ANG IKINAHIHIYANG ARAL NG MGA SABADISTA LANTAD NA!!!

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON ACTS 17:26 "ELLEN WHITE TAUGHT THAT THE AMALGAMATION OF MAN AND BEAST INVOLVED BESTIALITY AND PRODUCED OFFSPRING!"

Many Adventists acknowledge that the following statements are considered to be the most embarrassing ever written by Ellen G. White:

"But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere." Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64. 

"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 75.

Here are the three key points highlighted in these two statements by Ellen G. White regarding the "amalgamation of man and beast":

1. The act of amalgamating man and beast is seen as the most heinous crime that resulted in the annihilation of the human race during the time of Noah's flood.
    
2. The offspring resulting from the amalgamation of man and beast led to the degradation of the image of God in man and the creation of a "confused species" of animals.
   
   
3. The most heinous crime, the amalgamation of man and beast, did not only happen during Noah's time but also continued after the flood and was still occurring during Ellen G. White's time.

The question we have now is: What did Ellen G. White specifically mean when she mentioned the "amalgamation of man and beast"? Her writings did not offer a detailed explanation of this issue, nor did she revisit this topic in her subsequent writings. In fact, Ellen G. White omitted any references to this pre-flood amalgamation narrative after 1871 until her passing on July 16, 1915, which caused confusion among many SDAs. The Ellen White Encyclopedia discusses a few reasons for this.

“Although Ellen White still used the word “amalgamation” in other contexts, references to antediluvian amalgamation were omitted from treatments of the Flood narrative after 1871 (cf. Patriarchs and Prophets, 81, 82 [1890], Selected Messages, 3:452). W. C. White attributes this to the hostile use made of these quotations by “Southern authors” and the change in Ellen White’s target audience from those personally familiar with her life and special gift to a more general audience (W. C. White, “Some Early Statements—Why Not Reprinted?” DF 316, EGWE-LLU).” [1]

Is it reasonable for Ellen G. White to remove her statements about the pre-flood amalgamation of man and beast simply because of the "hostile use made of these quotations by the Southern authors" or Black authors who were offended when they read her statements on this topic? Why might Ellen G. White's statements have been offensive to Black authors, leading her to decide not to mention them again in her writings after 1871? Didn't Ellen G. White claim that what she wrote about the amalgamation of man and beast was from God? And that the things she wrote did not originate from her but from the Lord? Here is her statement.

"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne." —Testimonies, Vol. 5 p. 67.

If, according to Ellen G. White, her writings were not based on her own ideas but originated from the "precious rays of light shining from the throne" of God, why would she remove them simply because many Black people were offended? Isn't it true that the messages she sent to Israel in the Old Testament were also offensive to them, often leading to death threats and danger to their lives? Do you know of any prophet of God who removed any offensive words of God sent to them to avoid offending those to whom the message was directed? There are no true prophets of God in the Bible who acted this way. They were more willing to die than to save their lives by omitting God's words that they believed were offensive to the people.

God warns in Deuteronomy 12:32:

Deuteronomy 12:32 (ESV) 32: “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."

If Ellen G. White were a genuine prophet of God, it could be considered contradictory for her to abandon the vision she claimed to have had from God regarding the amalgamation of man and beast. This is evident in her omitting of the vision from her later writings, where she offers an explanation for the reason behind God's decision to flood the world during Noah's time.

Taking all these facts into consideration, there are several points that can be made about Ellen G. White:

1.) Ellen G. White is a false prophet.

2.) Ellen G. White is aware that her statements about the amalgamation of man and beasts are her own ideas only, but she presents them as being from God.

3.) Fearing that her life would be in danger if she continued her "amalgamation of man and beast" teaching, which offended many Black "Southern authors," she chose to remove it from her future writings, believing it did not truly come from God.

Let's discuss why many Black people were offended by Ellen G. White's "amalgamation of man and beast" teaching. The SDA standard reference, The Ellen White Encyclopedia, provides four possible interpretations of this teaching that can help us understand why it was particularly offensive to Black people.

