When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he warned of a time when humanity would reject the love of the truth, and God, in response, would send “a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). That solemn prediction was not confined to the secular world or to the ranks of overt unbelief. It was directed toward those who once had light, yet turned from it—those who professed to love truth but grew weary of its cutting edge.
In recent years, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been offered such a test of loyalty to the truth through the publication of “Reclaiming the Prophet: An Honest Defense of Ellen White’s Gift”, issued and then retracted by Pacific Press. While its title suggests restoration and defense, the substance of its argument represents something far more perilous—a subtle reconfiguration of Ellen White’s prophetic role, recasting her not as the voice of divine revelation but as a nineteenth-century moral reformer shaped by the intellectual trends of her era. This shift, cloaked in academic respectability, mirrors precisely the spiritual phenomenon Paul described: when the church refuses to receive the truth of God, heaven permits a delusion that will appear righteous, compassionate, and even “honest,” but which leads inexorably to unbelief.
It has become fashionable among some Adventist scholars to affirm Ellen White’s inspiration while denying the authority of her message. They assert that because she borrowed language, structure, and even phrasing from earlier authors, her writings cannot be uniquely inspired. “Reclaiming the Prophet” follows this line of reasoning, implying that her genius lay in synthesizing available ideas rather than in communicating heaven’s revelation.
This argument misunderstands both inspiration and the prophetic office. Scripture reveals that divine revelation has always been transmitted through human vessels, shaped by their contexts, languages, and cultures. Moses was educated in Egypt’s universities, yet spoke with God face to face. Luke freely admits to using sources (Luke 1:1-3), yet his gospel is inspired Scripture. The question is not whether God’s messengers used existing material but whether the message they delivered originated in divine truth rather than human speculation.
Ellen White herself acknowledged her use of sources, but she also insisted that the truth conveyed through those borrowed expressions was transformed—infused with light far exceeding the original author’s intent. She wrote, “The pen is the Lord’s, though the hand is mine.” Like the prophets before her, she was not creating theological innovation; she was conveying eternal realities adapted to her time. The words may have been familiar, but the meaning was sanctified by inspiration.
The deeper issue exposed by “Reclaiming the Prophet” is not literary dependence but spiritual independence. Paul warned that “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved… God shall send them strong delusion” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). The danger is not intellectual inquiry but the heart’s resistance to divine authority. When the church begins to treat God’s messenger as merely historical, her messages become optional, her warnings negotiable, and her insights subject to academic reinterpretation.
This phenomenon has biblical precedent. When ancient Israel rejected the prophetic word, the Lord declared,
“I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them: because when I called, none did answer” (Isaiah 66:4).
Ezekiel was told that if a prophet chose to speak falsely, “I the Lord have deceived that prophet” (Ezekiel 14:9). And in Micaiah’s vision, the Lord permitted “a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets” who comforted the apostate king (1 Kings 22:22-23). These passages are not suggesting God’s deceitfulness, but His judicial permission—He allows error when truth has been persistently resisted.
At the heart of Ellen White’s ministry was not institutional loyalty but the revelation of the gospel in its most complete and transformative form. Her writings present the everlasting covenant in living terms: justification through faith, sanctification through the indwelling Spirit, and perfection of character through Christ’s power alone. She did not introduce a new gospel, but rather restored the biblical one that human reason had obscured. These foundational truths have been rejected and continue to be rejected by many modern Seventh-day Adventist academics, evangelists, and leaders – all of whom instead perpetuate a false gospel. Paul anticipated these events, saying:
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).
In distinct contrast, Ellen White’s work consistently revealed the spiritual meaning of the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the cross—not as doctrines alone but as realities demonstrating God’s ability to dwell in humanity. “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27) was the essence of her message. To reinterpret her mission as primarily moral, social, or psychological—as *Reclaiming the Prophet* attempts to do—is to empty her witness of its divine urgency. It replaces the gospel of regeneration, soul cleansing, and transformation with the gospel of admiration.
If the church will not accept the gospel as proclaimed through God’s appointed messenger, heaven will permit another message—one more palatable to human pride. Paul describes this process in Romans 1:25: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” A church that refuses the transforming message of divine righteousness will inevitably seek a more reasonable explanation for its origins and mission, one that exalts human intellect over divine revelation.
“Reclaiming the Prophet” may therefore represent not a defense of Ellen White but a divine test—a permitted delusion for those who wish to retain the Adventist name while rejecting the Adventist message. Its polished reasoning conceals a deeper rebellion: the unwillingness to hear God’s voice when it speaks with convicting authority.
Paul concludes his warning with a charge: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The apostolic faith has never been transmitted through democratic consensus but through inspired testimony. The remnant church is defined not merely by profession or organization, but by “those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:12). That faith—the righteousness of Christ reproduced in the believer—was the central burden of Ellen White’s ministry.
If we despise that testimony, we will be left with forms of religion devoid of power. As Jesus warned, “If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:23). The path of safety for God’s people is not to reinterpret His prophet but to receive her witness anew, in the same Spirit that inspired it.
In every generation, God tests His people through the messages they most wish to ignore. The book “Reclaiming the Prophet” may indeed be honest in intent, but it is tragically misguided in spirit. Its call to “reclaim” Ellen White is, in fact, a call to reimagine her—to domesticate the divine voice so that it no longer disturbs our comfort.
Yet truth cannot be tamed. The same Spirit who inspired the prophets still calls the church to repentance, faith, and holiness (Revelation 3:14-21). To those who love the truth, God grants discernment; to those who reject it, He allows delusion. The choice before us is the same as it was in Paul’s day: to believe the truth or believe the lie.
May God grant us grace to discern the difference—and courage to stand by the truth that made us a people.
****
Brian R. Will, MD