Ron Corson has responded to my first response at his blog: http://cafesda.blogspot.com and http://newprostants.com/rejudlake.htm. He is certainly right about the Internet technology as a way to “examine information in depth far easier than ever before.” Blogs, chatrooms, websites, and email–the possibilities for disseminating one’s views are limitless. Admittedly, entering the blogosphere is something I am doing very slowly, a little at a time. One has to assess how much time he or she is willing to invest in this new and exciting technology. I will have a few words to say on my own involvement at the end of this post. Although Ron and I have obvious differences, I respect his desire to engage with me as well as the Adventist church concerning various issues on his Blog. Critical evaluation is good for us.
I appreciate his serious engagement with my first post and want to be fair, honest, and respectful in my response. Since one can read both his comments and citation of my comments in context at http://newprostants.com/rejudlake.htm., I will place his comments (in red) and my response (in black) here. For my original post, see here.
RON CORSON:
I have found that when people begin by accusing someone of Ad Hominem remarks that they are most likely arguing from a weak position. In this case the supposed Ad Hominem is "lesser presenters" which is my view of his presentation. An Ad Hominem attacks the person; clearly my article was a critique of the material in the presentation. Being a "lessor Presentor" says nothing about the person as a person it is a reference to the presentation. A typical Ad Hominem is something said about the person rather then about what the argument of the person. For instance: "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)"
MY RESPONSE:
I accept his explanation, but as it reads on his original post, “lesser presenter,” could easily be interpreted more than one way. My original reason in bringing it up was to point out the weakness of using ad hominem to begin an argument. Both of us obviously want to avoid using this common fallacy as it does weaken an argument.
RON CORSON:
Jud Lake continues with a somewhat strange response saying: "The onus, of course, is on him to address the logical fallacies in my presentation, which he does not do." Yet his next paragraph addresses my contention that he uses A Priori fallacy. He then proceeds to explain that he did not use the word A Priori but Apriorism.
MY RESPONSE:
I was simply challenging this particular statement in Ron’s original post: “I don’t think I could possible find time to deal with all the logical fallacies he uses in his presentation on “Ellen White and Her Critics.” This statement contained strong rhetoric and begged to be challenged.
While it is true he addressed what he considered to be an a priori issue in my Summit presentation, my meaning was that the onus was on him to address what he described as “all” the logical fallacies in my presentation. And in his original post, he did not address “all the logical fallacies” in my presentation. Such was my point. I assumed the word, “all,” and should have inserted it–“the onus is on him to address all the logical fallacies . . . “ Has he provided evidence that I committed all these fallacies in his second post? See below.
RON CORSON:
My Response:
He is referring to one place in the presentation where mentioned this particular fallacy. The careful listener of my presentation will notice that the precise word I used was not "a priori" but "apriorism." A priori is a type of reasoning that begins with general principles and moves to particulars, often called deductive reasoning. For example, the starting point for Ellen White critics is that she was a false prophet; the starting point for Ellen White supporters is that she possessed the prophetic gift. Beginning an argument with a specific premise in mind is not necessarily a fallacy. It is what happens later in the argument that determines whether or not a fallacy is occurring. This is where apriorism becomes relevant. Apriorism is a logical fallacy in which a person starts with a "conclusion" and stays with it, ignoring all contrary evidence. What I said in my presentation, which Corson failed to acknowledge, was that the critics start with the conclusion that Ellen White was a false prophet and read this into everything she says without ever examining the context or any contrary evidence. This is apriorism and supporters of Ellen White can be guilty of it as well. Any argument pro or con about Ellen White must be examined in its entirety to detect this fallacy.
So he does a little dance about apriorism which merely means that one is using the A Priori principle http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apriorism
MY RESPONSE:
The literature on these terms is significant but I have no burden to paste bits and pieces of it here. One can easily type in “a priori” or “apriorism,” at Google and find plenty of information. It is true that apriorism is described as the a priori principle. Other's explain it as a fallacy: http://www.ditext.com/fearnside/28.html . The issue is how much one lets his or her presuppositions control an argument, regardless of the evidence.
RON CORSON:
You can see how relevant this fallacy is in the issue of dealing with the critics of Ellen White. He notes how they are using their conclusion that from their research she is not a prophet and they then offer their evidence for their position. This to Jud Lake is a fallacy because he thinks they are not examining context or contrary evidence. While I don’t think in the main that is true I do see in his presentations the same fallacy only with the presumption that Ellen White is a prophet and then he and other summit presenters will quote her as an authority.
MY RESPONSE:
Isn’t he arguing from his a priori assumption that the critics do objectively examine all the evidence about Ellen White and are “in the main” right? Obviously, I argue they do not objectively examine all the evidence and are mostly wrong in their conclusions. Both of us have our a priori starting point. As I stated in my last post and Ron quotes me above: “Any argument pro or con about Ellen White must be examined in its entirety to detect this fallacy.” See more below.
RON CORSON:
She is an authority upon what she says but that does not mean she is an authority on prophets or inspiration. In the argument with critics that is the basic question. Jud Lake gives an example of such Bible writers as Luke using witnesses in the creation of the book of Luke and then concludes that Ellen White did the same thing by gathering information from other Christian writers. Of course every Christian writer takes information from other Christian writers but that does not make them prophets. When the presentation at the summit use these and other examples they fall back upon their opening premise which is that Ellen White is a prophet. They have not really supported their premise, as their opening premise is their conclusion and the area that should be evidence only applies to Ellen White if the opening premise is assumed to be correct hence it is an A Priori fallacy.
MY RESPONSE:
The initial point I was making with the gospel of Luke is that inspiration includes literary borrowing, as evidenced in Luke 1:1-4. Just because an inspired writer borrows from another writer does not mean he should be disqualified as a contributor to the Scriptural canon. Does the act of comparing Ellen White’s literary borrowing with the Bible writer’s literary borrowing usually begin with the premise in mind that she was inspired. Yes, of course it does. Is this the fallacy of apriorism (or a priori fallacy)? Not necessarily. It depends on the content of the entire argument. My presentation at the Summit was only a tiny part of the larger evidence regarding the literary borrowing issue. But it nevertheless was enough to show a connection in practice between Ellen White and the Bible writers. For Ron, the issue of the parallels between the Bible and Ellen White’s literary borrowing is meaningless because he does not accept her inspired status–a priori. I do–a priori. Both parties must examine all the evidence on both sides to avoid apriorism or the a priori fallacy.
