plainly that "You are led astray by the enemy, and . . . you have been doing a work the Lord has
never committed to mortal minds to do . . ."151
"Brother B. is on the wrong track. God has not given the work into his hands to set up his human wisdom to
put his hand on the sacred ark of God. When sitting in judgment upon the living oracles of God, did he
consider that God had placed upon him the work to pass judgment as to what is inspired in the Word of God
and what is not inspired? Has God committed the work to him to state what sort of degrees of inspiration
attend some utterances and what is wanting in others?"152 Indeed, Mrs. White told him to take the shoes off
his feet, for the place where he was standing (discussing the intersection of the divine and human in the
inspiration phenomenon) was holy ground.
I've sought for this language of limitations in the Bible and in the records of the Ellen G. White CDROM and
I do not find it. So I have avoided it. We are counseled that these are "skeptical ideas that undermine all
inspiration."153 Therefore those who wish to put their focus on this aspect will have to do so without me. I am
not anxious to lay my hands upon this sacred ark. The story of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6) is an accurate record of a
factual historical event. God is serious about this topic. He does not intend that we shall put our human hands
on the sacred ark of His word.
Ellen G. White 'As' or 'As Not' an Authority on History

Bacchiocchi repeatedly quotes W.C. White and A.G. Daniells' statements on the lines that "[Ellen White] has
never claimed to be an authority on history."154 But there are other statements from the pen of Mrs. White
that he does not quote. Consider the following:

On the Creation:
"In six days the great work of creation had been accomplished."155
"Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and
brought down to us through Bible history. God Himself measured off the first
week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it
consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation;
upon the seventh, God rested, and He then blessed this day and set it apart as a
day of rest for man."156
On the 120 years and the flood:
"When the Lord sends light to His people, He means that they shall be attentive
to hear and ready to receive the message. In great forbearance, He waits for man
to come to His terms. For 120 years He waited for the people of the old world to
receive the warning of the flood. Those who rejected the message turned His
long forbearance and patience into an occasion of scorn and unbelief. The
message and messenger became the butt of their ridicule."157
"A correct education had been given them [the sons of the prophets] in regard to
the living God. The past history of the people of God, the fall of Adam and Eve
through transgression, the preaching of Noah, the extended probation of 120
years, and the final destruction of the old world by a flood was known to
them."158
"For 120 years He sent them warnings through His servant Noah."159
On 457 BC:
"The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, as completed by the decree

of Artaxerxes Longimanus (see Ezra 6:14; 7:1, 9, margin), went into effect in the
autumn of B. C. 457."160
On AD 27:
"From this time four hundred and eighty-three years extend to the autumn of
AD 27. According to the prophecy, this period was to reach to the Messiah, the
Anointed One. In AD 27, Jesus at His baptism received the anointing of the Holy
Spirit, and soon afterward began His ministry. Then the message was
proclaimed. 'The time is fulfilled.'"161
On AD 31:

"Then, said the angel, "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week
[seven years]." For seven years after the Saviour entered on His ministry, the
gospel was to be preached especially to the Jews; for three and a half years by
Christ Himself; and afterward by the apostles. "In the midst of the week He shall
cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Dan. 9:27. In the spring of A. D.
31, Christ the true sacrifice was offered on Calvary. Then the veil of the temple
was rent in twain, showing that the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial
service had departed. The time had come for the earthly sacrifice and oblation to
cease."162
On AD 34:
"The one week -- seven years -- ended in A. D. 34. Then by the stoning of
Stephen the Jews finally sealed their rejection of the gospel; the disciples who
were scattered abroad by persecution "went everywhere preaching the word"
(Acts 8:4); and shortly after, Saul the persecutor was converted, and became
Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.163
On AD 538/1260/1798:
"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A.D. 538, and would therefore
terminate in 1798."164
On AD 1844:
"The blood of Jesus was then shed, which was to be offered by Himself in the
heavenly sanctuary. As the priest entered the most holy once a year to cleanse the
earthly sanctuary, so Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly, at the end of
the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could
be benefited by His mediation, and thus to cleanse the sanctuary."165
The aforementioned quotes, a mere sampling, show that Mrs. White spoke decidedly in regard to events in
history and prophecy and doctrine. She writes concerning virtually every time prophecy addressed in
Adventist teaching. Did she seek for these statements to be used as authority on these points? We do not think
so. However, neither do we expect that she meant her statements to be disregarded, whether in personal
testimonies or in her published works. Her counsel that her writings not be brought to the front came in the
context, not of that which is mixture containing truth and error, but in terms of how we substantiate the
teachings of Scripture as we share them with others.
"The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The
Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. Great care should be exercised by all believers to advance
these questions carefully, and always stop when you have said enough. Let all prove their positions from the
Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God."166 Interestingly,

