When was the last time you traced back the roots of your theological tradition? Every denominational system—whether Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or Seventh-day Adventism—has a distinct origin story. If it ends in “-ism,” chances are there’s a fascinating founding narrative waiting to be explored.

Understanding these origins isn’t about dismissing what these movements have become today, but rather about identifying their foundational DNA. Think of it as theological archaeology—digging down to discover the bedrock principles, key personalities, and pivotal moments that shaped everything that followed. From these starting points, you can trace the evolutionary paths that led to specific doctrines, practices, and institutional structures.

More importantly, examining origins reveals the boundaries and authority structures that continue to influence these traditions. Who had the final say in interpreting Scripture? What historical circumstances shaped their theological priorities? Which voices were elevated as authoritative, and which were marginalized or silenced? These foundational decisions often establish patterns that persist for centuries, creating invisible guardrails that determine what questions can be asked, what interpretations are acceptable, and how leadership operates.

The origin story doesn’t predetermine a movement’s entire trajectory, but it does provide the initial momentum and directional bias. Understanding where your theological tradition began helps explain why certain doctrines feel untouchable, why specific interpretive methods are preferred, and why some reforms succeed while others face insurmountable resistance.

So what about Seventh-day Adventism’s origin story?

A critical examination of Adventism’s early doctrinal development reveals a profound reliance on visionary experiences rather than conventional biblical scholarship. During the formative years of the Seventh-day Adventist movement (the Advent Movement), Ellen White candidly acknowledged her inability to comprehend Scripture through traditional study methods. While her fellow pioneers engaged in intensive biblical research and analysis, White found herself intellectually incapacitated, unable to grasp the meaning of the texts they were examining. This limitation became particularly significant when her colleagues encountered interpretative challenges during their theological discussions.

The resolution to these doctrinal impasses emerged through White’s visionary experiences, which she claimed provided divine illumination on previously incomprehensible passages. Following these supernatural encounters, she would present explanations to the group, which were subsequently accepted as authoritative interpretations and eventually crystallized into fundamental Adventist doctrines. White herself described this process with remarkable transparency:

“Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, ‘We can do nothing more,’ the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively.” [1]

This testimonial reveals the fundamentally phenomenological foundation upon which Adventist theology was constructed. Adventism’s doctrines were built on Ellen White’s personal visionary experiences, her subjective spiritual phenomena, rather than careful biblical scholarship or theological reasoning. White’s admission that “my mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying,” [1] for several years, underscores her dependence on ecstatic experiences rather than exegetical competency. Her colleagues, recognizing her interpretative limitations during normal consciousness, nevertheless “accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given.” [1] This pattern of doctrinal formation through visionary dependency was not unique to White but represented a broader phenomenon characteristic of nineteenth-century religious movements.

The theological implications of this methodology become particularly problematic when examined against biblical warnings regarding doctrinal formation. Colossians 2:18 explicitly cautions against establishing religious beliefs and practices upon visionary experiences that lack solid scriptural foundation.

“Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking.”

Colossians 2:18 NRSVue

Yet this approach became the cornerstone of Adventist doctrinal development, potentially explaining the movement’s frequent divergence from orthodox Christian theology and its embrace of heterodox, and occasionally heretical, positions.

The entrenchment of this visionary-based theology became even more pronounced in subsequent decades. Approximately fifty years after the initial doctrinal formations, White issued a definitive statement regarding the immutable nature of Adventist beliefs, declaring that no biblical evidence, regardless of its scope or clarity, should alter these established doctrines.

She proclaimed:

“We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories… while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake.”[2]

This pronouncement has had enduring consequences for Adventist theology, creating an impermeable doctrinal framework resistant to biblical correction. Throughout the movement’s history, numerous scholars, pastors, and theologians have presented compelling biblical evidence challenging specific Adventist doctrines. Despite the scholarly rigor and scriptural support underlying these critiques, the denomination has remained steadfast in maintaining its original theological positions, occasionally incorporating evangelical terminology while preserving the substance of White’s teachings.

This historical pattern demonstrates that for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Scripture does not function as the ultimate authority in doctrinal matters. Instead, the movement’s theological framework remains subordinated to Ellen White’s interpretative authority, with biblical exegesis serving primarily to confirm rather than correct established Adventist positions. The standard for doctrinal validity remains alignment with White’s visionary revelations rather than with contextual biblical scholarship, revealing a fundamental departure from the Protestant principle of sola scriptura.