Ron’s statement —“They have not really supported their premise, as their opening premise is their conclusion and the area that should be evidence only applies to Ellen White if the opening premise is assumed to be correct hence it is an A Priori fallacy.”—has behind it the a priori assumption that Ellen White was not inspired and the literary borrowing of Bible writers cannot be evidence because of an assumption that she was inspired. But I would argue than this evidence should not be discarded. The main point of comparing the literary habits of the Bible writers with Ellen White is to show that she did not do anything different than they did regarding the use of sources. Behind this issue, of course, is the charge of plagiarism, which is an a priori assumption of most critics. When they read this assumption into every single instance where her language parallels another writer, without even considering the distinction between literary borrowing and plagiarism, they commit apriorism. So as the reader can see, unless we speak of the entire context of an argument, we will go in circles arguing about when a priori begins and ends in our arguments.
Ron’s statement, “When the presentation at the summit use these and other examples they fall back upon their opening premise which is that Ellen White is a prophet.”, is a good argument. But he is right insofar as the quality of our evidence supports our opening premise. Did we prove our premise that Ellen White was a prophet? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that there was some evidence presented in the presentations and no, in the sense that the purpose of the summit was not to prove her prophetic status—it was an automatic given. The Summit purpose was to enhance understanding of Ellen White as a person and a prophet, presupposing that she was already a prophet. So a lot was left unsaid about what constitutes her prophetic gift. An entire summit could be given on the issues that Ron and other critics raise.
RON CORSON:
“To repeat from Jud Lake above: ‘What I said in my presentation, which Corson failed to acknowledge, was that the critics start with the conclusion that Ellen White was a false prophet and read this into everything she says without ever examining the context or any contrary evidence.’
If that was what they do then by the same principle it would be just as fallacious to take Ellen White as a prophet and read that into everything she says.”
MY RESPONSE:
Remember what I said immediately following my above statement: “This is apriorism and supporters of Ellen White can be guilty of it as well. Any argument pro or con about Ellen White must be examined in its entirety to detect this fallacy.”
RON CORSON:
However it is not the case that the critics begin with the conclusion that EGW is a false prophet. As we will look at below D.M. Canright used to believe in the inspiration of Ellen White. The same is true for the operator (now contributor) of EllenWhite.org; Dirk Anderson who has said that he began the site as a supporter of Ellen White. Dirk Anderson writes:
"In 1996 I discovered material on the Internet attacking Mrs. White as a prophet. I was outraged! I was indignant that anyone would criticize God's prophet. For years I had been telling SDA's how they should obey Ellen White. I had become adept at identifying which of Ellen White's rules a person was not following, and I was eager to criticize them for being lax in not following her standards. Now I took on the new mission of defending her on the Internet. I set up a web page and concocted arguments to try and explain away some of her unusual statements, such as amalgamation. I forced myself to do all types of "mental gymnastics" in order to explain things, and I began to wonder if I was pushing the boundaries of honesty." http://www.ellenwhite.org/archive/testimony.htm
Jud Lake even began his presentation on dealing with the critics by acknowledging that they are former SDA’s. So it is not really true to say that these people begin with the conclusion that she is a false prophet and do not examine the context or contrary evidence. In most cases these people came from the perspective of believers in her inspiration who after examining the evidence no longer hold to that belief and present the reasons why they no longer accept her as a prophet.
MY RESPONSE:
Yes, they did come from the perspective of believers at one time in Ellen White’s inspiration. But that is not when they began their argument against her. Does a normal person begin a formal argument against a position while still believing in it? Mostly, no. A person generally begins a formal argument against a position only after he or she has formally rejected that position. This is common sense. Dirk Anderson, for example, did not begin his formal arguments against Ellen White until he finalized his decision to reject her prophet gift:
"I was finally forced to admit, by the overwhelming weight of evidence that Mrs. White was not a prophet of God. It was devastating to me. I became physically ill and was sick in bed for six days. I became depressed and discouraged. It took me several months before I resigned my membership in the SDA church. I could no longer support an organization that I felt had not been fully honest about the ministry of Ellen White." ( http://www.ellenwhite.org/archive/testimony.htm)
According to his testimony, it was after this experience that he started his website against Ellen White. So it is therefore accurate to say that the critics of Ellen White begin their formal arguments against her with the conclusion already in place that she is a false prophet. Ron seems to be pulling a red herring here. The real issue is whether or not they are fair and objective with “all” the evidence, not when they began their arguments against Ellen White.
The assumption underlying Ron’s point here is that when the material at ellenwhite.org, for example, is fully examined by believers in Ellen White they will, like Dirk Anderson, conclude she is a false prophet. At the end of his testimony Dirk claims he has examined “all” the evidence (http://www.ellenwhite.org/archive/testimony.htm). And there is no question that he has compiled a significant amount of material. But the real question is: has he examined “all”of the contrary evidence to his views? Admittedly, I did not provide evidence that he has not examined all contrary evidence in my Summit presentation. That was not my purpose. See below.
RON CORSON:
Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Martin began their investigation of the SDA denomination with the same type of healthy skepticism, which is common among most Christians, when they examine someone who makes prophetic claims. As Christians they have been instructed through the Bible to test the Spirits and provided with tests to use in deciding if a person is a prophet or not. In fact most SDA’s begin with the same type of skepticism when they deal with other so called prophets like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, or current ones like Paul Cain etc. However in the SDA denomination it is very rare for the members to question Ellen White, they have been trained to begin with a different tradition then is common to other Christians. Even the Christians who believe in modern prophets do not hold that those prophets are qualitatively inspired the same as the Bible prophets as is taught to SDA’s and as Jud Lake presented in his program.
The Presenters all began with the A Priori fallacy the beginning and ending point were that Ellen White is a prophet. None of the presentations dealt with the first question that should be dealt with, that is: why do they believe Ellen White is a prophet. What is the evidence for such a claim?
MY RESPONSE:
Again, an underlying assumption in this argument is that a healthy skepticism towards Ellen White will inevitably lead to rejecting her. In my own experience, and in the experience of others I know, this healthy skepticism (willingness to examine all evidence regarding Ellen White pro and con) has confirmed her prophetic status.
Ron does raise an interesting issue. What happens when SDA members or seekers approach Ellen White with the tradition common to other Christians (test all claims to the prophetic gift by Scripture)? Will they come to the conclusion that she is inspired in the same way qualitatively as the Bible writers and yet see her in a subordinating role to the Bible? Many Adventists have reached this conclusion. Why do the Summit presenters believe Ellen White is a prophet? What is the evidence for this claim? As I said before, the purpose of the Summit, as I understood it, was not to address this issue in depth. But I think it would be safe to say that our understanding is based on the research of Adventist scholarship. Let me refer the reader to several sources that address this issue in detail (the nature of the canonical, noncanonical, and postcanonical prophet gift, testing it by Scripture, etc.):
The recent Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, volume 12, in the SDA Bible Commentary series, contains essays poured over and critiqued by SDA scholars. Dr. George Rice’s article “Spiritual Gifts,” pages 610-650, provides a research-based answer on the issue of the postcanonical prophetic gift, its function, and how to test it by Scripture. Ron is welcome to critique this one for it is representative of what many SDA church members and theologians believe about the prophetic gift in Scripture. To my knowledge it is not online at this time.