these statements come from Letter 12, 1890, involving an individual who claimed to be having visions that
were from God but were not. These spurious visions were being presented in public meetings. It is in this
context that the above words were penned.
Mrs. White not only presented her writings in public and in testimonies to others her exhortation and
encouragement, but she freely addressed doctrinal matters. She wrote two testimonies to Professor John Bell
who, like Bacchiocchi had been reapplying prophetic periods connected to the movement.167 She dealt
plainly with history and prophecy.
It would be absurd for the Lord to burden Ellen G. White with a heightened sense of the need to complete
volumes like the Great controversy, if they were to be of no import. "The Lord has set before me matters
which are of urgent importance for the present time, and which reach into the future. The words have been
spoken in a charge to me, 'Write in a book the things which thou hast seen and heard, and let it go to all
people; for the time is at hand when past history will be repeated.' I have been aroused at one, two, or three
o'clock in the morning, with some point forcibly impressed upon my mind, as if spoken by the voice of God .
. . . I was assured that there was no time to lose. The appeals and warnings must be given . . . . I was shown
that much of my time had been occupied in speaking to the people, when it was more essential that I should
devote myself to writing out the important matters . . . . . Is this work of the Lord? I know that it is, and our
people also profess to believe it. The warning and instruction of this book [Great Controversy] are needed by
all who profess to believe the present truth."168
We do not find Mrs. White's reported statement that her writings are not to be understood as authority on
history as being of universal or global application to all of her writings in its most absolute sense. Those who
wish to press for such use of the statement tend to abuse it in order to negate her prophetic authority. When
we do evangelism or Bible studies with others of course we will not bring her writings to the front because we
are giving the evidences for the faith of Adventism by means of the Bible. Such is as it should be. But to
misuse such statements to create tunnels through which scholars can pass to and fro like ants to the errors of
Babylon, under the denominational doors, would not be wise. It would not be true to our faith, which holds
her writings as a continuing and authoritative source of truth.
A Micro-Refutation?
Doctor Bacchiocchi replied to Kevin Paulson's original objections given in EI#86 (HTML|PDF "Stampeded
Interpretation") with his EI#87. But he really didn't. Paulson's article in a nutshell was (A) on the Biblical
level, Bacchiocchi's thesis was wrong, (B) it was a cavalier attack on the authority of the writings of Ellen G.
White, (C) neither does the historical evidence begin to substantiate the view now being presented by the
doctor, and (D) what Bacchiocchi propounds is merely a false interpretation stampeded by the temperature
level of current events. Most of Kevin's 10 pages are devoted to historical and biblical evidence that counters
Bacchiocchi. Only about 10% of the paper discusses the evidence from contemporary inspiration through
Ellen G. White.
Bacchiocchi's EI#87 failed to address A, C, and D, and his response only confirmed Kevin's concerns that had
been addressed in B with a vividness that has astonished Adventism.

In response to EI#87, I wrote (HTML|PDF "Shall Any Teach God Knowledge," or SATGK). My basic
arguments were that numerous aspects of his theses regarding how to interpret Ellen White were incorrect. I
pointed out that (A) prophets instruct the scholars and not vice versa, (B) Inspired writings may not be hacked
into separate categories such as salvation, doctrine, history, science, etc, with some parts treated as less
inspired if inspired at all, (C) A fundamental reason why scholars must listen to prophets is because the
phenomenon of inspiration is operating in the prophets and illumination (hopefully) in the scholars, (D) EGW
endorsed the view of 538/1260/1798 as of God and it is no mere "traditional interpretation," (E) Mrs. White's
writings are of much more than "devotional" authority, (F) Bacchiocchi is promoting a view that is at odds
with the expressed belief of the worldwide SDA body, (G) the many historical problems cited by Bacchiocchi
are not only unconvincing, but remarkably unconvincing, (H) acceptance of the authority of the writings of
Ellen G. White does not detract from the preeminence and finality of the Bible as our authority, (I)
Bacchiocchi's interpretation of the phenomenon of inspiration operating in the gift through Mrs. White is
based upon several distortions and mistaken conclusions he has read into the 1911 revision of the book Great
Controversy, which scenario we discussed and corrected at length, (J) the changes in that revision were
peripheral and minor, (K) it had already been suggested that Mrs. White change her endorsement from
538/1260/1798 to 533/1260/1793 and she rejected that proposal, (L) arguing for degrees of inspiration as
Bacchiocchi does is incompatible with the Bible facts, (M) the nasty bugbear especially feared by liberal
Adventist academics as responsible for our problems today, verbal inspiration theory, is not the problem, (N)
Bacchiocchi's claim that Mrs. White's use of literary workers is unlike that of prophets in the Bible is false,
(O) the fallibility statements of Mrs. White are stretched by Bacchiocchi, (P) the peripheral matters mentioned
by Bacchiocchi in the latter portion of EI#87 are unpersuasive, (Q) Bacchiocchi's proposed "criteria" for the
balanced use of Ellen White's writings are so flawed as to be unusable, (R) the true cultish mentality is the
idea that Bacchiocchi has endorsed rather than the inspired writings, making scholars the final arbiters of
truth, (S) the fact that to carve-out a place for his Islam-as-included-in-little-horn view he has launched a
destructive assault on Ellen G. White's writings that negates their authority in itself argues against any idea
that the source of his views is indited by heaven, (T) that flaws in Bacchiocchi's methodology and conclusions
may be alleviated by certain constructive criticism sought for and offered, (U) that emphasis upon what one
may perceive to be Mrs. White's "limitations" puts one onto dangerous ground. I closed with an appeal to
reconsider and retreat from the views he has recently spread abroad.
His response was to comment very briefly on a passing sub-argument presented under my "A." He
complained that my rhetorical question ("God could have brought improved historical information to light in
Ellen G. White's day. He could have caused great Adventist scholars to arise in her day and bring to light
these improved facts at that time -- before Great Controversy ever saw print. Was God behind because He did
not do this?") was mere "gratuitous assumption."169
Perhaps the reader will agree that Bacchiocchi has avoided the broader scope of evidence and argumentation.
In any case, he has certainly not repeated our criticism of his statements such as "If Ellen White were alive, I
would love to sit down with her and share all this historical information that is missing in The Great
Controversy. I have no doubt that she would be grateful for the opportunity to learn more about how the
change came about from Sabbath to Sunday in early Christianity, and to update her account in The Great
Controversy. After all, she was a truth-seeker who recognized her limitations and gratefully accepted the help
from competent people," and "If Ellen White was alive today, would she welcome the service of competent
scholars willing to correct the remaining inaccuracies found in The Great Controversy and other publications?
There is no reason to think otherwise, because she was a woman who recognized her limitations, and was