Find me a single Adventist leader who has publicly challenged any of Ellen White’s teachings, and I’ll show you someone whose career was effectively ended. This pattern isn’t coincidental–it’s the inevitable result of Ellen White’s role within Adventism’s foundational structure.

Examples include, but are certainly not limited to:

• Dr. Desmond Ford – Australian theologian and seminary professor who challenged Ellen White’s sanctuary doctrine and investigative judgment teaching. Stripped of credentials and dismissed after Glacier View in 1980.

• Walter Rea – Longtime Adventist pastor who documented extensive plagiarism in Ellen White’s writings in “The White Lie.” Was disfellowshipped.

• Dale Ratzlaff – Former Adventist pastor for 13 years who questioned the investigative judgment doctrine and White’s prophetic claims. Forced out of ministry and disfellowshipped.

• Dudley Canright – 19th-century close associate of Ellen White who eventually left the ministry after developing doubts about her prophetic gift and certain doctrines.

• Dr. Robert Brinsmead – Former Adventist evangelist who initially defended White but later became critical of her teachings. Faced church discipline and was forced out.

• Dr. Jerry Gladson – Former Southern Adventist University professor who questioned Ellen White’s inspiration and prophetic authority. Forced to resign and eventually left the denomination.

• Dr. Clinton Baldwin – Seminary-trained pastor who developed doubts about White’s prophetic claims and the investigative judgment. Ultimately disfellowshipped.

• Pastor Bryan Reid – Australian minister who publicly questioned Ellen White’s authority. Removed from pastoral ministry and eventually left the church.

• Dr. Andre Hill – Former Adventist educator who challenged White’s teachings. His academic career within Adventism was terminated and he left the denomination.

• Pastor Michael Pursley – Former Adventist minister who questioned the sanctuary doctrine and Ellen White’s authority. Stripped of ministerial credentials and left the church.

• Dr. Steve Daily – Former professor and pastor who became critical of Ellen White’s claims about the shut door doctrine and other teachings. Left the denomination.

• Colleen Tinker – Former church administrator who became critical of White’s teachings. Was marginalized and eventually left the denomination.

• Dr. Russell Earl Kelly – Former Adventist minister who challenged the church’s tithing doctrine and Ellen White’s authority on the subject. Forced out and left the church.

• William Hohmann – Former Adventist pastor who developed concerns about White’s prophetic claims. Faced church discipline and left.

• Kevin and Sheryle Hughes – Former Adventist leaders who became critical of Ellen White’s authority. Faced church discipline and left the denomination.

• Stephen Baxter – Former Adventist in leadership positions who developed concerns about White’s teachings and left the church.

• Kerry Wynne – Former Adventist leader who became critical of Ellen White’s prophetic claims and eventually left the denomination.

• Pastor John Osborne – Former Adventist minister who developed concerns about Ellen White’s prophetic authority. Was forced out of pastoral ministry and left the church.

The list “it goes go on and on and on…” (Journey wrote a song about this… Don’t Stop Believin‘… )

The church’s response to dissent reveals the true hierarchy of authority. Leaders who question White’s writings don’t simply face theological disagreement; they encounter systematic institutional consequences: removal from positions, loss of ministerial credentials, public censure, and professional ostracism. This consistent pattern demonstrates that Ellen White’s authority isn’t merely influential—it’s functionally absolute.

This creates a theological ecosystem where questioning White’s interpretations becomes tantamount to challenging the church’s core identity. Leaders quickly learn that career survival depends not on biblical scholarship or theological integrity, but on maintaining unwavering loyalty to White’s teachings. The result is an intellectual climate where genuine examination of her claims becomes professionally suicidal.

The institutional machinery designed to protect White’s authority operates with remarkable efficiency. Adventist leadership positions require an implicit acceptance of her prophetic status, creating a self-perpetuating system in which only those who affirm her teachings can rise to positions of influence. Those who develop doubts or discover contradictions face a stark choice: suppress their concerns or sacrifice their careers.

This dynamic reveals why Adventist doctrine remains so resistant to biblical correction. It’s not simply that leaders disagree with alternative interpretations—it’s that the institutional structure makes it impossible for leaders to publicly acknowledge problems with White’s teachings without facing professional extinction. The church has effectively insulated itself from internal reform by making dissent synonymous with disloyalty.

Footnotes

[1]: Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book I (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 206-207.

[2]: White, Selected Messages, Book I, 161.