Frank Holbrook’s essay, “The Biblical Basis for a Modern Prophet,” provides, in my view, a careful articulation of the biblical basis for the prophet gift in modern times. http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Biblical%20Basis%20for%20Prophet.htm
Then, of course, there are George Knights easy-to-read books, Meeting Ellen White and Reading Ellen White, which also address this issue. Much of what is in these two books was not covered at the Summit.
RON CORSON:
As you may recall Jud Lake said: "The onus, of course, is on him to address the logical fallacies in my presentation, which he does not do. To simply say that a person commits fallacies without demonstrating it is the "that’s a fallacy" fallacy! Corson, of course, will argue that I did the same thing to the critics in my presentation. Admittedly, my presentation is open to this charge because of its nature it was only an introduction to the issue of Ellen White’s critics. I only mentioned a few fallacies in passing with an illustration or two."
So far, Jud Lake as recognized in his own writing two fallacies in his presentation; the "that is a fallacy" fallacy and A priori Fallacy (which he refers to as Apriorism). So we can see that when he says I did not address logical fallacies in his presentation he is not accurate at all. Later we will see his fallacious argument regarding Canright but now I want to show just how he used the "that is a fallacy" fallacy many times in his presentation to try and discredit the critics without offering any evidence. He does acknowledge that he is open to this criticism and that he should have given examples to support his accusations had he know of a wider audience. But that is what makes a fallacy, when nothing supports the asserted point it becomes a fallacious argument and it does not matter if the argument is given to your supporters or some other group the argument is still unsupported.
MY RESPONSE:
Ron has a good argument here, mainly articulated in the last two sentences of the above statement. The predicament I find myself in is this: I wanted to present more during the Summit but we had to be very strict on time. Even the night before, I was deleting material from my presentations, which contained some evidence for certain claims. Moreover, I chose to provide only an introduction to the issue of the critics. The last couple of years I have poured over the critical websites and analyzed the data and all arguments pro and con. My conclusion is that the weight of evidence clearly favors Ellen White’s prophetic gift. I chose not to share this material at the summit because of time limits and the nature of my presentation assignment. Nevertheless, it is fair, based on what I said at the Summit, for Ron to assert: “The onus is on Jud to provide evidence for his claims against the critics.” This I will surely do at another time and place.
Ron writes: “Later we will see his [Jud’s] fallacious argument regarding Canright but now I want to show just how he used the "that is a fallacy" fallacy many times in his presentation to try and discredit the critics without offering any evidence.” Have I committed as many fallacies as Ron asserts? Read on.
RON CORSON:
Minute 38-40 in his lecture dealing with the critics.
And their beginning point is that Ellen White is a false prophet. And they read that into everything they study in her writings. That’s just how notorious critics of the Bible operate. They come to the Bible and they nit-pick, and you can find a lot in the Bible to criticize. Well they can find a lot in Ellen White to criticize and they exploit that. And that is a fallacy that’s not looking at the material in its original context. Let me summarize the fundamental errors of the critics they operate under a wrong view of inspiration. And that evidently is a wrong view of inspiration they got while they were Seventh-day Adventists based on the anchor presentation by Dr. Newborn this morning. They consistently ignore the literary and historical context of Ellen White’s writings she wrote in the 19 century and in some of the 19 century language it sounds quite weird compared to our culture and they will capitalize on those statements and of course ignore that there’s a timeless principle there and they will make her look really bad to 21st century readers. But they ignore the context. The repeat the same fallacies in their arguments as I said they repeat the concealed evidence and the ad hominem argument against attack on the character, straw man and many others. They ignore the books that uplift Christ you won’t ever hear them say much about Desire of Ages, Christ Object Lessons or Steps to Christ except in passing it’s usually a sarcastic term, well the Desire of Ages is copied and Ellen White didn’t write steps to Christ…
We see Jud Lake using a straw man argument as he talks about the critics of Ellen White by quickly associating them with critics of the Bible. In general the critics of Ellen White are not critics of the Bible. This is a fallacious argument meant to equate the critics of the Bible with critics of Ellen White. They are two separate issues if he wanted to talk of related issues he might note that such critics of Ellen White are also critics of Joseph Smith. You can see how unrelated this language is by substituting another book in place of the Bible: --That’s just how notorious critics of the Darwin's Origin of the Species operate. They come to the Origin of the Species and they nit-pick, and you can find a lot in the Origin of the Species to criticize. Only now for Christians aside from the derogatory word notorious the critics look good.
MY RESPONSE:
Did I say anywhere in the above quote that the critics of Ellen White are critics of the Bible? I said nothing about EGW critics criticizing the Bible. I was taking about their strategy in criticizing Ellen White. The point I briefly touched on (and can now elaborate) was this: the strategy the critics of EGW use is strikingly similar to the strategy the Bible critics use. For example, on the site: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/, one will find a lot of nitpicking at many texts throughout the Bible. They completely ignore the context and read into a text something that is not there. I have found this same strategy in the way EGW critics analyze her writings. True, the EGW critics in general are not critics of the Bible, but they often, and I think unknowingly, resort to tactics the critics of the Bible use.
Here we again come back to a priori. He comes to the critics, based on what he said above, with the presupposition that, “in the main,” they do not violate the context of Ellen White’s writings. My presupposition is that, in the main, they do violate the context (literary and historical) of her writings. And the only way to determine if either one of us is committing the fallacy of apriorism (or the a priori fallacy) is to analyze our strategies in supporting our presuppositions. And that is for another time and place.
RON CORSON:
He does not give any examples of the critics taking something out of its original context. He assumes that they operate under the wrong view of inspiration while not acknowledging that most of them don’t believe in verbal dictation even though that is something the SDA church over the latter part of the 1800’s and most of the 1900’s operated by. The critics as he is aware began as critics in the time of Ellen White so it is not merely taking 19th century language and making it appear weird to today’s culture as the criticism were all there way back then. He then repeats that they ignore context which is something that Jud Lake does also and all the other fallacies; straw man, ad hominem (in a general way lumping critics as deceptive), concealed evidence all were present in Jud Lakes presentation. He also assumes that the critics are sarcastic when they question or accuse Ellen White of heavily relying on her literary assistants in such books as Steps to Christ and that they ignore the good things she like most Christians writers may have said. What he ignores is that critic just as the media news focuses on the problems not where there may be agreement. As in all of these fallacies he suggests without giving any evidence, he offers nothing to support his position one could very easily accuse him of concealed evidence by his omitting what the critics really do say.
