This is a critique of a video on Seventh-day Adventism which I saw in
October of 1999.
Repeatedly the video seemed to try to lead the viewer to look upon
Adventism as a cult or as less than Christian. Having studied into a lot
of the areas covered by the video, it wasn't difficult for me to see that
many of the points covered, if not all, were just not valid. It was
absolutely shocking how much misinformation the video contained, all put
together in a very convincing way.
I spent three months trying to dialog with Jeremiah
Films as well as the author of the script (Lorri MacGregor of MacGregor
Ministries), and two of the former pastors featured on the
video (Dale
Ratzlaff and Mark
Martin). These attempts went nowhere. So the next step I felt
was to provide to the public exactly where the video falls short.
This critique covers a total of 239 points for a video that is about 50
minutes long. Of these 239 points, 232 also relate to the slightly shorter
edition of the video, which runs about 45 minutes long. Thus we have
an average of about 4 or 5 disputed points per minute of footage.
The document has extensive hyperlinks. Look for buttons and hyperlinked
text (typically in a different color and underlined).
Also notice that any emphasis I have supplied in my responses will
always be both bolded and italicized, and that the Bible version used for
quotations, unless otherwise noted, is the King James Version.
The reader will find repeated references to a Documentation Package which
is offered at the end of the video to those wanting proof that the
allegations on the video are true. It is copyrighted 1999 by MacGregor
Ministries, and is analyzed along with the video in this critique.
Sometimes the video confuses Millerite Adventists and First-day
Adventists with Seventh-day Adventists. I have therefore attempted in my
discussion to make clear which group is being referred to.
All the video's disputed points found in the critique are listed in a table
of contents which immediately follows this introduction. They
are also listed in a topical
index which has the points categorized in the following
categories: Major
Factual Errors (a total of 86 points); Lesser
Inaccuracies: Less Important Than "Major Factual Errors"
(65 points); Bad
Quotations: Non-Existent, Rearranged, or Context Removed (12
points); Bad
Pictures: Pictures That Grossly Misrepresent the Facts (4
points); Oversimplifications:
More Detail Would Neutralize Point (18 points); Straw-Man
Arguments: Arguments Against Points That Are Basically Irrelevant
(19 points); Arguments
That Essentially Attack the Bible and Its Teachings (20
points); Statements
That Beg the Question: That Assume To Be Fact What Needs to Be Proven
(4 points); Contradictions:
Arguments or Statements that Demolish Other Arguments or Statements
(9 points); and Arguments
That Essentially Attack Prominent Christian Leaders of Old (2
points).
In categorizing the various points, a bit of subjectivity entered, as
would be expected. For example, was the point a major error or a minor
inaccuracy? To help determine this, I took into consideration the
magnitude of the error, the gravity of the accusation, and the ready
availability of correct information concerning the point. Still, some
would probably categorize the points differently.
Any errors, typographical or otherwise, that are found I would greatly
appreciate being brought to my attention.
I am deeply indebted to the Words of the Pioneers CD-ROM from
Adventist Pioneer Library, to The Published Ellen G. White Writings on
Compact Disk from the White Estate, to the commentaries found on the Online
Bible CD-ROM, and to the Master Christian Library from Ages
Software. These reference tools provided a good bit of the material and
facts found below.
Lastly, let me mention who I have chosen to dedicate this critique to.
Near the end of the video is this statement:
You really just have to search for it yourself, and if you, if you
love the Lord, if you really do, then you really want to know the truth.
(Kim Marshall)
For all such who "really want to know the truth," this
critique is sincerely dedicated.
Table of Contents
- All
quotes of Ellen White in video are from official sources.
False. Some quotes just don't exist at all, or don't exist in
the form portrayed on the video.
- Adventism
is based around the teachings and philosophies of Ellen White.
False. Most Seventh-day Adventist doctrines had been
discovered in the Bible and accepted before she wrote them
out.
- Ellen
White was the founder of the Adventist Church. She
was not the sole founder.
- William
Miller was a powerful preacher. Oversimplification.
Miller was a Baptist preacher, and but one of 200 preachers
and 500 lecturers from many denominations all preaching about
the same thing.
- Miller
taught that Christ would return in 1843.
Oversimplification. His major point of difference with the
theology of the times was not the date, but his conviction
that Christ would come visibly and literally before the
millennium instead of after.
- Miller
taught that Christ would return on October 22, 1844.
False. As of October 21, he had not yet accepted the date of
October 22, much less taught it.
- October
22 was not the Day of Atonement in 1844 False.
Biblically speaking, it was the Day of Atonement for that
year.
- Miller's
meetings were marked by emotionalism and hysteria.
False. Miller and his associates suppressed all such things.
- Picture
depicts radical fanaticism of Miller's meetings.
False. Picture is actually of a critic's description of a
post-1844 meeting that Miller was not present at.
- When
Christ did not return, Ellen White said she was in a
"hopeless condition for months." She said
no such thing.
- Ellen
White was depressed when Christ did not return on October 22.
False. The record indicates that she was not.
- Ellen
White could not admit her mistake of expecting Christ to
return in 1843 or 1844. False. She first admitted
what she thought was a mistake, and then admitted that she had
made a mistake in identifying the wrong mistake.
- Miller
admitted his mistake of expecting Christ to return in 1843 or
1844. Oversimplification. He did not admit a
mistake in his interpretations of the prophecies. Rather, he
thought there must be a mistake in the chronologies used by
historians, which might throw his calculations off a little.
- Ellen
White's first vision said that the 1843 chart should not be
altered. False. Her first vision was in December
1844. This one was on September 23, 1850.
- Ellen
White claimed God hid the mistake. Bad quotation.
The last clause that was omitted explains that her words meant
that God was not revealing the mistake to the people, rather
than hiding it.
- Ellen
White claimed God had made the mistake. False. She
made no such claim.
- Ellen
White's vision was controversial. False. There was
nothing controversial about it.
- Ellen
White's vision forced readjustment of many Adventist dates and
doctrines. False. Many dates and doctrines were not
readjusted as the result of either her first vision or the
vision of 1850.
- Ellen
White's vision readjusted the 1843 date to 1844.
False. It was already readjusted months before she had her
first vision.
- The
1844 date was still an error. Cannot be presently
proven. No better interpretation of the prophecies in question
has ever been found.
- Ellen
White became the absolute authority figure. False.
She never has been the absolute authority figure.
- Her
writings grew to be seventeen times larger than the Bible.
So? Luther, Wesley, and Spurgeon wrote a lot too.
- Adventists
view her writings as inspired as the Bible. So?
Adventists believe in degrees of authority, but not in degrees
of inspiration. One prophet is not more inspired than another,
but the prophets of the Bible have the final say.
- Church
publications use her writings as the last word on doctrine.
False. The Bible is the last word.
- Twenty-seven
Fundamental beliefs say that the Bible is a source
of authority. False. They state that the Bible is the
source of authority.
- Ellen
White's writings are an authoritative source of
truth. So? The Adventist quote referred to ends by
saying that the Bible is to be the standard by
which Ellen White's writings are tested.
- Some
of Ellen White's writings are unavailable, locked in a vault.
False. All published writings are available on CD-ROM.
Unpublished writings are available at 15 locations, and are
only locked away after hours.
- Her
more embarrassing writings are unavailable.
Oversimplification. What makes them embarrassing is that
sometimes she had to rebuke people's problems, like adultery.
- She
claimed an angel stood by her bed. So? Angels came
to visit Bible writers too.
- History
shows that Ellen White's prophecies did not come true.
Not one sound, clear-cut example is given.
- She
said Jerusalem would never be built up. The phrase
"built up" had a different meaning at times back
then.
- Ellen
White said she would be alive and would be caught up in the
air to meet Jesus. This undermines faith in the
Bible, for the apostle Paul said the same thing.
- She
said the second coming was only months away. False.
She said no such thing.
- At
a conference in 1856, she said that some present would be food
for worms and that some would be alive when Jesus came.
Oversimplification. The video omits an immediate fulfillment
in which a woman actually present at the conference was
impressed that she would "food for worms." She was
dead within three days.
- Ellen
White would have been stoned in Bible times for being a false
prophet. Then so would the biblical prophets Jonah
and Huldah. Some prophecies are conditional, as Jeremiah tells
us.
- She
predicted the downfall of the United States. False.
She predicted defeat if certain conditions
didn't change.
- She
made false predictions during the Civil War. This
quotation from Ellen White has been rearranged.
- Ellen
White predicted England would declare war on the United
States. False. She never said England would declare
war.
- She
predicted world war during the Civil War. False.
She never said there would be world war at that
time.
- Ellen
White predicted the humbling of the United States in defeat.
False. She predicted the nation's humbling, which came to
pass, but she never said the nation would be
defeated.
- She
claimed to travel to other planets in vision. So?
John, Ezekiel, and Paul as well tell us about their
supernatural journeys in the Bible.
- Ellen
White said animals and people crossed sexually.
False. She said no such thing.
- The
picture indicates that Ellen White believed that the crossing
of people and animals produced the black race.
Ellen White never said if she was talking about Blacks,
Whites, or Asians. There is no basis for the use of such a
picture.
- Her
visions are unbiblical. This begs the question, for
not one unbiblical aspect of her visions has been shown.
- Adventists
say her writings are as inspired as the Bible. This
straw man is answered already under #23.
The Documentation Package's documentation for this
point makes it clear that Adventists believe the Bible is the
final authority, not Ellen White.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine was a reinterpretation.
Not really, for Miller had been teaching for over a decade
prior to 1844 that the judgment was about to begin.
- Miller's
prediction of October 22, 1844, failed. As
mentioned under #6,
Miller didn't make this prediction or even accept it. As far
as his calculations go, his most learned opponents, like Dr.
George Bush, could find no fault in them, and the greatest
scholars of several centuries had come to similar conclusions.
- Adventists
believed that the door of mercy was shut on October 22.
It's not hard to see why they believed this for a short time.
- Adventists
believed that the door of mercy was shut on October 22.
Peter and the apostles thought the door of mercy was closed to
the Gentiles. Should we reject them as being part of a cult?
- With
prophetic authority Ellen White supported the
shut-door-of-mercy doctrine. False. She never did.
- Her
first vision taught the shut-door-of-mercy doctrine.
False. Her first vision taught that there would have to be a
lot of evangelism yet before Christ returned.
- The
preface to the reprinting of her first vision said there was
no change in idea or sentiment. It said no such
thing. Instead, the preface said that a portion was left out.
- The
other shut-door-of-mercy passages were dropped after 1851.
False. There were no other shut-door passages.
- The
other shut-door-of-mercy passages were reinterpreted after
1851. False. Besides there being no other shut-door
passages, the "reinterpretations" came well before
1851.
- Adventists
never admitted their error regarding expecting Jesus to come
in 1844. False. Adventists freely admitted their
error.
- Ellen
White immediately put God's endorsement on Edson and Crosier's
conclusions. Oversimplification. She put God's
endorsement on their conclusions before she had heard about
them.
- All
doctrines were soon adjusted to fit the cleansing of the
sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrines.
The doctrines identified do not fit this description.
- The
shut door was opened. Oversimplification. As in the
apostolic church, God opened the door of opportunity to reach
others with the truths of His Word. This had nothing to do
with the cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative
judgment doctrines.
- Soul
sleep was introduced because of the investigative judgment
doctrine. False. Soul sleep was introduced before
October 22, 1844, while the investigative judgment was
formulated afterwards.
- The
prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were reinterpreted to fit
the investigative judgment. The basic
interpretations of Daniel and Revelation were already worked
out before Edson and Crosier published their findings on the
cleansing of the sanctuary in 1846, and before the doctrine of
the investigative judgment was crystallized in 1857.
- It
was a time of doctrinal reversal. Neither the video
nor its documentation provides evidence that that time was
characterized by doctrinal reversal.
- The
idea that an angel is recording everything we do, and that we
will be judged by such a record, is harsh. But
that's what the Bible clearly teaches in Matthew, Revelation,
Daniel, and Ecclesiastes.
- Ellen
White taught that we would be judged for trying to have some
leisure time. False. She taught that we must have
leisure time in order to be balanced people.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine is unique to Seventh-day
Adventists. Not quite. Nearly every basic aspect of
this doctrine has been taught by prominent scholars of other
faiths.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine cannot be supported by the
Scriptures. False. It can be supported by the
Scriptures.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine states that a believer's works
determines their salvation. Not quite. The
investigative judgment doctrine does not teach that the
believer's works determine his salvation in the sense meant by
the typical evangelical when he says, "I'm saved."
- The
investigative judgment doctrine is blatantly unbiblical.
False. This point is similar to #65,
but more Scriptures are added under this number to show that
it is biblical.
- Seventh-day
Adventism is not a legitimate Christian denomination.
This point plainly begs the question, for it assumes what must
be proven.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine teaches that believers will be
lost if they have unconfessed sins. The Bible says
that we can only be forgiven if we confess our sins. Is the
video saying that the Bible is wrong?
- The
investigative judgment doctrine teaches that believers will be
lost if they have forgotten sins. Not even the Documentation
Package could find a quotation to substantiate this wild
charge.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine requires perfect obedience to
the Ten Commandments. But the New Testament plainly
says that adulterers, fornicators, thieves, and murderers
cannot enter heaven.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine teaches that all believers
will be lost if they do not keep the Fourth Commandment.
False. Both Ellen White and the New Testament teach that God
does not hold what we do not know and could not know against
us.
- The
investigative judgment doctrine is diametrically opposed to
the gospel of grace. The points being objected to
by the video are the very essence of the gospel and of the New
Covenant.
-
Seventh-day
Adventism is a man-made religion. This is another
point that begs the question, that assumes what needs to be
proven.
-
Seventh-day
Adventists have their own version of the Bible. Not
so. Jack Blanco's paraphrase is not in any sense an
official Seventh-day Adventist version. I do not own a copy
and have no present intention to get one.
-
This
Seventh-day Adventist version is known as The Clear Word
Bible. Not any more. Quite a few quickly
realized that something like this might come up one day, so
the second edition carries only the title, The Clear Word. The
contributors to the video knew this.
-
In
The Clear Word, the words and ideas of Ellen White are
inserted into the biblical text. False. The words
and ideas of theologian and college professor Jack Blanco, not
Ellen White, are inserted.
-
300
words have been added to Daniel 9 in The Clear Word.
Straw man. As the video admits, it's an expanded paraphrase,
and the interpretations utilized have been held for centuries.
-
Daniel
8:14 is a blatant example of alteration of the biblical text.
Straw man. Paraphrases by their very nature insert
interpretations into the text.
-
It's
called The Clear Word Version. Why did the
makers of the video change the title of Jack Blanco's
paraphrase? It's not called The Clear Word Version.
-
The
Clear Word was written to support their prophetess.
The Clear Word contains the words and ideas of Jack
Blanco, not Ellen White, and was not written to support
"their prophetess."
-
The
Clear Word manipulates and distorts Scripture.
Again, paraphrases contain, by their very nature, the
inclusion of interpretations into the text.
-
Seventh-day
Adventists have also published their Study Bible.
Contradictory argument. If The Clear Word is the
Seventh-day Adventist version, why is the Study Bible a
King James Version instead of The Clear Word?
-
The
Study Bible is "theirs." False. It
was published by a private organization, not the denomination,
so it cannot be said to be "theirs."
-
The
Study Bible of Seventh-day Adventists contains Ellen
White quotes. So? Lots of Bibles contain footnotes
and study helps.
-
Adventists
teach that Christ's atonement on the cross was incomplete.
This is blatantly false. Christ's atonement on the cross was
complete.
-
Adventists
teach the heresy that Michael is Christ. This
charge makes Charles Spurgeon and Matthew Henry heretics. And
the 1599 Geneva Bible must have been put out by
heretics too.
-
Adventists
teach that there is no hell. This is blatantly
false. Adventists consistently teach that there is a hell.
-
Adventists
taught doctrines contrary to tradition. So has
every other Protestant group. The Bible, not tradition, is
(supposed to be) the authority of Protestants.
-
Many
of the doctrines of Adventists are similar to Jehovah's
Witnesses. This is no more true than the statement
that "many" doctrines of other denominations are
similar to Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
N.
H. Barbour was an early Adventist. False. The
impression is left that Barbour was a Seventh-day Adventist,
and there is no evidence that he ever was.
-
Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists teach the
heresy of soul sleep. Guess that makes Martin
Luther, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and a host of
Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians all
heretics. Guess that even makes the apostle Peter himself
a heretic.
-
Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists teach the
heresy that Michael is Christ. The Bible clearly
teaches that there is an "angel" sent from God who
Himself is called God. If it isn't Christ, who is it? If it
isn't Christ, must we conclude that the Bible endorses
polytheism, that there is a mere angel who is God as well as
the Father, Son, and Spirit?
-
Uriah
Smith and James White denied the deity of Christ like the
Jehovah's Witnesses. False. They were always firm
believers in the deity of Christ.
