What: The Camden Vision by Ellen White claims to reveal the close of probation for sinners on October 22, 1844. No more sinners can be converted and the preaching work is done.
When: This vision occurred on June 29, 1851
Where: Camden, New York, USA
The content of the vision:
“The Lord shewed (sic) that he had, in answer to prayer, removed his frown from this band, and that they could have the smiles of Jesus, if they would live very humble, and walk carefully before the Lord, and know that in every step that they took that God was guiding them, and the band would be strong and would be a terror to their enemies, and the band must press together. Then I saw Bro. Wing and Bro. Hyatt—that the enemy had been trying to destroy them—that they were praying for light upon a few texts of Scripture, and the more they prayed the darker they grew, and the enemy was shutting down a network of darkness over them; and just about as they were getting entirely shut-in, they were delivered ⎯ the net was broken, and they escaped. I saw the true light on these texts, &c. I saw that this rebuke was given by Jesus to the Pharisees and Jews, who were filled with self-righteousness, and would only speak to or greet those who were just as full of self-righteousness and hypocrisy as they themselves were; and they entirely neglect and pass by those who did not make quite as much, and who did not receive greeting in the market as they did. I saw that it did not in any way apply to this time—that we are now living in. Then I saw that Jesus prayed for his enemies, but that should not cause US to pray for the wicked world, whom God had rejected ⎯ when he prayed for his enemies, there was hope for them, and they could be benefited and saved by his prayers, and also after he was a mediator in the outer apartment for the whole world; but now his spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the ungodly. I saw that God loved his people ⎯ and, in answer to prayers, would send rain upon the just and the unjust ⎯ I saw that now, in this time, that he watered the earth and caused the sun to shine for the saints and the wicked by our prayers, by our Father sending rain upon the unjust, while he sent it upon the just. I saw that the wicked could not be benefited by our prayers now ⎯ and although he sent it upon the unjust, yet their day was coming. Then I saw concerning loving our neighbors. I saw that scripture did not mean the wicked whom God had rejected that we must love, but he meant our neighbors in the household, and did not extend beyond the household; yet I saw that we should not do the wicked around us any injustice:⎯but, our neighbors whom we were to love, were those who loved God and were serving him.”
Controversial points to note from this vision by Ellen White:
- Ellen White mentioned the word “I saw” 12 times and something similar in her Camden vision. This term is often used by Ellen White whenever she is presented with a vision from the Lord. It is an indirect admission that she identifies herself as a prophet. It is one of a clear evidence that Ellen White believed that probation for sinners was closed from October 22, 1844 to 1851 but most of the SDAs today strongly denied it.
“He said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams.” Numbers 12:6 (NIV)
- Ellen White also saw in her vision that Christ’s rebuke of the hypocrisy of the Jews and Pharisees recorded in Matthew 23 was no longer applicable in Ellen White’s day. She probably said this so as not to imply that the Adventists were so proud at that time since they always keep themselves separated and avoided fellowship with the outsiders who were considered “wicked” and “rejected by God” since the door of mercy was closed on October 22, 1844.
- Ellen White also saw in her vision that Adventists no longer had to imitate Jesus’ prayer for his enemies because those people who were outside of their faith had already been rejected by God for their sins since October 22, 1844 close of probation.
- Ellen White also saw in her vision that Jesus at that time (Oct. 22, 1844) had “taken away his spirit and compassion” from the world.
- Ellen White also saw in her vision that “wicked people” would no longer benefit from Adventists’ prayers anymore because Jesus had withdrawn His “spirit and compassion” from the world since October 22, 1844.
