“HERETIC” SET FREE!

As the photographer at the Review & Herald Publishing Association (R&H) I could look out the window of the photo studio and see Des Ford pounding the typewriter in his window at the General Conference (GC) when he was creating his thousand-page defense [exposing the unbiblical nature of the investigative judgment]. The office space they’d given him in the rear of the old building at the GC was directly across the roof of the R&H, so I could look right into his office and watch him type. I was just starting to discover the problems that he had uncovered, and Sligo Church actually let him teach a Sabbath School Class we attended for the six months that he worked on his defense to be presented at Glacier View Camp that summer of 1980. I was able to get my hands on one of the binders that had his thousand-page defense, and many of us thought for just a short while that the brethren just might accept his stand and go into the future having accepted the Bible above Ellen G. White

EGW was the goose that had laid the golden egg, and there was no way they’d give up their sacred cow (or goose) for The Truth.

But we didn’t know what Ken Wood and Neal Wilson knew all along: EGW was the goose that had laid the golden egg, and there was no way they’d give up their sacred cow (or goose) for The Truth.

Sitting at Ford’s feet and listening him present the true gospel each Sabbath was a treat that one can’t imagine. He would end each class with punch lines that left us all floored, and we all just SAT there when he walked out of the classroom, stunned at the pure gospel the man taught. He was amazing. But it wasn’t just Des Ford that had shocked us: I recall reading Hebrews 6:19-20 and Hebrews 10:19-20 that tells us that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place after His death on the cross two thousand years ago, so therefore nothing happened in 1844. If we were going to put the Bible above all else, then 1844 and EGW had to go.

The other thing that did it for me was the fact that I had been able to photograph Ellen G. White’s letter to Joseph Bates in 1980 when Ron Graybill brought it to the Studio for me in exchange for doing a rush job for the White Estate. He was in a hurry to get a painting photographed so they could sell copies at the upcoming General Conference session that would be held in Dallas, Texas, that year, so I jokingly asked him on the phone: “Tell you what Ron; bring me Ellen White’s letter to Bates, and I’ll photograph your painting today!”

I thought he would tell me to drop dead, but instead he showed up a while later with the 133-year-old letter in hand.

I thought he would tell me to drop dead, but instead he showed up a while later with the 133-year-old letter in hand. I wasted no time getting it copied because I had no idea he’d leave it with me for three days; it would lay locked in my office for all that time! It was in THAT letter that EGW tells Bates that the door is shut, and she wanted him to know that she was also a shut door believer because she knew that he was! Once any Adventist reads THAT letter, knowing the full history of the Shut Door, they then know that there can be no doubt that Ellen was a fraud from the very start. Only three pages of the letter are left because “somebody” did away with the other pages, evidently because she said something else that was so shocking that they missed what she had said about the Shut Door! There could now be no doubt. All we believed in was buttressed by lies.

Right as all this was going on with Des Ford, Neal Wilson, the President of the General Conference, had “arranged” a job for me at the Adventist Media Center in Thousand Oaks, California, because I had put on my wedding ring at the Review and gotten the President of the Adventist Review mad over that issue. We had a three hour knock-down drag-out meeting in Neal ‘s office with the Review President where Neal finally got up and said, “There’s not room enough for both of you here. One of you has got to go.” I knew then that I’d get a “call” someplace, but I was amazed to end up on the west coast where we were able to watch even more unraveling of the lie they were trying to protect.

Ministers everywhere were being called on the carpet and “Put to the test” about Ellen G. White…

Living then on the west coast we were able to go to the Gospel Congress that Ford, Smuts Van Rooyan, and others held at Monterey. There were over a thousand “Adventists” that showed up for those meetings. It was like a “camp meeting for former Adventists” before there was such a thing. Smuts Van Rooyan told us how he had struggled with the gospel and rolled on the floor crying that so much had to be given up for the truth. Ministers everywhere were being called on the carpet and “Put to the test” about Ellen G. White, and many gave up their retirement right when they were a few months from retiring. It was amazing to see what people did for Christ.

We left the church in 1982 when they shut down my job at the Adventist Media Center that Neal Wilson had arranged for me at that meeting in late 1979. The Media Center killed two birds with one stone by getting rid of me because they didn’t have to see me driving up with “Heretic” on my license anymore, and they saved all that money they had been paying me. We knew it would go just like that if I was crazy enough to take Neal’s bait, but we were young then and did daring things. To be rid of Adventism and the job at the same time made some kind of sense, and we went back east having lost everything in the moves. Like hundreds of other denominational workers, we were ruined in the great Exodus of the Adventist Church of the early 1980s.

CHAPTER 3: IF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IS WRONG WHAT IS RIGHT?

Pastor Ronald Obidos

This article is titled "Chapter 3" because it's part of a book the author is writing titled, "Leaving Adventism: an Adventist Apologist Journey to Faith," which is a helpful guide to transitioning Seventh-day Adventists.

I am often asked the following questions by my Seventh-day Adventist friends:

1. If the teachings of the SDA church are wrong, what is the correct religion or sect?
2. If Ellen White is a false prophet, who is the true prophet or messenger for us today?
3. Instead of attacking the SDA church, can you introduce your own doctrine, correct religion or sect, and prophet and start preaching your own church?

The first part of this question comprises a series of interconnected questions. The second part is a challenge that I should present my own doctrine, sect, and prophet or messenger to be introduced while also preaching instead of "attacking" their teachings. In other words, the assumption is that I would establish my own religion or sect, as some tend to do.

It's important to note that the questioner automatically assumes that the SDA church is the only true biblical church, that they possess the correct teachings, and that Ellen White is a true prophet, even though he has not provided any evidence from the Bible to support his claims. This is known as circular reasoning and is considered a flawed method in the field of argumentation.

As defined by an educational website, circular reasoning is when an argument assumes its conclusion, committing a logical fallacy. An example of this is when the religion, Iglesia ni Cristo 1914, asked the SDA, "If Iglesia ni Cristo is not the true church, then what? If the teaching of Iglesia ni Cristo is wrong, what is right? If Felix Manalo is a false prophet, then who is?" While the question may seem straightforward, it employs circular reasoning. An SDA defender may respond by saying, "First prove that the INC is the true church with the correct teaching and also first prove that Felix Manalo is God's messenger!" The question remains - would SDAs accept this argument if it came from an Iglesia ni Cristo member?

It's a common misconception that all Seventh-day Adventists believe in the prophetic authority of Ellen White. In fact, many members, elders, and pastors don't subscribe to this belief. This raises some fundamental questions about the church's claim to being the true church.

It's worth noting that the church's veracity is entirely dependent on Ellen White's authenticity as a prophet and messenger of God. If she is indeed a true prophet, then the SDA church is also a true church. Conversely, if she's a false prophet, then the SDA church is also a false church.

It's worth noting that the church's veracity is entirely dependent on Ellen White's authenticity as a prophet and messenger of God. If she is indeed a true prophet, then the SDA church is also a true church. Conversely, if she's a false prophet, then the SDA church is also a false church.

The Bible attests that the true church can’t be governed or led by a false prophet. It’s concerning that many active members of the SDA church aren’t familiar with Ellen White’s teachings. Adventists often cite 2 Chronicles 20:20 to support their beliefs, but this raises serious questions that need to be addressed.

“Have faith in the Lord your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful.” 2 Chron. 20:20 NIV

Devoted members of SDA frequently cite a verse from Proverbs 29:18 KJV to bolster Ellen White's status as a prophet.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Proverbs 29:18 (KJV)

The Seventh-day Adventist Church faces a significant challenge today as there is a lack of consensus on a crucial doctrine. It is surprising that "The Gift of Prophecy" is still considered one of their 28 Fundamental Beliefs (#18) despite this.

“The Gift of Prophecy” #18:

“The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Numbers 12:6; 2 Chronicles 20:20; Amos 3:7; Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 12:17; 19:10; 22:8, 9.)”[2]

For the SDA Church, their belief that they are the true remnant church on the last day hinges on its more than 18 million members worldwide subscribing to Fundamental Belief #18. This belief states that Ellen White is a prophet with the gift of prophecy. Without this, the church cannot be identifiable as the remnant church. Therefore, any Adventist who denies Ellen White's prophethood while claiming the SDA Church as the true church is not acceptable.