-
Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists have produced
altered versions of the Bible. False. The New
World Translation is a translation produced by the
Watchtower Society. The Clear Word is an expanded
paraphrase put out by a private individual.
-
Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists have set dates
for Christ's return. False. Jehovah's Witnesses
have set dates, but not for Christ's return. And Sabbatarian
Adventists early on took a strong stand against date-setting.
Ellen White opposed such as early as 1845, even before
becoming a Sabbatarian. Seventh-day Adventists as such did not
exist in 1844.
-
Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the
only remnant church. False. Jehovah's Witnesses
claim that, as of 1991, 99.9169% of Jehovah's Witnesses are
not the remnant.
-
Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists plagiarized.
No attempt is made by the video or Documentation Package to
prove that Russell or any Jehovah's Witness ever read J. A.
Brown's book.
-
Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists were
"guilty" of plagiarism. J. A. Brown
published his book in Britain. Since there was no copyright in
America at the time on British books, neither Russell nor
anyone else could be said to be "guilty," even if
they had copied it.
- Walter
Rea's The White Lie was dedicated to those who would
rather believe a bitter truth than a sweet lie.
Oversimplification. The bitter "truth" both declared
and implied by The White Lie is totally repugnant to
evangelicals who believe in the final authority of Scripture.
- Ellen
White's inspiration was borrowed from others without credit.
This argument directly undermines the authority of the
Scriptures, for the Bible writers did the same.
- Ellen
White's major books contained "stolen" material.
What she did cannot be called "stealing" since the
words she took did not belong to the original writers.
- Sketches
from the Life of Paul was plagiarized in its entirety.
False. The books are different, as anyone who peruses them can
plainly see.
- This
resulted in a lawsuit. False. Such a lawsuit would
have been a legal impossibility.
- Because
of this, the book was quickly taken out of print.
False. Published in 1883, the book was promoted in Signs of
the Times through 1885, advertised in Great Controversy
through 1887, and included on the title page of Great
Controversy until 1907 in England, homeland of the authors
who were "stolen" from.
- The
evidence is irrefutable that Ellen White "stole" her
inspiration from others. False. It has already been
demonstrated in this critique that the evidence is anything
but irrefutable.
- The
main line of defense in the book The White Truth is
that there were no copyright laws back then. False.
Out of the six chapters in this 98-page book, one deals with
plagiarism. Out of 16 pages in that chapter, only 4 deal with
what copyright laws were like back then.
- The
White Truth says that there were no copyright laws back
then. False. Page 32 says that the first American
copyright law was passed in 1790.
- The
White Truth sidestepped the issue by concentrating on the
legal question. False. The video is confusing the
two allegations: 1) Ellen White was "guilty" of
theft. 2) Ellen White got her inspiration from others. The
White Truth deals with both allegations, as well as other
points.
-
The
Adventist hierarchy has been unable to respond to Rea's
challenge: Prove that 20% of Ellen White's writings are
original. False. The "hierarchy"
responded to his challenge 31 years before his book was
written.
- Prove
that 20% of Ellen White's writings are original.
Such a challenge doesn't make sense, for it would require
infinite knowledge to prove that 20% of her writings are original.
It makes more sense to say, Prove that 80% of her writings are
not original.
- Her
visions which she claimed came from God were shaky.
One thing the video doesn't touch with a ten-foot pole is the
fact that she didn't breathe and had supernatural strength
during her public visions.
- The
Seventh-day Adventist ministry is not a Christian ministry.
This begs the question, assuming what must be proved. Besides,
Dan Snyder admits under #232
that he was a Christian while being an Adventist minister!
- Ellen
White's early health documents produce a rude awakening
because of their fixation on moral issues. A minor
portion of her early health documents dealt with moral issues.
- Most
of her health advice dealt with suppressing the male sexual
urge. Absolutely ludicrous(!), as anyone who has
read her books knows.
- Most
of her health advice dealt with suppressing the male sexual
urge, which she thought was excessive. Technically,
she was against the excessive indulgence of sexual
urges by both men and women.
- [Not in all editions of the video.] Mrs.
White felt she had been given special light on the subject of
masturbation. That this was the opinion of her
grandson the Documentation Package proves, but no
evidence is ever given to substantiate that Ellen White
herself felt she had been given special light.
- [Not in all editions of the video.] Mrs.
White (apparently) gives a list of diseases caused by
masturbation. Actually, the quotation is not
accurate. The video combines a statement by Mrs. Gove with the
views of Dr. Deslandes. The video adds words, and omits words
and quotation marks without using an ellipsis.
- [Not in all editions of the video.] Mrs.
White (apparently) said kids who masturbate will get green
skin. These are the words of Dr. E. P. Miller, not
Ellen White.
- Ellen
White said that meat inflames the passions. The
quotation leaves this impression only because it is out of
context.
- Ellen
White said rich and highly seasoned foods act as aphrodisiacs.
Medical science has neither proven nor disproven what she
said. It's like when she said that cancer is caused by a germ.
She said this five years before a maverick scientist proposed
the idea. After being ridiculed by the scientific community,
this scientist years later won the Nobel Prize for being
right.
- Ellen
White (apparently) said, "Sip no more the beverage of
China, no more the drinks of Java." These are
the words of Professor O. S. Fowler, not the words of Ellen G.
White.
- Ellen
White advised skipping all suppers in order to bring the male
sexual appetites under control. False. Professor
Fowler said this, not Ellen White. She consistently said that
some people need a third meal (though two meals are better for
most), and even called for Avondale College to begin to serve
suppers.
- [Not in all editions of the video.] Ellen
White (apparently) said the use of feather beds led to
masturbation. False. Dr. E. P. Miller, not Ellen
White, is quoted. He was against sleeping on feather beds in small,
unventilated rooms, not against sleeping on feather
beds per se.
- [Not in all editions of the video.] Ellen
White used a feather bed against her own advice. False.
There is no evidence that she ever used a feather bed in an
unventilated, small room, which would have been against Dr. E.
P. Miller's advice, not her own. She was strongly opposed to
unventilated rooms.
- [Not in all editions of the video.] The
Battle Creek Sanitarium used hydrotherapy to treat secret
vice. Actually, hydrotherapy treatments stimulate
the immune system and increase the white blood cell count.
They have been used successfully to treat a variety of
ailments.
- [Not in all editions of the video.] The
picture illustrating the last point, showing a shivering man
with his feet in boiling water over a camp fire, depicts
Battle Creek's hydrotherapy treatment. False. The
quote the picture is illustrating says that you must not get
chilled. Also, the heat source for a hot foot bath is never
under the basin of water, which is never boiling. The picture
is totally inaccurate.
- Ellen
White controlled her female followers through directives on
dress. False. She was opposed to anyone forcing
convictions about dress on people.
- Ellen
White was against wearing any kind of wig. False.
The context of her statement clearly shows that she was not
talking about simple wigs. Her published and released writings
do not contain the word "wig" at all.
- The
picture of a skeleton looking through a window at a woman who
is presumably putting on a simple wig. The picture
doesn't illustrate at all the heavy monstrosities Ellen White
was talking about.
- After
Ellen White dealt with wigs, she introduced the reform dress.
False. The reform dress was introduced more than six years
before her counsel against heavy hairpieces.
- Ellen
White tried to force the reform dress on people.
False. As pointed out under #128,
she was against forcing the reform dress on anyone.
- The
reform dress was hot. False. Far from being hot, it
was comparatively light. The dress was designed as a healthful
alternative to the too-heavy, too-long, multiple skirts
typically worn by women in those days.
- The
reform dress was uncomfortable. False. This light
dress was designed for comfort as well as for health.
- The
reform dress was bulky. False. Nor was this light
dress bulky.
- The
reform dress was long. False. It was not long.
Besides being called the "reform dress," it was also
called the "short dress."
- Faithful
sisters struggled with the reform dress. False.
Problems arose when these so-called "faithful
sisters" did one of the following: a) wouldn't quit
complaining about not being fashionable, b) pushed the dress
on others contrary to Ellen White's expressed counsel, or c)
constructed it distastefully.
- The
reform dress was cumbersome. False. This light
dress was not cumbersome.
- Ellen
White gave no explanation for why she quit wearing her reform
dress. False. She explained the matter well.
- Ellen
White said those who aren't vegetarians when Jesus comes can't
go to heaven. False. She never made such an extreme
statement.
- Ellen
White taught that you have to keep the letter of the law to
put yourself on the road to salvation. False. She
taught that you are totally incapable of obeying God's
commandments until you have come to Christ.
- Ellen
White had no patience with those who say, I am saved.
The quotation has been rearranged and has had the context
removed.
- Ellen
White had no patience with Christians who say, I am saved.
Ellen White was not denouncing the doctrines of justification
and righteousness by faith. The first quotation is not talking
about those who mean, "I have been justified." The
second quotation is referring to those who believe they can
continue to murder and steal and sell dope, and still go to
heaven.
- Adventists
believe that Jesus made the down payment for our salvation.
Thus the speaker contradicts the point he made under #141.
If Jesus made the down payment, then we don't have to work to
put ourselves on the road to salvation.
- Adventists
believe that Jesus made the down payment for our salvation,
but we must make the monthly installments. Thus it
is suggested that Adventists believe we partially earn our
salvation. This is false.
- Adventists
do not rely upon the grace of God alone. Ellen
White repeatedly said we must rely upon the grace of God
alone.
-
Adventists
are striving to be rigidly obedient. False. Many
Adventists will tell you that the Adventist Church has grown a
bit lax.
-
Adventists
are inflexible, guilt-ridden legalists. False.
While it is true that every faith has its legalists, the vast
majority of Adventists are opposed to legalistic concepts.
Legalism is generally not the cause of guilt but a faulty
method of trying to get rid of the guilt brought on by a
conviction of sin. Therefore the discovery of a genuinely
guilt-ridden legalist would indeed be a rare find, regardless
of his or her religious affiliation.
-
Ellen
White was wrong when she said that believers must keep the law
of God. Thus the video condemns not only Ellen
White, but Paul, John, Peter, Jude, James, and Jesus.
-
We
don't have to worry about obeying the law, since we are under
the New Covenant now, not the Old Covenant. A
popular antinomian argument, this doesn't really make sense in
the light of the only New Testament passage
describing the New Covenant.
-
We
don't have to worry about obeying the law, since Christ is the
end of the law. Since James 5:11 talks about the
"end of the Lord," we know that sometimes
"end" must mean something other than a cessation of
existence. Christ is "the end of the law" because
the law leads sinners to Christ for release from guilt (Gal.
3:24), not because the Ten Commandments don't exist anymore.
-
We
are not under the tutorship of the law, so we don't have to
worry about obeying the law. This inaccuracy
ignores what Paul meant by the phrase "under the
law."
-
Christians
will keep God's commandments out of love. Thus Mr.
Martin destroys the force of much of his whole argument thus
far: We don't have to keep God's law, but if we love God we
will gladly keep His law. The simple conclusion from his words
is that if we don't keep God's law, it shows that we don't
really love God.
-
Being
under the law leads to sin. Actually, according to
the New Testament, it seems more natural to say that sinning
leads to being under the law, rather than that being under the
law leads to sinning.
-
Being
under grace leads to holiness. Mr. Martin
contradicts himself again, for if we don't have to obey the
law, why would the grace of God lead to holiness?
-
A
pre-advent judgment of works is incompatible with the gospel
of grace. But this makes the apostle Paul
contradict Revelation 14:6, 7.
-
Soul
sleep was introduced because of the investigative judgment
doctrine. False. Soul sleep was introduced before
1844, and the video makes it clear that the investigative
judgment doctrine came after 1844.
-
The
doctrine of soul sleep is unbiblical. Not so.
Tyndale, Luther, Wycliffe, and many others came up with this
idea just from studying the Bible. Besides, saying that our
souls are immortal undermines the necessity of 1) the gospel,
2) the resurrection, and 3) the second coming.
- Conditional
immortality flies in the face of two Scriptures.
Actually, it doesn't, unless we want to say that the Bible
contradicts itself. Martin's interpretation of these two texts
in actuality flies in the face of hundreds of Bible texts from
Genesis to Revelation.
- Adventists
do not teach the biblical doctrine of hell.
Actually, Seventh-day Adventists do teach the biblical
doctrine of hell, and always have.
- The
Adventist view that Sabbath keeping is a mark of true loyalty
to God is severe. But the speaker basically already
admitted that Sabbath keeping is a mark of true loyalty to
God.
- Ellen
White obliged by conveniently having a vision.
Ellen White could not pretend to have a vision. Because of the
definitely supernatural characteristics of her visions, they
could not be faked.
- Her
vision about the Sabbath introduced the Sabbath to her
followers. The Sabbath was already well introduced
among Millerites before this vision of April 3, 1847.
- Adventists
weren't following what the Bible says about beginning the
Sabbath at sunset. The Bible "says" to
keep the Sabbath from "even to even." It doesn't
"say" to keep the Sabbath from sunset to sunset.
Therefore these Adventists were not blatantly disregarding the
Bible during the time they were unclear about the true meaning
of "even."
- Ellen
White decided to have another vision. As mentioned
before, for her to decide to have a vision was an absolute
impossibility.
- The
vision was intended to settle the matter with the dissenters.
According to one account, there were only two dissenters:
Joseph Bates and Ellen White. Does it not sound a bit
preposterous that since Ellen White wanted to convince
herself, she decided to have another vision? And this vision
didn't mention sunset at all or anything not contained in the
previous vision, except that they should study the Bible to
find out what "even" really meant.
- A
delegate reported that "After the conference, November
20th, the vision was given, establishing those undecided on
the sunset time." The use of this quotation is
devastating to these criticisms, for it comes from a pamphlet
that demolishes every argument in this part of the video.
- Adventists
continued to ask questions. False. It wasn't
Seventh-day Adventists per se who were asking questions. It
was their opponents.
- Mrs.
White had visions saying that the Sabbath should be kept from
6pm to 6pm. False. Ellen White never had a single
vision saying to commence the Sabbath at 6pm, or at any other
time than the biblical "even unto even."
- It
required another vision. False. The vision quoted
from is not even another vision. It's the same November 20,
1855, vision.
- In
her vision Ellen White promised to question the angel.
False. It was the angel that made a promise, not Ellen White.
- According
to Spiritual Gifts, Ellen White promised that they
would find out why the visions had first said to keep the
Sabbath from 6pm to 6pm. Out of context big time.
Only two sentences after the quotation used, Ellen White
denies ever seeing in vision that the Sabbath should begin at
6pm!
- Ellen
White died without ever giving the promised explanation.
This charge implies that Ellen White was supposed to, but she
was never told by the angel who would give the promised
explanation. The angel never said who.
- The
promised explanation was never given. Actually, the
promised explanation was given by 1868, 47 years before
Ellen White's death.
- After
the change of time for keeping the Sabbath, the Sabbath came
to be understood as the seal. False. The Sabbath
was understood to be the seal at least six years before the
change to sunset time.
- The
Sabbath was seen to be of prime importance in determining who
would be saved and who wouldn't. The average
viewer, uninformed about Adventist beliefs, will think that
Adventists believe Sunday keepers now have the mark of the
beast while Sabbath keepers have the seal. This is false.
- The
Great Controversy supports the idea that people have
already gotten the mark of the beast by keeping Sunday.
The viewer tends to arrive at this conclusion because of the
speaker's choice of verb tenses, and the missing context of
the quotation.
- Adventists
believe that failing to keep the Sabbath resulted in
one's receiving the mark of the beast and losing one's eternal
life. False. Adventists do not believe that this is
a present reality. The use of the past tense verb
"resulted" in describing a future event is an error.
- The
Adventist view today about the mark of the beast is severe.
How can it be severe to believe that Christians ought to obey
the commandments of God? What does this say about what Jesus
said: "If ye love me, keep my commandments"?
- Adventists
teach that Sunday keeping is a mark of rebellion.
Gross oversimplification. Given the standard Protestant
interpretations about the beast at the time Adventism arose,
and given some of the strong statements Catholics have made
about Sunday keeping, it's no wonder that Adventism arrived at
the interpretations that it did.
- Even
today, Seventh-day Adventists have made salvation ultimately
dependent on which day of the week one worships.
False. Adventists for the last century and a half have taught
that there are Sunday keepers who are bound for heaven and
Sabbath keepers who are bound for hell.
- Even
today, Seventh-day Adventists have made salvation ultimately
dependent on which day of the week one worships.
False. Adventists for the last century and a half have taught
that the reception of the mark of the beast is a future event,
not a present reality. And again, the use of the present tense
for "worship" is an error.
- The
New Testament says that the seal of God is the work of the
Holy Spirit, not the keeping of the Sabbath. It
isn't that simple. The New Testament indicates that the
last-day seal does have something to do with the fourth
commandment.
- Ellen
White has no support at all for identifying the Sabbath as the
seal of God. False. She has all kinds of support . . .
from the Bible.
- Christ's
resurrection day is the Lord's Day. False. The
Bible is crystal clear that 1) Jesus rose on the first day of
the week, and 2) the Lord's Day is the seventh day of the
week. One must wait over a hundred years after the
resurrection before one finds a document calling the
resurrection day the Lord's Day.
