Since I plan to continue the theme started in my October editorial, I urge you to read it carefully if you have not already done so, in order to see its foundational connection with this editorial.

One major point of the October editorial should be reemphasized and expanded here: the uniqueness of any of God's special movements during the course of history has not consisted in newness or originality, but rather in a rediscovery and restoration of truth that has always existed!

The quality of uniqueness and originality has a hypnotic fascination for many minds, as underscored by the continuing craze for antiques and original paintings and the fabulous amounts of money being paid for them today. This same urge for original items has somehow spilled over into the world of religion and especially into Adventism. We Adventists seem to find a special security or sense of self-worth if we can feel that we have some teaching or doctrine that no other religious group has or ever had. True, certain prophetic aspects of God's special movements in history could be labeled unique and original, but in principle, these movements should be classified as restorative rather than innovative.

Noah's ark was certainly an original (and some are still searching for it today)! But the essence of Noah's message centered on the great and ageless theme of salvation by faith alone in the Lord.

Thus, it is the restoration concept that constitutes our uniqueness. The weeping prophet, Jeremiah, emphasized this point in his day when Judah had backslidden far from God's truth. The Lord said through him, " 'Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls'" (Jer. 6:16, N.I.V.).*

Two factors stand out clearly in this admonition: "ancient paths" and "rest for your souls." God did not instruct Jeremiah to direct Judah to a new path, but to old paths! His was a message of restoration of neglected and forgotten truths.

This was the same work that Jesus sought to accomplish during His time here on earth. He invited people to take His yoke and burden—to learn of Him—promising that the result would be rest to their souls. Was Jesus offering the people some thing new or different from what Jeremiah had offered? Not at all! Jesus was giving them old paths. Please read the statement by Ellen White, "Christ the Originator of All Truth," on page 25 of the October MINISTRY. This statement eloquently points out that Christ's work was to "readjust and establish ... in the framework of truth" precious gems of spiritual knowledge that He Himself had originated and given in the beginning. Note that these precious gems of truth had been "cast. . . into the minds and thoughts of each generation." Solomon summed up this idea in the words "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9, N.I.V.)- The only thing new is the setting, the particular point of historical context, in which truth, "present truth," is rediscovered.

With this "not-new review" of thoughts from the October editorial, let us examine briefly other facets of Adventism's "restoration theology." In Part 1 we considered the Sabbath in the setting of the three angels' messages. It is the same Sabbath on which Adam and Eve worshiped, but now it is in the unique (if you please) setting of the everlasting gospel proclaimed by the three angels of Revelation 14- And the restoration of the Sabbath truth could not come at a more significant time in earth's history. In a sense, the preaching of the Sabbath as a memorial of God's creative and re-creative power in these times of nearly total belief in and acceptance of evolutionary theories is as significant as was Noah's ark-theme in the pre-Flood days. The truth of God's Sabbath and what it represents is desperately needed by our planet, which has lost the knowledge of its true roots. To honor God's fourth commandment in spirit and in truth constitutes the firmest possible bedrock against the acceptance of evolutionary theories with their elimination of God.

The next teaching of Adventism that I wish to discuss in the setting of uniqueness is the teaching of the gifts of the Spirit, and in particular the gift of prophecy. Obviously, I am doing so since this doctrine has been and is under consider able discussion. Any religious movement that claims to have the gift of prophecy and announces that there is a prophet among that people is suspect at best. There has probably been more misunderstanding on the part of those outside the Adventist Church regarding this doctrine than any other. I don't know of an article or book written in opposition to us that does not dedicate a portion to contending against the idea of the gift of prophecy as evidenced in the writings of Ellen G. White. Furthermore, I know of no leading Seventh-day Adventist dissident, past or present, who has not used disbelief in all or part of the writings of Ellen White as a point of departure. Canright and Kellogg are just two examples; the list could be made much longer.

My heart is saddened to see confusion and dismay on the part of a few of our ministers over recent discussions on this subject. I trust that what follows may help to clarify our thinking.

I, for one, am sympathetic with those who are having problems in this area, even though I am not in agreement with them. I want to state categorically that it is my belief that church leadership, including myself, must bear a portion of the responsibility for the problems we now face in this area. As I see it, I have, consciously or unconsciously, made claims for and demands on the writings of Ellen White that exceed those I made on the writings of the Bible prophets. I have held to what might be called verbal inspiration for her writings, but not for the Scriptures. I did not do so intentionally, of course; rather, it resulted from illogical thinking. I am ashamed today to recall the many sermons I have preached based on a statement from her works in which I hammered away at a phrase or even at a single word such as "all," or "everyone," or "none."

In my college sophomore year a teacher whom I greatly appreciated brought up a point that caused me to ask him after class whether he knew of any contradictory statements or concepts in the writings of Ellen White. He hesitated several moments and finally shook his head saying, "No." This answer greatly strengthened my confidence in the prophetic gift. Being a young man, my impetuous mind, youthful dogmatism, and unrealistic idealism demanded perfection—absolute perfection—of Ellen White's writings. It was unthinkable to me to conceive of mistakes or contradictions in either the Bible or her work.