It's common for some Adventists to use the excuse that rejecting Ellen White's teachings is acceptable, as she is not the savior of the Adventist faith, but rather, it is Christ. As an Adventist defender, I used to argue that one's belief in Mrs. White should not be a test of fellowship. However, this goes against Ellen White's own statement. According to her, Adventists who doubt her authority as a prophet are either mistaken or misguided.

“Others are like doubting Thomas; they cannot believe the published Testimonies, nor receive evidence through the testimony of others, but must see and have the evidence for themselves. Such must not be set aside, but long patience and brotherly love should be exercised toward them until they find their position and become established for or against. If they fight against the visions, of which they have no knowledge; if they carry their opposition so far as to oppose that in which they have had no experience, and feel annoyed when those who believe that the visions are of God speak of them in meeting and comfort themselves with the instruction given through vision, the church may know that they are not right.” (Testimonies for the Church Vol. 1 p. 328)

Other Adventists argue that Ellen White did not claim to be a prophet so it is okay not to believe in her. Are these arguments correct? Some Adventist apologists, in fact, use it in response to my posts exposing that Ellen White is not a true prophet of God. Let's find out what Ellen White really said about it:

“Ellen White never assumed the title of prophetess, but she did not object when others called her by that title. . . To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger.” [3]

It's worth noting that Ellen White never referred to herself as a "Prophet" in her writings. She did not use the title "Prophet Ellen White" in any of her books. It's important to mention that she did not object when others referred to her as a "Prophet."

Why Founding a New Religion Isn't Necessary

The second part of the question I was presented with was a challenge, accompanied by mockery. This challenge is evidence of the Adventists' inability to defend or address the errors I have exposed about the SDA church and their prophet, Ellen White's false prophecy. Frankly, I have yet to receive a meaningful response from their so-called top apologists since I began exposing these issues.

Most of the Adventists' comments are evasive and lacking in substance. Many of their responses are just personal attacks or insults. They don't even read my articles before commenting. I'm not surprised by their negative attitude, as this seems to be a common trait among Adventists. In my experience, many Adventists are simply too lazy to read. This is evident in the low attendance during their Sabbath school lesson study, which only increases during the second part of the service or divine service. Most Adventists are accustomed to being spoon-fed information.

It is for these reasons that I believe they challenged me with these types of questions. This book will leave Adventists with no choice but to confront these issues head-on. They want me to lay down my own doctrine so that they can avoid answering my challenges that until now have no sensible answer. I noticed that Adventists are better at criticizing others than responding to my exposition of their false teachings. One reason is that they lack scholarly resources and are not used to dealing with deeper studies. Another factor is that most of their debaters in the Philippines have difficulty speaking English. They prefer to read Tagalog over English because they find it difficult to understand. This is probably why they cannot answer deeper issues in their doctrines, especially at a scholarly level, because most of them have a hard time understanding English, not to mention biblical Hebrew and Greek.

However, I must continue in my work of exposing their false teachings. I will no longer participate in their meaningless comments. I will just choose from their sensible questions and answer them as an article on our FAFP website and pray to God that the things I present will help other Adventists to open their minds and hearts to the truth of the gospel of Christ. Therefore, this challenge is more indicative of the weakness of the Adventist defenders than their strength.

The question, "If the teaching of SDAs is wrong, what is right? If Ellen White is a false prophet, then who is?" is certainly thought-provoking. The conventional Adventist answer is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is undeniably the one true church and that the teachings of Ellen White are infallible. However, this answer is too superficial and fleeting, as truth cannot be based on personal feelings, which are subject to change based on circumstances. Instead, we should look to the Bible for guidance. 

1.) The Seventh-day Adventist organization or denomination was not present during the New Testament era in the 1st century. In those times, the term "church" referred to a group of believers and not a specific religious denomination or building. The existence of various Christian denominations began much later, in the 16th century, during the Protestant Reformation when the Roman Catholic Church was challenged.

2.) The name "Seventh-day Adventist" was not used during biblical times. The followers of Christ were commonly referred to as "Christians" and not "Adventists" (Acts 11:26). While it may be difficult to accept, this is the truth based on evidence and not emotions.

3.) Ellen White, a prominent figure in Seventh-day Adventism, was not known during the New Testament era. Claims that her writings are a "continuing and authoritative source of truth" and speak with "prophetic authority" are considered to be boastful by some. Furthermore, it has been proven that many of her books were copied from other authors, rather than directly from God. Additionally, Seventh-day Adventist leadership has been accused of concealing some of her works from the public.

Despite the lack of knowledge regarding the SDA church and Ellen White, the New Testament highlights a critical issue about the salvation of sinners. Is it based on religion or denomination? Where do we find the truth according to the New Testament? Should it be through joining a denomination or developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

Let's turn to Jesus, the founder and owner of the Christian church, for guidance on this matter.

“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 (NIV)

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 (NIV)

The Lord Jesus is the only true source of truth, as he proclaimed, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE." No denomination or church, including the SDA, can take its place in leading us to the Father in heaven.

Conclusion

In summary of my response, let me rephrase the questions at hand:

Question#1: "If the teaching of SDA is wrong, what is right?"

Answer: Regarding the teachings of the SDA, it is important to note that only Christ holds the key to eternal life. Jesus himself said:

John 6:68 (ESV)
“Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Question#2: "If Ellen White is a false prophet, then who is?"

Answer: Ellen White is not a genuine prophet. Instead, it is Jesus who is the ultimate Prophet of God in the last days.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (ESV)

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.”

You don’t need to be a Seventh-day Adventist to be saved and receive eternal life. What you need is to accept the person and work of the Son of God, Jesus Christ which is sufficient to save you with certainty!

Glory to our God!

Footnotes:

[1] Nordquist, Richard. “Circular Reasoning Definition and Examples.” 7 July 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/circular-reasoning-petitio-principii-1689842. 5 April 2020.

[2] This is a revised version of the Seventh-day Adventist’s Fundamental Belief #18. The original version stated that “As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth”. This statement was against the principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which is a fundamental belief of Protestantism. The Seventh-day Adventists claimed that Ellen White’s writings are in addition to the Bible because her writings are also an “authoritative source of truth”. This created confusion as the Seventh-day Adventists had two authoritative sources of truth. To address this issue, they revised their statement to “Her writings speak with prophetic authority”.

[3] Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists Believe…A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Beliefs. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988, p.224

"I NOW REGRET ALL MY DAYS AS AN ADVENTIST MINISTER!"

Dear Adventist Pastors in Africa:

I have the pleasure to share with you my testimony for which I will never be sorry. If some will not finish my testimony let me start with the conclusion and then back to the beginning. Knowing Jesus Christ and His saving grace has been the greatest achievement in my life, which will never be taken away from me. Like Paul, I can say “I no longer live my own life…”

My mum was converted to Adventism in the year 1966 by a friend. But my dad was not. So my mum worked hard to ensure that we would be brought up in Adventism. My elder brothers and sisters used to teach us and sing wonderful songs most evenings. When I was 11 years old, I joined the youth department, since I loved singing songs.

My elder brother abandoned going to church and joined dad at home. You can imagine how I felt, as I was told that the SDA Church is the remnant church and now my brother had abandoned the remnant church. I had been trying to get my dad to join the church but he told me that church is for children. I was upset.

The school I went to was Catholic and many of my classmates liked me since I was giving them songs and verses from the Bible. Many joined Adventism and got their parents to join. So the head teacher, Michael, who was a Catholic, called me one day and told me to be careful concerning my classmates.

Later, after leaving that school, I went to Magena SDA Secondary School where I was a monitor. I read a lot of books of Ellen G. White, reading them before going to bed each evening, treasuring everything I read. In this school, I oftenly served as a lay preacher and took many other responsibilities in the church. My preaching often threatened people, especially my best sermons about the judgement and the time of trouble. One day the station director attended one of my studies and suggested that I should join the ministry, which I accepted willingly.