- Christ's
followers met regularly on the resurrection day for their
worship. There is no Bible evidence for this
statement. In all the New Testament, we have only one explicit
instance of the disciples meeting on the first day of the week
for worship. In that one instance, they met on what we call
Saturday night.
- Christ's
followers did not meet regularly on the Sabbath for worship.
False. This statement disagrees with the book of Acts.
- The
resurrection day was when the disciples usually broke bread.
False. Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread daily, not just on
Sabbath or on Sunday.
- They
did not break bread on the Sabbath. False. If they
broke bread daily, they must have done it on the Sabbath as
well.
- The
Sabbath is Jewish. False. Jesus Himself said that
He made the Sabbath for both Adam and all his descendents.
- Adventists
teach that Satan becomes the sin-bearer. False.
Ellen White taught, and Adventists teach, that Jesus is our only
sin-bearer.
- Thus,
Adventists differ from the plain teaching of Scripture that
Christ bore our sins on the cross. Straw man. A
Bible verse referring to the cross is used here to prove who
the scapegoat can and cannot be after the
atonement is finished.
- Adventists
strive to be included as mainline evangelical Protestant
Christians. Not really. We don't have to strive.
The largest church in the world says that we are the most
fundamental of the fundamentalists, and "the only
consistent Protestant."
- An
Adventist pastor supplied the following five marks of a cult.
But the letter these five marks came from says that the
co-producers and script writer of the video have been
supplying false information about Seventh-day Adventists for
14 years! The video's credibility is thus called into
question.
- There
is a "total reliance" by Seventh-day Adventists on
Ellen White. False. For Seventh-day Adventists, the
Bible is the final authority.
- Ellen
White is revered by all Seventh-day Adventists.
False. This is far from the case, as the video later admits.
- Ellen
White's comments overshadow the teachings of the Bible.
False, and the Documentation Package proves it.
- Adventists
consider Ellen White's comments on the Scriptures to be more
authoritative than tradition. Of course! We are
Protestants, and for Protestants tradition is supposed to be
subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. An inspired prophet would
be next in line in authority to the Bible, and tradition would
have to be less authoritative than that.
- Ellen
White pressured people into submission. False. She
was against pressuring people into submission.
- Ellen
White publicly aired reproofs sent to people.
False. When some of them were printed for the benefit of
individuals having similar problems, she almost always left
out the name and address of the guilty.
- Usually
the person conformed under the pressure.
Oversimplification. One instance being cited in the Documentation
Package essentially makes a joke out of this whole section
in the video.
- Usually
the person conformed under the pressure. The
incident just cited reveals a lack of pressure on Ellen
White's part.
- The
type of pressure Ellen White used is one of the marks of a
cult. Rather ludicrous. If such an idea be true,
then the prophets of the Bible were just as cultic as Ellen
White.
- Acceptance
and fellowship are very often withheld today.
The evidence indicates that this is false.
- Withholding
of acceptance and fellowship for questioning doctrine is a
characteristic of a cult. Questioning is one thing.
Attacking is another. Biblically, the church must deal with
members who practice grievous sins and teach false doctrines.
- Adventists
originally denied the deity of Christ. False. An
1853 Advent Review said, "Warn those who deny the
divinity of the only Saviour, that they must perish
everlastingly if they go on rejecting him, for it is fearful
and blasphemous to reject him."
- Adventists
must discontinue the doctrine that Michael is a name for
Christ. This can't be done while remaining true to
Scripture.
- "Michael"
being a name for Christ contradicts Hebrews 1:13.
False. Scripture uses the term "angel" in a number
of ways. Sometimes it refers to the uncreated Being who is
simultaneously called the "Angel of the LORD," God,
and Yahweh, and sometimes it refers just to the created
angelic beings, as in Hebrews 1:13. There is no biblical
justification whatsoever for insisting that Michael cannot be
the divine "Angel of the LORD" and must therefore be
a created being.
- Adventists
can't discontinue the doctrine that "Michael" is a
name for Christ without admitting that Ellen White made a
mistake. Oversimplification. Adventists would have
to admit that Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and
a host of others made a mistake too.
- It
is impossible to accommodate both doctrines, that Christ is
divine, and that Michael is Christ. False, as can
be seen from #93.
- Adventists
have added the investigative judgment to salvation by
grace through faith in Christ alone. False.
According to the New Testament, to omit the judgment would be
to delete it from the gospel.
- Adventists
have added Sabbath keeping to salvation by grace
through faith in Christ alone. False. Omitting
Sabbath keeping from the New Covenant is to delete it
from Christ's will. It is illegal to alter a will after the
one who made the will dies.
- Adventists
have added obedience to the Ten Commandments as
requirements for salvation. False. Obedience is not
a requirement for justification or conversion. To omit
obedience from requirements for glorification is to
effectively preach another gospel than the gospel Paul and
Jesus preached.
- Adventists
have added obedience to other Old Testament laws as
requirements for salvation. But both the New
Testament and Old Testament prophecies about New Testament
times indicate that believers should still abstain from blood
and unclean animals, and should return the tenth to God.
- Adventists
believe that the world's sins have been placed upon Satan.
False. Adventists believe that no sins have been placed upon
Satan.
- Adventists
believe that the world's sins have been placed upon Satan
rather than upon Christ. False. Adventists do not
believe that Satan bears our sins instead of Christ. Christ is
the only Sin-bearer.
- Adventists
believe that Christians must stand before God without Christ
as their mediator. Straw man. Every Bible-believing
Christian who has studied the matter knows that Christ's
mediatorial work must cease just before He returns.
- This
contradicts Hebrews 7:25. Straw man. Hebrews 7:25 is talking
about the present. It is not talking about
eternity, when we will no longer need a mediator.
- Adventists
believe that salvation comes by placing sin upon Satan.
Utterly false. Adventists believe that salvation comes through
our Sin-bearer, Jesus Christ. The sins are only placed upon
Satan after salvation is completely finished. That
event is future.
- The
Adventist view of salvation, placing sin upon Satan, is not
the salvation taught in the Bible. Straw man. Since
this is not the Adventist view of salvation, the point is
totally irrelevant.
- Four
of the five marks of a cult apply to Seventh-day Adventists.
False. None of the five marks apply to Seventh-day Adventists.
- These
five marks of a cult are very important. If
Jeremiah Films really believes this, why don't they make a
video about a much larger church that clearly does fit these
marks?
- Adventist
leaders deceptively espoused the view of salvation by grace
alone in the 1950's. False. Adventists had been
teaching "grace alone" long before the 1950's. For
instance, Ellen White wrote that "by grace alone can they
be saved" in 1890. And in 1869 she wrote, "It is
through his grace alone that Satan can be successfully
repulsed."
- Many
followers felt betrayed by such an espousal of salvation by
grace alone. False. Some conservative members felt
betrayed because M. L. Andreason, a prominent theologian, said
that the book Questions on Doctrine contained
capitulations on some finer points of Adventist theology.
- Those
who felt betrayed began searching for themselves, and made
lurid discoveries. False. The conservative element
who felt betrayed did not do the searching referred to. The
liberal element who did not feel betrayed engaged in
"searching" into other issues, and in consequence
ultimately abandoned a number of crucial teachings found in
Scripture, including the teaching that Scripture must be the
final authority!
- "The
Adventist Church had deceived me." If the (mis)information
the preacher told you was anything like what is on this video,
then it was he who deceived you, not the Adventist Church. At
least, he didn't know what he was talking about.
- "I
was never presented with [Ellen White's copying] in the
[elementary] school system." Seems like 1st or
5th grade might be a bit early to deal with Peter or Jude
copying from each other. Though these are obviously not issues
for elementary school students to grapple with, I wouldn't be
surprised if some 7th or 8th grades do touch on it.
- ".
. . all these writings she had . . . plagiarized, . . . I
felt . . . lied to." Do you feel
lied to because between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, two copied
from the other? Do you feel lied to because John copied from
others when he put together the book of Revelation? Even
though they copied, can you prove that Ellen White, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Jude are guilty of
"plagiarism"?
- ".
. . the [Adventist] Church was inconsistent theologically and
politically." Straw man. Jesus said it would
be this way.
- ".
. . the [ Adventist] Church was inconsistent theologically and
politically." This argument is what many use
to excuse themselves from becoming Christians. The Bible
characters were woefully inconsistent too. Does that make them
members of a cult?
- "When
expedient, they . . . contradicted Ellen G. White. . . ."
The truth is out! Adventists don't follow Ellen White after
all.
- "The
last three years have been the most spiritually rewarding of
my thirty-one years as a Christian." This key
witness thus declares that he was both a Christian and an
Adventist for 28 years, part of which time he was an Adventist
minister as well. Despite all what the video says, according
to this speaker, Adventists are Christians, and
Adventist ministers are Christian ministers.
- The
Adventist Church does not uphold the Bible as the sole
authority of both faith and practice. If this is
true, which it isn't, why does everyone who becomes a member
of the Adventist Church have to vow before God that they
"believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and
that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for
the Christian"?
- "Jesus
saves us not by our deeds. . . ." Straw man,
since this is precisely what Seventh-day Adventists believe.
- "Because
you're not going to be able to get this information from your
church." It would be a rare church that could
produce this much misinformation single-handed.
- The
Documentation Package substantiates the information
contained in the video. The Documentation
Package substantiates hardly anything. Sometimes it proves
that the information on the video is erroneous.
- A
number of former high-ranking Adventist Church leaders are
featured on the video. Based on the information in
the video, not one former high-ranking leader is featured.
- The
video contains answers based on the best scholarship.
If this video contains answers based on the best scholarship,
what would the worst scholarship be like?
- The
video contains answers based on firm adherence to the truths
of God's Word. In actuality, the video undermines
faith in the authority and teachings of God's Word in a number
of subtle ways.
Major Factual Errors
- (#1) All
quotes of Ellen White in video are from official sources.
False. Some quotes just don't exist at all, or don't exist in
the form portrayed on the video.
- (#7) October
22 was not the Day of Atonement in 1844 False.
Biblically speaking, it was the Day of Atonement for that
year.
- (#8) Miller's
meetings were marked by emotionalism and hysteria.
False. Miller and his associates suppressed all such things.
- (#14) Ellen
White's first vision said that the 1843 chart should not be
altered. False. Her first vision was in December
1844. This one was on September 23, 1850.
- (#16) Ellen
White claimed God had made the mistake. False. She
made no such claim.
- (#18) Ellen
White's vision forced readjustment of many Adventist dates and
doctrines. False. Many dates and doctrines were not
readjusted as the result of either her first vision or the
vision of 1850.
- (#19 Ellen
White's vision readjusted the 1843 date to 1844.
False. It was already readjusted months before she had her
first vision.
- (#25) Twenty-seven
Fundamental beliefs say that the Bible is a source
of authority. False. They state that the Bible is the
source of authority.
- (#27) Some
of Ellen White's writings are unavailable, locked in a vault.
False. All published writings are available on CD-ROM.
Unpublished writings are available at 15 locations, and are
only locked away after hours.
- (#50) With
prophetic authority Ellen White supported the
shut-door-of-mercy doctrine. False. She never did.
- (#51) Her
first vision taught the shut-door-of-mercy doctrine.
False. Her first vision taught that there would have to be a
lot of evangelism yet before Christ returned.
- (#53) The
other shut-door-of-mercy passages were dropped after 1851.
False. There were no other shut-door passages.
- (#55) Adventists
never admitted their error regarding expecting Jesus to come
in 1844. False. Adventists freely admitted their
error.
- (#59) Soul
sleep was introduced because of the investigative judgment
doctrine. False. Soul sleep was introduced before
October 22, 1844, while the investigative judgment was
formulated afterwards.
- (#70) The
investigative judgment doctrine teaches that believers will be
lost if they have forgotten sins. Not even the Documentation
Package could find a quotation to substantiate this wild
charge.
- (#75) Seventh-day
Adventists have their own version of the Bible. Not
so. Jack Blanco's paraphrase is not in any sense an
official Seventh-day Adventist version. I do not own a copy
and have no present intention to get one.
-
(#77) In
The Clear Word, the words and ideas of Ellen White are
inserted into the biblical text. False. The words
and ideas of theologian and college professor Jack Blanco, not
Ellen White, are inserted.
-
(#81) The
Clear Word was written to support their prophetess.
The Clear Word contains the words and ideas of Jack
Blanco, not Ellen White, and was not written to support
"their prophetess."
-
(#86) Adventists
teach that Christ's atonement on the cross was incomplete.
This is blatantly false. Christ's atonement on the cross was
complete.
-
(#88) Adventists
teach that there is no hell. This is blatantly
false. Adventists consistently teach that there is a hell.
-
(#90) Many
of the doctrines of Adventists are similar to Jehovah's
Witnesses. This is no more true than the statement
that "many" doctrines of other denominations are
similar to Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
(#91) N.
H. Barbour was an early Adventist. False. The
impression is left that Barbour was a Seventh-day Adventist,
and there is no evidence that he ever was.
-
(#94) Uriah
Smith and James White denied the deity of Christ like the
Jehovah's Witnesses. False. They were always firm
believers in the deity of Christ.
-
(#95) Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists have produced
altered versions of the Bible. False. The New
World Translation is a translation produced by the
Watchtower Society. The Clear Word is an expanded
paraphrase put out by a private individual.
-
(#96) Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists have set dates
for Christ's return. False. Jehovah's Witnesses
have set dates, but not for Christ's return. And Sabbatarian
Adventists early on took a strong stand against date-setting.
Ellen White opposed such as early as 1845, even before
becoming a Sabbatarian. Seventh-day Adventists as such did not
exist in 1844.
-
(#97) Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the
only remnant church. False. Jehovah's Witnesses
claim that, as of 1991, 99.9169% of Jehovah's Witnesses are
not the remnant.
-
(#99) Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists were
"guilty" of plagiarism. J. A. Brown
published his book in Britain. Since there was no copyright in
America at the time on British books, neither Russell nor
anyone else could be said to be "guilty," even if
they had copied it.
-
(#102) Ellen
White's major books contained "stolen" material.
What she did cannot be called "stealing" since the
words she took did not belong to the original writers.
-
(#103) Sketches
from the Life of Paul was plagiarized in its entirety.
False. The books are different, as anyone who peruses them can
plainly see.
- (#104) This
resulted in a lawsuit. False. Such a lawsuit would
have been a legal impossibility.
- (#105) Because
of this, the book was quickly taken out of print.
False. Published in 1883, the book was promoted in Signs of
the Times through 1885, advertised in Great Controversy
through 1887, and included on the title page of Great
Controversy until 1907 in England, homeland of the authors
who were "stolen" from.
- (#107) The
main line of defense in the book The White Truth is
that there were no copyright laws back then. False.
Out of the six chapters in this 98-page book, one deals with
plagiarism. Out of 16 pages in that chapter, only 4 deal with
what copyright laws were like back then.
- (#108) The
White Truth says that there were no copyright laws back
then. False. Page 32 says that the first American
copyright law was passed in 1790.
- (#109) The
White Truth sidestepped the issue by concentrating on the
legal question. False. The video is confusing the
two allegations: 1) Ellen White was "guilty" of
theft. 2) Ellen White got her inspiration from others. The
White Truth deals with both allegations, as well as other
points.
- (#110) The
Adventist hierarchy has been unable to respond to Rea's
challenge: Prove that 20% of Ellen White's writings are
original. False. The "hierarchy"
responded to his challenge 31 years before his book was
written.
- (#115) Most
of her health advice dealt with suppressing the male sexual
urge. Absolutely ludicrous(!), as anyone who has
read her books knows.
- (#123) Ellen
White advised skipping all suppers in order to bring the male
sexual appetites under control. False. Professor
Fowler said this, not Ellen White. She consistently said that
some people need a third meal (though two meals are better for
most), and even called for Avondale College to begin to serve
suppers.
- (#128) Ellen
White controlled her female followers through directives on
dress. False. She was opposed to anyone forcing
convictions about dress on people.
- (#129) Ellen
White was against wearing any kind of wig. False.
The context of her statement clearly shows that she was not
talking about simple wigs. Her published and released writings
do not contain the word "wig" at all.
- (#132) Ellen
White tried to force the reform dress on people.
False. As pointed out under #128,
she was against forcing the reform dress on anyone.
- (#133) The
reform dress was hot. False. Far from being hot, it
was comparatively light. The dress was designed as a healthful
alternative to the too-heavy, too-long, multiple skirts
typically worn by women in those days.
- (#134) The
reform dress was uncomfortable. False. This light
dress was designed for comfort as well as for health.
- (#135) The
reform dress was bulky. False. Nor was this light
dress bulky.
- (#136) The
reform dress was long. False. It was not long.
Besides being called the "reform dress," it was also
called the "short dress."
- (#137) Faithful
sisters struggled with the reform dress. False.
Problems arose when these so-called "faithful
sisters" did one of the following: a) wouldn't quit
complaining about not being fashionable, b) pushed the dress
on others contrary to Ellen White's expressed counsel, or c)
constructed it distastefully.