committed to the search for truth. On my part I would be glad to offer my services to her, because I can never
stop thanking God for the inestimable contributions she has made to my spiritual life and to the message and
mission of our Adventist church."170
All we can say is that his answer is yet more gratuitous: "But the fact is that God chose to do it differently.
Don't ask me why. I wish I knew it."171 That is, he is asserting in turn that God did raise up "great Adventist
scholars" to "bring to light these improved facts" now rather than in her day. And who might that be? It must
be Samuele Bacchiocchi! To our "did not" he answers "did so." But he has also dodged the main argument
which is that God guides prophets in a manner that he does not necessarily guide scholars. We repeat, it is not
prophets who need to sit down and listen to scholars, but scholars that need to sit down and listen to prophets.
His response reaffirms his incorrect assumption that the revision of the Great Controversy was undertaken
because of supposed historical inaccuracies due to the operation of the prophetic gift through Mrs. White. We
have pointed out at some length the facts surrounding the 1911 "revision" which do not support his claims. He
simply refuses to acknowledge them.
His assertion that the operation of the gift of prophecy in Mrs. White is for exhortation and kindred purposes
only is, as we have shown, denied by Mrs. White's practice. She did comment on various historical events and
dates and did so in an authoritative manner. She preferred her writings not be used to settle such historical
disputes because of her recognition that to do so would carry little weight with the non-Adventist.
She was operating on a very practical basis. If Moses can comment on history (ex. Genesis 1-11), and John
the Baptist can comment on history (Matthew 3), and Paul can comment on history (2 Thessalonians 2), and
do so authoritatively, then Ellen White can comment on history (Great Controversy). The phenomenon is the
same. The authority is the same. Canonicity is not the same, so the Bible remains the final acid test.
Ellen White did have recourse to various historical sources and an aspect of the inspired phenomenon is
divinely-guided selection. We do not dispute these things. Readers are invited to peruse the detailed treatment
of this subject and others in the book we have already mentioned, Douglass' Messenger of the Lord -- the
book that would have saved Bacchiocchi much time, saved the church much embarrassment, and which
Bacchiocchi has promised us he will read. There are also a variety of very helpful materials scattered through
the EGW books themselves, both in the Testimonies172 and in other places.173
It seems hardly correct to state that "the whole argument" we presented is based on "gratuitous assumptions
which are negated by the divine way of operating."174 This is the question. And his answer about "the divine
way of operating" is no fresh research on his part but an amalgamation of the theology of David E. Aune and
Wayne Grudem with his own. He continues to leave even some of the most basic questions unanswered. On
what basis will he determine what carries the authority of inspiration and what is mere "traditional
interpetation"? Is there any difference between the phenomenon of inspiration and of illumination? These are
only a sample of points that his theories create.
We wonder if Bacchiocchi's most recent scholarship suggests PhD level work. EI#85 was mostly a recounting
of information, EI#86 a rather unconvincing "tentative" interpretation adding Islam to the little horn of Daniel
seven, EI#87 was a downgrading of Ellen G. White based mostly upon one not particularly noteworthy

historical paper, and EI#88 was the scene of a shameful downgrading of the prophetic authority of New
Testament prophets attempted so as to sustain the new downgraded view on EGW. Those theories appear to
have been prepared based upon a few passages stripped from convenient Bible commentary paragraphs. A
review of Aune and Grudem's works that provide the sources of Bacchiocchi's proposed view shows that
there is very little original thinking occurring. Where he has not copied from Aune or Grudem, he has copied
from W.W. Prescott. Most of his complaints against Ellen White are repetitions of Prescott's. In any case,
There are enough PhD's who can't tell their left from their right that we must recognize in any case that such
is not the measure of truth.
Other Loose Ends

The similarity between the message of some of the anti-Ellen White "attack sites" and Bacchiocchi is
interesting. One site upon which one such detractor has spent many hours in a FAQ publishes this statement
about her writings: "I do not think reading these writings will harm anyone, so long as they recognize that she
was human and prone to error just like the rest of us." Right. They may not harm anyone if they are viewed
thusly. But the point is that they may not help anyone either.
Then what would we have? It would finally be true that the enemy had triumphed by making the testimony of
the Spirit of Jesus of none effect. Indeed, the attack sites are already rejoicing in the recent work of
Bacchiocchi and republishing it.175
Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues #89

In EI#88 he gave five letters of support176 and in EI#89, ten. In #89 Bacchiocchi mostly lapsed into a study of
alcohol in the Scriptures and made little progress in addressing the concerns that many Adventists have
expressed about his recent theories. Even so, approximately a third of the substance of that newsletter is
devoted to the current issue, and most of this is excerpts from letters he has receive in favor of his views.
What an interesting assortment of supporters turn up in his newsletters. Ranging from (according to
Bacchiocchi) a recently retired NAD union president to a Presbyterian church member, those quoted appear
to unite behind the present work of the Doctor. What do we read in this regard inEI#89?
Among those quoted by Bacchiocchi in his defense are a former NAD Union president who equates Adventist
conservatives with Lucifer177, an Adventist scientist who is sharing Bacchiocchi's newsletter with several non-
Adventist friends,178 a retired Adventist pastor who buys Bacchiocchi's version of the cover-up,179 an elder
who does the same,180 an Adventist from Australia who appears to accept Bacchiocchi's caricatures of
Adventists refusing to accept the humanity of Ellen White and who reject the idea of any new study,181 two
persons who consider his views a breath of fresh air and that victory is not far ahead,182 and an Adventist
lawyer who swallows the EGW-as-straightjacket rhetoric.183
There is little new here except that Bacchiocchi is endeavoring to retain his views and retreat behind the
opinions of other Adventists -- a tactic those with recollection of another crisis in Adventism introduced by an
errant scholar over 20 years ago will find of interest. He is now claiming (and this is preposterous) that "those