I now regret all my days as an Adventist minister

I now regret all my days as an Adventist minister as they were often filled with my having to deal with problems left by other ministers that had gone before me. The laity would report to me on how the ministers behaved. I remember how my senior pastor was imprisoned for “using” the house maid and the maid disclosed the matter. “I greatly appreciate your prayers and need them just now” he told me after his actions were revealed. I say this without judgment, but there are those in the church who have became like the pharisees. Those pastors demanded obedience to them instead of teaching and doing what is right for the gospel.

The pastors did not see it this way, but this is exactly my view of what was going on. I must leave any further details of this situation since this is not what caused me to transition out of Adventism, and you would not want to know about the private lives of these pastors anyway.

On September 11, 1999, after I gave the sermon, I was told to remain behind. The senior pastor asked me how I liked my sermon. I told him that I was preaching, and he was listening—the listener should be the one to share his response to the sermon. My sermon had been from Isaiah 29:13, Galatians 3:1-2, Genesis 6:5-6, I Kings 18:21, John 8:31-32, and Deuteronomy 30:19-20. After preaching the truths in these texts, the SDA chuch had to do something. My senior pastor, along with the field president, advised me to leave the church. He said, “I don’t have any more work for you in the ministry.”

We fasted and God became so very close to us—much closer. The bucket of maize flour (cornmeal) remained full. Our children were not kicked out of school for lack of payment.

The conference proceeded to suspend their support for me in my studies to obtain my B.Th. degree. They said that I was now following “off shoots” that were attacking the Adventist church. Life became very hard for my family which included my wife and two children. We didn’t have any way to buy food or pay for our children’s education. We fasted and God became so very close to us—much closer. The bucket of maize flour (cornmeal) remained full. Our children were not kicked out of school for lack of payment. How wonderful is our Lord of Mercy and Love!

I managed to team up with four other church elders and two associate pastors —all Adventist theologians who had been warned like I had been and we started fellowshipping from house to house. We studied using the Bible alone. Much that I thought was the truth I now began to see was a lie.

My fellow African pastors (who are still in Adventism), I have experienced transitioning out of the Adventist Church without a salary. Choose today whom you will serve. Remember God will never leave you. The greatest achievement you can do is to receive Jesus.

The greatest achievement you can do is to receive Jesus.

This is a few of the amazing experiences my family and I have gone through but the most amazing experience is the joy of seeing people come out of Adventism and come boldly to Christ. I believe the simple Gospel of God’s free place in Christ is sufficient for salvation. I also believe the simple Gospel just as Paul defended as is recorded in the book of Galatians.

Preisings, Honour and Glory unto Him forever and ever. Amen.

In His joy, Yussuf Nyameri


Source: A Letter to Adventist Pastors in Africa – Proclamation! Online Magazine (lifeassuranceministries.org)

FAFP Sabbath School Commentary Lesson 9: “Mission To the Powerful” | November 25–December 1, 2023

Problems with this lesson: 

• This lesson betrays Adventism’s infatuation with proselytizing rich and famous people and their specific attempts to make converts among them.
• The author again manipulates the readers by misinterpreting Scripture and pressuring readers to beguile powerful people into Adventism.
• The lesson portrays Jesus as our example of good evangelism instead of as God the Son revealing Himself as the Messiah.

The fact that the Sabbath School department felt the need to devote an entire week to evangelizing the rich and famous reveals that, just as they have devoted separate weeks to evangelizing the poor, the needy, and every category of people they see as distinct, they see the powerful people of society as being one strata of the culture that needs special attention.

This division of cultural categories as the lessons attempt to energize members and to teach them to hone in on demographically-specific proselytizing shows us that Adventism does not know the true gospel or understand Christian evangelism. Rather Adventism is selling a product: its worldview and loyalty to its culture. Of course, marketing a product requires strategies that appeal to target audiences, and Adventism sees itself as offering the right approach to life to all categories of people.

It’s hard to market the same product across the demographic boundaries of world cultures—but Adventism is trying to do just that. They are not only a religion that grooms prospective members by meeting their felt needs for good health and belonging, but they are a religion that secretly desires the financial support of the wealthy and the publicity of having well-known, important members.

Christianity, in contrast, is not a product. It is not a worldview that must be sold. Christianity is entirely the message that the guilt and spiritual desperation that is the common lot of all humanity has an answer: the blood of Jesus shed on the cross.

Significantly, these lessons never focus on the cross. Instead, they focus on being attractive and “caring”, on getting the public to like and trust them, and then giving them the offering of becoming part of the Sabbath-keeping remnant, the religion that prides itself on having the truth (as overtly stated on page 114 in the thought question at the end of the day’s lesson).

This lesson even uses the story of Nicodemus to demonstrate how Jesus “witness[ed] to the learned”. Tuesday’s lesson includes this paragraph:

When Nicodemus came to Jesus, he tried to maintain the façade, the status quo. But God knew his heart. Similarly, God knows the hearts and needs of all the rich and powerful, whatever their background. Nicodemus came to Jesus because Jesus’ teachings had convicted him. His pride kept him from openly confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, but that night changed him forever. Even after his conviction that Jesus was sent by God, he still did not openly acknowledge that he was a follower of Jesus Christ.

Importantly, the author reveals his Adventist misunderstanding of this story. He states that “Jesus’ teachings had convicted him.” John 3:2, however, reveals that it was not Jesus’ teachings that convicted Nicodemus. He said,

“Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2).

Notice that it was Jesus’ SIGNS, not His teachings, that were compelling. In John’s gospel we learn that Jesus’ signs were the miracles He did in order to demonstrate that He was, indeed, the Messiah. The Old Testament prophecies foretold the signs that the Messiah would do when He came; He would make the lame walk, make the dumb to speak and the deaf to hear; He would open blind eyes and raise the dead to life. He would do what only God could do: bring about the reversal of nature for the glory of God!

Nicodemus knew the Old Testament; he was in no doubt about the Source of Jesus’ power. He even said that he and his colleagues knew that no one could do the signs He did “unless God is with him”.

In the Old Testament God’s prophets did miracles, and Moses had told Israel that a prophet like him was coming to whom they would need to listen. That Prophet was the Lord Jesus. In fact, three chapters after the story of Nicodemus, we find Jesus feeding the 5,000 and see the Jews’ reaction to His “bread from heaven”. They recognized that he was the Prophet Moses had foretold, but most of them did not want to believe Him.

In John 3, as Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, we learn that a great many of Israel’s scholars and religious leaders understood that Jesus’ miracles were signs of who He was, but they were unwilling to believe the implications of His signs. Nicodemus sneaked under cover of night to talk to Jesus because he was convinced that Jesus had to be the One the prophecies foretold—and he had to learn a hard lesson.

Jesus proceeded to tell him what he should have already known on the basis of Ezekiel 36: even Israelites have to be born again, being given new hearts, new spirits, and the Spirit of God in them. The law and their Jewish heritage was not all that were required of them. They couldn’t receive God’s unconditional, eternal promises until they trusted God’s own provision for their redemption.

The lesson, however, uses the story of Nicodemus to impel Adventists to deliberately seek to influence the rich and famous to embrace Adventism.

It was not Jesus’ teachings that compelled Nicodemus, and it is not Adventist teachings that fulfill the needs of either the rich or the poor. It is the finished work of Jesus on the cross, where He took the sins of the world and suffered the wrath of God to pay the price for human sin, that people need. It is literally the blood of Jesus that people need, not medical advice, lifestyle change, and the Sabbath!

Predestined to Adoption

There are many more twisted details in this lesson that could be addressed, but one demands a comment.

In Sunday’s lesson, the author writes this:

As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe in what is known as “unlimited atonement.” This means that, in contrast to some Christians, we believe that Christ’s death was for all humanity, not just a special group of those predestined by God for salvation. Because God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4, NKJV), Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice “for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2, NKJV). That’s why everyone was chosen “in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4, NKJV), even if not everyone chooses Him in return. That’s why, too, we find accounts in the Bible of all sorts of people being reached for God.