- (#138) The
reform dress was cumbersome. False. This light
dress was not cumbersome.
- (#139) Ellen
White gave no explanation for why she quit wearing her reform
dress. False. She explained the matter well.
- (#141) Ellen
White taught that you have to keep the letter of the law to
put yourself on the road to salvation. False. She
taught that you are totally incapable of obeying God's
commandments until you have come to Christ.
- (#143) Ellen
White had no patience with Christians who say, I am saved.
Ellen White was not denouncing the doctrines of justification
and righteousness by faith. The first quotation is not talking
about those who mean, "I have been justified." The
second quotation is referring to those who believe they can
continue to murder and steal and sell dope, and still go to
heaven.
- (#145) Adventists
believe that Jesus made the down payment for our salvation,
but we must make the monthly installments. Thus it
is suggested that Adventists believe we partially earn our
salvation. This is false.
- (#146) Adventists
do not rely upon the grace of God alone. Ellen
White repeatedly said we must rely upon the grace of God
alone.
-
(#157) Soul
sleep was introduced because of the investigative judgment
doctrine. False. Soul sleep was introduced before
1844, and the video makes it clear that the investigative
judgment doctrine came after 1844.
- (#160) Adventists
do not teach the biblical doctrine of hell.
Actually, Seventh-day Adventists do teach the biblical
doctrine of hell, and always have.
- (#162) Ellen
White obliged by conveniently having a vision.
Ellen White could not pretend to have a vision. Because of the
definitely supernatural characteristics of her visions, they
could not be faked.
- (#163) Her
vision about the Sabbath introduced the Sabbath to her
followers. The Sabbath was already well introduced
among Millerites before this vision of April 3, 1847.
- (#165) Ellen
White decided to have another vision. As mentioned
before, for her to decide to have a vision was an absolute
impossibility.
- (#168) Adventists
continued to ask questions. False. It wasn't
Seventh-day Adventists per se who were asking questions. It
was their opponents.
- (#169) Mrs.
White had visions saying that the Sabbath should be kept from
6pm to 6pm. False. Ellen White never had a single
vision saying to commence the Sabbath at 6pm, or at any other
time than the biblical "even unto even."
- (#170) It
required another vision. False. The vision quoted
from is not even another vision. It's the same November 20,
1855, vision.
- (#171) In
her vision Ellen White promised to question the angel.
False. It was the angel that made a promise, not Ellen White.
- (#173) Ellen
White died without ever giving the promised explanation.
This charge implies that Ellen White was supposed to, but she
was never told by the angel who would give the promised
explanation. The angel never said who.
- (#174) The
promised explanation was never given. Actually, the
promised explanation was given by 1868, 47 years before
Ellen White's death.
- (#178) Adventists
believe that failing to keep the Sabbath resulted in
one's receiving the mark of the beast and losing one's eternal
life. False. Adventists do not believe that this is
a present reality. The use of the past tense verb
"resulted" in describing a future event is an error.
-
(#182) Even
today, Seventh-day Adventists have made salvation ultimately
dependent on which day of the week one worships.
False. Adventists for the last century and a half have taught
that the reception of the mark of the beast is a future event,
not a present reality. And again, the use of the present tense
for "worship" is an error.
- (#184) Ellen
White has no support at all for identifying the Sabbath as the
seal of God. False. She has all kinds of support . . .
from the Bible.
- (#185) Christ's
resurrection day is the Lord's Day. False. The
Bible is crystal clear that 1) Jesus rose on the first day of
the week, and 2) the Lord's Day is the seventh day of the
week. One must wait over a hundred years after the
resurrection before one finds a document calling the
resurrection day the Lord's Day.
- (#186) Christ's
followers met regularly on the resurrection day for their
worship. There is no Bible evidence for this
statement. In all the New Testament, we have only one explicit
instance of the disciples meeting on the first day of the week
for worship. In that one instance, they met on what we call
Saturday night.
- (#187) Christ's
followers did not meet regularly on the Sabbath for worship.
False. This statement disagrees with the book of Acts.
- (#188) The
resurrection day was when the disciples usually broke bread.
False. Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread daily, not just on
Sabbath or on Sunday.
- (#189) They
did not break bread on the Sabbath. False. If they
broke bread daily, they must have done it on the Sabbath as
well.
- (#190) The
Sabbath is Jewish. False. Jesus Himself said that
He made the Sabbath for both Adam and all his descendents.
- (#191) Adventists
teach that Satan becomes the sin-bearer. False.
Ellen White taught, and Adventists teach, that Jesus is our only
sin-bearer.
- (#195) There
is a "total reliance" by Seventh-day Adventists on
Ellen White. False. For Seventh-day Adventists, the
Bible is the final authority.
- (#197) Ellen
White's comments overshadow the teachings of the Bible.
False, and the Documentation Package proves it.
- (#200) Ellen
White publicly aired reproofs sent to people.
False. When some of them were printed for the benefit of
individuals having similar problems, she almost always left
out the name and address of the guilty.
- (#206) Adventists
originally denied the deity of Christ. False. An
1853 Advent Review said, "Warn those who deny the
divinity of the only Saviour, that they must perish
everlastingly if they go on rejecting him, for it is fearful
and blasphemous to reject him."
- (#208) "Michael"
being a name for Christ contradicts Hebrews 1:13.
False. Scripture uses the term "angel" in a number
of ways. Sometimes it refers to the uncreated Being who is
simultaneously called the "Angel of the LORD," God,
and Yahweh, and sometimes it refers just to the created
angelic beings, as in Hebrews 1:13. There is no biblical
justification whatsoever for insisting that Michael cannot be
the divine "Angel of the LORD" and must therefore be
a created being.
- (#210) It
is impossible to accommodate both doctrines, that Christ is
divine, and that Michael is Christ. False, as can
be seen from #93.
- (#215) Adventists
believe that the world's sins have been placed upon Satan.
False. Adventists believe that no sins have been placed upon
Satan.
- (#216) Adventists
believe that the world's sins have been placed upon Satan
rather than upon Christ. False. Adventists do not
believe that Satan bears our sins instead of Christ. Christ is
the only Sin-bearer.
- (#219) Adventists
believe that salvation comes by placing sin upon Satan.
Utterly false. Adventists believe that salvation comes through
our Sin-bearer, Jesus Christ. The sins are only placed upon
Satan after salvation is completely finished. That
event is future.
- (#221) Four
of the five marks of a cult apply to Seventh-day Adventists.
False. None of the five marks apply to Seventh-day Adventists.
- (#223) Adventist
leaders deceptively espoused the view of salvation by grace
alone in the 1950's. False. Adventists had been
teaching "grace alone" long before the 1950's. For
instance, Ellen White wrote that "by grace alone can they
be saved" in 1890. And in 1869 she wrote, "It is
through his grace alone that Satan can be successfully
repulsed."
- (#236) The
Documentation Package substantiates the information
contained in the video. The Documentation
Package substantiates hardly anything. Sometimes it proves
that the information on the video is erroneous.
- (#237) A
number of former high-ranking Adventist Church leaders are
featured on the video. Based on the information in
the video, not one former high-ranking leader is featured.
- (#238) The
video contains answers based on the best scholarship.
If this video contains answers based on the best scholarship,
what would the worst scholarship be like?
Lesser Inaccuracies: Less Important Than
"Major Factual Errors"
- (#2) Adventism
is based around the teachings and philosophies of Ellen White.
False. Most Seventh-day Adventist doctrines had been
discovered in the Bible and accepted before she wrote them
out.
- (#3) Ellen
White was the founder of the Adventist Church. She
was not the sole founder.
- (#6) Miller
taught that Christ would return on October 22, 1844.
False. As of October 21, 1844, he had not yet accepted the
date of October 22, much less taught it.
- (#11) Ellen
White was depressed when Christ did not return on October 22.
False. The record indicates that she was not.
- (#12) Ellen
White could not admit her mistake of expecting Christ to
return. False. She first admitted what she thought
was a mistake, and then admitted that she had made a mistake
in identifying the wrong mistake.
- (#17) Ellen
White's vision was controversial. False. There was
nothing controversial about it.
- (#20) The
1844 date was still an error. Cannot be presently
proven. No better interpretation of the prophecies in question
has ever been found.
- (#21) Ellen
White became the absolute authority figure. False.
She never has been the absolute authority figure.
- (#24) Church
publications use her writings as the last word on doctrine.
False. The Bible is the last word.
- (#30) History
shows that Ellen White's prophecies did not come true.
Not one sound, clear-cut example is given.
- (#31) She
said Jerusalem would never be built up. The phrase
"built up" had a different meaning at times back
then.
- (#33) She
said the second coming was only months away. False.
She said no such thing.
- (#36) She
predicted the downfall of the United States. False.
She predicted defeat if certain conditions
didn't change.
- (#38) Ellen
White predicted England would declare war on the United
States. False. She never said England would declare
war.
- (#39) She
predicted world war during the Civil War. False.
She never said there would be world war at that
time.
- (#40) Ellen
White predicted the humbling of the United States in defeat.
False. She predicted the nation's humbling, which came to
pass, but she never said the nation would be
defeated.
- (#42) Ellen
White said animals and people crossed sexually.
False. She said no such thing.
- (#46) The
investigative judgment doctrine was a reinterpretation.
Not really, for Miller had been teaching for over a decade
prior to 1844 that the judgment was about to begin.
- (#47) Miller's
prediction of October 22, 1844, failed. As
mentioned under #6,
Miller didn't make this prediction or even accept it. As far
as his calculations go, his most learned opponents, like Dr.
George Bush, could find no fault in them, and the greatest
scholars of several centuries had come to similar conclusions.
- (#54) The
other shut-door-of-mercy passages were reinterpreted after
1851. Besides there being no other shut-door
passages, the "reinterpretations" came well before
1851.
- (#57) All
doctrines were soon adjusted to fit the cleansing of the
sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrines.
The doctrines identified do not fit this description.
- (#60) The
prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were reinterpreted to fit
the investigative judgment. The basic
interpretations of Daniel and Revelation were already worked
out before Edson and Crosier published their findings on the
cleansing of the sanctuary in 1846, and before the doctrine of
the investigative judgment was crystallized in 1857.
- (#61) It
was a time of doctrinal reversal. Neither the video
nor its documentation provides evidence that that time was
characterized by doctrinal reversal.
- (#63) Ellen
White taught that we would be judged for trying to have some
leisure time. False. She taught that we must have
leisure time in order to be balanced people.
- (#65) The
investigative judgment doctrine cannot be supported by the
Scriptures. False. It can be supported by the
Scriptures.
- (#67) The
investigative judgment doctrine is blatantly unbiblical.
False. This point is similar to #65,
but more Scriptures are added under this number to show that
it is biblical.
- (#72) The
investigative judgment doctrine teaches that all believers
will be lost if they do not keep the Fourth Commandment.
False. Both Ellen White and the New Testament teach that God
does not hold what we do not know and could not know against
us.
-
(#76) This
Seventh-day Adventist version is known as The Clear Word
Bible. Not any more. Quite a few quickly
realized that something like this might come up one day, so
the second edition carries only the title, The Clear Word. The
contributors to the video knew this.
-
(#80) It's
called The Clear Word Version. Why did the
makers of the video change the title of Jack Blanco's
paraphrase? It's not called The Clear Word Version.
-
(#82) The
Clear Word manipulates and distorts Scripture.
Again, paraphrases contain, by their very nature, the
inclusion of interpretations into the text.
-
(#84) The
Study Bible is "theirs." False. It
was published by a private organization, not the denomination,
so it cannot be said to be "theirs."
-
(#98) Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists plagiarized.
No attempt is made by the video or Documentation Package to
prove that Russell or any Jehovah's Witness ever read J. A.
Brown's book.
- (#106) The
evidence is irrefutable that Ellen White "stole" her
inspiration from others. False. It has already been
demonstrated in this critique that the evidence is anything
but irrefutable.
- (#114) Ellen
White's early health documents produce a rude awakening
because of their fixation on moral issues. A minor
portion of her early health documents dealt with moral issues.
- (#116) Most
of her health advice dealt with suppressing the male sexual
urge, which she thought was excessive. Technically,
she was against the excessive indulgence of sexual
urges by both men and women.
- (#117) Mrs.
White felt she had been given special light on the subject of
masturbation. That this was the opinion of her
grandson the Documentation Package proves, but no
evidence is ever given to substantiate that Ellen White
herself felt she had been given special light.
- (#131) After
Ellen White dealt with wigs, she introduced the reform dress.
False. The reform dress was introduced more than six years
before her counsel against heavy hairpieces.
- (#140) Ellen
White said those who aren't vegetarians when Jesus comes can't
go to heaven. False. She never made such an extreme
statement.
- (#147) Adventists
are striving to be rigidly obedient. False. Many
Adventists will tell you that the Adventist Church has grown a
bit lax.
-
(#148) Adventists
are inflexible, guilt-ridden legalists. False.
While it is true that every faith has its legalists, the vast
majority of Adventists are opposed to legalistic concepts.
Legalism is generally not the cause of guilt but a faulty
method of trying to get rid of the guilt brought on by a
conviction of sin. Therefore the discovery of a genuinely
guilt-ridden legalist would indeed be a rare find, regardless
of his or her religious affiliation.
-
(#152) We
are not under the tutorship of the law, so we don't have to
worry about obeying the law. This inaccuracy
ignores what Paul meant by the phrase "under the
law."
-
(#154) Being
under the law leads to sin. Actually, according to
the New Testament, it seems more natural to say that sinning
leads to being under the law, rather than that being under the
law leads to sinning.
-
(#158) The
doctrine of soul sleep is unbiblical. Not so.
Tyndale, Luther, Wycliffe, and many others came up with this
idea just from studying the Bible. Besides, saying that our
souls are immortal undermines the necessity of 1) the gospel,
2) the resurrection, and 3) the second coming.
- (#159) Conditional
immortality flies in the face of two Scriptures.
Actually, it doesn't, unless we want to say that the Bible
contradicts itself. Martin's interpretation of these two texts
in actuality flies in the face of hundreds of Bible texts from
Genesis to Revelation.
- (#161) The
Adventist view that Sabbath keeping is a mark of true loyalty
to God is severe. But the speaker basically already
admitted that Sabbath keeping is a mark of true loyalty to
God.
- (#166) The
vision was intended to settle the matter with the dissenters.
According to one account, there were only two dissenters:
Joseph Bates and Ellen White. Does it not sound a bit
preposterous that since Ellen White wanted to convince
herself, she decided to have another vision? And this vision
didn't mention sunset at all or anything not contained in the
previous vision, except that they should study the Bible to
find out what "even" really meant.
- (#175) After
the change of time for keeping the Sabbath, the Sabbath came
to be understood as the seal. False. The Sabbath
was understood to be the seal at least six years before the
change to sunset time.
- (#176) The
Sabbath was seen to be of prime importance in determining who
would be saved and who wouldn't. The average
viewer, uninformed about Adventist beliefs, will think that
Adventists believe Sunday keepers now have the mark of the
beast while Sabbath keepers have the seal. This is false.
- (#181) Even
today, Seventh-day Adventists have made salvation ultimately
dependent on which day of the week one worships.
False. Adventists for the last century and a half have taught
that there are Sunday keepers who are bound for heaven and
Sabbath keepers who are bound for hell.
- (#193) Adventists
strive to be included as mainline evangelical Protestant
Christians. Not really. We don't have to strive.
The largest church in the world says that we are the most
fundamental of the fundamentalists, and "the only
consistent Protestant."
- (#196) Ellen
White is revered by all Seventh-day Adventists.
False. This is far from the case, as the video later admits.
- (#199) Ellen
White pressured people into submission. False. She
was against pressuring people into submission.
- (#202) Usually
the person conformed under the pressure. The
incident just cited reveals a lack of pressure on Ellen
White's part.
- (#204) Acceptance
and fellowship are very often withheld today.
The evidence indicates that this is false.
- (#207) Adventists
must discontinue the doctrine that Michael is a name for
Christ. This can't be done while remaining true to
Scripture.
- (#211) Adventists
have added the investigative judgment to salvation by
grace through faith in Christ alone. False.
According to the New Testament, to omit the judgment would be
to delete it from the gospel.
- (#212) Adventists
have added Sabbath keeping to salvation by grace
through faith in Christ alone. False. Omitting
Sabbath keeping from the New Covenant is to delete it
from Christ's will. It is illegal to alter a will after the
one who made the will dies.
- (#213) Adventists
have added obedience to the Ten Commandments as
requirements for salvation. False. Obedience is not
a requirement for justification or conversion. To omit
obedience from requirements for glorification is to
effectively preach another gospel than the gospel Paul and
Jesus preached.
- (#214) Adventists
have added obedience to other Old Testament laws as
requirements for salvation. But both the New
Testament and Old Testament prophecies about New Testament
times indicate that believers should still abstain from blood
and unclean animals, and should return the tenth to God.
