Understanding Ellen White

New Testament versus Old Testament prophets

Contemporary explanations concerning modern prophets are based on the supposed difference between the inspiration of Old Testament and New Testament prophets. Wayne Grudem, chairman of the Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, writes: UEGW 232.4

There is little if any evidence for a group of prophets in the New Testament churches who could speak with God’s very words (with “absolute divine authority” that could not be questioned) and who had the authority to write books of Scripture for inclusion in the New Testament. UEGW 232.5

On the other hand, there is a very prominent group of people in the New Testament who do speak with absolute divine authority and who did write most of the books of the New Testament. These men are called not “prophets,” however, but “apostles.” In many ways they are similar to the Old Testament prophets. ²² UEGW 233.1

Grudem believes that the Old Testament prophets and the apostles and their associates who wrote the New Testament were verbally inspired and therefore inerrant. The New Testament prophets mentioned in Acts and 1 Corinthians, however, were not. The prophesying of New Testament prophets, according to Grudem, “is reporting something that God spontaneously brings to mind.” ²³ To the question, “Does this kind of prophecy equal the Word of God?” he responds by saying: UEGW 233.2

Certainly not in the sense we usually use the phrase “the word of God,” namely, to refer to the “words of the Bible, which have absolute divine authority and can never be wrong.” Instead, errors can be made in prophecies that are spoken. That is why Paul says, “Let the others weigh what is said” (1 Cor. 14:29) and “Do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:20, 21). He could not have said these things if prophecies were the very words of God in the sense Scripture is the very word of God. Therefore, prophecies must have had much less authority than Scripture. ²⁴ UEGW 233.3

This distinction is important for Grudem. He accepts modern prophets in the church, but he identifies them with the New Testament prophets because, as indicated earlier, modern-day prophets frequently make mistakes. Grudem, therefore, says in regard to modern prophets, “Prophecy today is merely human words reporting what God has brought to mind, while the prophecies that were written down in the Old Testament were men speaking God’s words to report what God had brought to mind.” ²⁵ UEGW 233.4

This differentiation between Old and New Testament prophets is, of course, valid only if one believes in the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament prophets. As Seventh-day Adventists, who believe in what is generally called thought inspiration, we cannot make this distinction. Nevertheless, some Adventists, unfortunately, have adopted Grudem’s reasoning and are trying to put Ellen G. White in the same category as these modern charismatic prophets, who quite openly admit that they are frequently wrong. ²⁶ Admittedly, this would be a convenient way of explaining away some of the troublesome sayings of Ellen White. But is it the right way? UEGW 233.5

Grudem bases his distinction on his understanding of Paul’s discussion of the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21. In contrast to the warning against false prophets in Matthew 7:15-20 and in 1 John 4:1-6, Grudem believes that in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5 the issue is not false prophets but false prophecies of true prophets. “The context of 1 Corinthians 14:29,” he says, “indicates that the members of the congregation would all listen to the prophet’s speech and evaluate it in some way, but they would not judge the prophet himself to be true or false.” ²⁷ UEGW 234.1