MY RESPONSE:
Here Ron is responding to a short section in my presentation that was based on a single Powerpoint slide. In attempting to refute me, he uses a shotgun strategy (shooting lots of arguments in one paragraph). As such, these statements need individual attention. I will take each sentence one at a time. Ron’s statements are in red.
“He does not give any examples of the critics taking something out of its original context.”
True, but this was not my original purpose. I was only summarizing the points on the slide, which was a very small section compared to the rest. There was no time for detailed examples in the context of this presentation. Nevertheless, Ron’s point is valid. I have other presentations that analyze the many ways the critics take EGW statements out of their original context.
“He assumes that they operate under the wrong view of inspiration while not acknowledging that most of them don’t believe in verbal dictation even though that is something the SDA church over the latter part of the 1800’s and most of the 1900’s operated by.”
Ron needs to remember that he is making an assumption that the critics never hold Ellen White up to the standard of a verbal-word oriented inspiration. Is it true that the SDA church during the latter part of the 1800s and most of the 1900s operated according to verbal dictation? Yes and no. Yes, Adventist leaders did tend to emphasize verbalism in inspiration by the end of the 1880s and afterward. No, a more moderate view of inspiration, voted by the 1883 General Conference Session, continued along side the more influential verbalism. Ellen White herself clearly espoused the more moderate view of inspiration. For documentation, see George Knight, The Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, 133-138. For more on this important General Conference action on inspiration, see below.
“The critics as he is aware began as critics in the time of Ellen White so it is not merely taking 19th century language and making it appear weird to today’s culture as the criticism were all there way back then.”
True, there were plenty of critics of Ellen White while she was alive, as I pointed out in my Summit presentation. But critics of today often bring up issues related to 19th century culture that the critics of that period would never have thought of because it was a part of their culture. For example, she counsels men to not shave on the Sabbath (ST, May 25, 1882). Contemporary critics take this statement and point out how legalistic she was on Sabbath keeping. Today, however, shaving is quick and easy with electric shavers/Mock-three razors and this counsel sounds rigid. But in the 19th century, the straight steel razors made shaving quite an ordeal. These razors dulled easily and needed sharpening several times during a single shave. Also, the shaving soaps of the day did not shorten the process. Ellen White’s counsel on shaving made sense to 19th century Sabbath keepers. Without the historical context, however, this counsel sounds legalistic when today shaving is a short and easy process for men. The principle behind this counsel is avoiding any activity that distracts from enjoying the Sabbath.
“He then repeats that they ignore context which is something that Jud Lake does also and all the other fallacies; straw man, ad hominem (in a general way lumping critics as deceptive), concealed evidence all were present in Jud Lakes presentation.”
I have already acknowledged that I am happy to provide the context in future presentations and writings. It seems to me that he is ignoring the context of my entire presentation and just presenting objections to present objections. But I will go along with his argument. Admittedly, I was, and still am, operating under the presupposition that the critics tend to be deceptive. He is operating under the presupposition that they tend to be honest and truthful in their analysis of Ellen White’s writings. Neither of us has provided evidence to support our presuppositions at this point. That is for another time.
As to lumping fallacies together, I did lump them together in this short section of my presentation. I acknowledge that this section needs to be expanded into an entire presentation with all the evidence and documentation. So shall it be.
As to committing the fallacies of straw man, ad hominem, and concealed evidence:
Straw man: when one operates with the presupposition that the critics of Ellen White are honest and forthright in presenting their evidence, then I can understand why this person would look for straw men in my presentation. I have addressed this accusation already. See above.
Ad hominem: the reader should be reminded that one of my major points in the section on “dealing with EGW criticisms” was “avoid engaging in the ad hominem fallacy yourself.” I even gave the example of the many attacks on Canright’s character instead of his arguments. Nevertheless, parts of my presentation need refining to avoid even a hint of this fallacy.
Concealed evidence: Remember that I spent considerable time identifying the critical websites and books by name such as truthorfables.com, ex-sda.org, sdaoutreach.org, ratzlaf.com, and ellenwhite.org. Furthermore, I showed on the screen and referenced the following books: The White Lie, White Out, White Washed, and more. Anyone who has never heard of these sources before can now go find these websites and books. This is hardly “concealing” contrary evidence.
“He also assumes that the critics are sarcastic when they question or accuse Ellen White of heavily relying on her literary assistants in such books as Steps to Christ and that they ignore the good things she like most Christians writers may have said. What he ignores is that critic just as the media news focuses on the problems not where there may be agreement.”
I have heard numerous critics say in a sarcastic tone that Desire of Ages is a good book, but she copied all of it. For me it is more than an assumption, I have heard it with my own ears. But this is not to say that there are critics who never take the literary issue with Ellen White seriously. Many do and not all are sarcastic about it. I think it is good that Adventist scholars are now discussing Ellen White’s literary assistants. Much will be said on this in the forthcoming Ellen G. White Encyclopedia.
It is fact anyone will recognize after study of the negative websites that they rarely, if ever, say anything about the many positive Christian themes in Ellen White’s writings. The analogy of the news media does not really work because they focus on whatever is newsworthy, good or bad, agreement or not. This also depends on what news media you are talking about CNN or Fox? The argument that the EGW critics focus only on the areas where they think there are problems and choose not to address the areas of agreement reflects more an obvious agenda on the part of the critics. That is, they spend the majority of their time on a small controversial part of Ellen White’s writings and do not proportionally balance this with the larger part of her total writings that reflect basic Christianity. From this small controversial part of her writings they claim she is legalistic, or whatever, and fail to present the larger picture of her positive teaching on the Christian life–this obviously reflects an agenda to destroy her credibility (evidence for this claim will come in my future writings).
“As in all of these fallacies he suggests without giving any evidence, he offers nothing to support his position one could very easily accuse him of concealed evidence by his omitting what the critics really do say.”
I have already addressed this issue above.
RON CORSON:
As I suspect is the case in his PowerPoint slide of the Canright quote which follows.