I finished my last two years of college at another campus. While there, I learned that the teacher who had told me he knew of no contradictions in Ellen White's writings had left the church! The main reason? Certain "contradictory" statements regarding chronology had rendered null and void the entire scope of her writings for him. Here again is another exhibit of a person finding fault with the gift of prophecy and departing from us.

In looking back on this experience, I have often wondered whether this teacher was already having problems in his own mind and graciously refrained from reveal ing his true feelings to me in order not to shake my confidence. How much better it would have been (and would be today) if we had been taught differently regarding the doctrine of inspiration and revelation, if we had understood that inspiration results in infallibility, integrity, consistency, and trustworthiness, but not necessarily in absolute personal perfection!

We should understand and teach that nowhere in Scripture do we find the doctrine of verbal inspiration or the idea of divine dictation. If God's thoughts are so much higher than our thoughts as the heavens are higher than the earth, surely we can expect a perfection of expression on the part of God that all the prophets put together could not match! And if they did, we poor mortals couldn't understand it anyway! The inerrancy debate that consumes much time and attention among some Christians today could be resolved quickly if we clearly understood that while it is true that God-inspired writings have a beauty of unity, cohesion, and oneness, and while it is true that they are infallible in concept and truthfulness as a whole, one cannot take a word, phrase, or sentence and build a concept cathedral that is contrary to the underlying harmony or theme of the whole. We plan to feature articles on this point in future issues. I feel it is most urgent and important for us as Seventh-day Adventist ministers to have a far deeper and broader understanding of the inspiration process.

I confess, too, that I have spent more time in my spiritual studies reading her words than in studying the Bible. I did the very thing she strongly admonishes us not to do! But after saying this, let me assure you that I make no apologies for reading more of her works than those of any uninspired author, past or present!

Also, I have at times equated inspiration with originality. To make originality a test for the authenticity of inspired revelations ultimately leads to disillusionment the moment one finds a passage or pages in inspired writings that have previously appeared in noninspired documents.

In college I knew that Ellen White used material from other sources in her book Sketches From the Life of Paul. No great issue was made of it, so I gave it little thought. It is interesting in this connection to note that if a loyal, spiritually mature person presents a problem such as this and attempts to provide a solution in a sweet, Christian spirit, the situation is quite readily understood and accepted. But when a problem of this nature is presented in a controversial setting as an attack on Ellen White, then it shocks people, and doubts and darkness invade the minds of some. So much depends on the attitude and spirit of the individual who makes the presentation. So much depends on whether one speaks as a friend or as an enemy. Would to God there were more of a spirit of loyalty, love, and oneness among us!

I have had to change drastically my own thinking and attitudes on this matter of equating inspiration and revelation with originality. This change of concept came to me about ten years ago. In the early 1970s we enlarged MINISTRY to include a sizable health section, in which we published, at times, pertinent Ellen White-written health materials under the heading "Profiting From His Prophet." One selection dealt with the importance and necessity of exercise. In response to this particular article, one reader wrote a rather lengthy letter admonishing us not to use the word "prophet" in connection with Ellen White, since, in his opinion, the term indicated originality and newness, and many health concepts given by Mrs. White can be found in earlier writers.

His letter caused me to do some reflection on this point of originality. Frankly, at that point I was of the same opinion as he—that to be a prophet implied originality. After some study my mind began to change, however, and I published my conclusions in an editorial appearing in the May, 1973, magazine. I feel that the concepts expressed there are most applicable today. In fact, I feel it would be beneficial to reprint in its entirety that May, 1973, editorial (see below).

Because of my change of mind at that time, I have had little difficulty with charges that Ellen White was a plagiarist or evidence of her literary borrowing. As things stand today, it makes little differ ence to me how much she borrowed or didn't borrow. Who am I to question how God uses His messengers or how His messengers obtain the right words and phrases to reveal truth—or perhaps I should say to restore His truth—to us today?

Today I stand in awe and appreciation as never before for what the gift of prophecy through Ellen White has meant to me personally and to this church. We have been uniquely blessed by these inspired writings. Unfortunately, we have too often ignored them, misused them, misunderstood them, or ridiculed them.

Our responsibility as Seventh-day Adventist ministers is to use them cor rectly and to share with our people a better understanding of revelation and inspiration.—J.R.S.

Profiting from His prophet

The particular title of this editorial is one that is used in our health section. The January [1973] subtitle read, "Ellen G. White's Comments on the Value of Exercise With Scientific Confirmation." An interesting and provocative response from one of our readers indicated concern over our use of the term prophet. To him our title seemed to indicate that what a prophet says is not only divinely inspired but also should be new and original. Thus, any scientific confirmation of what Ellen White said places her writings in the realm of foreknowledge.