- Ellen White also taught from her vision about the identity of those who are called our “neighbor” in Matthew 5:43 (“Thou shalt love thy neighbor”). According to Mrs. White, “Then I saw concerning loving our neighbors… he meant our neighbors in the household, and did not extend beyond the household” and “our neighbors whom we were to love, were those who loved God and were serving him” It is noteworthy at this point how Ellen White misunderstood the passage. She based her understanding of Matthew 5:43 not on the immediate context of the Scripture itself. This is contrary to Sola Scriptura’s principle of “Let the Scripture interpret itself.” Instead, Ellen White follows “let my vision interpret the scriptures“! We can rightly conclude that Mrs. White failed the test of the true prophet because the conclusion that she reached from her vision is the very opposite of what the word of God meant to say. Let us read the immediate context in verse 47 where it is clearly defined just who is the “neighbor” that we should love as opposed to Ellen White’s false vision. White:
“But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?” Matthew 5:44, 47 (NIV)
Let’s compare the teachings of Ellen White and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Jesus Christ:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?” Matthew 5:43-44, 47 (NIV)
Ellen White
“Then I saw concerning loving our neighbors… he meant our neighbors in the household, and did not extend beyond the household” and “our neighbors whom we were to love, were those who loved God and were serving him” [Camden Vision, 1851]
Because Mrs. White is not a true prophet of God and her vision is just the product of her own imagination, it dangerously leads to a misunderstood the Word of God. God warns us in Jeremiah 23:16:
“This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.” Jeremiah 23:16 (NIV)
Since Mrs. White’s vision influenced her to teach that Christ’s rebuke on the hypocrisy of the Jews is now irrelevant to apply during her time, so the Adventist people of her time could practically live like the hypocritical Pharisees, who can only show love to those who belong to their religious circle. It is undeniable that to this day, this kind of spirit is seen practically by most Seventh-day Adventists.
Answers to Common Objections from SDA
Official response from the White Estate Inc: Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts: Volume 1 p. 915
Ms 1a, 1851—June 29, 1851, Camden, New York; concerns the relationship between God’s people and the ungodly.
Objection#1: No Ellen White original exists. The vision has long been disputed because of its strong shut-door sentiments. (See entry “Camden Vision” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia.) Two variants are known.
Response:
It is not enough to say that the Camden vision is not authentic since no original copy exists. Accepting this kind of reasoning can lead us to question even the Bible’s authenticity because not even one original manuscripts are available today. Ellen White Estate realized the weakness of this point as a challenge to authenticate any missing original copy such as that of the Camden vision.
Their official statement reads:
“The White Estate recognized that the mere absence of an Ellen White original does not necessarily discredit the authenticity of a vision. Yet it was decided that if there was reliable evidence to accept the essential content of any of these visions, a disclaimer relating to the accuracy of expression or wording should accompany the account since only copies exist (and often with numerous variants).” [EGW Letters and Manuscripts Vol. 1 p. 914]
The Ellen White Encyclopedia explains:
“While it is recognized that the absence of an original manuscript should not necessarily discredit the authenticity of a vision of Ellen White, caution has nonetheless been used in accepting the content and wording of a copied account.” [The Ellen White Encyclopedia p. 795-796]
Objection#2: “The date conflicts with Ellen White’s itinerary, as records indicate that the Whites were in Camden only from June 18 to June 23 (see itinerary published in Review and Herald, June 9, 1851).”
Response:
According to Dr. Gilbert Valentine, professor and chair, Department of Administration and Leadership at the La Sierra University, in Riverside, California and also one of a contributor to The Ellen White Encyclopedia, it is not enough to argue about the validity of the 1851 Camden vision due to the uncertainty of its date. He has written in-depth research entitled Camden Vision Reconsidered that will greatly contribute to his research in our study.
“This leaves the remaining problem of the date, June 29, 1851. In view of the fact that other documents in the White Estate files have had to be re-dated and refiled, because a wrong date were assigned to them as a later time, this may not be a very serious problem. Two explanations suggest themselves. Firstly, in view of the fact that Ellen White was in Camden from June 18:23, 1851, the date of June 29 could perhaps be a miscopying of the figures 20, 21, or 22. Alternatively, the vision may have been written out afterwards while Ellen White was at nearby West Milton and the then current date of June 29 given even though the vision was received earlier.” [G.M. Valentine, Camden Vision Reconsidered, quoted in The Shut Door and the Sanctuary-Historical and Theological Problems]
In Footnote # 448 of Dr. Valentine’s research paper, he used an example of one Ellen White manuscript that had the same issue about the date but was still accepted by White Estate Inc.
