| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An Analysis of Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, September 17, 1895
Larry Kirkpatrick
In 1895 Ellen G. White published an article in the Review and Herald titled “Have You Oil in Your Vessels With Your Lamps?” This brief 11 paragraph article contained a sentence that some have plucked to press home their view that we are born condemned for our nature. That sentence is as follows:
Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God.
This brief article will analysis Mrs. White’s article in order to ascertain her intended meaning.
FIrst, it will benefit us greatly to review Mrs. White’s entire article and attempt to capture its flavor and main ideas. In order to make this easy to follow we have numbered each of the article’s 11 paragraphs and published it, otherwise uncommented, here:
http://www.lastgenerationtheology.org/lgt/doc/1ant/whi-rh1895-09-17.php
Synopsis
The first paragraphs emphasize that the truth of each individual’s Christian experience will be revealed in the end. The 10 virgins, five wise and five foolish, provide the backdrop. The third paragraph makes clear that thorough heart work is not transferable from one individual to another. Now is the time to make our calling and election sure. Her warning is striking: “We should not soothe our consciences in expectation of heaven, when we are not bearing the distinguishing characteristics of the Christian life.”
The fourth paragraph points out that doing God’s word is the sign of conversion. As she points out, “The converted soul has a hatred of sin; he does not indulge in self-complacency, self-love, self-sufficiency, nor pass on day after day, claiming to be a Christian, and yet bringing dishonor upon Christ by misrepresenting him in character.” Such who do not forbid themselves these self-centered indulgences have not really taken the first steps of Christianity.
The fifth paragraph points out that although they are joined to the church, the five foolish virgins were not even converted. Their nature was unchanged. Notice: “When there was a revival in the church, their feelings were stirred; but they failed to have oil in their vessels, because they did not bring the principles of godliness into their daily life and character. They did not fall upon the rock Christ Jesus, and permit their old nature to be broken up.” We will return to this, one of only three uses of the word “nature” in the article, in a moment.
In the sixth paragraph, the emphasis is that time tests the substance of our experience. True religion, she confirms, will permeate our experience in things large and things small. “The religion of the Bible must be brought into the large and the little affairs of life. It must furnish the powerful motives and principles that will regulate the Christian's character and course of action.” Some begin their course well, but do not finish it well. “Many receive the truth readily, but they fail to assimilate truth, and its influence is not abiding.”
The seventh paragraph, only four sentences long, is where the “justly condemned” sentence is found. But the whole paragraph should be taken in. An evil nature cultivated is condemned, but a transformed nature is available to the willing. A new nature is available: “Transformation of character is wrought through the operation of the Holy Spirit, which works upon the human agent, implanting in him, according to his desire and consent to have it done, a new nature. The image of God is restored to the soul, and day by day he is strengthened and renewed by grace, and is enabled more and more perfectly to reflect the character of Christ in righteousness and true holiness.”
Paragraphs eight through eleven teach that truth sanctifies and emotion is not the evidence of acceptance with God. Crisis separates true from false faith. Character formation is our individual business; in the end, our salvation will turn upon what our character is. Not salvation by works but a heart surrendered to Jesus, willing to be infilled with His unselfishness, is our goal. Her closing warning is that we must make our walk with Jesus secure now. This is our only time to do so.
Discussion
We limit ourselves to a discussion of the issue of nature in this document. In paragraph five we noticed that the five foolish virgins attached themselves to the church, they were moved by the presentation of truth, but they “did not permit their old nature to be broken up.” Their old nature is something that they had power over, could have, and should have chosen to give up. But they did not.
This “old nature” cannot be their birth nature, because they have no say over their birth nature, and it will not be changed until the moment of glorification (first resurrection option) or destruction (second resurrection option).
The other two uses are found in the seventh paragraph. The last use, like the use in paragraph five, speaks of a change in nature that happens now. In order to have this proffered nature implanted, it is necessary that we both desire to have it implanted, and consent to its implantation. This means a gradual restoration of the image of God, a process of remaking.
In both the cases discussed so far, the change in “nature” involves moral choices here and now. It has nothing directly to do with the fallen nature, sinful nature, or as we usually prefer to call it, the DHO (Disordered Human Organism) all humans are born with. These are not references about birth nature, but with chosen character, chosen moral alignment.
Returning to the beginning of paragraph seven, we ask what human nature is depraved and justly condemned by a holy God? It is a “nature” that is chosen over conversion, the developed habits of a life of sin unsurrendered. We had no control of our birth nature; can God justly condemn us over that in which we could exercise no choice? Can our birth nature have a moral value that could condemn us, when we never were granted opportunity to choose it? No. But if one comes to Christ and joins himself to God’s people, and heaven brings to the believer the necessity of change, yet he will not permit God to remove his old nature, then choice has been exercised in rebellion and a holy God not only justly can but must condemn the moral alignment of rebellion.
Is there really any question that the nature being referred to is not DHO but chosen character? The following sentence addresses human choice with reference to God’s offered gift: “But provision is made for the repenting sinner, so that by faith in the atonement of the only begotten Son of God, he may receive forgiveness of sin, find justification, receive adoption into the heavenly family, and become an inheritor of the kingdom of God.” For whom is provision made? The repenting sinner who exercises faith. Bottom line? This is all about choice. And just condemnation is also all about choice.
Reprised in Christ’s Object Lessons
A review of the closing chapter of Christ’s Object Lessons demonstrates its indebtedness to Mrs. White’s 1895 article. Especially at pages 411 and 412 is this indebtedness seen. The discussion there is the same found in paragraph five about the refusal to permit the old nature to be broken up, the believer to be transformed.
Interestingly, Mrs. White leaves out her statement about human nature being justly condemned, but repeats the truth that character is not transferable. In the closing chapter of the book, she offers a rousing call to piety and holiness:
The religion of Christ means more than the forgiveness of sin; it means taking away our sins, and filling the vacuum with the graces of the Holy Spirit. It means divine illumination, rejoicing in God. It means a heart emptied of self, and blessed with the abiding presence of Christ. When Christ reigns in the soul, there is purity, freedom from sin. The glory, the fullness, the completeness of the gospel plan is fulfilled in the life. The acceptance of the Saviour brings a glow of perfect peace, perfect love, perfect assurance. The beauty and fragrance of the character of Christ revealed in the life testifies that God has indeed sent His Son into the world to be its Saviour (Christ’s Object Lessons, pp. 419, 420).
Some say that because of our DHO no true holiness is possible. Ellen White begs to differ. She insists on sins taken away, a heart emptied of self, purity, even freedom from sin. This is the revealing of the completeness of the gospel plan in the believer. These are strong lines. While we must not read too much into Mrs. White’s choosing not to repeat the sentence about human nature being condemned, it is still of interest.
Conclusion
In our day, with every wind of doctrine blowing and certain either unaware or unscrupulous presenters pulling a sentence here and a sentence there from the writings of Ellen G. White in order to sustain ideas she would have been repelled by, it is useful on occasion to weigh claims made and to remind ourselves that in order to understand truth we must be willing to check sources, weigh context, and let the author use her words as she wishes to use them. The passage in question is speaking of God’s condemnation of a person who claims to be a Christian but refuses the necessity of conversion, of the implanting fo a new nature. It has nothing to do with birth nature at all. LGT