who accuse me of discrediting Ellen White, in reality are rejecting the ongoing efforts of our Adventist
church to tell the truth about Ellen White."184
According to Bacchiocchi, "What I wrote in the last newsletter about the nature of Ellen White's inspiration
and the limitation of her authority on historical and doctrinal questions, is essentially what our Adventist
church has been trying to communicate during the past 20 years."185 He mentions Adventist scholars such as
George Knight, Herbert Douglass, and Fred Veltmann as though they are all in support of what he has
recently written. However, I have been in touch with some of these individuals and I can tell you that this is
not necessarily the case.
Indeed, while Bacchiocchi claims that the church has been trying to get his new light ideas across for 20
years, he admits that he has not read recent books by George Knight186 and Herbert Douglass. How does he
know what the church has been trying to get across for the past 20 years when he is not reading what are, in
some cases, primary textbooks? Herbert Douglass' Messenger of the Lord is an up-to-date college level
textbook penned by Herbert Douglass in connection with the White Estate. It does not teach what
Bacchiocchi teaches. Bacchiocchi says Douglass wrote to him stating that that book "discusses the same
problems I [Bacchiocchi] presented in my newsletter. In fact, he [Douglass] went as far as to say that had I
read his book, I could have saved the time and effort of writing the newsletter."187 Indeed. I have read both
Bacchiocchi's newsletters and Douglass' book, and I concur with Douglass. But not for the reasons that
Bacchiocchi may expect. It is because a perusal of Messenger of the Lord (an excellent volume I most highly
recommend) would have kept Bacchiocchi from making so many queer assertions about Mrs. White and the
1919 Bible Conferences.
Actually we have the idea that the doctor has been reading far more from non-Adventists such as David Aune
and Wayne Grudem than from workers in our own denomination! Unfortunately, because of his failure to
check sources and maintain the scholarly edge the SDA denomination has been subject to the latest heretical
approach to Ellen G. White. Fortunately for us, we can report that Doctor Bacchiocchi has indicated that he
plans to read Douglass' book.188 Someday.
The weakness of Bacchiocchi's overall argument is clarified by his presentation of letters of support, as if
truth is determined by posing stacks of positive and negative responses against each other. The fact is that
truth is not determined by vote. Inspired writings present the baseline for truth. Nothing else. In the end, this
brings us back to what we may call the question of the reliability equation.
The Reliability Equation

Although it has been necessary to devote the bulk of this paper to a refutation of what the evidence shows is a
seriously-flawed viewpoint, we want to approach the close of this presentation with something constructive.
We wish to provide an alternative reliability equation. Remember, Dr. Bacchiocchi's reliability equation
appears to function as follows:
scholar + record of history > prophet + inspiration

Doctor Bacchiocchi is teaching that prophets are tested by scholars; that the advances in scholarship and the
improved pooling of historical data provide a measure for truth that excels that of inspired writings.
Scholarship has advanced, it seems, so far that we no longer limit our work to determining what the text is.
Now we take the text as it stands and subject it to our fallible judgment and scholarly foibles. Now we cut and
carve the text in a manner akin to Bultmann, and hand over what's left with our scholarly OK.
Scholarship is a good thing. When it is God's scholarship. But scholarship that denies the authority of His
prophets is not His scholarship. Under the current theory, Bacchiocchi pits the weight of the scholars of
Babylon against the authority of Ellen G. White. We propose that such a model is not only deeply-flawed, but
likely to launch souls into oblivion. Actually, we believe in a different reliability equation. As we understand
the teaching of Scripture, the math is more like this:
prophet + inspiration > scholar + record of history
The prophet plus inspiration is greater than a scholar plus the record of history. The working of inspiration on
the prophet is a supernatural phenomenon, such that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private
interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). Indeed, the testimony of inspired writings is that "Holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).
Note that this passage of Scripture is very clear. It denies the substantial entrance of human fallibility into the
inspiration equation. It reminds us that there is such a thing as the moving, the guiding, the protecting of
prophesyings and holy writings by the Holy Spirit. This is the testimony of Scripture which the Bacchiocchi
theories contravene.
Indeed, we shall go farther. The equation as we propose it also works like this:
prophet + inspiration > scholar + illumination
The prophet plus inspiration is greater than the scholar, even one who is experiencing the phenomenon of
illumination. Inspiration is divinely guarded in a manner which does not adhere to illumination. In fact, it is
precisely at the point of human fallibility that these phenomena differ.
But we will go one step further again. Let's give everything we can to the scholar:
prophet + inspiration > scholar + illumination + record of history
There is little more we can give him than this. And still we hold that the prophet plus inspiration is greater
than the scholar plus illumination plus the record of history. All the same reasons already given still hold. In
fact, even if we grant inspiration to the scholar it will be inspiration by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the
prophet. The testimony of both individuals will harmonize. Fundamentally we hold to the infallibility of the
Scriptures and the inspiration of Ellen G. White with no degrees of difference.
Will we trust God or not?