Yes. The 1 Timothy quote and the 1 John quote in the above paragraph are true. Every single thing the Bible says is true, and where we cannot reconcile seemingly opposing statements, we have to hold those things in tension because, from God’s perspective, they are not opposed. If we try to resolve the tension in Scripture, we alter the gospel.

The Ephesians quote above is out of context, and the author has inserted an application not in the text. Here is the Ephesians 1:4 in context:

Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved (Eph. 1:3-6).

Importantly, this passage is not being written to the world at large; it is addressed specifically to BELIEVERS, to a church in which the members have trusted Jesus and have been born again. Paul is NOT saying “everyone” was chosen in Him before the creation of the world. He is telling these believers that God chose them—“us”, as Paul puts it, including himself among the believers—in Christ before the foundation of the world. Furthermore, He predestined “us” (again believers) to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.

This is only one example of the way the author of these lessons uses Scripture illegitimately, yanking it out of context and assigning it a meaning it does not have.

We cannot explain the mystery (the unrevealed details) of God’s election and predestination of believers in Christ. We also cannot try to resolve the tension of election with the fact that Jesus desires all men to come to a knowledge of the truth. We have to believe both of these statements, knowing that both are true, and one without the other is untrue.

Adventism must support its doctrines by proof-texting out-of-context passages and making them say what they do not say.

In short, this lesson is one more egregious misuse of God’s word. The truth of the gospel, the reality of God’s sovereignty, eternal love, and our responsibility to make decisions that have eternal value are absolutely true.

The new birth changes us when we hear the gospel of our salvation and believe. We literally receive new hearts and new spirits, and we pass from death to life (Jn. 5:24).

Adventism decimates the incredible reality of God’s redemption, and this lesson is just one more reductionist attempt to guilt Adventists into recruiting converts as they try to sell the great controversy worldview.

I urge you, reader, to open God’s word and to read it in context, beginning with Galatians, and ask God to teach you what He wants you to know.

Source: https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2023/11/23/november-25-december-1-2023/

A NEW COVENANT NEEDS NEW WORDS

Let’s investigate Jesus’s New Covenant. It is explained so well in the letter to the Hebrews. While we don’t know who wrote Hebrews, we can appreciate the tenderness and kindness with which the author explains the New Covenant.

Ironically, Adventist churches participate in a service that uses the symbols of the new covenant four times a year! Yet in general, Adventists do not experience the finished work of the Lord Jesus of which the symbols of the Lord’s Supper are intended to remind us. In other words, Adventists in general use the symbols of the new covenant without actually having entered it!

Jeremiah foretells the new covenant and tells us it is different from the old covenant given at Mt. Sinai. Here is what he says:

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD (Jer. 31:31-32).

So how is this new covenant DIFFERENT? The Old Covenant given at Mt. Sinai to the nation of Israel had these words:

So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:28).

We see here that the Ten Commandments were the very words of the old covenant. They cannot be the words of the new covenant because the new covenant is different. It is not the same covenant.

In fact, we learn even more specifically in Hebrews 7 that the old covenant, the “law”, was given to people on the basis of the levitical priesthood. That is very significant; people couldn’t even receive access to the law—to observe it or to claim it as their moral authority—if they were not under the ministration of the levitical priesthood!

In other words, the old covenant could not be separated from all the rituals which the levites had to perform: the sacrifices, the cleansing, the offering of the blood of animals, and so forth. Here is what Hebrews 7:11 says:

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need [was there] for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

Jesus’s new covenant requires new words: new “commandments”. The old words were insufficient for the new covenant because the new covenant was not administered on the basis of the levitical priesthood with its animal sacrifices and rituals. Hebrews 7:12 tells us this fact specifically:

For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

In other words, the new covenant comes to us on the basis of a new kind of priesthood: the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek—the king and priest of Salem in Genesis 14 to whom Abraham paid tithe. He was a priest and king BEFORE there was a nation of Israel—before Sinai—before the law was given! Jesus’s priesthood is not based on the old covenant words. It is in the order of Melchizedek whose priesthood was not based on the law. This new covenant requires new words—new commandments.

Hebrews 10:8–10 explains how Jesus’ personal sacrifice is the basis of the new covenant law:

After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND [sacrifices] FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE [in them]” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The New Covenant was ratified by Jesus’s Blood—not by animal blood offered by sinful levitical priests. In fact, Jesus stressed that His own blood is the basis of the new covenant. He made sure that His Jewish disciples—and all of us gentiles who are grafted into God’s promises given to Abraham on the basis of our trusting His descendant, the Lord Jesus—would understand that the new covenant does not have the same commands as the old. Look at these promises God gave us:

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave [it] to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Mat .26:27-28).

And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:24)

And in the same way [He took] the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20).

Hebrews is such a kind and loving letter, and it is written to the same people who wanted the Romans to murder Jesus over issues regarding Mt. Sinai’s Covenant Law. We know their rage was real, and it contained two facts at its core. We find these reasons for their murderous rage in John 5:16–18:

For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

The context of this verse is Jesus’ healing of the crippled man at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath. He commanded the man to stand up and to carry his pallet and to walk away from the portico where he lay beside the pool.

Jesus actually broke the Sabbath by commanding the man to carry a load—but He did not sin because He was fulfilling the shadow of the Sabbath. He was demonstrating that He was over the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was not an authority over Him. He was the Messiah who had the authority and power to demonstrate His fulfillment of the Sabbath shadow to Israel—and revealing His identity as the Lord over the Sabbath and as God the Son was incontrovertible proof that He was the One whom the prophecies foretold.

The Pharisees were enraged; Jesus’s power and authority threatened them and their clutch on the Jews, and instead of repenting and believing, they wanted Him dead!

The writer of Hebrews wrote just a few years later to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem this reminder of the reality of the new covenant they had entered on the basis of Jesus’ blood. No longer are believers bound to the law of the old covenant that was given with the symbols of God’s judgment: fire, darkness, gloom, and storm. Now they are living on a new mountain with new promises—with no fragile human promises involved but with the promises of God Himself!

For you have not come to [a mountain] that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which [sound was such that] those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, “IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED.”

And so terrible was the sight, [that] Moses said, “I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of [the] righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than [the blood] of Abel (Heb. 12:18-24).

Notice that last sentence: the blood of Jesus speaks better—it provides better words and better commandments—than did the old covenant! Jesus’s blood is the last word about our sin; when we trust Jesus, we are cleansed from all our sin!

Now God’s own morality and righteousness are credited to us (Phil 3:9). When we are transferred to the kingdom of the Beloved Son (Col 1:13), we are under a completely new system of government. We are now under the new covenant in Jesus’s blood, and we are kept safe in His righteousness on the basis of His better promises and His finished atonement.

If you have not trusted Him, now is the time. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31).

Source: A New Covenant Needs New Words – Proclamation! Online Magazine (lifeassuranceministries.org)

FAFP Live Q&A with Doc Obidos! | Nov. 26, 2023

WALANG MALILIGTAS NA ADVENTIST DAHIL SA ARAL NA ITO!

FAFP SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON | "THE TRIUMPH OF REDEMPTION" | NOV. 26, 2023

The passage of 2 Samuel 11:1–12:31 narrates one of the most tragic episodes in the life of King David, who was described as a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). It tells the story of how David committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of his loyal soldiers, and then tried to cover up his sin by arranging Uriah's death in battle. The passage also records the confrontation of the prophet Nathan, who rebuked David for his sin and announced the judgment of God upon him and his house. The passage reveals the devastating consequences of sin, the importance of repentance, and the grace of God that restores the broken.

