Messenger of the Lord

Presuppositions of Critics

Because the shut-door issue would not have arisen without the charges of certain critics, we will first review the basic presuppositions of various critics. Though not all these points apply to all critics, the general paradigm is as follows: MOL 501.7

Ellen White was time-conditioned; that is, she was a prisoner of her time, largely dependent upon the concepts prevailing among her contemporaries. For example: she reflected the “shut-door” concepts of her husband and other Sabbatarian Adventists. ¹² MOL 501.8

Ellen White and church leaders have not been forthright in dealing with the first seven or eight years of the public ministry of Ellen White and other “pioneers.” MOL 501.9

Ellen White and early Adventist leaders were compelled to “open the door” in the early 1850s because of the growing interest in the Sabbath and sanctuary doctrines among those not involved in the 1844 experience. MOL 502.1

Ellen White’s teaching on the atonement involving Christ’s change of ministry into the Most Holy Place in 1844 is unBiblical, hence her role as a theological teacher is unacceptable. This presupposition perhaps underlies and drives all other presuppositions. MOL 502.2

If Ellen White’s claim to be a divinely inspired writer is true, then her written words are either inspired or they are not. That is, from this verbal inspiration viewpoint, Ellen White would not be a prophet if she edited, deleted, or otherwise changed her previous statements. MOL 502.3

In putting “the best possible construction” on the critics’ concerns, affirmers must role-play and think through the “reasons” behind the critics’ charges. The quiet sharing of one another’s presuppositions will often eliminate the tensions caused by misperceptions. MOL 502.4