Conclusion
At one place in his newsletter Bacchiocchi chides the reader and hints that the conflicting doctrines of
Adventism have robbed us of a careful study of the book of revelation he or another of our advanced scholars
might have done if only they had not been bound by our straightjacket views.189 Friends, we have not been
robbed. We have been spared.
At the beginning of this paper we pointed out that the result of Bacchiocchi's view is that he effectively
attacks two key Bible teachings held by Adventists and capsulized in our first and 17th Fundamental Belief
statements. Since the Bible is the foundational authority of Seventh-day Adventism, the theories of
Bacchiocchi cannot be left unaddressed. Adventist scholars need to stand up and make clear that they reject
the stale innovations that have been adapted mostly from the views Grudem and Aune, who's view even
comes connected with his work at the Jesuit Loyola University.
We remind readers that the stack of unaddressed questions is growing ever taller with each new newsletter
produced by Bacchiocchi. When will he address the questions that his views have raised?
A friend pointed out to me the expected failure of any attempt to defend Ellen G. White with Ellen G. White.
We concur. In both of our papers we have referred to several Bible Scriptures in our discussion. But the intent
of this paper has not been to defend Mrs. White by the use of Mrs. White. We have sought to provoke thought
by the use of the Bible, reason, and yes, some sections from Ellen G. White. If detractors will be honest they
will admit that the view of inspiration developed by Bacchiocchi is largely rooted in his preconceptions about
how this gift worked. Besides, this document is written not for Bacchiocchi alone but for any who care to read
and weigh it. It may be a help to some to consider these words from the pen of inspiration.
"When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth.
No after suppositions contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise
with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for
this time God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth.
One will arise, and still another, with new light, which contradicts the light that God has given
under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. A few are still alive who passed through the
experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to
repeat, and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as
did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard bearers who have fallen in
death are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices
are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time."
"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special
points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their
asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while
the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such
application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a
great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of
the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of

God."190
One of the special points of our faith -- indeed, perhaps the only reason it has survived past the assaults of
higher criticism that have gutted the mainline denominations to this day -- has been the operation of the gift of
prophecy in our midst. It is not Mrs. White we should lift up, but our heavenly Father and His watchcare. He
is directly responsible for His gift to the church. All Mrs. White did was say "Yes Lord, I will speak in Your
behalf." An attack on the gift of prophecy is an attack upon our Lord and not upon Mrs. White. We hope none
will forget this.
We are reminded of the old story of the country judge who, in the telling moment after the conclusion of the
trial, looked across from the bench after the verdict had been read and said to the defense lawyer, "You're
good. You're very good. But you aren't better than the truth." Some of our scholars are good. Some are very
good. But they are not better than the truth. God grant them humility.
ENDNOTES
1. Published online by Samuele Bacchiocchi at

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_88.pdf on August 22, 2002. All page
numberings keyed to PDF formatted document downloads.
2. In order that persons outside of the Adventist community of faith may have a helpful description of
teachings highlighted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, from time to time belief statements are
prepared. These statements are not creedal, for in Adventism the Bible alone functions as creed. These
statements can be and have been changed from time to time (three statements have been prepared so
far, in 1872, 1932, 1980). Earlier statements were prepared with a more explanatory motivation while
more recent statements have been prepared with, we think, more of a boundary-defining motivation.
This makes sense because in 1872 the church was still quite young and at a practical level, people
simply didn't understand what Adventism was about or what beliefs were highlighted by us in any
shorthand form. Again, the 1980 (current) set of beliefs came as the Desmond Ford crisis was
climaxing and he and his supporters were endeavoring to revamp Seventh-day Adventist
understanding of the Bible's teaching concerning the investigative judgment. Neither do we here wish
to use the fundamental beliefs as a creed to condemn Mr. Bacchiocchi, but we do think readers will
find it helpful to compare the consensus statement of our church's beliefs with Mr. Bacchiocchi's
current theological offerings.
3. Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs #17: "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This
gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G.
White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which
provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the
Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." 1980 ed.
4. The backwards march began with EI#86 and Bacchiocchi's "thinking out loud" view that Islam should
be included in the little horn of Daniel seven and actually fits better than the papacy. He also expressed
at that time that the 1260 year prophetic period presented in the writings of Ellen G. White as
commencing in AD 538 and ending in 1798 be reinterpreted as a "figurative" or "symbolic" period.
When several Adventists pointed out to him a variety of biblical difficulties standing in the way of his