The passage can be divided into four main sections:

- David's temptation and sin (11:1-5)

- David's deception and murder (11:6-27)

- Nathan's rebuke and David's repentance (12:1-15a)

- The death of the child and the birth of Solomon (12:15b-31)

In the first section, David's temptation and sin, the author sets the scene by stating that it was the time when kings go out to battle, but David remained in Jerusalem (11:1). This implies that David was neglecting his duty as the leader of Israel and was indulging in his comfort and leisure. He also failed to guard his eyes and his heart when he saw a beautiful woman bathing on the roof of her house (11:2). Instead of turning away, he inquired about her and found out that she was Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, one of his mighty men (11:3; cf. 23:39). Despite knowing that she was married, he sent for her and slept with her, violating the seventh commandment (Exodus 20:14). He also violated the tenth commandment by coveting his neighbor's wife (Exodus 20:17). The result of his sin was that Bathsheba became pregnant and sent word to David (11:4-5).

In the second section, David's deception and murder, the author shows how David tried to cover up his sin by inviting Uriah back from the battlefield, hoping that he would sleep with his wife and conceal the pregnancy (11:6-13). However, Uriah proved to be more loyal and honorable than David, as he refused to enjoy the comforts of his home while his fellow soldiers were in the field (11:11-13). David then resorted to a more sinister plan, by sending a letter to Joab, his general, instructing him to put Uriah in the front line of the battle and withdraw from him, so that he would be killed by the enemy (11:14-15). Joab obeyed David's order and Uriah was killed, along with some other soldiers (11:16-17). David then tried to justify his action by telling Joab not to be distressed, for the sword devours one as well as another (11:25). He then took Bathsheba as his wife, after she mourned for her husband (11:26-27). The author concludes this section by stating that the thing that David had done displeased the Lord (11:27).

In the third section, Nathan's rebuke and David's repentance, the author introduces Nathan, the prophet of God, who came to David with a parable that exposed his sin (12:1-4). The parable was about a rich man who had many flocks and herds, and a poor man who had only one little ewe lamb that he loved dearly. When a traveler came to the rich man, he spared his own flocks and took the poor man's lamb to prepare for his guest (12:1-4). David was enraged by the injustice of the rich man and pronounced a severe judgment on him, saying that he deserved to die and that he should restore the lamb fourfold (12:5-6). Nathan then applied the parable to David, saying, "You are the man!" (12:7). He reminded David of how God had anointed him as king, delivered him from Saul, given him the house of Israel and Judah, and would have given him more if he had asked (12:7-8). He then accused David of despising the word of the Lord, doing evil in his sight, killing Uriah with the sword of the Ammonites, and taking his wife as his own (12:9-10). He announced the judgment of God upon David, saying that the sword would never depart from his house, that his own wives would be taken by his neighbor, and that his son with Bathsheba would die (12:10-14). David then confessed his sin and said, "I have sinned against the Lord" (12:13). Nathan assured him that the Lord had put away his sin and that he would not die, but that the child would die (12:13-14).

In the fourth section, the death of the child and the birth of Solomon, the author narrates how the child that Bathsheba bore to David became ill and died, despite David's fasting and prayer (12:15-23). He also records how David comforted Bathsheba and slept with her again, and she bore him another son, whom he named Solomon, meaning "peace" (12:24). The author adds that the Lord loved Solomon and sent a message through Nathan, calling him Jedidiah, meaning "beloved of the Lord" (12:25). The author concludes the passage by mentioning David's victory over the Ammonites and his capture of their royal city, Rabbah (12:26-31).

The Cost of Sin

The passage of 2 Samuel 11:1–12:31 is a powerful and sobering account of the fall and restoration of King David. It teaches us several lessons, such as:

- Sin is a serious matter that displeases God and brings devastating consequences, both personally and communally. David's sin affected not only himself and Bathsheba, but also Uriah, Joab, the soldiers, the child, and his whole family. His sin also tarnished his reputation and gave occasion for the enemies of God to blaspheme (12:14).

- Sin is often a result of neglecting our responsibilities and indulging in our desires. David's sin began when he stayed in Jerusalem instead of going to war, and when he saw Bathsheba and desired her. He did not resist the temptation, but acted on it, and then tried to cover it up. He did not consider the consequences of his actions, nor the feelings of others, nor the will of God.

- Sin can be forgiven and restored by God's grace, but it does not erase the consequences. David's sin was forgiven by God when he confessed and repented, but he still had to face the judgment of God and the consequences of his sin. He lost his child, his peace, and his family harmony. He also had to endure the rebellion of his son Absalom, who fulfilled the prophecy of Nathan by sleeping with his concubines in public (16:22).

- Sin can be prevented by walking in the Spirit and guarding our eyes and our hearts. David could have avoided his sin if he had obeyed God's command to go to war, and if he had turned away from Bathsheba when he saw her. He could have also sought God's help and counsel when he was tempted, and he could have been accountable to someone who could rebuke him and correct him. He could have also followed God's plan for marriage, which is one man and one woman for life (Genesis 2:24).

Life Lesson:

The passage of 2 Samuel 11:1–12:31 is a warning and an encouragement for us today. It warns us of the danger and the cost of sin, and it encourages us to seek God's forgiveness and grace when we sin. It also challenges us to walk in the Spirit, to fulfill our duties, to resist temptation, and to honor God in our relationships.

THE SHUT-DOOR PROPHETESS!

When Christ failed to return as planned on October 22, 1844, the followers of William Miller were thrown into great confusion. Over the subsequent months most of the Millerites returned to their churches. However, there were others who were too ashamed to admit their error or felt too humiliated to return. Some felt that their old churches had treated them with an unchristian spirit and they preferred to worship with those who had experienced a similar journey.

Many began meeting together, often in homes or rented halls. These people were known as "Adventists" and it was among these people that the "shut door" teaching developed. The "shut door" teaching is based upon the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25. According to the parable, the messengers of the Bridegroom cry out at midnight that the Bridegroom, who represents Jesus, is coming to the marriage feast (Matt. 25:6). After the disappointment, many Adventists believed that the 1844 movement announcing Christ's return represented the midnight cry of Matthew 25.

The shut-door followers taught that the Bridegroom came to the "marriage supper" on October 22, 1844:

And while they [foolish virgins] went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with Him to the marriage, and the door was shut. (Matt. 25:10)

They taught this verse was fulfilled on October 22, 1844, when Christ arose in the heavenly sanctuary and moved from the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place. In so doing, Christ shut the door of salvation to all except the "wise virgins," those Advent believers who had prepared for Christ's second coming by participating in William Miller's 1844 movement. They believed Jesus was now "shut in" with His special people, preparing and purifying them through a series of tests and trials so that they would be worthy to receive His kingdom. They believed that since October 22, 1844, Christ was ministering only to Israelite Adventist believers. They taught that Christ was testing His children on certain points of truth, such as the Sabbath, and that their work for the salvation of lost souls was finished.

At first, William Miller himself taught the shut-door doctrine, as shown in the article he wrote in December of 1844:

"We have done our work in warning sinners and trying to awaken a formal church. God in his providence has shut the door; we can only stir up one another to be patient."[1]

On February 19, 1845, Miller expressed his belief that no sinners had been converted on the earth during the last five months: "I have not seen a genuine conversion since [Oct. 22, 1844]."[2]

Adventist minister Gilbert Cranmer recalls how rigidly the shut-door doctrine was enforced in the early days:

"They taught that Jesus rose up and shut the door of the Holy Place and opened the door into the Most Holy. Many also believed and taught that the door of mercy was closed against sinners in 1844. In fact, the position taken by the body of Advent believers in 1844, William Miller included, was that the work for the world was finished, that there was no salvation for sinners after 1844. So firmly was this believed that some who had a desire to unite with the body of Advent believers, who had not been in the '44 move, were rejected."[3]

Thus, some Christians who desired to join the Adventists were rejected because the Adventists believed the door of salvation was shut. However, it soon became evident to most that the doctrine was flawed. By the end of 1848, nearly all of the shut-door believers, including William Miller, had given up this teaching.

