Adventists and Inspiration-3

"Questions and perplexities without end"

by Alden Thompson

Not unexpectedly, former Adventist D. M. Canright ridiculed the idea of revising "inspired writings. Even more troubling for the church, however, was a forceful presentation of verbal inspiration by the president of Battle Creek College, W. W. Prescott. Part 3 of this series picks ups the story of Professor Prescott and the aftermath of his struggles to arrive at a consistent view of inspiration.

As Willie White remembered it some 35 years later, Professor Prescott’s presentation on the topic of inspiration led to "questions and perplexities without end, and always increasing." [W. C. White letter to L. E. Froom, Jan. 8, 1928, cited in Selected Messages, book 3, p. 454 (appendix C).]

White’s recollection raises tantalizing questions: What did Prescott say and why? How could he have made such a powerful impact and caused such difficulty in the church?

Although the final answers to these questions may elude us, a knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Prescott’s experience proves enlightening. In his later years he candidly described his own struggles with inspiration. Looking back, we discover that some of his difficulties parallel those of our day.

Turning to Prescott’s original presentation, we can surmise his major concerns by analyzing the work of Louis Gaussen, the Swiss apologist whose ideas he apparently presented. Prescott’s attraction to Gaussen, a stanch mid-nineteenth-century supporter of Biblical truth, should not surprise us. Gaussen had risen to prominence defending fundamental Christian positions, including the doctrine of the Second Advent, against European rationalism. [For a positive evaluation of Gaussen’s efforts in defending the faith, see LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. III, pp. 687-700. Also The Great Controversy, pp. 364-366.] Yet these contributions should not lead us to overlook the weaknesses in his concept of inspiration.

In his book on inspiration, Theopneustia (the word is derived from "God-breathed"–see 2 Tim. 3:16), Gaussen reveals himself as a thoroughgoing Calvinist, intent on defending the honor of God. He revels in a view of Scripture that enables him to "confide in God for everything and in man for nothing" (p. 323). [Page references in the text are to the English translation of the French original, Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (London: 1841).] His "heart bleeds" at the sight of "a wretched learned accountable mortal seated in the professor’s chair, irreverently handling the word of his God" (p. 16) "With what arrogant self-complacency do these deluded men parade the phantasmagoria of their hypotheses!"–Page 417.

Flaming rhetoric notwithstanding, Gaussen expresses legitimate concerns. Addressing those who claim to find some portions of Scripture more divine than others, he asks: "Will your minds sincerely take the humble and teachable position of a disciple, after having occupied that of a judge?" Page v. Those embarking on the latter course lose "whatever respect they had retained for the words of holy writ, and, finally, plunge headlong into the depths of rationalism" (p. viii).

History demonstrates a certain truth in Gaussen’s point, yet to shy away from hard evidence for fear of the consequences is not helpful. Here Gaussen falters, proposing a nonquestioning approach to Scripture that for many poses the danger of a collapse of faith. The staunchest defenders of Scripture can become quite suddenly its most outspoken foes.

Gaussen admits to having struggled with skepticism, "Amidst a thousand doubts," he eventually became convinced "by the word of Scripture alone" (p. 290). Unfortunately instead of pointing his readers to reasonable answers, he asks them to shout down their doubts.

Certain aspects of Gaussen’s approach are particularly troublesome. He generalizes from special cases: Greedy Baalam, stubborn Saul, and unwitting Caiaphas "prophesy" against their will (pp. 49, 221-224). Gaussen makes these experiences universal, claiming that inspiration always has to do with the words and never the person. Thus the prophet is simply "a stringed instrument attuned by the Holy Ghost"–an illustration from Church Fathers Athenagoras and Justin Martyr, cited approvingly by Gaussen ( pp. 362, 363). "If the words of the book are dictated by God, of what consequence to me are the thoughts of the writer?"–Page 304. In his view, none.

Thus for example, the varied experiences of the evangelists become irrelevant to their message. "It matters little to us, as far as faith is concerned, to know what was passing in the minds of the four evangelists whilst they were engaged in writing the scroll of their gospels: our attention should rather be turned to the word which they have written, because we know that these words are from God."–Page 224.