“Footnote#448: “See for example, Lyle Heise, “The Christology of Ellen G. White Letter 8, 1895 An Historical and Contextual Study, Term paper, E. G. White Research Center, Andrews University. The letter filed as Letter 8, 1895, was listed as written February 9, 1896 and copied February 12, 1896.” [G.M. Valentine, Camden Vision Reconsidered, quoted in The Shut Door and the Sanctuary-Historical and Theological Problems]
Objection#3: “The only source for the vision is a copy provided by R. R. Chapin, one of Ellen White’s opposers.”
This is one of the common argument of SDA apologist especially those who are not well versed in the issue of Camden vision and the writings of Ellen White. But this is not a valid argument at all. Sometimes it falls into the category of the fallacy of argumentation called “Genetic Fallacy.” According to Wikipedia:
“The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy]
Dr. Gilbert Valentine has noted that the issue about its source as copied by a certain R. R. Chapin, who was a critic of Mrs. White did not arise then during the pioneering period.
“In spite of the fact that Snook and Brinkerhoff’s book quoting the Camden vision was obviously known to the “ministering brethren” and that U. Smith’s reply quoting the Camden vision was reviewed critically before its publication, no mention is made of the fact the name of R. R. Chapin was the cause of any problem. It would seem that there would have been numbers of the leading brethren would have known of Chapin’s departure from the church in 1854, and his attacks, but this is not a problem that is raised. It seems then that either Chapin’s name attached to the vision was not considered a problem or that there were other texts of the vision available without Chapin’s name attached.” [G.M. Valentine, Camden Vision Reconsidered, quoted in The Shut Door and the Sanctuary-Historical and Theological Problems, Appendix XVIII]
Ellen White’s defenders often argue that since there is no original copy of this Camden vision available in the White Estate Inc archive so this alleged vision is a fake. But there is one more reason why some copies of Mrs. White’s writings cannot be found is that many of her early publications were lost because of her constant traveling.
“That there was a genuine text known, from which Chapin copied may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that quite a number of Ellen White’s early publications from 1851 and before were lost because of her constant travelling. See MS 4, 1883. This may also account for the fact the original text of the vision is not available in the White Estate.” [G.M. Valentine, Camden Vision Reconsidered, quoted in The Shut Door and the Sanctuary-Historical and Theological Problems, Appendix XVIII p.83]
Here is Ellen White’s own explanation in MS 4, 1883, as quoted by Dr. Valentine in Footnote # 445 of “The Camden Vision Reconsidered“:
“In our frequent change of location in the earlier history of the publishing work and then in almost incessant travel as I have labored from Maine to Texas, from Michigan to California—and I have crossed the plains no less than seventeen times—I lost all trace of the first published works…Here I will pause to state that any of our people having in their possession a copy of any or all of my first views, as published prior to 1851, will do me a great favor if they will send them to me without delay. I promise to return the same as soon as a copy can be produced. [4LtMs, Ms 4, 1883]
We note here that Mrs. White was even pleading the brethren back then to do her a favor if they happen to have copies of those missing copies of her writing to send it to her including those “published prior to 1851.” The Camden vision’s date is June 29, 1851, it may be composed earlier than that or maybe that date reflects the day when the copy of the missing original (prior to 1851) was made.
Objection#4: “Uriah Smith responded to controversial phrases cited from the “Camden vision” in The Visions: Objections Answered (1868), suggesting that he might have accepted the authenticity of the vision, but that suggestion is tempered by his comment that he has referenced all shut-door expressions “that are claimed to have been given through any vision, either published or unpublished” (p. 28; italics supplied). “
Response:
Uriah Smith was one of Ellen White’s most trusted workers during her lifetime and an avid supporter of her almost 70 years of ministry. The Ellen White Encyclopedia p. 684 says:
“Throughout his life Smith’s writings strongly championed the work of Ellen White as God’s special messenger endowed with the gift of prophecy. His 1868 book The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White presented the reasons for his confidence in her divine calling… Uriah Smith was closely connected with Ellen White. Together they traveled and spoke at Adventist gatherings on many occasions and places. In spite of their occasional differences, she expressed confidence in him after his confessions and declared that he should remain the Review editor as long as he could write.” [The Ellen White Encyclopedia p. 684]
There is no doubt that when Uriah Smith wrote a book in defense particularly about the visions of Ellen it is obviously considered as dependable. The Ellen White Encyclopedia also quotes the title of Uriah Smith’s 1868 book The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures, in which all the objections of Ellen White’s critics of her time were individually refuted.