- (#224) Many
followers felt betrayed by such an espousal of salvation by
grace alone. False. Some conservative members felt
betrayed because M. L. Andreason, a prominent theologian, said
that the book Questions on Doctrine contained
capitulations on some finer points of Adventist theology.
- (#225) Those
who felt betrayed began searching for themselves, and made
lurid discoveries. False. The conservative element
who felt betrayed did not do the searching referred to. The
liberal element who did not feel betrayed engaged in
"searching" into other issues, and in consequence
ultimately abandoned a number of crucial teachings found in
Scripture, including the teaching that Scripture must be the
final authority!
- (#226) "The
Adventist Church had deceived me." If the (mis)information
the preacher told you was anything like what is on this video,
then it was he who deceived you, not the Adventist Church. At
least, he didn't know what he was talking about.
- (#233) The
Adventist Church does not uphold the Bible as the sole
authority of both faith and practice. If this is
true, which it isn't, why does everyone who becomes a member
of the Adventist Church have to vow before God that they
"believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and
that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for
the Christian"?
- (#235) "Because
you're not going to be able to get this information from your
church." It would be a rare church that could
produce this much misinformation single-handed.
- (#239) The
video contains answers based on firm adherence to the truths
of God's Word. In actuality, the video undermines
faith in the authority and teachings of God's Word in a number
of subtle ways.
Bad Quotations: Non-Existent, Rearranged, or
Context Removed
- (#10) When
Christ did not return, Ellen White said she was in a
"hopeless condition for months." She said
no such thing.
- (#15) Ellen
White claimed God hid the mistake. Bad quotation.
The last clause that was omitted explains that her words meant
that God was not revealing the mistake to the people, rather
than hiding it.
- (#37) She
made false predictions during the Civil War. This
quotation from Ellen White has been rearranged.
- (#52) The
preface to the reprinting of her first vision said there was
no change in idea or sentiment. It said no such
thing. Instead, the preface said that a portion was left out.
- (#118) Mrs.
White (apparently) gives a list of diseases caused by
masturbation. Actually, the quotation is not
accurate. The video combines a statement by Mrs. Gove with the
views of Dr. Deslandes. The video adds words, and omits words
and quotation marks without using an ellipsis. The average
viewer cannot tell that Ellen White never wrote this.
- (#119) [Not in all editions of the
video.] Mrs.
White (apparently) said kids will get green skin.
These are the words of Dr. E. P. Miller, not Ellen White.
- (#120) Ellen
White said that meat inflames the passions. The
quotation leaves this impression only because it is out of
context.
- (#122) Ellen
White (apparently) said, "Sip no more the beverage of
China, no more the drinks of Java." These are
the words of Professor O. S. Fowler, not the words of Ellen G.
White.
- (#124) [Not in all editions of the
video.] Ellen
White (apparently) said the use of feather beds led to
masturbation. False. Dr. E. P. Miller, not Ellen
White, is quoted. He was against sleeping on feather beds in small,
unventilated rooms, not against sleeping on feather
beds per se.
- (#142) Ellen
White had no patience with those who say, I am saved.
The quotation has been rearranged and has had the context
removed.
- (#172) According
to Spiritual Gifts, Ellen White promised that they
would find out why the visions had first said to keep the
Sabbath from 6pm to 6pm. Out of context big time.
Only two sentences after the quotation used, Ellen White
denies ever seeing in vision that the Sabbath should begin at
6pm!
- (#177) The
Great Controversy supports the idea that people have
already gotten the mark of the beast by keeping Sunday.
The viewer tends to arrive at this conclusion because of the
speaker's choice of verb tenses, and the missing context of
the quotation.
Bad Pictures: Pictures That Grossly
Misrepresent the Facts
- (#9) Picture
depicts radical fanaticism of Miller's meetings.
False. Picture is actually of a critic's description of a
post-1844 meeting that Miller was not present at.
- (#43) The
picture indicates that Ellen White believed that the crossing
of people and animals produced the black race.
Ellen White never said if she was talking about Blacks,
Whites, or Asians. There is no basis for the use of such a
picture.
- (#127) [Not in all editions of the
video.] The
picture illustrating the last point, showing a shivering man
with his feet in boiling water over a camp fire, depicts
Battle Creek's hydrotherapy treatment. False. The
quote the picture is illustrating says that you must not get
chilled. Also, the heat source for a hot foot bath is never
under the basin of water, which is never boiling. The picture
is totally inaccurate.
- (#130) The
picture of a skeleton looking through a window at a woman who
is presumably putting on a simple wig. The picture
doesn't illustrate at all the heavy monstrosities Ellen White
was talking about.
Oversimplifications: More Detail Would
Neutralize Point
- (#4) William
Miller was a powerful preacher. Miller was a
Baptist preacher, and but one of 200 preachers and 500
lecturers from many denominations all preaching about the same
thing.
- (#5) Miller
taught that Christ would return in 1843. His major
point of difference with the theology of the times was not the
date, but his conviction that Christ would come visibly and
literally before the millennium instead of after.
- (#13) Miller
admitted his mistake of expecting Christ to return in 1843 or
1844. He did not admit a mistake in his
interpretations of the prophecies. Rather, he thought there
must be a mistake in the chronologies used by historians,
which might throw his calculations off a little.
- (#28) Her
more embarrassing writings are unavailable. What
makes them embarrassing is that sometimes she had to rebuke
people's problems, like adultery.
- (#34) She
said some would be food for worms and some would be alive when
Jesus came. The video omits an immediate
fulfillment in which a woman actually present at the
conference was impressed that she would "food for
worms." She was dead within three days.
- (#56) Ellen
White immediately put God's endorsement on Edson and Crosier's
conclusions. She put God's endorsement on their
conclusions before she had heard about them.
- (#58) The
shut door was opened. As in the apostolic church,
God opened the door of opportunity to reach others with the
truths of His Word. This had nothing to do with the cleansing
of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrines.
- (#64) The
investigative judgment doctrine is unique to Seventh-day
Adventists. Not quite. Nearly every basic aspect of
this doctrine has been taught by prominent scholars of other
faiths.
- (#66) The
investigative judgment doctrine states that a believer's works
determines their salvation. Not quite. The
investigative judgment doctrine does not teach that the
believer's works determine his salvation in the sense meant by
the typical evangelical when he says, "I'm saved."
- (#100) Walter
Rea's The White Lie was dedicated to those who would
rather believe a bitter truth than a sweet lie. The
bitter "truth" both declared and implied by The
White Lie is totally repugnant to evangelicals who believe
in the final authority of Scripture.
- (#112) Her
visions which she claimed came from God were shaky.
One thing the video doesn't touch with a ten-foot pole is the
fact that she didn't breathe and had supernatural strength
during her public visions.
- (#121) Ellen
White said rich and highly seasoned foods act as aphrodisiacs.
Medical science has neither proven nor disproven what she
said. It's like when she said that cancer is caused by a germ.
She said this five years before a maverick scientist proposed
the idea. After being ridiculed by the scientific community,
this scientist years later won the Nobel Prize for being
right.
- (#126) [Not in all editions of the
video.] The
Battle Creek Sanitarium used hydrotherapy to treat secret
vice. Actually, hydrotherapy treatments stimulate
the immune system and increase the white blood cell count.
They have been used successfully to treat a variety of
ailments.
- (#164) Adventists
weren't following what the Bible says about beginning the
Sabbath at sunset. The Bible "says" to
keep the Sabbath from "even to even." It doesn't
"say" to keep the Sabbath from sunset to sunset.
Therefore these Adventists were not blatantly disregarding the
Bible during the time they were unclear about the true meaning
of "even."
- (#180) Adventists
teach that Sunday keeping is a mark of rebellion. Gross
oversimplification. Given the standard Protestant
interpretations about the beast at the time Adventism arose,
and given some of the strong statements Catholics have made
about Sunday keeping, it's no wonder that Adventism arrived at
the interpretations that it did.
- (#183) The
New Testament says that the seal of God is the work of the
Holy Spirit, not the keeping of the Sabbath. It
isn't that simple. The New Testament indicates that the
last-day seal does have something to do with the fourth
commandment.
- (#201) Usually
the person conformed under the pressure. One
instance being cited in the Documentation Package
essentially makes a joke out of this whole section in the
video.
- (#209) Adventists
can't discontinue the doctrine that "Michael" is a
name for Christ without admitting that Ellen White made a
mistake. Adventists would have to admit that
Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and a host of
others made a mistake too.
Straw-Man Arguments: Arguments Against
Points That Are Basically Irrelevant
- (#22) Her
writings grew to be seventeen times larger than the Bible.
So? Luther, Wesley, and Spurgeon wrote a lot too.
- (#23) Adventists
view her writings as inspired as the Bible. So?
Adventists believe in degrees of authority, but not in degrees
of inspiration.
- (#26) Ellen
White's writings are an authoritative source of
truth. So? The Adventist quote referred to ends by
saying that the Bible is to be the standard by
which Ellen White's writings are tested.
- (#29) She
claimed an angel stood by her bed. So? Angels came
to visit Bible writers too.
- (#41) She
claimed to travel to other planets in vision. So?
John, Ezekiel, and Paul as well tell us about their
supernatural journeys in the Bible.
- (#45) Adventists
say her writings areas inspired as the Bible. This
straw man is answered already under #23.
The Documentation Package's documentation for this
point makes it clear that Adventists believe the Bible is the
final authority, not Ellen White.
- (#48) Adventists
believed that the door of mercy was shut on October 22.
It's not hard to see why they believed this for a short time.
- (#78) 300
words have been added to Daniel 9 in The Clear Word.
As the video admits, it's an expanded paraphrase, and the
interpretations utilized have been held for centuries.
-
(#79) Daniel
8:14 is a blatant example of alteration of the biblical text.
Paraphrases by their very nature insert interpretations into
the text.
-
(#85) The
Study Bible of Seventh-day Adventists contains Ellen
White quotes. So? Lots of Bibles contain footnotes
and study helps.
-
(#111) Prove
that 20% of Ellen White's writings are original.
Such a challenge doesn't make sense, for it would require
infinite knowledge to prove that 20% of her writings are
original. It makes more sense to say, Prove that 80% of her
writings are not original.
- (#125) [Not in all editions of the
video.] Ellen
White used a feather bed against her own advice.
There is no evidence that she ever used a feather bed in an
unventilated, small room, which would have been against Dr. E.
P. Miller's advice, not her own. She was strongly opposed to
unventilated rooms.
-
(#192) Thus,
Adventists differ from the plain teaching of Scripture that
Christ bore our sins on the cross. Straw man. A
Bible verse referring to the cross is used here to prove who
the scapegoat can and cannot be after the
atonement is finished.
- (#217) Adventists
believe that Christians must stand before God without Christ
as their mediator. Straw man. Every Bible-believing
Christian who has studied the matter knows that Christ's
mediatorial work must cease just before He returns.
- (#218) This
contradicts Hebrews 7:25. Straw man. Hebrews 7:25 is talking
about the present. It is not talking about
eternity, when we will no longer need a mediator.
- (#220) The
Adventist view of salvation, placing sin upon Satan, is not
the salvation taught in the Bible. Straw man. Since
this is not the Adventist view of salvation, the point is
totally irrelevant.
- (#227) "I
was never presented with [Ellen White's copying] in the
[elementary] school system." Seems like 1st or
5th grade might be a bit early to deal with Peter or Jude
copying from each other. Though these are obviously not issues
for elementary school students to grapple with, I wouldn't be
surprised if some 7th or 8th grades do touch on it.
- (#229) ".
. . the [Adventist] Church was inconsistent theologically and
politically." Straw man. Jesus said it would
be this way.
- (#234) "Jesus
saves us not by our deeds. . . ." Straw man,
since this is precisely what Seventh-day Adventists believe.
Arguments That Essentially Attack the Bible
and Its Teachings
- (#32) Ellen
White said she would be alive and would be caught up in the
air to meet Jesus. This undermines faith in the
Bible, for the apostle Paul said the same thing.
- (#35) Ellen
White would have been stoned in Bible times for being a false
prophet. Then so would the biblical prophets Jonah
and Huldah. Some prophecies are conditional, as Jeremiah tells
us.
- (#49) Adventists
believed that the door of mercy was shut on October 22.
Peter and the apostles thought the door of mercy was closed to
the Gentiles. Should we reject them as being part of a cult?
- (#62) The
idea that an angel is recording everything we do, and that we
will be judged by such a record, is harsh. But
that's what the Bible clearly teaches in Matthew, Revelation,
Daniel, and Ecclesiastes.
- (#69) The
investigative judgment doctrine teaches that believers will be
lost if they have unconfessed sins. The Bible says
that we can only be forgiven if we confess our sins. Is the
video saying that the Bible is wrong?
- (#71) The
investigative judgment doctrine requires perfect obedience to
the Ten Commandments. But the New Testament plainly
says that adulterers, fornicators, thieves, and murderers
cannot enter heaven.
- (#73) The
investigative judgment doctrine is diametrically opposed to
the gospel of grace. The points being objected to
by the video are the very essence of the gospel and of the New
Covenant.
- (#89) Adventists
taught doctrines contrary to tradition. So has
every other Protestant group. The Bible, not tradition, is
(supposed to be) the authority of Protestants.
-
(#93) Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists teach the
heresy that Michael is Christ. The Bible clearly
teaches that there is an "angel" sent from God who
Himself is called God. If it isn't Christ, who is it? If it
isn't Christ, must we conclude that the Bible endorses
polytheism, that there is a mere angel who is God as well as
the Father, Son, and Spirit?
-
(#101) Ellen
White's inspiration was borrowed from others without credit.
This argument directly undermines the authority of the
Scriptures, for the Bible writers did the same.
-
(#149) Ellen
White was wrong when she said that believers must keep the law
of God. Thus the video declares wrong not only
Ellen White, but also Paul, John, Peter, Jude, James, and
Jesus.
-
(#150) We
don't have to worry about obeying the law, since we are under
the New Covenant now, not the Old Covenant. A
popular antinomian argument, this doesn't really make sense in
the light of the only New Testament passage
describing the New Covenant.
-
(#151) We
don't have to worry about obeying the law, since Christ is the
end of the law. Since James 5:11 talks about the
"end of the Lord," we know that sometimes
"end" must mean something other than a cessation of
existence. Christ is "the end of the law" because
the law leads sinners to Christ for release from guilt (Gal.
3:24), not because the Ten Commandments don't exist anymore.
-
(#156) A
pre-advent judgment of works is incompatible with the gospel
of grace. But this makes the apostle Paul
contradict Revelation 14:6, 7.
-
(#179) The
Adventist view today about the mark of the beast is severe.
How can it be severe to believe that Christians ought to obey
the commandments of God? What does this say about what Jesus
said: "If ye love me, keep my
commandments"?
- (#198) Adventists
consider Ellen White's comments on the Scriptures to be more
authoritative than tradition. Of course! We are
Protestants, and for Protestants tradition is supposed to be
subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. An inspired prophet would
be next in line in authority to the Bible, and tradition would
have to be less authoritative than that.
- (#203) The
type of pressure Ellen White used is one of the marks of a
cult. Rather ludicrous. If such an idea be true,
then the prophets of the Bible were just as cultic as Ellen
White.
- (#205) Withholding
of acceptance and fellowship for questioning doctrine is a
characteristic of a cult. Questioning is one thing.
Attacking is another. Biblically, the church must deal with
members who practice grievous sins and teach false doctrines.
- (#228) ".
. . all these writings she had . . . plagiarized, . . . I
felt . . . lied to." Do you feel
lied to because between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, two copied
from the other? Do you feel lied to because John copied from
others when he put together the book of Revelation? Even
though they copied, can you prove that Ellen White, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Jude are guilty of
"plagiarism"?
- (#230) ".
. . the [ Adventist] Church was inconsistent theologically and
politically." This argument is what many use
to excuse themselves from becoming Christians. The Bible
characters were woefully inconsistent too. Does that make them
members of a cult?
Statements That Beg the Question: That
Assume To Be Fact What Needs to Be Proven
- (#44) Her
visions are unbiblical. This begs the question, for
not one unbiblical aspect of her visions has been shown.
- (#68) Seventh-day
Adventism is not a legitimate Christian denomination.
This point plainly begs the question, for it assumes what must
be proven.
-
(#74) Seventh-day
Adventism is a man-made religion. This is another
point that begs the question, that assumes what needs to be
proven.
-
(#113) The
Seventh-day Adventist ministry is not a Christian ministry.
This begs the question, assuming what must be proved. Besides,
Dan Snyder admits under #232
that he was a Christian while being an Adventist minister!
Contradictions: Arguments or Statements
that Demolish Other Arguments or Statements
-
(#83) Seventh-day
Adventists have also published their Study Bible.
If The Clear Word is the Seventh-day Adventist version,
why is the Study Bible a King James Version
instead of The Clear Word?
- (#144) Adventists
believe that Jesus made the down payment for our salvation.
Thus the speaker contradicts the point he made under #141.
If Jesus made the down payment, then we don't have to work to
put ourselves on the road to salvation. It can't be both ways.