Jud Lake continues: Corson cites me in my second presentation, "Ellen White and Inspiration," and endeavors to show that I misquoted Canright. Here he gets it wrong again. He cites me at the point I am quoting from Canright on verbal dictation and then retreats to the ellenwhite.org site for an online version of the book I was citing: Life of Mrs E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted, (Salt Lake City: Grant Shurtliff, Sterling Press, 1998), D.M. Canright. I will not cite the entire statement from Canright or respond to it at this time. I plan on writing a critique of the entire book. As to the above statement from my presentation, I was actually citing the "Preface" found on page 1 (page 9 in the original 1919 edition) of my hard copy. Corson did not see the DVD and thus did not have the advantage of seeing the Powerpoint slide which referenced the paging. Here is the quote with the inserted comments I made at the Summit presentation in brackets: "Every line she wrote [he believed], whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed [and this is my bold-a reference to the Powerpoint slide] was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallible" (p. 1). So I was not misquoting Canright.
Corson seems to have focused in on my inserted comment "he believed," for he says after citing Canright: "It is not Canright who said that Ellen White’s words must be infallible it was his response to the followers of Ellen White who saw her as infallible . . ." My point was, if one listened carefully to my comments, that Canright believed Ellen White claimed every line was dictated to her by the Holy Spirit. My comments following this quote from Canright provide evidence that Ellen White and the early pioneers never claimed verbal dictation (listen to the presentation as well as to Craig Newborn’s presentation: "The Path to Disengagement").
Here are the Canright quotes from my original article. You will notice I did not say that Jud Lake misquoted Canright since I was not sure where he got his quote so I used a section from Canright’s book to show what Canright’s position was.
Compare what Canright actually wrote as found in chapter 3 at: http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm
MY RESPONSE:
True, Ron did not use the word “misquote,” but how else am I to understand the last sentence: “Compare what Canright actually wrote as found in chapter 3 at:” The implication is that I was not “actually” quoting Canright correctly. At any rate, that how I understood this statement.
In the next section, Ron quotes from Canright in his original article, which is helpful for readers to know the context. I will briefly comment on one part of this statement from Canright:
“In all this however we know that Canright did not have some wooden literal view of Ellen White being verbally inspired. As he wrote in chapter 9:
Mrs. White's visions ceased about the time of the change of life common to women. While she still had visions, she claimed that much that she "saw" went entirely from her mind at the time. Months, even years later, when she met a brother or a church that needed a "testimony," the part relating to these all came vividly to her mind, she said. She would then write out this portion of the forgotten "vision."
This worked very well till years after her visions ceased. Finally this could not be stretched further. Then her revelations had to come in a different way; by a voice, by dreams, by "impressions," by some one on "authority" speaking, and the like. The following expressions, taken from the last volume of her "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. IX., published in 1909, are examples of this. Page 13: "I was instructed." Page 82: "Instruction has been given me." Page 65: "In the night of March 2, 1907, many things were revealed to me." The room, she said, was very light. Page 66: "Then a voice spoke to me." Page 95: "The angel stood by my side." But she had no vision as formerly. Page 98: "Instruction has been given me." Page 101: "In the night season I was awakened from a deep sleep and given a view." Page 137: "In the night season matters have been presented to me." Page 195: "At one time I seemed to be in a council meeting." The expression, "I have been instructed," occurs over and over in these later alleged revelations, just as the expression, "I saw," does in her earlier writings.”
This passage must be read in the light of what Canright says elswhere regarding Ellen White's inspiration. Here the language he uses does not diminish what he says there. See below.
After citing from this first post, Ron makes the following comment:
“As we look back at what Jud Lake says we discover that when he quoted from the Preface of Canright's book Canright was not writing about verbal dictation.”
This is a point that Ron will assert several times. Moreover, Ron has already suggested that I concealed evidence in the way I used Canright’s quote. Please read on.
RON CORSON:
Here is what Jud Lake said:
He cites me at the point I am quoting from Canright on verbal dictation and then retreats to the ellenwhite.org site for an online version of the book I was citing: Life of Mrs E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted, (Salt Lake City: Grant Shurtliff, Sterling Press, 1998),
As we will see shortly the subject is not verbal dictation. I would also not call going to a readily available web site as retreating to the EllenWhite.org site. If SDA’s were willing to post such material I would be happy to use them. Most SDA’s are not close to a college with access to these historical books. I appreciate those both SDA and non-SDA who take the time and effort to make these works available.
MY RESPONSE:
Again, he emphasizes that Canright’s subject is not verbal dictation. As to the rest of the statement, point well taken. I should not have used the term “retreat.” It is helpful having this historical document online (especially for discussions of this nature), regardless of the source.
RON CORSON:
[Ron is citing me here] D.M. Canright. I will not cite the entire statement from Canright or respond to it at this time. I plan on writing a critique of the entire book. As to the above statement from my presentation, I was actually citing the "Preface" found on page 1 (page 9 in the original 1919 edition) of my hard copy. Corson did not see the DVD and thus did not have the advantage of seeing the Powerpoint slide which referenced the paging. Here is the quote with the inserted comments I made at the Summit presentation in brackets: "Every line she wrote [he believed], whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed [and this is my bold-a reference to the Powerpoint slide] was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallible" (p. 1). So I was not misquoting Canright.
Though I did not in my previous article say that Jud Lake was misquoting Canright after reading his response I can’t really see any way to look at it except as misquoting. First Jud Lake claims that Canright is writing about verbal dictation, which is contextually completely wrong.
MY RESPONSE:
Here Ron is seems to be saying that I misquoted Canright in the sense that I got the “context completely wrong” by claiming that Canright “is writing about verbal dictation.” Then Ron correctly cites the section from Canright’s preface in The Life of Mrs. E.G. White . . . Her False Claims Refuted, page 1-2 in the reprinted copy by Grant Shurtliff:
The Life of Ellen White by D.M. Canright
Preface
Mrs. E.G. White, the prophetess, leader, and chief founder of the Seventh-day Adventists Church, claimed to be divinely inspired by God the same as were the prophets of the Bible. Defining her position, she says: "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the testimonies of his Spirit" ("Testimonies for the Church," Vol. IV., p. 148; Vol. V., p. 661; No. 88, p. 189) that is, by her through her writings.
Every line she wrote, whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallible.
Her people accept and defend these claims strongly. Her writings are read in their churches, taught in their schools, and preached by their ministers the same as the Holy Scriptures. Their church stands or falls with her claims. This they freely admit. She stands related to her people the same as Mohammed to the Mohammedans, Joseph Smith to the Mormons, Ann Lee to the Shakers, and Mrs. Eddy to the Christian Scientists.