Our correspondent pointed out that many individuals prior to her time made similar statements. For instance, on the subject of exercise Cicero, who lived nearly a century before the birth of Christ, emphasized the necessity of exercise for maintaining good health. Others living in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries thought and wrote the same. Our brother suggested that before we published anything in our periodicals to prove Mrs. White's "foreknowledge," a thorough study should be made of the works of writers who predate her. He felt that any "scientific confirmation" only proves the correctness of her predecessors who wrote without claiming divine revelation as their authority. The question is: If men during past centuries hit on certain facts not based on special revelation from God but rather were the result of observation, reason, and more often common sense, much of which was common knowledge before Mrs. White's time, why should God repeat these truths through special revelation? This is a good question, and it deserves an answer.

D. E. Robinson in his book The Story of Our Health Message throws light on the subject. Robinson makes it clear that there were those, such as Joseph Bates, who had correct insights on disease, its causes and cures, before the epochal day of June 6, 1863, when Ellen White had a vision at Otsego, Michigan. She wrote concerning this experience " 'that the great subject of health reform was opened before me in vision'" (page 76).

Information conveyed to Ellen White in that important vision and in subsequent ones, laid down certain principles that were scientifically correct and generally were far in advance of medical knowledge of that day. But this is not the most significant contribution made by the Spirit of Prophecy. What is the most significant contribution?

Simply this. There is an indissoluble union among physical, mental, and spirit ual health. A man's spirituality is affected by his physical habits. Intemperance in any form affects a man's life not only at the moment but eternally. Any defects in our manner of living threaten our entire existence. In view of this, our health message is as important a doctrine as any other. It is a definite part of the three angels' messages, and to omit the health message, either in practice or in teaching, violates the will of God as much as if we ignored other basic truths.

Elder J. H. Waggoner in the August 7, 1866, Review and Herald, beautifully clarified this point: "We do not profess to be pioneers in the general principles of health reform. The facts on which this movement is based have been elaborated, in a great measure, by reformers, physicians', and writers on physiology and hygiene, and so may be found scattered through the land. But we do claim that by the method of God's choice it has been more clearly and powerfully unfolded, and is thereby producing an effect which we could not have looked for from any other means.

"As mere physiological and hygienic truths, they might be studied by some at their leisure, and by others laid aside as of little consequence; but when placed on a level with the great truths of the third angel's message by the sanction and authority of God's Spirit, and so declared to be the means whereby a weak people may be made strong to overcome, and our diseased bodies cleansed and fitted for translation, then it comes to us as an essential part of present truth, to be received with the blessing of God, or rejected at our peril."

The Advent Movement is a continuation of the Reformation. God in these final days is bringing to the world, through His appointed agency—His church—the whole truth for the whole world to make man whole. The preaching of the whole truth is the business of the Advent Movement.

As to whether Ellen White's writings were original or new in the area of healthful living is unimportant. There is nothing new under the sun! Much of the teachings of the Old and New Testament prophets probably were enunciated by pagans who predated them. I seriously doubt that Christ said much in some areas that had not been said in principle by some of the philosophers who lived prior to His incarnation. But divine sanction was given to the words Christ spoke. All truth, whether spoken by pagans or worshipers of God, has for its original source the mind of God. The glorious truth about the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy is that God has preserved His plan for man. That plan as found in these writings has not been mixed with error. What we can get from the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy is pure truth. The wheat and the tares have been verbally separated. Do we really appreciate this point?

If Adele Davis, author of several volumes on nutrition, had lived and written one hundred years prior to Ellen White's time and you read one of her books, how could you competently separate fact from fancy? Much of what Adele Davis has written is true, but some of it evidently is fanciful (see Nov., 1972, Life and Health). To continue our illustration, say that Ellen White came along and made similar statements as those found in Adele Davis' books. Should I be disturbed and perhaps question her prophetic gift? Never! As a believer of the Spirit of Prophecy I would be convinced that the concepts that were similar to those in Adele Davis' books were absolute truth, because God guided Ellen White in a special way. There are no tares in this modern wheat field of truth. But I can never assume the same attitude toward the writings of Adele Davis, Cicero, Paul Dudley White, or any other eminent uninspired author.

As to the suggestion that we study all the writings in the health area that predate Mrs. White, I can thank God that this is unnecessary. Inasmuch as her writings were inspired, I am saved the impossible task of searching out what everybody has said on the subject. Furthermore, I can be assured that what I find in the Spirit of Prophecy is unquestionably true, and I never need fear being led into the paths of falsehood and error. Life's highways are strewn with the wreckage of those who have followed partial truth mixed with much error.

If one has to follow the suggestion to study everything on health prior to Ellen White's day, then by the same token one should study everything in religion prior to the days of Christ, Isaiah, Daniel, or John. The words of Lindsay A. Semmens, my college Bible teacher, are pertinent at this point: "Why wade through fifty feet of sewage in order to find one scintilla of truth when God has given it to us in such a beautiful and complete form?"

This does not mean that I will never read anyone else's writings, but when it comes to finding and understanding truth, let us go to the unpolluted source. Praise God for His love and let us as ministers share with the world the wealth of saving truth we have.—J.R.S., Ministry, May, 1973, pp. 2, 3.