-
(#153) Christians
will keep God's commandments out of love. Thus Mr.
Martin destroys the force of much of his whole argument thus
far: We don't have to keep God's law, but if we love God we
will gladly keep His law. The simple conclusion from his words
is that if we don't keep God's law, it shows that we don't
really love God.
-
(#155) Being
under grace leads to holiness. Mr. Martin
contradicts himself again, for if we don't have to obey the
law, why would the grace of God lead to holiness?
-
(#167) A
delegate reported that "After the conference, November
20th, the vision was given, establishing those undecided on
the sunset time." The use of this quotation is
devastating to these criticisms, for it comes from a pamphlet
that demolishes every argument in this part of the video.
-
(#194) An
Adventist pastor supplied the following five marks of a cult.
But the letter these five marks came from says that the
co-producers and script writer of the video have been
supplying false information about Seventh-day Adventists for
14 years! The video's credibility is thus called into
question.
- (#222) These
five marks of a cult are very important. If
Jeremiah Films really believes this, why don't they make a
video about a much larger church that clearly does fit these
marks?
- (#231) "When
expedient, they . . . contradicted Ellen G. White. . . ."
The truth is out! Adventists don't follow Ellen White after
all.
- (#232) "The
last three years have been the most spiritually rewarding of
my thirty-one years as a Christian." This key
witness thus declares that he was both a Christian and an
Adventist for 28 years, part of which time he was an Adventist
minister as well. Despite all what the video says, according
to this speaker, Adventists are Christians, and
Adventist ministers are Christian ministers.
Arguments That Essentially Attack Prominent
Christian Leaders of Old
Some of the other arguments could have been put here as well,
but I only put those here which could not be put in another place.
-
(#87) Adventists
teach the heresy that Michael is Christ. This
charge makes Charles Spurgeon and Matthew Henry heretics. And
the 1599 Geneva Bible must have been put out by
heretics too.
-
(#92) Both
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists teach the
heresy of soul sleep. Guess that makes Martin
Luther, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and a host of
Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians all
heretics. Guess that even makes the apostle Peter himself
a heretic.
"Accurate
Quotes"
#1: "The quotes of Ellen G. White which appear in this
program are taken from official Seventh-day Adventist
publications. Page numbers are in reference to standard hardback
editions." (Text appearing immediately before the program
begins.)
All quotes of Ellen White are from official SDA
publications. The truth is that some of the "quotes of
Ellen G. White" referred to in the video either 1) do not
exist at all, 2) are by someone else, or 3) have been altered.
As stated under #10
below, David Snyder states that Mrs. White, in her own words, said
that she was in "this hopeless condition for months"
after Christ did not come when expected. No such quotation
can be found. The Documentation Package offered at
the end of the video gives only a single reference from one of
Ellen White's books which the context clearly shows is talking
about Almira Pierce, not Ellen White.
As stated under #37
below, the quotation Sydney Cleveland uses to show that Mrs. White
predicted the downfall of the United States has been
rearranged. A sentence appearing six sentences before the
rest of the quote is put at the end of the quote, and the
intervening five sentences have been deleted. These five sentences
neutralize the point being made on the video by Mr. Cleveland.
As stated under #52
below, Dale Ratzlaff refers to a quote from a preface in the July
21, 1851, issue of the Review. A picture of this issue
appears on the video. However, the quotation is totally
non-existent.
As stated under #118
below, many viewers are left with the impression that Ellen White
gave the list of diseases quoted. However, the list quoted is not
from Ellen White but is actually a fusion of comments made
by a Mrs. Gove and a Dr. Deslandes. Words and quotation
marks have been deleted without the use of an ellipsis,
and words have been added without the use of
brackets.
As stated under #119
below, many viewers are left with the impression that Ellen White
said that kids who practice secret vice will get green skin.
However, the quotation is from E. P. Miller, M.D., not Ellen
White.
As stated under #122
below, many viewers are left with the impression that Ellen White
said, "Sip no more. . . ." However, these
are the words of Professor O. S. Fowler, not Ellen White.
As stated under #124
below, many viewers are left with the impression that Ellen White
said not to sleep on feather beds. However, the quotation is from
E. P. Miller, M.D., not Ellen White.
As stated under #142
below, the quotation given is actually a fusion of two
different quotes from two different journals from two
different continents written seven years apart. Enough context is
removed to leave the impression with the viewer that Ellen White
was condemning the doctrine of justification by faith, which she
was not.
Quotations that have had critical context removed also occur
under #15,
#120,
#172,
and #177.
"Based
on Ellen White's Teachings"
#2 & #3: "Based around the teachings and philosophies of
its nineteenth-century founder, prophetess Ellen G. White,
Seventh-day Adventism exhibits tremendous influence
world-wide." (Narrator)
#2: Based around Ellen White's teachings. This is not
correct. Seventh-day Adventism is not based around the teachings
and philosophies of Ellen White. Generally, the doctrines found in
her writings did not originate with her and were held and taught
by Seventh-day Adventists before she wrote them out.
In materials prepared for the general public, we quote
Scripture to substantiate our beliefs, for they are based on
Scripture. For material prepared for use by our own members,
since her books are held in high esteem by most members, they as
well as the Bible are often quoted from, giving an appearance that
the charge is true when it is not.
Much of what Seventh-day Adventists believe was hammered out in
the Sabbath Conferences of 1848. Ellen White, to her chagrin,
could not understand the topics under discussion. The only
exception was when she was in vision, which occurred when the
brethren could not come to agreement on their own about what the
Bible said about a particular point. She wrote:
During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning
of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not
comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This
was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this
condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith
were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God. (Selected
Messages, vol. 1, p. 207)
Since much of our beliefs were arrived at in meetings where
Ellen White couldn't understand what was being discussed, how then
can it be said that Seventh-day Adventism is based around her
teachings and philosophies?
So Seventh-day Adventism is based around the teachings and
philosophies of the Word of God, or at least that is our honest
conviction, a conviction supported by the incidents from our
history just described.
The Documentation Package offered at the end of the
video gives no documentation for this point.
#3: Ellen White was the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. It would appear that this video is intended to be
primarily an attack upon Ellen White, as well as upon the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. It seems to lead the viewer to
believe that Ellen White was the sole or primary founder of the
church. This is simply not true.
Though a number of others played important parts in the forming
of Seventh-day Adventism, there are three who are considered the
founders: Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen White. Sometimes
Hiram Edson and perhaps others are added to the list.
Narrowing down responsibility for an incident or teaching to a
single individual makes that incident or teaching less credible to
the average mind. Likewise, having many people say the same thing
makes an incident, teaching, or allegation seem more credible.
The Documentation Package offered at the end of the
video gives no documentation for this point.
"Miller
Was a Powerful Preacher"
#4: "Her Methodist family came under the influence of
William Miller, a powerful preacher." (David Snyder)
Miller, a powerful preacher. In this oversimplification,
the whole Millerite Movement is reduced to a single individual
described only as a powerful preacher. Such an oversimplification
made necessary the factual error found under #6.
Miller was a licensed Baptist preacher, and but one of two
hundred ministers and five hundred lecturers in the U.S. and
Canada. These seven hundred ministers and lecturers, from many
denominations, were all teaching practically the same thing: that
Jesus would return visibly and literally before the millennium
instead of after, and that the entire world's conversion would
never take place.
The video is intended to attack Seventh-day Adventists, not
Baptists and Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Neither
Miller's denominational affiliation nor the widespread nature of
this massive ecumenical movement is mentioned.
Miller was the recognized leader of the movement, at least the
American phase of the movement. He lived in Low Hampton, New York,
not near Ellen White's family in Maine.
Miller and his associates called for genuine commitment to the
Lord Jesus, resulting in a multitude of infidels being converted.
Miller wrote in July 1845:
In nearly a thousand places, Advent congregations have been
raised up, numbering as nearly as I can estimate, some fifty
thousand believers. On recalling to mind the several places of
my labors, I can reckon up about six thousand instances of
conversion from nature's darkness to God's marvelous light, the
result of my personal labors alone; and I should judge the
number to be much greater. Of this number I can recall to mind
about seven hundred, who were, previously to their attending my
lectures, infidels; and their number may have been twice as
great. Happy results have also followed from the labors of my
brethren, many of whom I would like to mention here, if my
limits would permit. (Memoirs of William Miller 327, 328)
Miller gave a course of lectures in Portland, Maine, where
Ellen White's family resided, in March 1840. Elder L. D. Fleming,
pastor of the Christian Church in Portland, had invited him. Elder
Fleming described the effects of Miller's lectures in April, one
month later:
At some of our meetings since Br. Miller left, as many as
250, it has been estimated, have expressed a desire for
religion, by coming forward for prayers; and probably between one
and two hundred have professed conversion at our
meeting; and now the fire is being kindled through this whole
city, and all the adjacent country. A number of rum-sellers have
turned their shops into meeting-rooms, and those places that
were once devoted to intemperance and revelry, are now devoted
to prayer and praise. Others have abandoned the traffic
entirely, and are become converted to God. One or two gambling
establishments, I am informed, are entirely broken up. Infidels,
Deists, Universalists, and the most abandoned profligates,
have been converted; some who had not been to the house of
worship for years. Prayer-meetings have been established in
every part of the city by the different denominations, or by
individuals, and at almost every hour. Being down in the
business part of our city, I was conducted into a room over one
of the banks, where I found about thirty or forty men, of
different denominations, engaged with one accord in prayer, at
about eleven o'clock in the day-time! In short, it would be
almost impossible to give an adequate idea of the interest now
felt in this city. There is nothing like extravagant excitement,
but an almost universal solemnity on the minds of all the
people. One of the principal booksellers informed me that he had
sold more Bibles in one month, since Br. Miller came
here, than he had in any four months previous. A member of an
orthodox church informed me that if Mr. Miller could now return,
he could probably be admitted into any of the orthodox houses of
worship, and he expressed a strong desire for his return to our
city. (Ibid. 17, 18)
The movement elsewhere in the world was largely unconnected to
Miller, but was much the same in its general characteristics.
In Sweden it was against the law to preach that Christ was
coming soon. Yet prophecy foretold that a message announcing the
soon-coming judgment had to be given before the return of Christ
(Rev. 14:6, 7, 13-16). The Holy Spirit therefore came upon
children who would then preach, and could not be made to refrain
from preaching. Their sermons called upon the people to forsake
card playing, drunkenness, dancing, and frivolity. It was sobering
to those who heard.
The reports of the times give the ages of the large number of
children involved as being six, eight, ten, twelve, sixteen, and
eighteen.
A brief account of the Swedish child preachers can be found in Great
Controversy pp. 366, 367. For a fuller account, complete with
references to Swedish sources, most of which were written by
opposers to the phenomena, see Leroy Froom's Prophetic Faith of
Our Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 670-686.
"Taught
That Christ Was Coming in 1843 and on Oct. 22, 1844"
#5 & #6: "He taught that Christ would return first in
1843, and then on October 22, 1844, supposedly the Jewish Day of
Atonement for that year." (Ibid.)
#5: Miller taught Christ would return in 1843. This is
an oversimplification. As alluded to in #4,
the major thrust of Miller's preaching, and that which aroused so
much opposition, was not the fact that Miller preached that the
judgment would begin and Christ would come about the year 1843,
but that he taught that Christ would come soon.
It sounds strange today, but at the time the churches in
general taught that Christ would not come soon, and that He would
not return until after a thousand years of peace on earth, during
which thousand years the whole world would become converted. They
taught that prophecies about the second coming and the
resurrection would not be literally fulfilled. These doctrines
were popularized by Daniel Whitby, an Englishman who died in 1726.
Miller and his associates taught most definitely that the whole
world would not become converted, and that Christ would come
personally and visibly before, not after, the thousand years. The
date of 1843 only brought to a head these major points of
theological difference.
Most churches, it seems, now believe what Miller taught about
the second coming of Christ. They can thank William Miller, in
part, for this correction in their theology.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of
the video, lists in its index as "Point 4" Miller's
teaching that Christ would come in 1843. However, when one turns
to "Point 4," no evidence is given to substantiate that
Miller ever taught this.
It is true, though, that Miller, as of December 1842, taught
that Christ would come in 1843, more than eleven years
after he gave his first sermon on the soon return of Christ.
Previous to December 1842, Miller had consistently said Christ
would come "about the year 1843" "if
there were no mistake in my calculation" (Memoirs of
William Miller 329).
Being censured by some of his associates in 1842 for constantly
including the "about" and the "if,"
and not finding any error in his calculations, and being falsely
accused by the public press of having set the date of April 23 for
Christ's return, Miller decided to remove the "about"
and the "if" in December 1842. From then until
March 21, 1844, he taught Christ would come in the Jewish
year of 1843 (Ibid.).
#6: Miller taught Christ would return October 22, 1844. This
is not true.
Miller and Joshua V. Himes were preaching in the west the
summer of 1844. When they returned east they found everyone afire
with the idea that Christ would come on October 22, the tenth day
of the seventh Jewish month. This fast-spreading message,
initiated by Samuel S. Snow around mid-July 1844, became known as
the "seventh-month movement."
Miller, as well as the other principal Millerite leaders,
resisted for awhile the idea of predicting the return of Christ on
a particular day, something they had always shunned. Miller's
opposition can still be seen in his letter dated September 30,
1844, written soon after his arrival back home from his extended
preaching tour.
Unable to explain what was so evidently to him the work of the
Holy Spirit reforming and converting people's lives, Miller for
the first time began to capitulate on October 6. In a letter
written on that date, published in the October 12, 1844, issue of Midnight
Cry, Miller said he would be disappointed if Christ did not
return "within twenty or twenty-five days," which means
he was looking toward October 26 or 31 as being the limit, not
October 22.
The data from the letter is this, in the order that it appears:
". . . Christ will come in the seventh month. . . ."
"If he does not come within 20 or 25 days, I shall feel twice
the disappointment I did this spring." ". . . it
must and will come this fall." ". . . I
see no reason why we may not expect him within twenty days."
". . . just so true will redemption be
completed by the fifteenth day of the seventh month. . . ."
"I am strong in my opinion that the next [Oct. 13] will be
the last Lord's day sinners will ever have in probation; and
within ten or fifteen days from thence, they will see Him. . . ."
As can be clearly seen, Miller had fixed on no specific day in
October 1844 for the Lord to come. He was convicted that Christ
would come that month, but not necessarily on the 22nd. His words
most often suggest that Christ would come by the 26th, but they
also suggest that Christ would return by the 23rd, by the 27th, by
the 28th, and by the 31st, all in the same letter. Not once does
he pinpoint the 22nd, even though he twice refers to the typical
Day of Atonement being on the tenth day of the seventh month in
Old Testament times.
If Miller was ever going to teach "that
Christ would return . . . on October 22,
1844," he was definitely running out of opportunities that
October 6th.
Miller's first letter to Himes after October 22 is dated
"November 10th," and expresses his disappointment. This
date, November 10, was the date of the astronomical new moon,
which in Miller's mind would have marked the end of the Jewish
seventh month according to the Karaite lunar calendar.
The fact that Miller waited until the new moon before
expressing his disappointment is further confirmation that he felt
Christ would come in the seventh Jewish month, but not necessarily
on the tenth day of that seventh Jewish month.
In a letter to J. O. Orr of Toronto, Canada West, on December
13, 1844, Miller wrote:
The ninth day [of the seventh month, or October 21] was very
remarkable. We held a meeting all day and our place of worship
was crowded to overflowing with anxious souls apparently. In the
evening I told some of my [brethren] Christ would not come on
the morrow [October 22]. Why not? said they. Because he cannot
come in an hour they think not, nor as a snare.
Clearly, even on October 21, Miller had not yet accepted the
date of October 22, much less taught it.
By leaving the impression that the date of October 22 is based
on Miller, the video can more easily attack Millerite Adventists,
since views proposed by single individuals appear to have less
credibility.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of
the video, lists in its index as "Point 4" Miller's
teaching that Christ would come on October 22, 1844. However, when
one turns to "Point 4," no evidence is given to
substantiate the claim that Miller ever taught this.
"Oct.
22 Was a Month Off"
#7: "...October 22, 1844, supposedly the Jewish Day of
Atonement for that year. However, using information from the Universal
Jewish Encyclopedia we find that in 1844, the Day of Atonement
began after sundown, September 23rd, not October 22nd. So this
crucial date in Adventism was flawed, incorrect, from the very
beginning." (Ibid.)
October 22 was not Jewish Day of Atonement. Samuel S.
Snow never identified October 22 as being the "Jewish"
Day of Atonement per se. He knew better, as did other Millerites.
And neither was September 23 the "Jewish" Day of
Atonement. But in all truth it can be said that October 22 was the
true "biblical" Day of Atonement. The explanation for
these puzzling statements follows.
There are many different sects of Judaism, and one prominent
sect, the Karaites or Caraites, regularly differed from Rabbinical
Judaism in how they would begin the year. This meant that the
Karaite Jews usually kept the Jewish feasts a month later than the
Rabbinical Jews. Thus usually there was more than one
"Jewish" Day of Atonement per year. When this happened,
no one date could be called the "Jewish" Day of
Atonement.