view, and also presented statements from Mrs. White affirming the interpretation held by this church
since its inception, Bacchiocchi published EI#87 in which he argued that the writings of Ellen G.
White, rather than "a continuing and authoritative source of truth" have inherent in themselves no
authority historically or doctrinally, but have a preferred use devotionally. In EI#88 he retreated
further by stating that not only EGW, but New Testament (NT) prophetic manifestations are not
infallible. This startling retreat shows no sign of abating.
5. Bacchiocchi's statement is "The gift of prophecy in the NT is somewhat different that the OT
counterpart. Acts 2:17-21 implies that since Pentecost the gift of prophecy would be manifested more
widely in order to provide encouragement and exhortation to the mission of the Christian church.
Believers are admonished, not to despise, but to test the messages of the prophets, because at times
even genuine prophets may be saying things that are inaccurate. Their human limitations may be
reflected in the messages they deliver. This does not mean that we must reject them as false prophets,
because the NT does not make infallibility the test of a true prophet." Bacchiocchi, EI#88, p. 20. He
equates NT apostles with OT prophets. But some of the writings of the NT are not from apostles and
under this scheme would become sub-authoritative, such as Mark, Luke, Acts, James, Jude.
6. The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine
inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In
this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are
the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the
authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." Seventh-day
Adventist Fundamental Beliefs, #1.
7. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 293.
8. Bacchiocchi, EI#88, p. 1.
9. Ibid.
10. This issue is repeatedly addressed in Larry Kirkpatrick, "Shall Any Teach God Knowledge: A
Response to Samuele Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues Newsletter #87: 'A reply to Criticism, pt. 1: The
Use of E.G. White's Writings in Interpreting Scripture,' With Special Emphasis on Issues Concerning
the 1911 Edition Great Controversy (hereafter referred to as SATGK).
12. Ibid., p. 4.
13. Ibid., p. 1.
14. Ibid., p. 3.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., p. 4.
17. Ibid., p. 26.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., p. 1.
20. Ibid., p. 3.
21. Ibid., pp. 33, 19.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., p. 11.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., p. 18.
27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., p. 20.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., p. 20.
36. Ibid., p. 8, 11.
37. Ibid., p. 18.
38. Ibid., p. 3.
39. Ibid., p. 20.
40. LDS claim that Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon (BOM) and thus he is not really the
author. But studies of the distribution of words used in the various Smith productions show a very flat
and uniform vocabulary for the different volumes, which is highly indicative that he wrote them all.
Some LDS might disagree with our taking the BOM as a writing authored by him.
41. See Samuele Bacchiocchi' two books, GodÕs Festivals in Scripture and History. Volume 1: The
Spring Festivals, and GodÕs Festivals in Scripture and History. Volume 2: The Fall Festivals.
42. Bacchiocchi, EI#88, pp. 19-20.
43. Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, pp. 209-210).
45. "This fundamental principle [the Bible is its own interpreter] is violated by those who use the Bible in
a cafeteria style, choosing the texts that support their views, and ignoring the rest" EI#21, p. 5.
46. Ellen G. White, Acts of the Apostles, p. 11.
47. Kirkpatrick, SATGK, p. 8.
48. "The first definition uses 'scripture' as synonymous with such terms as 'inspired" or "divinely revealed.'
Concerning those who have been called and ordained to proclaim God's word, a revelation in the
Doctrine and Covenants provides the foundation: 'Whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by
the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be
the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation' (D&C 68:4).
In this light, Latter-day Saints hold in high regard the words of Church leaders at all levels. Especially
authoritative are the official pronouncements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles, who are sustained by Church members as 'prophets, seers, and revelators.' Their writings and
addresses -- particularly in general conference -- are cited frequently as guides for living and for
authoritative interpretation of doctrine. Statements issued by the First Presidency represent the official
position and policy of the Church." (And the nest paragraph: "Joseph Smith taught that 'a prophet was
a prophet only when he was acting as such' (HC 5:265). Thus, the words of prophets carry the force of
scripture only when they are uttered under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Latter-day Saints freely
acknowledge this divine influence in the teachings and counsel of leaders and deem it a privilege to be
instructed by them. They consider this inspired direction to be 'scripture' in the broad definition and
endeavor to harmonize their lives with it." http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=167, accessed
September 10, 2002, 3:08PM PST.
49. See Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, p. 9.

52. Ibid.
53. In an earlier newsletter, he writes, "Far too many Christians believe that they have found new truths in
the Bible which they promote before allowing competent scholars to evaluate their conclusions. We
must remember that the task of Biblical interpretation belongs not only to the individual but to the
church at large. This corporate principle of Biblical interpretation demands that we be sensitive to
what competent fellow believers may have to say about our interpretation of Scripture." Bacchiocchi,
EI#21, p. 11.
54. Both paragraphs in this note are taken from Bacchiochi, EI#21, p. 11.
55. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Hal Lindsey's Prophetic Jigsaw Puzzle: Five predictions that Failed!, p. 44.
56. Bacchiocchi, EI#88, pp. 3, 18, 19.
57. Ibid., p. 19.
58. Aune appears at the bottom of the page listing membership in the Catholic Biblical Association of
America at http://cba.cua.edu/ca.cfm, accessed August 26, 2002, at 3:30PM PST.
59. For readers who wish to double-check this, go online and crank up your favorite internet search
engine, and type in "David E Aune SJ" and see what comes up. While Aune himself technically at
least is not a Jesuit, you will discover what I mean about a consistent propensity to spend time with
Jesuit theologians!
61. David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, p. 220-221.
62. Bacchiocchi, EI#88, p. 19, ellipses in Bacchiocchi's citation.
63. See Aune, pp. 217-231.
64. See Aune, pp. 217, "Yet the problem of discerning the true prophet from the false prophet indicates
that no prophet was exempt from testing . . ." and p. 229 in his Summary: "In early Christianity, as in
ancient Israel, a variety of criteria were employed at various times and places for the purpose of
distinguishing the false prophet from the true."
65. Aune, p. 219.
67. Ibid., p. 19 the "completely unknown sentence" occurs immediately following "that the good may be
accepted and the evil rejected..."
68. Aune, p. 220.
69. See F. David Farnell, Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem's
Hypothesis, at http://www.straitgate.com/articles/Issues/Charismaticism/j2far1.htm, accessed Tuesday,
September 10, 2002, 8:20AM.
70. See Farnell, p. 3, 9.
71. Ibid., p. 9.
72. Ibid., p. 10.
73. Ellen G. White, RH, May 13, 1890 par. 3.
74. Bacchiocchi, EI#87, p. 11; EI#88, p. 28.
75. ________, EI#88, pp. 21-30.
76. This episode is documented in a few places. One discussing the direct bearing of this episode upon
what we will discuss here is Rugged Heart: The Story of George I. Butler, by Emmett K. Vande Vere,
pp. 62-68. In specific, Vande Vere gives Smith's view as follows: "He [Uriah Smith] would not accept
Mrs. WhiteÕs writings as true testimony unless they were Shown to be accurate by visions. Some parts
probably represented merely her own ideas and comments, perhaps generated by 'reports' forwarded to
her. According to his approach, her sentences and paragraphs fell into two categories: (1)'I-was-shown'