Nevertheless, there were a few Adventists who persisted in the shut-door doctrine. Joseph Bates was a vociferous believer in the shut door. Based upon his prophetic calculations, he believed there would be a seven-year period during which Christ would test His children on the Sabbath question. He believed that period began in 1844 and would culminate in 1851, with the return of Christ. In 1847 Bates describes how the door of salvation was closed for Gentiles (non-Adventists) in 1844:

"Paul's open door, then, was the preaching the gospel with effect to the Gentiles. Now let this door be shut, and the preaching of this gospel will have no effect. This is just what we say is the fact. The gospel message ended at the appointed time with the closing of the 2,300 days [in 1844], and almost every honest believer that is watching the signs of the times will admit it."[4]

Like Bates, James and Ellen White were ardent advocates of the shut-door doctrine. As early as 1845, Ellen received visions showing that the door of salvation was shut. Lucinda Burdick, a young lady from Maine who was about the same age as Ellen, describes how she came to know the young prophetess:

"I first heard of Miss Ellen G. Harmon (afterward Mrs. Ellen G. White) in the early winter (Jan. or Feb.) of 1845, when my uncle Josiah Little came to my father's house and reported that he had seen one Ellen Harmon in the act of having visions which she claimed were given her of God. He said that she declared that God revealed to her that the door of mercy was closed forever and that there was henceforth no salvation for sinners. This caused me great uneasiness and anguish of mind for I had not been baptized and my youthful heart was much disturbed as to my salvation if the door of mercy was really closed."[5]

Learning that the door of salvation was shut to sinners must have been quite distressing to the young Lucinda. She recalls further frightening experiences with the prophetess:

"Ellen was having what was called visions: said God had shown her in vision that Jesus Christ arose on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, and shut the door of mercy; had left forever the mediatorial throne; the whole world was doomed and lost, and there never could be another sinner saved."[6]

Hence we find that Ellen's visions taught her followers to believe the whole world was lost, and the door of salvation was shut. Ellen's message to her followers was that no work remained to be done for non-Adventists. Adventist minister Isaac Wellcome recalls hearing her relate this message in vision in 1845:

"I was often in meetings with Ellen G. Harmon and James White in 1844 and '45. I several times caught her while falling to the floor,— at times when she swooned away for a vision. I have heard her relate her visions of these dates. Several were published on sheets, to the effect that all were lost who did not endorse the '44 move, that Christ had left the throne of mercy, and all were sealed that ever would be, and no others could repent. She and James taught this for one or two years. Recently, in her published visions, called 'Testimony,' her visions differ widely, and directly contradict flatly her former ones."[7]

Adventist minister Gilbert Cranmer recalls how Ellen White had seen the shut door in her visions:

"The 'shut-door' doctrine formed a part of the doctrine of the church; that is, Mrs. White had seen in the vision that the day of salvation for sinners was past, and those that fully believed in her visions as coming from God also accepted that doctrine."[8]

Thus we can see that Ellen's visions were instrumental in convincing other Adventists to accept the shut door of salvation doctrine. In early 1846 Ellen describes one experience her her visions helped convince doubting souls that the door of salvation for the lost was indeed shut:

"While in Exeter, Maine, in a meeting with Israel Dammon, James, and many others, many of them did not believe in a shut door. I suffered much at the commencement of the meeting. Unbelief seemed to be on every hand. There was one sister there who was called very spiritual. She had traveled and been a powerful preacher most of the time for twenty years. She had been truly a mother in Israel. But a division had risen in the band on the shut door. She had great sympathy and could not believe the door was shut. (I had known nothing of their differences.) Sister Durben got up to talk. I felt very, very sad. At length, my soul seemed to be in agony, and while she was talking I fell from my chair to the floor. It was then I had a view of Jesus rising from His mediatorial throne and going to the Holiest as Bridegroom to receive His kingdom. They were all deeply interested in the view. They all said it was entirely new to them. The Lord worked in mighty power setting the truth home to their hearts. Sister Durben knew what the power of the Lord was, for she had felt it many times; and a short time after I fell she was struck down, and fell to the floor, crying to God to have mercy on her. When I came out of vision, my ears were saluted with Sister Durben's singing and shouting with a loud voice. Most of them received the vision and were settled upon the shut door."[9]

Her visions may have convinced Sister Durben and others present at the meeting that the door of salvation was shut, but others were still unconvinced. The Whites began traveling around the region in an effort to convince other Adventists, such as Brother Stowell, that the door of salvation was shut. Ellen relates this experience: 

"The first Sabbath we spent in Topsham [March 24] was a sweet, interesting time. It seemed that Jesus Himself passed through our midst and shed His light and glory upon us. We all had a rich draught from the well of Bethlehem. The Spirit came upon me and I was taken off in vision. I saw many important things, some of which I will write you before I close this letter. I saw Brother Stowell, of Paris, was wavering upon the shut door. I felt that I must visit them. Although it was fifty miles off and very bad going, I believed God would strengthen me to perform the journey. We went and found they needed strengthening. There had not been a meeting in the place for above two years. We spent one week with them. Our meetings were very interesting. They were hungry for the present truth. We had free, powerful meetings with them. God gave me two visions while there, much to the comfort and strength of the brethren and sisters. Brother Stowell was established in the shut door and all the present truth he had doubted."[10] 

The efforts of the Whites to establish the shut-door doctrine were noted by other Adventists. One devoted follower of Sister White, a shut-door advocate named Otis Nichols, wrote to William Miller in April of 1846 commending Sister White for the visions God was giving her on the shut door of salvation:

"Her message was always attended with the Holy Ghost, and wherever it was received as from the Lord it broke down and melted their hearts like little children, fed, comforted, strengthened the weak, and encouraged them to hold on to the faith, and the seventh-month movement; and that our work was done for the nominal church and the world, and what remained to be done was for the household of faith."[11]

Ellen had some of her shut-door visions in the home of an Adventist named John Megquier, who lived in Poland, Maine. He shares his eyewitness account: 

"We will know the course of Ellen G. White, the visionist, while in the State of Maine. About the first visions that she had were at my house in Poland. She said God had told her in vision that the door of mercy had closed, and there was no more chance for the world, and she would tell who had got spots on their garments; and those spots were got on by questioning her visions, whether they were of the Lord or not. Then she would tell them what to do, or what duty to perform, to get into favor with God again. Then God would show her, through a vision, who was lost, and who was saved in different parts of the State, according as they received or rejected her visions."[12]

Once again we find Mrs. White predicting who was lost and who was saved based upon their receptiveness to her visions. After a while, the Whites felt that simply going from town to town preaching the shut door was not sufficient. In 1847 James published a paper entitled "A Word to the Little Flock" in which he and Ellen promoted their shut-door doctrine. In this publication, Ellen describes an amazing vision she received from God:

"While praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell on me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them —when a voice said to me, 'Look again and look a little higher.' At this, I raised my eyes and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path, the Advent people were traveling to the City, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the first end of the path, which an angel told me was the Midnight Cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light to their feet so they might not stumble. And if they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the City, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and they said the City was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising his glorious right arm, and from his arm came a glorious light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted Hallelujah! Others rashly denied the light behind them, and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected."[13]

According to this vision, the fallen Adventists could not regain the path to heaven because the door of salvation was shut. Like the "wicked world which God had rejected," fallen Adventists had no further hope of salvation. James added his thoughts on the shut door in the same paper:

"Jesus is clearly represented in the bible, in his different characters, offices, and works. At the crucifixion, he was the meek, slain lamb. From the ascension to the shutting of the door, Oct. 1844, Jesus stood with wide-spread arms of love, and mercy; ready to receive, and plead the cause of every sinner, who would come to God by him. On the 10th day of the 7th month, 1844, he passed into the Holy of Holies, where he has since been a merciful 'high priest over the house of God."[14]

While James and Ellen continued to teach that Jesus was no longer pleading the cause of sinners during 1847, the tide was beginning to turn against the doctrine. By the end of 1848 most Adventists realized it was in error and discarded the teaching. Meanwhile, God's prophetess was not about to give up on the doctrine. This was the message God had given her to preach and she was not about to relinquish it in spite of its fading popularity. Should prophets change their message just because it is unpopular? Of course not! Thus, the Whites and Bates continued to trumpet the shut-door teaching. In fact, James started a new monthly magazine entitled Present Truth. The shut-door doctrine received prominent attention in this magazine nearly every month of its short-lived publication.