The Rabbinical Jews accepted oral traditions in addition to the
Word of God, but the Karaite Jews rejected all such traditions and
relied only on the Bible. They were therefore a fundamentalist
movement within Judaism.
A modern-day Karaite Jewish leader in Israel, Nehemiah Gordon,
informs us that in 1999, the biblical Day of Atonement was on
October 20, not in September like most other Jews thought.
The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar. Its months are but 29
or 30 days each. That's about 354 days to a year. To keep the
calendar synchronized with the seasons, a thirteenth month is
added about seven times every nineteen years.
When and under what circumstances should the thirteenth month
be added? The Rabbinical method uses merely mathematical
calculations. The Karaite method uses observation of the barley
crop in Palestine. Biblically speaking, the Karaites are correct.
The day after the sabbath after the Passover, a sheaf of barley
grain was to be waved before the Lord (Lev. 23:10-15). If the
barley wasn't ripe enough, this could not be done. This is why the
Karaites would often have their year start one month later than
other Jews, so that the barley would be ripe enough. (Even the
name of the first Jewish month, Abib, refers to the barley
being in a certain stage of growth.)
Some critics of Seventh-day Adventism cite Nehemiah Gordon to
show that Karaites in 1844 in Palestine had long before adopted
Rabbinical reckoning. However, the point is not what the Karaites
were doing in 1844, but what the Bible says they should have been
doing. If the barley was not ripe enough, then biblically the year
could not begin, regardless of what any Karaite or Rabbi said.
In actuality, Nehemiah Gordon provides evidence indicating that
the Karaites utilized Rabbinical reckoning "for some
time" before 1860, but it does not prove what they were doing
in 1844. This can readily be seen by turning to "Point
5" in the Documentation Package offered at the end of
the video, where some of Nehemiah Gordon's comments can be found.
(Large portions of this selected document in the Documentation
Package were deleted, so the reader cannot tell that Nehemiah
Gordon was the one writing the comments. The full document clearly
shows that he is the writer, though.)
The April 1840 issue of American Biblical Repository
contained a letter written in 1836 by E. S. Calman, a missionary
in Palestine who was a converted Jew. He states that the Karaite
Jews were generally keeping the feasts a month later than the
Rabbinical Jews in his day:
But, at present, the Jews in the Holy Land have not the least
regard to this season appointed and identified by Jehovah, but
follow the rules prescribed in the oral law, namely, by adding a
month to every second or third year, and thus making the lunar
year correspond with the solar. And when the 15th day of Nisan (nisan),
according to this computation, arrives, they begin to celebrate
the above-mentioned feast, although the chedesh haabib
may have passed, or not yet come. In general the proper season
occurs after they have celebrated it a whole month, which is
just reversing the command in the law, which directs that the chedesh
haabib precede the festival, and not the festival the chedesh
haabib. Nothing like ears of green corn have I seen around
Jerusalem at the celebration of this feast. The Caraite Jews
observe it later than the Rabbinical, for they are guided by
Abib, abib, and they charge the latter with eating
leavened bread during that feast. I think, myself, that the
charge is well founded. If this feast of unleavened bread is not
celebrated in its season, every successive festival is
dislocated from its appropriate period, since the month Abib, abib,
is laid down in the law of God as the epoch from which every
other is to follow. (pp. 411, 412) (Hebrew transliterated)
According to this letter, Karaite Jews in Palestine were
keeping the annual feasts generally one month later than the
Rabbinical Jews in 1836. The conclusion of the critics that the
Karaites had given up their special form of reckoning long before
the nineteenth century is therefore unfounded. More importantly,
the letter affirms the fact that the Rabbinical Jews were not
calculating the times of their feasts to harmonize with the
Bible's requirements.
An additional inadequacy in the Documentation Package is
that it does not even attempt to substantiate the correctness of
the Rabbinical date of September 23rd for the Day of Atonement in
1844. Instead, it quotes Nehemiah Gordon as saying, "While
late September may or may not have been the correct month in which
to celebrate Yom Kippur. . . ." This gives
away the whole point the video was trying to make. If late
September "may not have been" "the correct
month" for the Day of Atonement, then late October may have
been "the correct month" after all.
S. S. Snow popularized the October 22 date the summer of 1844,
but he didn't come up with the idea of using Karaite reckoning.
Karaite reckoning was the acceptable thing for a year or more
prior to this.
Miller's associates, though not himself, decided that the
Jewish year 1843 began on April 29 and ended on April 17, 1844. In
doing so, they used the Karaite form of reckoning, as stated in
the June 21, 1843, issue of The Signs of the Times, p. 123.
Now there is a dispute between the Rabbinical, and the
Caraite Jews, as to the correct time of commencing the year. The
former are scattered all over the world, and cannot observe the
time of the ripening of that harvest in Judea. They therefore
regulate the commencement of the year by astronomical
calculations, and commence with the first day of the new moon
nearest the vernal equinox, when the sun is in Aries. The
Caraite Jews on the contrary, still adhere to the letter of the
Mosaic law, and commence with the new moon nearest the barley
harvest in Judea; and which is one moon later than the
Rabbinical year. The Jewish year of A.D. 1843, as the Caraites
reckon it in accordance with the Mosaic law, therefore commenced
this year with the new moon on the 29th day of April, and the
Jewish year 1844, will commence with the new moon in next April,
when 1843 and the 2300 days, according to their computation,
will expire. But according to the Rabbinical Jews, it began with
the new moon the first of last April, and will expire with the
new moon in the month of March next.
Six Jewish months and ten days after the new moon of April 1844
takes us to October 22. So, biblically speaking, the date of
October 22 was correct.
"His
Meetings Were Marked by Hysteria"
#8: "William Miller's meetings were marked by much
emotionalism and a great deal of hysteria over Christ's imminent
return." (Ibid.)
His meetings were marked by emotionalism and hysteria. This
is not true. The fact is that Miller and his associates sought to
suppress all such manifestations.
In an ecumenical movement like the Millerite Movement, many
people of many beliefs and worship styles come together. There
were those in the movement who would have felt comfortable in the
more emotional services of some modern Pentecostal and charismatic
churches, but Miller and his associates consistently sought to
repress such things and called them fanaticism.
The eyewitness account of Pastor L. D. Fleming of Portland,
Maine, has already been cited where he said, "There is
nothing like extravagant excitement, but an almost universal
solemnity on the minds of all the people." Let us also read
the account of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Unitarian minister A. P.
Peabody:
If I am rightly informed, the present season of religious
excitement has been to a great degree free from what, I confess,
has always made me dread such times, I mean those excesses and
extravagances, which wound religion in the house of its friends,
and cause its enemies to blaspheme. I most cheerfully express my
opinion, that there will be in the fruits of the present
excitement far less to regret, and much more for the friends of
God to rejoice in, much more to be recorded in the book of
eternal life, than in any similar series of religious exercises,
which I have ever had the opportunity of watching. "Sermon
on Revivals")
Joshua V. Himes, Miller's closest associate and ardent
publicist, testified in 1853:
As the public learn to discriminate between the actual
position of Mr. Miller and that which prejudice has conceived
that he occupied, his conservativeness and disapprobation of
every fanatical practice will be admitted, and a much more just
estimate will be had of him. (Memoirs of William Miller iv)
Miller himself wrote on January 1st, 1843:
I beseech you, my dear brethren, be careful that Satan get no
advantage over you by scattering coals of wild-fire among you;
for, if he cannot drive you into unbelief and doubt, he will try
his wild-fire of fanaticism and speculation to get us from the
word of God. (Ibid. 173)
Himes makes some comments regarding a lecturing tour in
September and October 1843. He writes:
During this tour, Mr. Miller was much pained by witnessing a
tendency to fanaticism on the part of some who held to his
views. As he had no sympathy for anything of the kind, and has
been unjustly identified with it in the minds of the public, it
becomes necessary to show its origin, that its responsibility
may rest where it rightly belongs. (Ibid. 229)
Himes then proceeds to describe the origin of these things. A
Mr. John Starkweather, an Orthodox Congregationalist, was called
to be an assistant pastor at Himes's church, since Himes was often
on the road with Miller. According to Himes, Starkweather
"taught that conversion, however full and thorough, did not
fit one for God's favor without a second work; and that this
second work was usually indicated by some bodily sensation" (Ibid.
232).
Starkweather came in October 1842. Near the end of April 1843,
things were such that Himes felt the matter had to be addressed.
Himes addressed the congregation about the dangers of fanaticism,
to which address Starkweather gave a vehement reply. So Himes gave
another address.
This so shocked the sensibilities of those who regarded them
as the "great power of God," that they cried out and
stopped their ears. Some jumped upon their feet, and some ran
out of the house. "You will drive out the Holy Ghost!"
cried one. "You are throwing on cold water!" said
another.
"Throwing on cold water!" said Mr. Himes; "I
would throw on the Atlantic Ocean before I would be identified
with such abominations as these, or suffer them in this place
unrebuked."
Starkweather immediately announced that "the
saints" would thenceforth meet at another place than the
Chardonstreet Chapel; and, retiring, his followers withdrew with
him.
From this time he was the leader of a party, held separate
meetings, and, by extending his visits to other places, he
gained a number of adherents. He was not countenanced by the
friends of Mr. Miller; but the public identified him and his
movement with Mr. Miller and his.
This was most unjust to Mr. Miller; but to this day the
Romanists identify, in the same manner the fanaticism consequent
on the Reformation, with Luther and those who repudiated the
doings of Munzer, Storch and others.
While Starkweather was thus repudiated, he persisted in
forcing himself, wherever he could, upon the public, as a
religious teacher and lecturer on the Advent.
On the 9th of August, 1843, a camp-meeting commenced at
Plainfield, Ct., at which Starkweather was, and some
manifestations were exhibited which were entirely new to those
present, and for which they could not account. Another meeting
was held at Stepney, near Bridgeport, on the 28th of the same
month, where the developments were more marked. A few young men,
professing to have the gift of discerning spirits, were hurried
into great extravagances.
Elder J. Litch [another very prominent Millerite leader]
published a protest against such exhibitions, in which he said:
"A more disgraceful scene, under the garb of piety, I
have rarely witnessed. For the last ten years I have come in
contact nearly every year, more or less, with the same spirit,
and have marked its developments, its beginning, and its result;
and am now prepared to say that it is evil, and only evil, and
that continually. I have uniformly opposed it wherever it has
made its appearance, and as uniformly have been denounced as
being opposed to the power of God, and as resisting the
operations of the Spirit. The origin of it, is the idea that the
individuals thus exercised are entirely under the influence of
the Spirit of God, are his children, and that he will not
deceive them and lead them astray; hence every impulse which
comes upon them is yielded to as coming from God, and, following
it, there is no length of fanaticism to which they will not
go." - Midnight Cry, Sept. 14, 1843.
This fanaticism was the result of Starkweather's teaching
that "gifts" were to be restored to the church. Even
he seemed at first amazed at the results. (Ibid. 233,
234)
One last comment from Himes:
Not only Mr. Miller, but all who were in his confidence, took
a decided position against all fanatical extravagances. They
never gave them any quarter; while those who regarded them with
favor soon arrayed themselves against Mr. Miller and his
adherents. Their fanaticism increased; and though opposed by Mr.
Miller and his friends, the religious and secular press very
generally, but unjustly, connected his name with it; - he being
no more responsible for it than Luther and Wesley were for
similar manifestations in their day. (Ibid. 239)
After calling vocal utterances during meetings fanaticism (the
one example given is "Bless God"), Miller wrote, "I
have often obtained more evidence of inward piety from a kindling
eye, a wet cheek, and a choked utterance,
than from all the noise in Christendom" (Ibid. 282).
Regarding the seventh-month movement in particular, when
beginning with the summer of 1844, most Millerites expected Christ
to return on October 22, Miller testified:
There is something in this present waking up different from
anything I have ever before seen. There is no great expression
of joy: that is, as it were, suppressed for a future occasion,
when all heaven and earth will rejoice together with joy
unspeakable and full of glory. There is no shouting; that, too,
is reserved for the shout from heaven. The singers are silent:
they are waiting to join the angelic hosts, the choir from
heaven. (Ibid. 270, 271)
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the
video, gives no documentation for this point whatsoever.
"See
This Picture?"
#9: The picture used to illustrate #8.
Picture of one of Miller's meetings before 1844. This
picture is not of one of Miller's meetings at all. It was drawn to
illustrate a critic's description of a meeting occurring after
1844, yet the video uses it to illustrate a pre-October 22
meeting.
Ellen White is shown having a vision, in the way the critic
described, but she had no visions before October 22, 1844. Her
first vision came in December 1844.
James White is shown behind her. While he remembered meeting
her prior to October 22, she recounted meeting him for the first
time a bit later. Not until 1845 did they labor together. He
could not have stood behind her in this manner, therefore, until
the following year.
"Ellen
White Was in Deep Depression Afterwards"
#10 & #11: "Ellen Harmon was a willing participant,
though when Christ did not return when Miller predicted, she
dissolved into tears and prayers and remained, as she said, in
this hopeless condition for months." (Ibid.)
#10: She said she was in a hopeless condition for months. There
is no such statement anywhere in her writings.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the
video, lists this as "Point 6." "Point 6"
mistakenly provides page 293 of Life Sketches 1880 edition:
"My wife has for many years been subject to occasional, and
sometimes protracted, seasons of the most hopeless despair."
This same wording is found in the 1888 edition, as well as page
169 of the second volume of Spiritual Gifts. The immediate
context clearly shows that this was written by Stephen Pierce
about his wife, Almira Pierce. It isn't about Ellen White at all!
Page 190 of Life Sketches clearly says: "We were
disappointed but not disheartened."
"Point 6" also quotes from Spectrum magazine,
a theologically liberal journal that does not support the idea of
the infallibility of the Bible and does support the theory of
evolution. The quotation from Spectrum speculates that when
Ellen White later wrote about others, she was in fact writing
about herself. By no stretch of the imagination can this be used
as proof that she ever said she was "in this hopeless
condition for months."
#11: Ellen White felt in a hopeless condition for months
because Christ did not return on October 22. This is not true.
Like most young people, she was depressed at times. For
instance, she felt in despair for a period of months around 1840,
when she was but twelve years old (Selected Messages 3:324,
325). This was just prior to her conversion. However, it should be
pointed out that this is how many have felt just prior to their
own conversion, as they realize the depth of their sin and their
need of a Savior.
In 1842 she was convicted that the Lord wanted her to pray
publicly, but she didn't want to, and stopped praying altogether.
This resulted in a state of melancholy and despair that lasted
three weeks or a little longer, until she followed through with
what she believed was her duty. (Spiritual Gifts 2:15-20).
After her second vision, soon after the first one of December
1844, she was troubled. With her frail health and being so young,
she shrank from the duty of traveling to share what God had
revealed, which duty had been expressed to her in that vision. She
dreaded the scoffs, sneers, and opposition she would surely meet.
She wrote:
I really coveted death as a release from the responsibilities
that were crowding upon me. At length the sweet peace I had so
long enjoyed left me, and my soul was plunged in despair. (Life
Sketches 195, 1880 ed. See also Testimonies for the
Church 1:63)
These words indicate that she had no episodes of despair
between the previous incident in 1842 and her second vision a few
months after October 22, 1844. So Ellen White was not "in a
hopeless condition" for months after October 22, and had no
depression after Christ did not return when expected.
"She
Couldn't Admit Her Mistake, But Miller Did"
#12 & #13: "Ellen White just could not accept the fact
that Christ did not return in 1843 or 1844. She could not admit
her mistake. Interestingly enough, William Miller did." (Ibid.)
#12: Ellen White didn't admit her mistake. This is not
true. Both Ellen White and William Miller freely admitted that
they were mistaken in thinking that Christ would return in 1843 or
1844. Yet they explained their mistake quite differently.
Ellen White first admitted what she thought was a mistake, and
then she admitted a different mistake.
In 1847 her husband wrote, "When she received her first
vision, December, 1844, she and all the band [the group of Advent
believers] in Portland, Maine (where her parents then resided) had
given up the midnight cry, and shut door, as being in the
past." Ellen White wrote the same year, "At the time I
had the vision of the midnight cry [December, 1844], I had given
it up in the past and thought it future, as also most of the band
had" (Ellen G. White: The Early Years 61).
What the above two statements mean is this: During the
seventh-month movement, the prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9 were
connected to a number of other Scriptures, particularly the
parable of the ten virgins of Matthew 25.
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and
trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us
of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered,
saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go
ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while
they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready
went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open
to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know
you not. (Mat. 25:6-12)
At the conclusion of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, it was
expected that the bridegroom would come, the wedding between
Christ and his people would begin, and the door would be shut,
whatever that means. The term "midnight cry" used in the
quotations from The Early Years is taken from the parable,
for a cry goes out at midnight: "The Bridegroom cometh. Go ye
out to meet Him."