“The grammatical construction of these statements, their context, and Ellen White’s general use of the term “amalgamation” allow four possible interpretations: (1) the practice of bestiality, (2) genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras, (3) corruption of both humans and animals by sin, thus marring God’s original creation, and (4) intermarriage and/or other kinds of union between righteous and unrighteous people, so that the distinction between righteous and wicked is lost. Note that these interpretations are not necessarily logically exclusive; for example, the practice of bestiality (1) might well be expected to mar the image of God in humans (3) as much as any other “base” practice. Much discussion of these statements has its basis either in perceived racism on the part of Ellen White or in the racial views of those using her writings. Positions incorporating race with one or more of the interpretations given above are common.” [2] 

Let's analyze what SDA theologians and scholars have proposed as possible interpretations of what Ellen G. White meant by "amalgamation of man and beast":

(1) the practice of bestiality,

(2) genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras.

(3) corruption of both humans and animals by sin, thus marring God’s original creation and 

(4) intermarriage and/or other kinds of union between righteous and unrighteous people so that the distinction between righteous and wicked is lost.

Out of the many SDA apologists who have attempted to interpret Ellen G. White's teachings on the "amalgamation of man and beast," SDA theologians and scholars who compiled The Ellen White Encyclopedia have finally reached a consensus on four acceptable and plausible interpretations. With just four options to consider, we can methodically eliminate them one by one based on their consistency with the context of the "amalgamation of man and beast" statement. Also, it is important to consider the negative impact and reactions from Black people, which was one of the reasons Ellen G. White eventually had to remove her teaching.

Let's begin the elimination based on the criteria we mentioned, starting with the fourth interpretation (4): "intermarriage and/or other kinds of union between righteous and unrighteous people so that the distinction between righteous and wicked is lost."

In this interpretation, only "man" is implicated, not "beast" or animals. According to this view, the heinous crime that led to the destruction of the world during Noah's time by the flood was the "amalgamation of man (righteous people) and beast (unrighteous people)." However, this interpretation does not align with Ellen G. White's entire statement about the amalgamation of man and beast, as she explicitly stated that both man and animals are affected by this amalgamation. Let's revisit her words in Spiritual Gifts Volume 3, page 75:

"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."

There is another theory among the SDAs, still heard today, that "amalgamation of man" referred to Seth's descendants mixing with Cain's descendants before the Flood. This also does not align with Ellen G. White's statement in the same statement: "Since the flood, there has been an amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." Seth's and Cain's descendants were all dead after the Flood and, therefore, could not have been amalgamated thereafter. Ellen White clearly said that the "amalgamation of man and beast" was happening after the Flood, up to her lifetime. Moreover, why were only Black people offended by this if the interpretation was an "amalgamation of man (righteous people) and beast (unrighteous people)"? There are both righteous and unrighteous Black people, after all.

We go next to the third interpretation (3): "corruption of both humans and animals by sin, thus marring God’s original creation."

I don't see any reason why Black people would be offended by this interpretation, as it involves the "corruption of humans and animals by sin." Ellen G. White did not say that only Black people were corrupted by sin; she said that all races of people were corrupted by sin, as were the animals. This is accepted by everyone, both Black and White, so it does not fit the true meaning of the "amalgamation of man and animals."

How about the second interpretation (2): "genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras."

This interpretation incorporates modern advancements in genetics research and technology. It seems anachronistic to assume that such advanced technology was available in Noah's time before the flood. The phrase "genetic combination of human and animal genomes to create chimeras" refers to the merging of genetic material from humans and animals to create hybrid organisms. These chimeras can exhibit a combination of human and animal traits due to having cells with distinct sets of parental genes¹. In scientific terms, a chimera is an organism composed of cells from different zygotes, which can occur naturally during development (e.g., in cases of vanishing twin syndrome) or artificially through medical procedures. As a result, this interpretation does not align with the context of Ellen G. White's statements about the amalgamation of man and beast. Additionally, it fails to account for the reasons why Black people were offended by her amalgamation statement during her time.

Moving on to the first potential interpretation (1): "the practice of bestiality." Bestiality means "sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal."[3] This interpretation appears to be the most fitting explanation that meets our criteria for understanding the true intent behind Ellen G. White's controversial "amalgamation of man and beast." This understanding aligns with the explanation provided by Francis D. Nichol in his book Ellen White and Her Critics, where he sought to defend Ellen G. White against her critics, including those discussing the "amalgamation of man and beast." Nichol's discussion of the meaning of "amalgamation of man and beast" encompasses the reactions of both critics and supporters of Ellen G. White. It is crucial to consider the interpretations of Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) during Ellen G. White's lifetime, as they differ significantly from the interpretations held by SDAs today. According to Francis D. Nichol, loyal followers of Ellen G. White offered two explanations:

"What Mrs. White meant by these passages has been the occasion of some speculation through the years. Her critics have set forth their view of her words in the charge cited. Those who believe in her writings have given two explanations. Some have held that she taught not only that men and beasts have cohabited but also that progeny resulted."[4] 

These "two explanations" are closely related and connected to each other. According to Francis D. Nichol, these are the two explanations they learned directly from Ellen G. White. There is no reason to doubt these "two explanations" as they were taught by Ellen G. White herself while she was still alive. The significant advantage is that they were able to learn and believe from the teachings of Ellen G. White during her lifetime, and it is clear that the "amalgamation of man and beast" refers to the sexual relations between humans and animals, and by this cohabitation, "progeny resulted." These are the recognized interpretations among Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) who remain loyal to Ellen G. White and affirm her status as a prophet sent by God. Their accounts hold more credibility compared to those of numerous SDA apologists today who profess loyalty to Ellen G. White but disavow the early SDA doctrines that assert the "amalgamation of man and beast" refers to actual sexual relations between humans and animals. As per this interpretation, the alleged amalgamation led to the creation of beings that did not bear the image of God, along with animals that gave rise to confused species.

The question now is, if the early believers in Ellen G. White’s writings believed that humans and animals could produce progeny from their sexual relations, how did this offend Black people during Ellen G. White’s time? This is because Ellen G. White's teaching suggested that Black people were the result of literal sexual relations between humans and animals! Is it possible to confirm this from Ellen G. White's writings? While Ellen G. White did not explicitly express this idea word for word, it is possible that she may have conveyed it privately to her followers rather than disclosing it publicly, possibly due to concerns about potential backlash. Although there is no direct statement from Ellen G. White suggesting that Black people were the product of the amalgamation of man and beast, this inference can be drawn from the explanations provided by her close associates. Let's hear it first from Ellen G. White's trustworthy defender, Uriah Smith.

 Testimony from Uriah Smith

One example of a faithful believer in the writings of Ellen G. White is Uriah Smith. In 1866, he penned a series of articles in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald to defend and counter the critics of Ellen G. White, specifically B. F. Snook and W. H. Brinkerhoff, who were SDA ministers and close friends of Ellen and James White but left Adventism in the 1860s. In 1866, Snook and Brinkerhoff co-authored a small book titled "The Visions of E. G. White Not Of God, where they claimed that Ellen and James had explained that by "amalgamation of man and beast," she was referring to Black people. They wrote:

"These visions teach that the Negro race is not human. This charge they deny but we will let the reader decide for himself. Here is what she says; “Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species, and in certain races of men.”—Sp. Gifts. Vol. 3, p. 75. But what are we to understand by  certain races  of men? She has not informed us in her writings, but left us to fix the stigma of  amalgamation  where  we  may  see  fit.  But  the interpretation  has  come  to  light.  She  told  it  to  her husband, and he made it known to Eld[er] Ingraham, and he divulged the secret to the writer, that Sister White had seen that God never made the Darkey."[5]

The term "darkey" is an offensive and outdated word historically used to refer to Black people. It is widely considered a racial offense and should not be used in modern language. This term is derogatory and reflects a history of racism and discrimination. Uriah Smith countered their statement and affirmed that Ellen White did indeed suggest that certain human races were the product of the amalgamation of man and beast. Smith specifically mentioned "the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians," among others, as examples of those who were believed to have resulted from such amalgamation. Smith said:

"The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, etc. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarcation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was ordained of God in the beginning? "[6]

It is important to highlight that the ethnic groups "the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians" cited by Smith to support Ellen White's claims were all characterized by having dark skin. It is clear that Uriah Smith only opposed the critics' claim that Black people are not human; he did not contest the idea that they were the product of amalgamation or interbreeding of man and beast. This can be seen in his refutation of objection #39 titled "Objection 39. — The Negro race not human." To show that the critics were wrong in their accusation that the product of the amalgamation of man and beast mentioned by Ellen G. White were not human beings, Smith used examples of dark-skinned people such as "the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians," who are still considered "men."

Uriah Smith strengthened his argument by citing the studies of "naturalists," who supposedly affirmed that "the line of demarcation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion." Doesn't this closely align with Ellen G. White's statement that "it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere"?

Even the King James Version, which Ellen G. White frequently used, referred to bestiality as "confusion":

Leviticus 18:23 (KJV): "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."