Gaussen also makes a radical distinction between original text and translation. Since the "Divine Mind" in "incarnate" in the original text, he claims a translation could be "perfectly done by an honest-minded heathen" (pp. 71, 72). Translators may have helpers and assistants, but the original author is a "solitary individual" who works with "his God only" (ibid.) Rather than making the Holy Spirit essential to the whole process, Gaussen sees the Spirit overpowering the original authors, but leaving the translators to their own devices.

This touches the point that proved so shaking to Prescott, namely, and inspired writer’s relationship to other writers. Gaussen raises the issue by citing a question posed in connection with the Gospels: "Did the evangelists read each other’s writings?" He responds: "What matters this to me, if they were ‘moved by the Holy Ghost’?" While viewing the question as innocent enough if asked simply in passing, he claims "it is no longer harmless ... because of the importance assigned to it. And can it ever throw light upon a single passage of the holy books, or more fully establish their truth? We think not." –Page 279.

Gaussen deplores any attempt to establish the relationship between the Gospels, comparing such work to "astrological divination" (p. 281). For him, examining the human garb in which the Word of God came is not simply pointless; it is anathema.

Why did Prescott find himself so attracted to Gaussen’s view? A glimpse of European and American history provides a clue. Already in eighteenth-century Europe, critical attacks against the Bible had forced traditional Christians on the defensive. But America remained largely isolated from such influences until well into the nineteenth century. Gaussen wrote from Europe in 1840 while the critical movement was still gathering momentum; Prescott spoke to the issues when the full force of European skepticism had exploded on the American scene during the last third of the century. [Otto Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse (Leipzig: 1922, p. 1).]

This critical handling of Scripture, in combination with other factors, produced startling changes in American Protestantism. Church historian George Marsden describes the scene: "That the ‘New Theology’ should spread so rapidly during the 1880s and 1890s into many strongholds of American Protestantism suggests that the walls of old-style orthodoxy, so strong in appearance as late as the 1870s, had in fact restrained a flood of new waves that had been gathering for some time." [George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (Oxford: 1980), p. 25.]

Amid such unsettling circumstances, Gaussen’s impassioned defense of Scripture undoubtedly appealed to many, Professor Prescott included, who feared the erosion of Biblical authority. While not a trained Bible scholar, Prescott was a well-informed and alert Adventist historian who recognized the crisis facing Christianity. Regrettably, because he called Gaussen to the rescue, both he and the church would struggle with "questions and perplexities without end, and always increasing."

His own crisis erupted when he was invited to update, improve, and annotate the historical quotations for the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy.

[Prescott described his difficulties a the 1919 Bible Conference, the minutes of which were lost until discovered in General Conference archives in 1974. The Prescott quotations come from these minutes, copies of which are available from the Ellen G. White Estate.]

Shaken, Prescott at first refused. How could he, an ordinary mortal, improve the work of an inspired writer? Furthermore, how could he serve as a critic in some instances and remain a disciple in others? And what of Gaussen’s point that an inspired writer works with "his God only"?

Although Prescott finally agreed to edit the historical quotations for the new edition of The Great Controversy, he continued to grapple with the inspiration issue. By 1919, when Prescott described his difficulties at a Bible conference, he seems to have settled in his own mind the matter of Ellen White’s authority. When asked by a disenchanted brother to "draw the line between what was authoritative and what was not," Prescott refused, testifying simply, "I will not attempt to do it, and I advise you not to do it. There is an authority in that gift here, and we must recognize it." Nevertheless, he still felt inclined to distinguish between "the works she largely prepared herself and what was prepared by others for sale to the public," a distinction difficult to justify on the basis of present knowledge.

Ironically, in the same year that Prescott told the Bible conference of his difficulties with inspiration (1919), S. N. Haskell, one of those influenced by Prescott’s original presentation, [According to W. C. White’s letter to Froom, cited earlier] published a book that reflected the very view Prescott had found troublesome. In his Bible Handbook, Haskell cites Daniel 10:17, 19 to prove that "inspiration is God’s breath, using the vocal organs of the prophet," [S. N. Haskell, Bible Handbook (South Lancaster, Mass.: 1919), p. 9.] a view indistinguishable from Gaussen’s.