material, and (2) personal-opinion material. Presumably error might occur in the human-opinion
material. Indeed, Uriah had said to Ellen in 1869, 'You [could] err.'" Vande Vere, p. 64.
77. Vande Vere suggests that Butler, who had before prepared materials that had led to reconciliation
between James White, J.N. Andrews, J.H. Waggoner, and Uriah Smith, that he might manage it again
between Uriah Smith, D.M. Canright, and Mrs. White. This, she suggests, was the basis for his ten
Review articles. Vande Ver, p. 66.
78. Butler's articles appeared under the following dates and titles: January 8, 1884, "Inspiration: [No. 1] Its
Nature and Manner of Communication"; January 15, 1884, "Inspiration: [No. 2] Differences in Degree
and Manner of Bestowment"; January 22, 1884, "Inspiration No. 3: Visions and Dreams"; January 29,
1884, "Inspiration No. 4: Light through Visions the Principal Source of Bible Inspiration"; February 5,
1884, "Inspiration No. 5: The Word of the Lord Came to Men Through Visions"; April 15, 1884,
"Inspiration No. 6: How Were the Poetic and Historical books of the Bible Written?"; April 22, 1884,
"Inspiration No. 7: The Books of Solomon, Job, etc."; May 6, 1884, "Inspiration No. 8: In What Sense
are the Scriptures Inspired?"; May 27, 1884, "Inspiration No. 9: Is There any Degree of Imperfection
in the Revelations of God to Man?"; June 3, 1884, "Inspiration No. 10: Final Conclusions and
Reflections."
79. G.I. Butler, RH January 8, 1884, "Inspiration: [No. 1] Its Nature and Manner of Communication"
80. Ibid., emphasis in original.
81. G.I. Butler, RH January 15, 1884, "Inspiration: [No. 2] Differences in Degree and Manner of
Bestowment."
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid.
84. Ibid.
85. G.I. Butler, RH January 29, 1884, "Inspiration No. 4: Light through Visions the Principal Source of
Bible Inspiration."
86. ________, RH April 15, 1884, "Inspiration No. 6: How Were the Poetic and Historical books of the
Bible Written?"
87. ________, RH April 22, 1884, "Inspiration No. 7: The Books of Solomon, Job, etc."
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid.
90. G.I. Butler, RH May 27, 1884, "Inspiration No. 9: Is There any Degree of Imperfection in the
Revelations of God to Man?"
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid.
96. G.I. Butler, RH June 3, 1884, "Inspiration No. 10: Final Conclusions and Reflections."
97. Ibid.
98. The term "via media," or middle road or way is the description commonly given to the direction taken
by the Elizebethan Reformation. The middle road was a mild pathway between Roman Catholicism
and Protestantism that, it was hoped, would placate everyone and enable the church to get something
done.
99. G.I. Butler, RH June 3, 1884, "Inspiration No. 10: Final Conclusions and Reflections.
100. Readers who wish to read the entirety of MS. 16, 1889 can refer to Ellen G. White, 1888 Materials, pp.

257-258, or they can also locate it online at Cutting and Carving the Scriptures?.
101. Ellen G. White, 1888 Materials, p. 257.
102. Ibid.
103. Butler had resigned from his presidency immediately after the 1888 conference.
104. White, 1888 Materials, p. 257.
105. For her main comment on this event see Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 704-706.
106. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 706.
107. ________, 1888 Materials, p. 257.
108. Please detect tongue-in-cheek.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid., p. 258.
112. Ibid.
113. Compare MS. 16, 1889 (1888 Materials, pp. 257-258 to Letter 22, 1889, January 18, 1889 to R.A.
Underwood, in 1888 Materials, pp. 230-242 (esp. p. 238); also Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 23.
114. Ibid., p. 259.
115. Ibid., p. 262.
116. Butler, RH January 29, 1884, "Inspiration No. 4: Light through Visions the Principal Source of Bible
Inspiration."
118. F.M. Wilcox in RH June 6, 1919 p. 5, 6. (a month before 1919 SDA meetings) published the
Fundamentals statement of the "Conference on Christian Fundamentals" which he had attended on
behalf of the SDA church. "I. We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as verbally
inspired of God, and inerrant in the original writings, and that they are of supreme and final authority
in faith and life." He also included the then-current SDA statement: "1. That the Holy Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and contain a full revelation of His will to
men, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 2 Timothy 3:15-17." Wilcox's inclusion of
contrasting statements in his RH article and his statement at the 1919 Conferences should lay this
charge to rest.
119. Spectrum, "The Bible Conference of 1919," vol. 10, No. 1, p. 45,
120. Ibid., p. 46.
121. Ibid., p. 47.
122. Ibid.
123. A.G. Daniels' report on the 1919 Bible conferences was published in RH Aug 21, 1919.
125. Spectrum, "The Bible Conference of 1919," vol. 10, No. 1, p. 54
126. Bacchiocchi, EI#88, pp. 4, 11, 15, etc.
127. White Estate Document File (WDF) 930c, p. 537.
128. See Kirkpatrick, SATGK, pp. 10-12.
129. WDF 930c, p. 561.
130. Ibid., p. 674.
132. ________, EI#89, p. 1, emphasis added.
133. WDF 930c, p. 683.
134. Bacchiocchi, EI#88, pp. 18, 22, 23, 24, 27.