Objection #4 in Uriah Smith’s book presents an answer to Mrs. White’s critics about his views on the “shut door” or close of probation for the wicked people on October 22, 1844. And some of the quoted objections are regarding some strong statements used by Ellen White in her controversial Camden Vision. Here is a comparison of some actual expressions used by Mrs. White on her Camden vision as cited by Uriah Smith in his book Visions of Mrs. White to defend the validity of Ellen White’s visions.
Ellen White’s Camden Vision 1851
“I saw that it did not in any way apply to this time—that we are now living in. Then I saw that Jesus prayed for his enemies, but that should not cause US to pray for the wicked world, whom God had rejected ⎯ when he prayed for his enemies, there was hope for them, and they could be benefited and saved by his prayers, and also after he was a mediator in the outer apartment for the whole world; but now his spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world; and our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the ungodly. I saw that God loved his people ⎯ and, in answer to prayers, would send rain upon the just and the unjust ⎯ I saw that now, in this time, that he watered the earth and caused the sun to shine for the saints and the wicked by our prayers, by our Father sending rain upon the unjust, while he sent it upon the just. I saw that the wicked could not be benefited by our prayers now ⎯ and although he sent it upon the unjust, yet their day was coming. Then I saw concerning loving our neighbors. I saw that scripture did not mean the wicked whom God had rejected that we must love, but he meant our neighbors in the household, and did not extend beyond the household; yet I saw that we should not do the wicked around us any injustice:⎯but, our neighbors whom we were to love, were those who loved God and were serving him.”
Uriah Smith’s Visions of Mrs. E.G. White
“Now what are the representations of the vision in relation to this time? Do they teach a more exclusive Shut-door than Scripture facts and testimonies which we have presented? In their teachings we find such expressions as these: “I saw that Jesus finished his mediation in the holy place in 1844.” “He has gone into the most holy, where the faith of Israel now reaches.” “His spirit and sympathy are now withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy should be with him.” “The wicked could not be benefited by our prayers now.” “The wicked world whom God had rejected.” “It seemed that the whole word was taken in the snare; that there could not be one left,” (referring to Spiritualism). “The time for their salvation is past.” These few expressions are all, or at least are the very strongest, in relation to what is called the Shut door, that are claimed to have been given through a vision, either published or unpublished.”
Let us now inquire into their import. Let it be remembered that the question is, Do they teach that probation ceased in 1844, and that consequently there could be no true conversions after that time.” Pp.27-28
Strong “shut door” expressions used by Ellen White in Camden vision quoted by Uriah Smith:
a.) “His spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world;
b.)“and our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the ungodly”
c.) “I saw that the wicked could not be benefited by our prayers now”
d.) “the wicked whom God had rejected”
Uriah Smith did not in any way or form mentioned that these strong statements used by Ellen White in the Camden vision were merely fabricated by her critics. Instead, Smith pledged to spend time answering and explaining each of these expressions mentioned in that vision. Dr. Valentine notes:
“Smith is arguing for an “all or nothing” view of the visions and it would seem that in this light, the easiest way out of some of what he calls the “strongest statements” on the “Shut-door” in the visions would have been to deny the authenticity of the vision containing them. It seems this avenue was not open to him.” [G.M. Valentine, The Camden Vision Reconsidered, as Appendix XVIII in The Shut Door and the Sanctuary-Historical and Theological Problems p. 198]
Uriah Smith confines his attention to what is only the legitimate letters of Mrs. White that are available to him. He added:
“Our only proper course here, therefore, is to confine ourselves to what has been published under Sister White’s own supervision, and by her authority, and what appears in manuscript over her own signature in her own handwriting.” [Uriah Smith, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, Manifestations of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures, p. 20]
The copy of Camden vision which is available in the White Estate archives has Ellen White’s signature just below the page in her own handwriting. This is a strong indication that the Camden vision was considered by the early Adventists at the time to be Ellen White’s true statement.