Hence these high claims are a subject for fair investigation, to which her followers, who have freely criticized other claimants to divine inspiration, can not reasonably object. They have published several books bearing on her life and work, in which they have gathered together and construed everything possible in her favor. From reading these books one would never know that she ever made a mistake, plagiarized, practiced deception, or wrote alleged inspired writings which had to be suppressed. In narrating the lives of inspired men God does not thus cover up their failures and pass by their mistakes and shortcomings.
The public, therefore, has a right to know the other side of the life of Mrs. White
http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/canp.htm
RON CORSON:
So we see from the context of the preface the subject is the introduction of Ellen White as a SDA prophet. He nowhere says his belief is verbal inspiration Jud Lake interprets verbal inspiration apparently from the statement "claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost". However this is his reading into the statement what he wants to see rather then either using the context or the vernacular of the time.
MY RESPONSE:
As anyone can see in the above quote from Canright’s “Preface,” Ron is right that the “subject is the introduction of Ellen White as a SDA prophet.” Furthermore, Canright does not articulate his personal understanding of inspiration here. That is not his purpose. Based on this, Ron insists that I have read into the line “claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost,” what I want to see (verbal inspiration) rather than what is really in the context or the “vernacular of the time.” Fair enough. Read on.
RON CORSON:
As Ellen White herself makes numerous statements about dictated by the Holy Ghost. If it is justifiable to conclude that such statements meant verbal dictation to Canright it should be equally justifiable to assert that that is what Ellen White meant also. Of course to do that one has to ignore context, which Jud Lake has already done.
A couple examples of Ellen White:
God gives more than money to His stewards. Your talent of imparting is a gift. What are you communicating of the gifts of God, in your words, in your tender sympathy? . . . The knowledge of truth is a talent. There are many souls in darkness that might be enlightened by true, faithful words from you. There are hearts that are hungering for sympathy, perishing away from God. Your sympathy may help them. The Lord has need of your words, dictated by His Holy Spirit. . . . {TMK 327.2}
He who is the father of lies, blinds and deceives the world by sending his angels forth to speak for the apostles, and make it appear that they contradict what they wrote when on earth, which was dictated by the Holy Ghost. {1SG 176.1}
You may not be able to speak eloquently to those you desire to help; but if you speak modestly, hiding self in Christ, your words will be dictated by the Holy Spirit, and Christ, with whom you are co-operating, will impress the heart. {SW, May 29, 1902 par. 5}
Simply put dictated does not in the English language indicate verbal dictation, as any Dictionary will attest.
MY RESPONSE:
Ron’s statement—“ If it is justifiable to conclude that such statements meant verbal dictation to Canright it should be equally justifiable to assert that that is what Ellen White meant also.”—is an interesting point. Even if the word meant verbal dictation to Canright that doesn’t necessarily mean it meant the same thing to Ellen White and vice versa. It depends on the immediate context in which the word is used. Moreover, in the dictionary definition Ron provides, it is true that the word “dictation” carries more than just the meaning of verbal dictation. But it should be noted that the first and primary meaning of the word in the dictionary definition Ron gives is: “1. To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another: dictate a letter.” So while the term does carry the wider meaning of control, issuing commands, or ruling as a dictator, it does carry the meaning of verbally dictating something in such a way that it can be recorded, word for word.
In the case of the above Ellen White statements, the word seems to carry the wider meaning based on the immediate context. She seems to mean dictate in the sense of “control,” which would fit the context of the statements. And this is Ron’s argument as I understand it: if Ellen White used the word in the wider sense of its meaning, then Canright must have had this wider meaning in mind as well when he used the word. This is possible, but again, the author’s context determines which meaning one attaches to the word “dictation.” Ron, of course, thinks I have ignored Canright’s contextual use of this word. Read on.
RON CORSON:
Jud Lake continues: My Response:
It can easily be demonstrated that Canright evaluated Ellen White from the standpoint of a dictational model of inspiration. In his 1889 book, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, he objected even to her personal corrections in the handwritten originals. "I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and write it over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them" (p. 138)? But what was most scandalous in Canright’s eyes is found on page 141: "In 1885 all her ‘testimonies’ were republished in four volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor." By sampling the number of changes on four pages chosen at random, he attempted to estimate what percentage of the total number of words in her writings might have been affected by the editorial process: "At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes" (ibid.). He concluded: "Fine inspiration that is" (ibid.)!
His objection is based upon Ellen White’s own comments, he does not say that she was verbally inspired, he says:
MY RESPONSE:
The next section from Canright that Ron quotes, is most illuminating, and I will cite it with analysis below. Again, Ron is asserting that Canright does “not say she was verbally inspired.” Before I launch into a detailed analysis of Canright’s understanding of Ellen White’s inspiration, let me respond to Ron’s next paragraph.
RON CORSON:
“Clearly his objections are made upon more then a misguided belief that she was verbally inspired, Jud Lake has shown nothing to indicate that verbal inspiration is Canright's view of her inspiration. As a scholar Jud Lake should seek to show that Canright during the time he did believe her to be inspired thought that it was through verbal inspiration. As a professor at an SDA school he is in the position to do real research rather then reading whatever meaning he wants to from the writings of someone who is trying to tell people that she is not a prophet.”
MY RESPONSE:
Here Ron claims I have shown “nothing to indicate that verbal inspiration is Canright’s view of her inspiration.” Ron also chides me on reading whatever meaning I want to from Canright instead of doing serious research. Is this what I have done? Have I ignored the context of his writings? Or is it Ron who has read into Canright what he wants to see?
I have carefully read both Canright’s books, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced (SDAR) and Life of Mrs. E.G. White Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted (EGWFCR) twice, cover to cover, and am glad for the opportunity to expand on what I briefly said in the paragraph cited above.
At the outset, let me share three observations from my reading of Canright. First, I want to acknowledge that past Adventist apologetics has often, but not always, used the ad hominem argument against Canright. Norman Douty, who defends Canright in The Case of D. M. Canright: Seventh-day Adventist Charges Examined (1964), was motivated to write this book because of ad hominem comments he received from an individual at the General Conference (page 13). As I mention in my Summit presentation, my conviction is that we must focus on Canright’s arguments. Discussions of his vacillating experience while in Adventism should wait until after his arguments are throughly analyzed and critiqued.
Second, it is more than obvious, after reading Canright’s arguments against Ellen White, that the negative websites recycle those same arguments. Vary rarely have I found any critic to advance beyond Canright. Some even copy from him without giving him credit. Thus, it is no small wonder to see contemporary critics of Ellen White defending Canright.
Third, Canright does not attempt to articulate his personal understanding of inspiration in SDAR or EGWFCR. What is important for the present discussion is how he interpreted her claims in his books against her. His personal belief about inspiration as an opponent of Ellen White is not as important.