136. See Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, vol. 6: The Early Elmshaven Years, p. 223. Note that this had to
do with Daniells failure to promote urban evangelism as decidedly as he should have, and no evidence
suggests this had anything to do with the work on Great Controversy.
137. Kirkpatrick, SATGK, p. 11, fn. 74.
138. 1919 Bible Conference, p. 53.
139. Spectrum, vol. 10, No. 1, p. 33, "The Bible Conference of 1919," quoting James White from RH,
October 3, 1854.,/li>
141. Examples include Bacchiocchi, EI#88, pp. 9, 29, 30.
142. ________, EI#88, pp. 3, 4, 9, 24, 29, 30; EI#89, pp. 4, 6, 9.
143. ________, EI#88, p. 29.
144. Herbert Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, p. 434. cf. Valentine, p. 243.
146. Ibid., pp. 3-4, 28-29.
147. Ibid., p. 26.
148. Ibid., p. 27.
149. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 293.
150. Kirkpatrick, SATGK, pp. 13, 17, 20, 22.
151. Ellen G. White, MS. 16, 1889, 1888 Materials, p. 238.
152. Ibid., p. 257.
153. Ibid., p. 258.
154. Bacchiocchi, EI#87, p. 11; EI#88, pp. 23, 24, 30.
155. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 47.
156. Ibid., p. 111.
157. Ellen G. White, RH, Oct 21, 1890.
158. ________, Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 384.
159. ________, Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, p. 454.
160. ________, Desire of Ages, p. 233.
161. Ibid.
162. Ibid.
163. Ibid.
164. ________, Great Controversy, p. 266.
165. ________, Early Writings, p. 253.
166. ________, Evangelism, p. 256.
167. ________, Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, pp. 1-24.
168. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 3, 113-114.
169. Bacchiocchi, EI#87, pp. 8-9.
170. Bacchiocchi had made these statements originally in EI#87 on pp. 11 and 17. My comment on them
comes at SATGK, pp. 2-3.
171. Bacchiocchi, EI#88, 9.
172. For example, Ellen G. White's testimonies to Uriah Smith in Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 64-66 and 683-
691.
173. Another Ellen White book, Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 28-125 and 433-465 also address
inspiration. These are only prominent samples of other material in the corpus of the Spirit of Prophecy

writings that bear upon the issues presently under discussion.

175. A regrettable example of this was already online by September 2, 2002 at
http://ellenwhite.org/gc1.htm.
176. See the five supporters mentioned in Bacchiocchi, EI#88, pp. 13-16. Several of those quoted seem to
buy outright the terrific caricatures of the issues as presented by Bacchiocchi. For example, EI#88, p.
13 has an Adventist pastor from Atlanta Georgia stating ""You also prove yourself to be a devoted
Bible scholar because you refuse to be pressured by tradition or by those who believe that E.G. White
always has the last word on absolutely everything. . ." this individual and another also brandish the
"we will be viewed as a cult" argument.
178. Ibid., p. 7.
179. Ibid.
180. Ibid., p. 8.
181. Ibid.
182. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
183. Ibid., p. 9.
184. Ibid., p. 5.
185. Ibid., p. 4.
186. Books by George Knight also contain sentiments in regard to the Bible and EGW that are sometimes
unsound, such as his Reading Ellen White, in which he asserts as Bacchiocchi that Mrs. White and
writers in the Bible also made errors.
187. Ibid.
188. Ibid.
189. Ibid., p. 26.
190. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 161.
Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American
Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his BA in Religion from Southern Adventist University in
1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with a specialization in Adventist Studies.
While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate's Berrien Springs branch
office. Far surpassing in importance his scholastic preparation has been his immersion in the biblical and Spirit
of Prophecy materials. Presently he serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located
near Loma Linda California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple presently live in Highland California
along with their two children, Etienne and Melinda.
Freely reproduce these materials larry@greatcontroversy.org

[Time page accessed: Wed 18 September 2002 • 4:52pm PST]

The Reliability Equation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reliability Equation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reliability Equation -- Larry Kirkpatrick

The Reliability Equation

❍ The 1260 Years Prophecy

❍ Role of Daniells and Prescott in 1911 GC Revision

● Other Misrepresentations and Charges

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (1 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

● The Reliability Equation

scholar + record of history > prophet + inspiration

Concerns Regarding Rhetoric and Certain Charges

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (2 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (3 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

number of our Adventist fellow believers" as people embracing "extreme positions."

Down Goes the Authority of Inspiration

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (4 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

● Messages need to be evaluated20

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (5 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (6 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (7 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

counterpart.44 His explanation, however, is wanting.

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (8 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Bacchiocchi and His Idea Sources

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (9 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (10 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

The 1919 Myth

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (11 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Enter Manuscript 16: The Articles on Inspiration that Ellen

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (12 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (13 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (14 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (15 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (16 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (17 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Bacchiocchi's current theories pivot upon the same theme.

The 1919 Truth

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (18 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (19 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Immediately in response to Taylor, A.G. Daniells uttered the following:

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (20 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

The 1260 Years Prophecy

A. G. Daniells: Yes, I suppose she did.

W. E. Howell: Yes, she outlines general principles.

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (21 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

W. W. Prescott: Do I understand Brother Benson's view is that such a statement as that in

W. W. Prescott: Then that settles it as being a part of that philosophy.

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (22 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Role of Daniells and Prescott in 1911 GC Revision

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (23 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Other Misrepresentations and Charges

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (24 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (25 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Ellen G. White 'As' or 'As Not' an Authority on History

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (26 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

On the 120 years and the flood:

"The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, as completed by the decree

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (27 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (28 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (29 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (30 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (31 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]

Other Loose Ends

Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues #89

http://greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-reliabilityeq.php3 (32 of 44) [9-18-2002 4:52:54 PM]