The fall of 1849 marked nearly five years that the shut-door Adventists had refused to work for the salvation of the lost. Former SDA minister W.H. Brinkerhoff recounts this sad history:

"For a number of years after 1844, S.D. Adventists, acting consistently with their theory, would not labor for the salvation of sinners, notwithstanding they had, as they claim, the gift of prophecy in the church for the correction of errors, and it was only when circumstances compelled them to admit the possibility of others besides '44 Adventists being saved, that they yielded the point of the 'tight' shut door... [15]

It is painful to imagine how many lost souls never heard the gospel during this time period. How many people could have been brought to Christ? After enduring five years of shut-door dogma some were probably wondering when the angels were going to tap Ellen on the shoulder and tell her that the shut-door teaching was fiction. On the contrary, however, the angels were reemphasizing to her that the day of salvation for sinners was over. In August Ellen shared with the readers of Present Truth what her accompanying angel told her:

"My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it; for the time for their salvation is past."[16]

While other Christians (those whom the Whites referred to as Babylon and the Synagogue of Satan) were fulfilling Christ's commission to spread the gospel to lost souls, the shut-door Adventists felt no "travail of soul for sinners." However, by early 1850 the shut-door Adventists were facing a dilemma. Their doctrine was floundering and they were having difficulty attracting new adherents. According to Bates' understanding of prophecy, Jesus was scheduled to return in the fall of 1851 and they only had about eighteen months to get ready! The troubling aspect of all this was that their followers numbered in the hundreds and they needed 144,000 by autumn of next year. What were they going to do? Perhaps they had shut the door too tightly!

In early 1850 the first signs appeared that the shut door was beginning to crack open. In a letter written to some friends in February, Mrs. White announced some new converts to the Advent message:

"Souls are coming out upon the truth all around here. They are those who have not heard the Advent doctrine and some of them are those who went forth to meet the Bridegroom in 1844, but since that time have been deceived by false shepherds until they did not know where they were or what they believed."[17]

Here we find the first indication that those who were not part of the 1844 movement could be saved. Of course, Mrs. White is careful to mention that these people were Christians who had never heard the Advent doctrine. There was still no hope for the non-Christians and those Christians who had rejected Miller's 1844 time-setting message. 

In April of 1850, the shut door cracked open a little fisher to allow the children of the saints to enter. Nearly six years had elapsed since the Great Disappointment and many children had been born during this time period. Could these children be saved since they were not part of the 1844 movement? The matter was decided in Present Truth magazine:

"As they [little children] were then [1844] in a state of innocence, they were entitled to a record upon the breastplate of judgment as much as those who had sinned and received pardon; and are, therefore subjects of the present intercession of our great high priest."[18]

Throughout 1850, James White continued to promote the shut-door message in his magazine. Despite the rising unpopularity of the shut-door message, James and Ellen were determined to keep promoting it. In May James wrote:

"But the sinner, to whom Jesus had stretched out his arms all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salvation was left without an advocate when Jesus passed from the Holy Place and shut that door in 1844."[19]

Finally, near the end of 1850, the shut door cracked open a little further. The shut door was opened just wide enough to let Herman Churchill slide in. Churchill was unconverted in 1844. Churchill's decision to join the Adventist believers in August of 1850 caused quite a stir among the shut-door believers. James wrote about the event in a letter:

"One brother [Herman Churchill], who had not been in the Advent, and had made no public profession of religion until 1845, came out clear and strong on the whole truth. He had never opposed the Advent, and it is evident that the Lord had been leading him, though his experience had not been just like ours. Such, who come into the couth at the eleventh hour, may expect great trials."[20]

Nearly six years after the Great Disappointment the Adventists had made their first convert who was a nonChristian in 1844. They were surprised that someone who was not a part of the 1844 movement would be interested in joining them. General Conference President George Butler, writing in the April 7, 1885, Review and Herald, recalls the startling nature of Herman Churchill's decision:

"His was one of the very first cases of conversion from the world to the present truth, which occurred after 1844... I remember him well as he came to Waterbury, Vermont, and attended meetings in my father's house, where a few met from time to time. They were quite surprised at first that one who had been an unbeliever should manifest an interest in the Advent doctrine. He was not repulsed but welcomed. He was earnest and zealous and as they discerned in his sincerity, they accepted him as a true convert."[21]

As the year 1851 progressed, it was more and more apparent to all that Christ was not going to return in the fall. The expected signs were not happening and people were undoubtedly growing weary of hearing predictions about Christ's soon coming. They were also growing weary of the shut-door teaching. After nearly seven years, James and Ellen reluctantly gave up this doctrine. An angel did not tell them their error. Ellen did not receive a vision showing their mistake. Time itself had killed the doctrine. It simply did not make sense anymore.

Discarding the shut-door doctrine put Ellen White in the position that every prophet hates to be in. How do you explain to your followers that your visions were wrong? The people were expecting a prophet to correct false teachings not endorse them! As a result, for the next few years, Mrs. White was strangely quiet. Fortunately for the Whites, the damage was limited in scope. It is unlikely that more than a few thousand people had even heard of Ellen White. Perhaps this was a wound that time would heal. Moving to a new location and a new field of labor seemed to be in order since their influence had been irreparably damaged in the northeast. By the mid-1850s the Whites had relocated to Michigan, where they focussed their efforts on the mid-western United States. Lucinda Burdick writes about their loss of influence in the New England area:

"Soon after this, both confidence and interest in this fanatical couple vanished as the visions were not only childish and devoid of sense, but absolutely contradictory..... Their influence and field of labor in Maine being lost they soon went out West where they succeeded in creating considerable interest and a large following through their Sabbatarian teaching."[22]

James set out immediately to restore Ellen's image. He began what was to become a lifelong task for him revising his wife's prophetic writings. James went through all of his wife's articles and deleted the objectionable part! dealing with the shut-door doctrine. He scrapped the Present Truth magazine, which some had come to believe was anything but present truth. He then started a new magazine entitled The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. He reprinted the "revised" version of his wife's visions in 1851 in a 64-page pamphlet named "Experience and Views."

While James was apparently unfazed about deleting the writings of a prophet of God, not all the brethren were so pleased. When the new pamphlet came out with 19 percent of the original text missing, a crisis threatened to explode. As you can imagine, some of the members of the tiny church were aghast over the exclusion of whole visions, which they believed came directly from God. Some of the brethren called for a meeting with James. Mrs. White describes how James defused this dangerous crisis:

"At one time in the early days of the message, Father Butler and Elder Hart became confused in regard to the testimonies. In great distress, they groaned and wept, but for some time they would not give the reasons for their perplexity. However, being pressed to give a reason for their faithless speech and manner, Elder Hart referred to a small pamphlet that had been published as the visions of Sister White and said that to his certain knowledge, some visions were not included. Before a large audience, these brethren both talked strongly about their losing confidence in the work.

"My husband handed the little pamphlet to Elder Hart and requested him to read what was printed on the title page. 'A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Mrs. E. G. White,' he read. "For a moment there was silence, and then my husband explained that we had been very short of means, and were able to print at first only a small pamphlet, and he promised the brethren that when sufficient means was raised, the visions should be published more fully in book form.

"Elder Butler was deeply moved, and after the explanation had been made, he said, 'Let us bow before God.' Prayers, weeping, and confessions followed, such as we have seldom heard. Father Butler said: 

'Brother White, forgive me; I was afraid you were concealing from us some of the light we ought to have. Forgive me, Sister White.' Then the power of God came into the meeting in a wonderful manner."[23]

James performed a masterstroke which turned a disaster into a small victory. Not only did manage to explain away the deletions, but he also managed to throw the responsibility for the deletions back upon the brethren for not providing him with enough money to fund the project! Brother Butler had been concerned that the "light of heaven" was being concealed. He learned a lesson that day that many would later learn. When James White would edit and delete parts of Mrs. White's writings he was not concealing the "light of heaven." Rather, he was concealing errors and mistakes, which if pondered would lead people to question whether his wife was actually a prophet.