Before the book Visions of Ellen White was published in 1868, it was printed in their official Review & Herald magazine on June 12, 1866 as a series to give the response to the objections of Mrs. White’s visions titled “The Visions — Objections Answered.” Page 16 said:
“We commence this week the publication of Answers to Objections against the Visions. It may be proper here to state that this manuscript was prepared before our late Conference; but its publication was withheld till it could be submitted to the ministering brethren who might then assemble, for them to decide upon its merits, and:the disposition that should be made of it. It was examined by them, and received their approval, with a decision that it. should be published. Most of the manuscript was also read before a joint session of the General and Mich. State Conference, whereupon the following action was taken in reference thereto :
“Resolved, That we, the members of the General and Mich. State Conference, having heard a portion of the manuscript read, which has been prepared by Bro. U. Smith, in answer to certain objections recently brought against the visions of Sister White, do hereby express our hearty approval of the same. “Resolved, That we tender our thanks to Bro. Smith for his able defense of the visions against the attacks of their opponents.”
In light of the careful examination of the “ministering brethren” on Smith’s manuscript, it is clear that the disputed Camden vision was actually recognized by the Conference leaders of the SDA church as a genuine document.
Objection#5: “Additionally, by this time (June 1851) Ellen White had abandoned the view that probation had closed for all non-Millerites—the shut door was understood to apply only to those who had willfully rejected the Second Advent message (see Lt 4, 1850 [Feb. 18], and introductory article “The ‘Shut Door’ and Ellen White’s Visions”).”
Response:
That argument was refuted by the 1851 Camden Vision itself that proves Ellen White, by this time on June 29, 1851, still believes in the shut door/close of probation in 1844. SDA theologians are still divided to this issue up to the present. This is one of the reasons why James White omitted and changed a number of her statements about the shut door.
“Until the summer of 1851, our pioneers considered their task as confined to “the little flock” while unbelievers were considered as left in outer darkness since the closing of the 1844 door. When in 1851 and 1852 James White reprinted some of his earlier articles, he omitted or changed a number of his former statements about the shut door.” [D. Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment, p. 372]
Objection#6: The White Estate views the evidence currently available as insufficient to establish that the report of the purported vision is genuine.
Response:
They say the evidence is insufficient but it’s not true. In the above evidence, we have seen that many of them just ignored many available pieces of evidence regarding the issue. Let’s consider once again the conclusion of Dr. Gilbert Valentine:
“While the Camden vision is obviously a document that would seem to be very relevant to the whole “Shut-door” discussion its genuineness or spuriousness ought, however, to be decided not on whether or not it is easier or more convenient to maintain its alleged spuriousness but on the weight of evidence. The evidence considered here seems to support a case for accepting the vision as authentic.”
Conclusion:
The apostle Paul warned of another gospel preached by false teachers or prophets in Galatians 1: 8:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” Galatians 1:8 (NIV)
This false teaching of Ellen White on the close of probation on October 22, 1844, is considered “another gospel” because it provides false information about the true character of our Lord Jesus. It even distorts the heart of the message of salvation. The kind of God that Ellen White introduces at this point is a cruel kind of God and lacking in love for people subject to the curse of sin. It is the very opposite of the loving God we know in John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16 (NIV)
Note that God’s love is revealed to all kind of people so he loves not only those who “love God and serve him” as Mrs. White taught, but it extends to those “people of the world” (not just men of the household of God) who according to the Scriptures are “enemies of God” (Romans 5:10), while we are still “sinners” (Romans 5:8) and “the weak” (Romans 5:6). God did not wait for us to become a good person first before he loved us. This is the unique kind of love that is made in heaven. It is also the kind of love that Christ wants to see in each of us. He called it “perfect love”:
“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:48 (NIV)
How did our God the Father show His perfect love towards us?
“That you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? This is the message of the true gospel. The Lord loves us and the love of God is not limited by time or any year on any person’s calendar or doctrine. God’s love is the power of the true gospel.” Matthew 5:45-47 (NIV)
This is the message of the true gospel. God loves us and that love is eternal no boundary to limit it by time or any dates on the calendar. God’s love is the power of the true gospel.
Related Youtube video links:
1851 Camden Fake Vision ni Ellen White Nasagot ng Ba?
No comments:
Post a Comment