When the church debated the "daily" in Daniel, [See the article "The Daily" in the SDA Encyclopedia, rev. ed. pp. 366-370.] Haskell revealed that he considered Ellen White to be verbally inspired. In a letter to her, he claimed that he and other pioneers "give more for one expression of your testimony than for all the histories you could stack between here and Calcutta."

[S. N. Haskell to Ellen White, May 30, 1910, cited by Bert Haloviak in an unpublished paper, "In the Shadow of the ‘Daily’: Background and Aftermath of the 1919 Bible and History Teachers’ Conference, p. 22.]

Haskell became agitated when General Conference president A. G. Daniells and Mrs. White’s son Willie White, among others, advocated a new view of the "daily" that seemed to contradict her statement in Early Writings. Ellen White refused to take sides, telling all parties to left the matter rest; it just wasn’t that important.

[Ellen White’s published comments are found in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 164, 165, 168. See also Richard Schwartz, Light Bearers to the Remnant (Mountain View, Calif.: 1979, pp. 397-399.]

What would be wrong with using Ellen White as an authority in historical matters, as Haskell was inclined to do? The danger is twofold: First, one can become preoccupied with historical details and miss the all-important practical application. Second, one’s confidence could be shaken in the face of Ellen White’s readiness to have the historical material in her writings "improved."

Her position in the matter is no secret. Ever since 1888, in the introduction to The Great Controversy [The Introduction to the 1911 edition is virtually identical to that of the 1888 edition. References cited here are from the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy, pp. xiii, xiv.] she has provided a concise explanation of the purpose of her writings and the role of the historical material she used. Three points stand out 1. The facts she cited were already "well known and universally acknowledged"; that is, they came from common knowledge, not revelation. 2. She reported these facts as concisely as possible, her purpose being to provide "a proper understanding of their application." 3. She quoted historians not "for the purpose of citing [a] writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject." In short, Ellen White had a very practical view of inspiration.

The delegates at the 1883 General Conference who voted to revise the Testimonies obviously held this more practical view. But Willie White was being somewhat optimistic when he said that the view expressed by the 1883 motion was "the only position taken by any of our ministers and teachers" until Professor Prescott gave his "very forceful" presentation. [Letter from White to Froom, see first note.]

Opposition to the revision of the Testimonies reveals a verbal-inspiration view already entrenched in the church in 1883-1884. Furthermore, the inspiration question proved a factor in D. M. Canright’s departure from Adventism in 1887, as well as the loss of A. T. Jones and J. H. Kellogg in the early 1900s. [See Haloviak, op. cit., pp. 13-18.]

The inspiration issue came to a head at the Bible conference of 1919, a fascinating but tragic story. In short, those who held to the inspiration of the person were looked upon with suspicion by some who held to the inspiration of the word. Both Daniells and Prescott had worked closely with Ellen White and held her in the highest esteem; yet they were accused of rejecting her inspiration. In fact, in spite of Daniells’ emotional protestations, the issue became a key factor in his not being reelected General Conference President in 1922. [Ibid., pp. 26-35.]

A strong negative reaction to the moderate view of Daniells and now Prescott may explain in part why Ellen White’s 1886 and 1888 inspiration manuscripts remained unpublished until 1958. Although the 1883 General Conference statement and the introduction to The Great Controversy (1888, 1911) point in the same direction as these two manuscripts, the church had adopted a conservative position. We would have been spared much difficulty if we could have moved ahead to a healthier view of inspiration. But rather than chastise our forefathers for their reluctance, we should make sure that the Holy Spirit guides our own view of inspiration in harmony with the evidence of His Word.

The fourth and final installment of this series will take us to Biblical material. We will seek to discover the value of studying Scripture with the understanding that the words are not inspired ("except in rare cases"–to quote the 1883 General Conference motion), but rather the person who wrote them.

–Alden Thompson, Adventist Review, September 19, 1985.