We do not know how much money James collected that day for the republishing of the entire book. However, we do know that in later years the Whites were in dramatically improved financial standing. Did James ever keep his promise to print the entire vision when more money became available? Despite his improved finances, James never reprinted the material. Gradually the visions were forgotten as relics of the past. The shut door was whited out from church history and the subject was rarely brought up after the early 1850s. The shut-door doctrine might have rested in the graveyard of silence forever had it been for the events of the 1880s.

The Early Writings Fiasco

Thirty years later, the wounds of the shut door had almost been healed. Ellen White's articles in A Word to the Little Flock and Present Truth had long since vanished, and very few Adventists were even aware of their existence. Most Adventists had no idea their prophet had promoted a false teaching through her visions. However, the shut-door wounds continued to be a source of irritation from time to time.

In 1866 two Adventist ministers in Iowa, B.F. Snook and W.H. Brinkerhoff, printed some of Mrs. White's questionable statements and visions in a book. This brought to the forefront an issue that was beginning to fade from memory. Many Adventists who were a part of the 1844 Movement were able to recall the events of the shut door. Adventist W. Phelps asked the rhetorical question:

"Now I ask in all candor: Who that was an Adventist in 1844 does not know that when the time passed, it then became the faith of the great mass of Adventists that probation was over, that the Salvation of sinners was past; and some held the same view as late as 1852, and that vision on the shut door was in harmony with that view?"[24]

The ensuing controversy over Ellen White and her visions led to a split in the church in Iowa, but the Whites blasted Snook and Brinkerhoff and this storm eventually passed over. Nevertheless, for many years there were rumblings in the church about the suppressed writings of Ellen White.

In the early 1880s General Conference President George Butler was anxious to put those rumblings to rest. Adventist minister D.M. Canright relates how Butler approached him and James White about republishing Mrs. White's earliest writings:

"At that time Butler was president of the General Conference, president of the Publishing Association, etc. One day in 1880 he came into the office where Elder Smith and myself were. In high glee, he said: 'Those Western rebels say we have suppressed some of Sister White's earliest visions. I will stop their mouths, for I am going to republish all she ever wrote in those early visions.' Elder White leaned forward, dropped his voice low, and said: 'Butler, you better go a little slow.' That was all. I did not understand what his warning meant, nor did Butler. Soon Elder White died — in August 1881. Butler then went ahead and in 1882 issued the present edition of Early Writings."[25]

Despite the warning from James, Butler went ahead and published early 8'ritings to silence the critics of Ellen White. After the book was published, Butler wrote an article announcing it:

"These were the very first of the published writings of Sister White... Many have greatly desired to have in their possession ALL she has written for publication... So strong was the interest to have these early writings reproduced that several years ago the General Conference recommended by vote that they be republished. The volume under consideration is the result of this interest. It meets a long-felt want...  There is another interesting feature connected with this matter. The enemies of this cause, who have spared no pains to break down the faith of our people in the testimonies of God's Spirit and the interest felt in the writings of Sister White, have made all the capital possible &om the fact that her early writings were not attainable. They have said many things about our 'suppressing' these writings as if we were ashamed of them. Some have striven to make it appear that there was something objectionable about them, that we feared would come to the light of day, and that we carefully kept them in the background. These lying insinuations have answered their purpose in deceiving some unwary souls. They now appear in their real character, by the publication of several thousand copies of this 'suppressed' book, which our enemies pretended we were very anxious to conceal. They have claimed to be very anxious to obtain these writings to show their supposed error. They now have the opportunity."[26]

There is no doubt the whole purpose of the publication was to silence Ellen White's critics. In the preface, the publishers assure us that these are indeed the earliest writings of Mrs. White:

"A widespread interest has arisen in all her works, especially in these early views, and the call for the publication of a second edition has become imperative." "No portion of the work has been omitted.No shadow of change has been made in any idea or sentiment of the original work, and the verbal changes have been made under the author's own eye and with her full approval."[27]

Rather than silence the critics, the book resulted in a firestorm of controversy. Immediately after Early Writings was published Elder A.C. Long published a tract of sixteen pages entitled "Comparison of the Early Writings of Mrs. White with Later Publications." In that publication, Elder Long showed line by line where parts of Mrs. White's writings were deleted. In reality, Early Writings consisted of Ellen White's writings Rom the pamphlet published by James in 1851 entitled "Experience and Views.*' This 1851 publication did not have the earliest writings of Ellen White.

The 1851 publication did not have any of the damaging statements about the shut door. In actuality, the earliest writings were written in 1845 and published in the 1846 DayStar paper. Other early writings appeared in A Word to the Little Flock and the article Present Truth published between 1847 and 1850. One example cited by Elder Long is found on page 14 of Early Writings. In this example, we find one of Ellen White's most famous visions with a sentence missing (noted in brackets below):

"While I was praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell upon me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world...I raised my eyes and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path, the Advent people were traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light to their feet so that they might not stumble. If they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the city, they were safe. But soon some...rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below. [It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected.] Soon we heard the voice of God like many waters..."

The reason why these lines were suppressed is obvious. They teach a shut-door doctrine that the church discarded 30 years earlier. After Elder Long published his tract Butler probably realized why James White had told him to go slowly. Even though church leaders were now aware that Early Writings was not really Mrs. White's earliest writings, they did not retract the book. In fact, the book is still available today.

The controversy finally reached Mrs. White and in an attempt to explain her shut-door statements, she wrote the following in 1884:

"For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given to me. It was the light given me by God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true position."[28]

While admitting she made a mistake, Mrs. White tried to make it appear that her visions from God corrected the error. What she failed to mention was that she held the belief for nearly seven years and taught it to others based upon her visions.

As devastating as this may appear, the most startling discovery about Mrs. White's early days was yet to be made. Over 100 years after Early Writings was published a Seventh-day Adventist seminary student made what has been described as the Adventist historical discovery of the century. It was a shocking discovery regarding Ellen White's early associate Israel Dammon...

Footnotes:

[1] Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844.

[2] Voice of Truth, Feb. 19,1845.

[3] M.A. Branch, The Autobiography of Gilbert Cranmer.

[4] Joseph Bates, Second Advent Waymarks, 1847, pp,97-110.

[5] Letter from Lucinda Burdick, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Sep. 26,

[6] Miles Grant, An Examination of Mrs. Ellen @Rite's Visions, Boston: Advent Christian Publication Society, 1877.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Robert Coulter, The Story of the Church of God (Seventh Day) (1983,

[9] Bible Advocate Press: Denver, Co.), pp. 12-13.

[10] Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, Vol. 5, p. 97

[11] Ibid., p. 93.

[12] DF 105, Otis Nichols to William Miller, April 20, 1846. (Taken from

[13] The Early Years, Volume 1, pp. 75-76.

[14] Ibid.

[15] A Word to the Little Flock, 1847. Note: Ellen White's earliest visions were printed in the DayStar in 1846. Her letters to Enoch Jabobs, the editor were dated during the winter of 1845.

[16] Ibid., pp. 1-2.

[17] W.H. Brinkerhoff, Hope of Israel, July 24, 1866.

[18] Present Truth, August, 1849.

[19] Letter4,1850, pp. 1,2.

[20] Present Truth, April, 1850.

[21] Present Truth, May, 1850.

[22] James White, AR, August 1850, (Early Years,p. 191).

[23] George Butler, Review and Herald, April 7, 1885.

[24] Letter from Lucinda Burdick, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Sept. 26,

[25] Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 53.

[26] W. Phelps, Hope of Israel, letter to the editor, Aug. 21, 1866.

[27] D.M. Canright, The Life of Ellen White, chapter 8, 1919.

[28] Advent Review, Dec. 26, 1882.

[29] Early writings,.preface.

[30] Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 63.