With this in mind, please read carefully the passage from Canright’s SDAR that Ron cited above along with his opening comment:
His objection is based upon Ellen White’s own comments, he does not say that she was verbally inspired, he says:
She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision." Here she claims that the very words in which her visions are recorded are of divine inspiration. But I know that the words in her written "testimonies" are not inspired; for -
1. When writing them out she will often change what she has written, and write it very differently. I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and write it over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them?
2. I have repeatedly seen her sit with pen in hand and read her manuscript to her husband for hours, while he suggested many changes, which she made. She would scratch out her own words and put in his, sometimes whole sentences. Was he inspired, too?
3. As she is ignorant of grammar, of late years she has employed an accomplished writer to take her manuscript and correct it, improve its wording, polish it up, and put it in popular style, so her books will sell better. Thousands of words, not her own, are thus put in by these other persons, some of whom are not even Christian. Are their words inspired, too?
4. She often copies her subject matter without credit or sign of quotation, from other authors. Indeed her last book, "Great Controversy," which they laud so highly as her greatest work, is largely a compilation from Andrew's History of the Sabbath, History of the Waldenses by Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Revelation by Smith, and other books.
http://members.tripod.com/~Help_for_SDAs/SDAism-RENOUNCED-by-D-M-Canright.html#Chapter8
This passage comes from the book SDAR, pages 138-139, 14th edition, published in 1914. Our focus will be on the issue of inspiration, not other issues in this statement, such as the copying charge. Ron is saying that in this section, Canright “does not say that she was verbally inspired.” This is an excellent passage for him to cite because it gets at the heart of what Canright meant. Please notice several features in this passage.
First, Canright is interpreting her “claim” to inspiration. He is not explaining his personal belief about it. He is interpreting her statement from Spiritual Gifts, Vol. II, page 293: "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision.”
Second, he interprets her "claim" as verbal inspiration, although he does not use this term. Please carefully study his language in the first paragraph above:
“Here she claims that the very words in which her visions are recorded are of divine inspiration" (my bold).
But I know that the words in her written "testimonies" are not inspired . . . “ (my bold). Here he is obviously refuting what he describes as her "claim" to word inspiration.
How can a careful reading of this lead any person to believe Canright is not interpreting her claim as verbal or word inspiration?
Third, he attempts to critique Ellen White according to his interpretation (word for word inspiration) of her claim. Just read points 1 through 4 in the above passage. The language Canright uses is very revealing. He clearly holds her up to the standard of a verbal-word view of inspiration. Notice:
He points out that she “will often change what she has written and write it very differently.”
And remarks, “If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them?” (my bold) Please notice the grammatical antecedent to "them" is "words."
He speaks of her literary help from others, her use of other works in her writings and then concludes (and this statement comes after the passage cited above): “This she pretends was all revealed to her directly from heaven.”
Clearly, this word-oriented view of inspiration had no room for changing any wording, editorial help, or the use of other authors.
Also, please note what Canright says earlier in this same chapter. Here are two representative examples:
“She claims that every line she writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God” (page 136; my bold)
“Thus it will be seen that Mrs. White claims the very highest inspiration, the voice of God speaking directly through her.” (page 137; my bold)
Notice the use of the words: “directly,” “highest inspiration,” and “voice of God speaking directly through her.”
Couple this with the passage Ron cited above (pages 138-139 in 14th edition) with the emphasis on “words,” and you have verbal inspiration or dictation.
It is important to point out at this juncture, that the chapter in SDAR on Ellen White is expanded in the book EGWFCR. Furthermore, at the beginning of chapter XII, “Her High Claims Disproved,” in EGWFCR, Canright repeats essentially what he wrote in SDAR, pages 138-139. So his view did not change between the writing of the two books.
So when Canright writes in the “Preface” of SDAFCR: “Every line she wrote, whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallable,” he means verbal-word inspiration. This is as clear as the noon day sun from the context of the two books. Thus, when I cited this statement in my Summit presentation as an example of verbal dictation, I was simply reflecting the literary context of Canright’s interpretation of Ellen White’s claim to inspiration. So while it is true that dictation carries a wider meaning, Canright tells the reader through his language that he meant “dictated” more in the sense of verbal.
Furthermore, the statement quoted above in my original post accurately reflects this context. Here it is in its entirety:
“It can easily be demonstrated that Canright evaluated Ellen White from the standpoint of a dictational model of inspiration. In his 1889 book, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, he objected even to her personal corrections in the handwritten originals. "I have seen her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and write it over differently. If God gave her the words, why did she scratch them out and alter them" (p. 138)? But what was most scandalous in Canright’s eyes is found on page 141: "In 1885 all her ‘testimonies’ were republished in four volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor." By sampling the number of changes on four pages chosen at random, he attempted to estimate what percentage of the total number of words in her writings might have been affected by the editorial process: "At the same rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes" (ibid.). He concluded: "Fine inspiration that is" (ibid.)”
Ron responds by saying: “His [Canright’s] objection is based upon Ellen White’s own comments . . .” It is more correct to say, however, that Canright’s objection is based on his interpretation of Ellen White’s comments as verbal inspiration, as I pointed out above. Furthermore, Ron is close when he says Canright’s objections “are made upon more than a misguided belief that she was verbally inspired.” But it is clear that Canright's interpretation of her claim is verbal-word inspiration.
Now with this established from the context of Canright’s writings, we must turn to the issue of the accuracy of Canright’s interpretation of Ellen White’s claim to inspiration. Did Ellen White "claim" that she herself was as “directly” inspired as Canright said she was?
No, she did not. The following is some of what I covered in my second presentation at the Summit. She is quite clear about her own doctrinal understanding of inspiration in the following often quoted-and-studied statement:
“The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God” (Manuscript 24, 1886; 1SM 21).
This is part of a major statement that has a very interesting context and background, which I will not go into now. But it is significant enough that all her statements about inspiration should be read in the light of this statement. Clearly, she does not take the position on inspiration Canright said she did. Understanding inspiration this way, she would have no problem with an inspired writer scratching something out and rewriting it to better reflect the divine thought.
Furthermore, she clearly rejected any type of verbal-dictation theory of inspiration, according to her son Willie:
“Mother has never laid claim to verbal inspiration, and I do not find that my father, or elder Bates, Andrews, Smith, or Waggoner, put forth this claim. If there were verbal inspiration in writing her manuscripts, why should there be on her part the work of addition or adaptation? It is a fact that mother often takes one of her manuscripts, and goes over it thoughtfully, making additions that develop the thought still further” (3SM 437).