By Ellen White initially giving up the idea that the midnight
cry and the shut door were past, she was giving up the idea that
the 2300 days had really ended on October 22, 1844, an easy enough
conclusion for she and many other Millerites to reach.
After her first vision, she realized that she had made a
mistake in calling the October 22 date a mistake. The real mistake
she and the 50,000 other Millerites had made was in thinking that
the beginning of the judgment and the ending of the 2300 days was
synonymous with the second coming of Christ.
Daniel 8:14 had declared that the 2300 days would end with the
cleansing of the "sanctuary." The popular belief among
both Millerites and non-Millerites was that this
"sanctuary" was the earth or some part of it. The
Millerites felt that the predicted cleansing of the sanctuary was
Christ's cleansing of the earth by fire at His second coming.
The Millerites were mistaken that this was the predicted event
of the prophecy, and this mistake Ellen White was always willing
to freely admit:
As the disciples were mistaken in regard to the kingdom to be
set up at the end of the seventy weeks, so Adventists were
mistaken in regard to the event to take place at the expiration
of the 2300 days. In both cases there was an acceptance of, or
rather an adherence to, popular errors that blinded the mind to
the truth. (Great Controversy 352)
Christ's disciples thought He would set up the kingdom of glory
at His first coming, in which kingdom the Jews would rule the
world and the Romans. Shall we reject their teachings, since they
had mistaken views about prophecy, even as late as at the time of
Christ's ascension (Acts 1:6)?
There are a number of mistakes in this video. Will those
responsible for these mistakes freely admit them to the Christian
community?
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the
video, offers no documentation for this point whatsoever.
#13: Miller admitted his mistake. This is an
oversimplification. To explain what Miller really admitted to
would make the inclusion of this point in the video appear silly.
In a statement dated August 1, 1845, Miller specified what
mistake he was admitting to:
But while I frankly acknowledge my disappointment in the
exact time, I wish to inquire whether my teachings have been
thereby materially affected. My view of exact time depended
entirely upon the accuracy of chronology; of this I had no
absolute demonstration; but as no evidence was presented to
invalidate it, I deemed it my duty to rely on it as certain,
until it should be disproved. Besides, I not only rested on
received chronology, but I selected the earliest dates in the
circle of a few years on which chronologers have relied for the
date of the events from which to reckon, because I believed them
to be best sustained, and because I wished to have my eye on the
earliest time at which the Lord might be expected. Other
chronologers had assigned later dates for the events from which
I reckoned; and if they are correct we are only brought into the
circle of a few years, during which we may rationally look for
the Lord's appearing. As the prophetic periods, counting from
the dates from which I have reckoned, have not brought us to the
end, and as I cannot tell the exact time that chronology may
vary from my calculations, I can only live in continual
expectation of the event. I am persuaded that I cannot be far
out of the way, and I believe that God will still justify my
preaching to the world.
Thus the mistake that he admitted to was not the way he had
interpreted and calculated the time prophecies of Scripture, but
the dates of the human chronologers he had used to begin those
time prophecies with.
The book shown in the video to illustrate the point that
William Miller admitted his mistake is that of Sketches of the
Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller, written by
James White and published in 1875.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the
video, lists this point as "Point 7." Under "Point
7" is given a page of a research paper which is dealing with
the Albany Conference of April 1845. The page allegedly describes
what was voted at that Conference, but says nothing about whether
Miller was in harmony with the vote or not. It also says nothing
about what mistakes Miller allegedly admitted to making.
If one compares what was actually voted at the Albany
Conference with the page of the research paper found in the Documentation
Package, one will find that they do not agree. Hence I used
the word "allegedly" in the previous paragraph. The
person compiling the Documentation Package must not have
verified the accuracy of the page from the research paper.
"Her
First Vision"
#14 & #15: "Instead she claimed she had a vision from
God, the first of many. 'I have seen that the 1843 chart was
directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be
altered; that the figures were as He wanted them, that His hand
was over, and hid a mistake in some of the figures...' Early
Writings p. 74." (Ibid.)
#14: This was her first vision. This is not true. The
statement quoted from Early Writings is from a vision that
occurred on September 23, 1850. However, Ellen White's first
vision occurred in December 1844.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the
video, gives no documentation for this point whatsoever.
#15: God hid the mistake. The context has been removed
to apparently leave the impression that this is what Ellen White
meant. However, the last clause of the sentence that was omitted
says: ". . . so that none could see it, until
His hand was removed." This shows that rather than God
hiding the mistake, He was instead not bringing the mistake to the
notice of the people. There is a difference.
This is elaborated upon under the next section.
"She
Said God Made the Mistake"
#16: "Rather than admit she was in error, Ellen Harmon
claimed that God was the one who had made the mistake, and had
covered it up Himself." (Narrator)
Ellen White said God made the mistake. This is not true.
She never said that God made a mistake at that time or at any
other time. God makes no mistakes.
Early Writings 74 is used on the video to substantiate
this strange claim:
I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of
the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures
were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake
in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His
hand was removed.
Have you ever made a mistake? Why didn't you see it was a
mistake earlier? Why didn't God show it to you earlier? Because
God didn't show you your mistake earlier, does that mean God made
the mistake?
What Ellen White is talking about here is not about October 22
at all. Miller and his many associates began the 2300 days in 457
BC. Subtracting 457 from 2300 gives 1843. Thus they thought that
the 2300 days would end in the Jewish year 1843, which they felt
began in the spring of 1843 and ended in the spring of 1844. But
there is a major mistake here in our math.
There is no 0 BC or 0 AD, unlike a conventional number line.
Hence the spring of 457 to the spring of 1843 is only 2299 years,
not 2300. This no one realized until after the Jewish year of 1843
had already passed.
Of course, God knew that their math was off, and He permitted
them to understand this after the fact.
No mistake about the validity of the October 22 date is even
suggested in the quoted statement.
But Ellen White's words indicate that there was some sort of
divine purpose in the mistake about there being no 0 year. Perhaps
the experience of the disciples can illuminate our understanding.
The disciples of Christ were tested severely at two different
times, both relating to mistaken views about prophecy. John 6:66
says that many of Christ's disciples just up and left Him when He
cryptically told them that His kingdom was a spiritual kingdom,
not a kingdom in which they would rule the Romans. This was the
first test, and it was hard. The second one came at the
crucifixion, when all the hopes and dreams of the disciples for an
earthly kingdom of power were dashed to pieces.
If the first and only test had been at the crucifixion, and if
it had been then when the majority of Christ's followers forsook
Him, the test would have been much more overwhelming for the
disciples. Having the previous test strengthened the disciples for
the later test.
Did God make the mistake about prophecy found in John 6? No,
but He permitted it for a reason.
Likewise the Millerites were tested twice. The former test
strengthened them for the latter test. God did not make the
mistake (and Ellen White never said He did), but He permitted it
for a reason.
The Documentation Package, offered at the end of the
video, gives no evidence that Ellen White ever said that God made
any mistake. It merely repeats the quote from page 74 of Early
Writings, and shows a picture of the 1843 chart Ellen White
was referring to in that quote.
"Controversial
Vision Changes Dates and Doctrines"
#17 & #18: "Ellen's controversial vision forced the
readjustment of many Adventist dates and doctrines." (Ibid.)
#17: Ellen White's vision was controversial. Neither her
first vision nor her vision of September 23rd, 1850, should have
been considered controversial at the time. Both should have
appeared either reasonable or middle-of-the-road to their targeted
audiences.
After October 22, 1844, there were two major and opposite
divisions of thought: 1) The 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 had not
ended yet and Christ's literal and visible coming was yet future.
2) The 2300 days had ended and Christ had already returned in a
spiritual way.
In contrast, Ellen White's first vision taught that the 2300
days had ended, but Christ's return was yet future and would be
literal and visible as the Bible says. Thus it promoted a
middle-of-the-road position between the two major camps.
50,000 Millerites had felt moved by the Spirit of God during
the seventh-month movement. The vision taught that that movement
was indeed of God. Thus this point too should have been considered
non-controversial.
The 1850 vision the video quoted from taught that:
- It was proper to print a periodical to proclaim the truth.
- The word "sacrifice" in Daniel 8:12 was not in the
original, but had been added by the translators (which is a
fact that is readily apparent).
- "Time . . . will never again be a test."
In other words, there should be no more setting of dates for
Christ's return.
- It was wrong to spend lots of money to send people over to
Jerusalem, thinking that somehow this would help fulfill
prophecy. (Advent Review 11/1/1850; Early Writings
74-76)
What was so controversial about this vision? Some who wanted to
go to Jerusalem probably didn't like what Ellen White was shown,
but even point 4 harmonized with what the 50,000 Millerites had
believed and taught.
The Millerites did not believe that the Bible foretold a
restoration of literal Israel. They felt that Israel today is
composed of all believers, as the apostle Paul indicates:
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew,
which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in
the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men,
but of God. (Rom. 2:28, 29)
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are
the children of Abraham. . . .
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and
heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:7, 29)
This teaching may be controversial today, but it wasn't
controversial in 1844.
Some who were into setting dates might have thought that point
three of the 1850 vision was controversial, but she had already
been pushing this idea for five years by that time (see Testimonies
for the Church 1:72, 73).
No documentation whatsoever is given for this point in the Documentation
Package.
#18: Readjustment of many dates and doctrines. No dates
were readjusted by either vision. The first vision didn't really
introduce any new doctrines. The 1850 vision called for a
moratorium on date setting, but that wouldn't constitute a
readjustment of many doctrines, especially since she
had already been calling for such a moratorium for five years.
Going to Jerusalem not being a fulfillment of prophecy was
already a standard Millerite doctrine, so this doctrine was not
readjusted either.
No documentation whatsoever is given for this point in the Documentation
Package offered at the end of the video.
"1844
Was the Wrong Date"
#19 & #20: "Even though the 1843 date had now been
adjusted to 1844, it was still an error." (Ibid.)
#19: 1843 date adjusted to 1844. Neither Ellen White's
first vision of December 1844 nor her 1850 vision had anything to
do with the change of date from 1843 to 1844. The simple proof of
this is the fact that the date was already adjusted before she had
either of these visions.
Once again, here is the history: Samuel S. Snow, as described
before, provided the biblical evidence and chronological evidence
to show that the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 ended on October 22,
1844. He provided this evidence in a powerful way in the Boston
Tabernacle on July 21, 1844. Then in August he presented his
material at a camp meeting in Exeter, New Hampshire. After that
the idea spread like wild fire. By October 22, 50,000 Millerites
had accepted the idea, a couple months before Ellen White had her
first vision.
No documentation whatsoever is given for this point in the Documentation
Package offered at the end of the video.
#20: 1844 date still an error. No documentation
whatsoever is given for this point in the Documentation Package
offered at the end of the video. The reason is simple: The
theological understandings of those of any and every persuasion
have yet to produce any valid objections to the basic
interpretations of Scripture that lead to this date. No better
date has been arrived at.
If the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 did not end in 1844, when did
they end? Actually, this question is premature. A better question
to start with is, When did the 490 days of Daniel 9 end?
Linguistically, Daniel 8 and 9 are tied together. In chapter 8,
Daniel says that "none understood" the
"vision," even though Gabriel had already explained
every part of the vision to Daniel except for the 2300 days of
verse 14.
Actually, there are two different Hebrew words translated
"vision" in chapter 8: mar'eh and chazown.
Chazown occurs in verses 2, 13, 15, 17, and the last half of
26. Mar'eh occurs in verse 16, the first half of 26, and
27.
When Gabriel says in verse 26 that the "vision of the
evening and the morning which was told is true," he provides
the key to our understanding the difference between the chazown
and the mar'eh. Literally, the Hebrew for "2300
days" in verse 14 is "2300 evening-morning." So the
vision or mar'eh of the evening-morning must specifically
refer to the 2300 days, while the chazown refers to the
entire vision.
Thus when Daniel said none understood the vision or mar'eh,
he was correct, for Gabriel had not gotten to explain the mar'eh
of the 2300 days yet. But in verse 16 Gabriel had been
assigned the special task of making Daniel "to understand the
vision," or mar'eh, of the 2300 days.
In chapter 9 Gabriel returns, "the man" "whom I
had seen in the vision" or chazown (vs. 21). Gabriel
tells Daniel, "Consider the vision," or mar'eh,
the 2300 days. The rest of what he says to Daniel in the chapter
is connected to a time prophecy, the prophecy of the 70 weeks, or
490 days.
One troublesome problem in chapter 8 is that there is no
starting point given for the beginning of the 2300 days. This
problem is removed in chapter 9: These time prophecies begin with
the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
Nearly everyone agrees that the first 483 days of the 490 days
of Daniel 9 end at some point in the ministry of Christ. Each day
represents a year (Ezek. 4:6; Num. 14:34).
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of
the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the
Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two
weeks. (Dan. 9:25)
Seventh-day Adventists begin the 490 years with the seventh
year of Artaxerxes, or 457 BC. In that year the Jews' autonomy was
restored to the point that they could even execute the death
penalty against violators of God's law (Ezra 7:7, 8, 26).
Adventists begin the last seven years of the prophecy with
Christ's baptism in 27 AD, when He was anointed with the Holy
Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22;
Acts 10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah," and
the Greek word for "Christ" both mean "the anointed
one," it seems most logical to identify the coming of the
Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with the baptism of Jesus.
And he shall confirm the covenant with
many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause
the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. (9:27)
When Christ died after a ministry of 3½ years (31 AD), the
veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus
Christ showed that the sacrifices were to cease, since the true
sacrifice for sin had been offered.
This leaves but half a week left of the prophecy, 3½ years,
stretching to 34 AD. In Acts 7 we find Stephen being stoned as the
first Christian martyr. Immediately after this the gospel started
going to non-Jews: Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Roman
centurion Cornelius, along with his household. Since Gabriel said
that the 70 weeks were especially for Daniel's people, the Jews,
it seems most logical to end the 70 weeks with the stoning of
Stephen. For one week (7 years) the gospel, the new covenant, was
confirmed with many, the Jewish nation: 3½ years during the
ministry of Christ, and 3½ years after his resurrection.
The first 490 days of the 2300 thus ended in 34 AD. The
remaining 1810 years can be added to 34 AD to arrive at 1844 AD.
Before it can be said emphatically that 1844 is "an
error," a better interpretation than the above must be found.
None has been found to date.
The most popular alternative interpretation today is the
following, which is more complex than what was above, which should
tell you something: The first 69 weeks stretch from Artaxerxes's
supposed twentieth year in 445 BC to about the death of Christ,
and the seventieth week is yet future.
Sir Robert Anderson proposed multiplying the 69 weeks, or 483
days, by 360 days to the year, and then dividing this product by
365.25 days per year. By this method he reduced the 483 years to
just over 476 years, a total of 173,880 days. But he mistakenly
added three leap days too few, owing to the difference between the
Julian and the Gregorian calendars. He then began the time period
on March 14, 445 BC, what he supposed was the first day of the
first Jewish month of Nisan that year. Then he ended it with April
6th, 32 AD, what he supposed was Nisan 10, Palm Sunday, the week
Christ was crucified.
The seventieth week of Daniel 9 Anderson's puts off into the
future to a yet unknown time.
Besides the problem of mistakenly adding three leap days too
few (his ending date should really have be Thursday, April 3
instead of Sunday, April 6), there are other problems with
Anderson's theory:
- Nisan 10 could not have been earlier than Wednesday, April 9
in 32 AD. Thus it could not have been April 6.
- Nisan 14, the Passover, when Christ would have died, would
have been on a Sunday or Monday in 32 AD, not on a Thursday as
Anderson supposed.
- The Jews of Elephantine used accession-year reckoning for
Artaxerxes. In other words, his first year was his accession
year, and his second year was called his "first
year." This would make his twentieth year really 444 BC,
not 445 BC. So Anderson's starting date was a year off.
- While we have record of a decree from Artaxerxes's seventh
year (457 BC) in the seventh chapter of Ezra, we do not have
record of a decree from his twentieth year.
- Putting the seventieth week of Daniel 9 into the future
ignores the linguistic ties between chapters 8 and 9, and the
resulting connection between the 2300 days and the 490 days.
- The method of reducing the 69 weeks of 483 years to only 476
years ignores the Jewish seven-year cycle.
Number 6 needs a little more explanation: The Israelites were
to work their fields for six years, and then let the land keep a
sabbath for the seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). It is easy to see an
allusion to this practice in Daniel 9's "70 weeks,"
"7 weeks," "62 weeks," and "1 week."
In fact, many scholars of various persuasions have recognized such
a connection.
The Adventist way of reckoning the 70 weeks begins them in 457
BC and ends them in 34 AD. 457 BC was the first year of a
seven-year cycle, and 34 AD was the seventh year of a seven-year
cycle. Thus, when 31 AD is identified as the date for Christ's
crucifixion, the middle of the last week of seven years, it truly
is the precise middle of a seven-year cycle.
Back to the original point: Until a better interpretation is
found that fits all the data, it cannot really be emphatically
stated that the 1844 date is an error.