More significantly, notice what she said in a letter to Dr. D. Paulson, June 14, 1906:
"In your letter you speak of your early training to have implicit faith in the testimonies and say, "I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word that you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the Ten Commandments." My brother, you have studied my writings diligently, and you have never found that I have made any such claims, neither will you find that the pioneers in our cause ever made such claims" (1SM 24; my bold).
In the context of this letter republished in 1SM 34-31, Ellen White proceeds to cite examples in her writings where she avoids the view of word-oriented inspiration.
It is very likely that Canright espoused the incorrect view of D. Paulson when he believed in Mrs. White's inspiration, but in SDAR and EGWFCR refutes.
Finally, the 1883 General Conference action to revise her testimonies is significant. She was concerned about grammatical imperfections and wanted them revised. The discussion resulted in the following action:
“Whereas, We believe the light given by God to His servants is by the enlightenment of the mind, thus imparting the thoughts, and not (except in rare cases) the very words in which the ideas should be expressed.”
“Resolved, That in the re-publication of these volumes such verbal changes be made as to remove the above-named imperfection, as far as possible, without any measure changing the thought” (Review and Herald, November 27, 1883).
It should be pointed out that Ellen White was present during the discussion and voting of this significant action (Review and Herald, November 20, 27, 1883).
Thus, Canright in SDAR and EGWFCR incorrectly interprets Ellen White’s words, "I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision as in having a vision,” as verbal inspiration, a view Ellen White clearly rejected. What she meant by "dependant upon the Spirit of the Lord" is for another discussion.
Canright, therefore, creates a classic straw man out of Ellen White’s words and attempts to tear it down in SDAR, 138-139ff., and EGWFCR, 129-130ff.
One other point regarding Canright. In SDAR, page 141, he refers to the 1885 republishing of her “testimonies” in four volumes, reflecting numerous word changes, but fails to mention the 1883 General Conference vote to embrace thought inspiration instead of verbal inspiration. Surely, he was not ignorant of this significant vote, which resulted in the 1885 republishing of the Testimonies? He remained in the SDA chuch until 1887. Is this not concealing evidence? What about the significant 1886 statement respresenting Ellen White's doctrinal understanding of inspiration? He may not have known about this document, but nonetheless could have accessed it though honest research. Both of these documents were certainly contrary evidence to his interpretation. This is one example, among others, of concealed evidence in Canright.
Much, much more could obviously be said on Canright, but I have said enough for now.
RON CORSON:
As with much of Ellen White she represents different ideas at different times.
MY RESPONSE:
This view, of course, represents an interpretation. There is also the issue of interlocking themes, which is another discussion.
RON CORSON:
As I have shown Jud Lake inserts the interpretation of verbal dictation into Canright's meaning not because of context or even word meaning. Canright in the section I originally quoted in my article shows that he was not under the impression that she was verbally dictated to.
MY RESPONSE:
The evidence presented above speaks for itself. I simply have endeavored to honestly listen to the context of what Canright said about Ellen White's inspiration.
RON CORSON:
However Ellen White did have the tendency to hold contradictory positions. You can see from the following quote by Ellen White a message whose principle could easily be interpreted to mean that the Bible writers were verbally dictated too.
"The lives recorded in the Bible are authentic histories of actual individuals. From Adam down through successive generations to the time of the apostles, we have a plain, unvarnished account of what actually occurred, and the genuine experience of real characters. It is a subject of wonder to many, that inspired history should narrate facts in the lives of good men that tarnish their moral characters. Infidels seize upon these sins with great satisfaction, and hold their perpetrators up to ridicule. The inspired writers did not testify to falsehoods, through fear that the pages of Sacred History would be clouded by the record of human frailties and faults. The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves. They penned the literal truth, and stern, forbidding facts are revealed, for reasons that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend. It is one of the best evidences of the authenticity of the Scriptures, that the truth is not glossed over, nor the sins of its chief characters suppressed. "{RH, January 22, 1880 par. 1}
MY RESPONSE:
Whether or not this is a contradictory statement depends on what one brings to the table when interpreting it. If one rejects any kind of inspiration in Ellen White, this is easily labeled a contradiction. If one believes in verbal inspiration, this statement could pose a problem. If one embraces a multifaceted view of inspiration, as I do, then it is a matter of looking at the big picture. This means recognizing that in a few places in Scripture, there is verbal inspiration (“The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves.”). Also, it means looking at this statement in the context of the entire article (RH, January 22, 1880) as well as in light of the major statement mentioned above in 1SM 20-12. This statement doesn’t have to represent a contradiction. I could say much more on interpreting this statement, but it is time for this post to end.
RON CORSON:
Unfortunately for us Seventh-day Adventists it is our own leadership whose engagement with the issues is superficial. I appreciate that they are trying to take the Traditional/Historic SDA’s away from the idea that either the Bible or Ellen White were verbally inspired. I would submit that this is one of the benefits brought about by the critics of Ellen White. That these issues were swept under the rug by SDA leadership for so long is tragic, but it is going to take a far more honest and objective effort by the denomination to get out of the hole they have dug for themselves. How much less disaffection there would have been if Ellen White’s role were seen as pastoral rather then as Prophet we will never know. I however feel it would have been much better for the SDA church and Christianity in general.
MY RESPONSE:
I think there are times when our engagement with the issues has been superficial. There is no question that we have a lot of educating to do regarding the real Ellen White of history. But with the scholarly activity taking place in the academic community supportive of Ellen White, the future looks good. The best days of Ellen White apologetics are just ahead. The release of the major project, The Ellen G White Encyclopedia, will be a significant step in promoting understanding of Ellen White’s life, times, and prophetic gift. Also, other projects are underway to address the issue of the critics.
Several lessons emerge from this exchange:
1. Both supporters and non-supporters of Ellen White must be alert to their own presuppositions or pre-understandings in the study of her writings.
2. Both supporters and non-supporters must be earnest in analyzing all the evidence regarding Ellen White, pro and con.
3. Such study should be bathed in a spirit of prayer and humility.
4. Respect for differing positions is an important value in this context.
Others come to mind, but that is enough for now.
I must say that I have enjoyed this brief exchange with Ron Corson. But, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the amount of time investment is an issue. Recently, I committed to writing a book with the deadline at the end of this year. So, as I assess my involvement on the Internet, teaching load, speaking appointments, and this book project, effective time management becomes imperative. This means responding to Ron’s responses to my material must end for now, as much as I regret it. I am sure he will have a vigorous response to this post and I could vigorously respond again. But it looks like I will have bow out for now. As I said before, it is good to have someone like Ron to challenge us, it keeps us on our toes.