Based on Uriah Smith's testimony, it is clear that he believed, according to what he learned from Ellen G. White, that the "amalgamation of man and beast" referred to the sexual relations between humans and animals, producing "confused species," or Black people or dark-skinned races. If you belong to a dark-skinned race, wouldn't you be offended by the teachings of someone who claims to be a prophet and messenger of God, like Ellen G. White? 

It's important to mention that Uriah Smith's articles were published in the official SDA church magazine, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, with the intention of representing the entire Adventist community. These articles received approval from the General Conference and ministerial before being published. They said:

"Resolved, That we, the members of the General and Mich. State Conference, having heard a portion of the manuscript which has been prepared by Bro. U. Smith, in  response  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."[7]

The commendation by the General and Michigan State Conference confirms that they endorsed Uriah Smith's defense of Ellen G. White's teaching that the amalgamation of man and beast referred to the sexual intercourse between humans and animals, resulting in dark-skinned races, which she called "confused species." If this was not an accepted belief of the Seventh-day Adventists at the time, it should not have been officially recommended by the General Conference of the SDA church. According to Ellen G. White, the General Conference is regarded as God's highest authority on earth for Adventists, and they are expected to adhere to its consensus and set aside their personal judgment. Eventually, in 1868, these articles were published in a book titled "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White: A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to Scripture." Following the release of Uriah Smith's book defending Ellen White's prophetic ministry and statements, James and Ellen White personally marketed and distributed 2,000 copies of Smith's book at camp meetings in 1868. This validates that the initial stance and authorized interpretation of Ellen G. White's declaration regarding amalgamation pertained to the physical union between humans and animals, leading to the creation of dark-skinned races, a concept understandably offensive to Black people both in the past and present. It's not surprising that present-day SDA proponents struggle to justify this aspect of Ellen G. White's teachings and often seek to steer clear of discussing this topic.

Testimony from SDA pastor, G. V. Kilgore

The next testimony from a faithful believer in Ellen G. White's writings, which proves that the "amalgamation of man and beast" refers to the physical intercourse between humans and animals resulting in a dark-skinned race, comes from an Adventist pastor, G. V. Kilgore, who boasted that Ellen White’s amalgamation is scientifically true. Pastor G.V. Kilgore proudly stated that he had won many debates defending Ellen G. White. Here is his account in the official SDA church magazine, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald:

"Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, page 78, was referred to and ridiculed by the Baptist minister. He said that what Sister White said about amalgamation of man and beast was utterly impossible. I referred him to Johnson’s New Cyclopedia, pp. 1040, 1042, that he might learn for the first time, if he never knew it before, that “Allied species are capable, as a rule, of pairing and producing offspring;” and that, “under the influence of man, mongrel races readily arise and are indefinitely sustained,” just exactly what Sister White says. The elder said her teachings were worse than Darwinism. But I showed that her teachings were correct (Lev. 18:23, 24), and that his were worse than nonsense."[8]

The Adventist pastor agreed with Uriah Smith's interpretation of Ellen G. White's statement. He supported his viewpoint by citing Johnson’s New Cyclopedia, a secular and authoritative source, which closely mirrored Ellen G. White's words. This, he argued, confirmed the validity of Sister White's message.

Testimony from the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

In November 1901, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church inquired with the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald about Ellen G. White's teachings regarding the "amalgamation of man and beast." The specific question posed was “Can amalgamated blood be saved?” with reference to Acts 17:26. The full content of the member's inquiry is as follows:

"Also in “Spiritual Gifts,” Vol. III, page 75, it says: “Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men.” But in Acts 17:26 we read that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” etc. Can amalgamated blood be saved? I would like a little light on this subject."[9] 

Here is the implication of the question:

First, for the person asking, it is understood that the belief of the SDA church at that time was that children could result from the intercourse between humans and animals, as that was Ellen G. White's teaching known to them.

Second, the questioner also understood Acts 17:26, which states that God made all nations of men from "one blood" and that He intends to save them.

Third, if children could result from the intercourse between humans and animals, how could these children be included in salvation when their blood would not be 100% human? Their blood would be mixed with the blood of beasts, and therefore, they would not fall under the category of "one blood from all nations of men," as mentioned in Acts 17:26. 

If the "amalgamation of man and beast" did not mean the interbreeding of humans and animals, the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald magazine should have corrected this misunderstanding, stating that this was not Ellen G. White's intended meaning. However, Alonzo T. Jones and Uriah Smith, the editors of the Adventist journal, supported and defended the same position and explanation that Adventists have maintained since the 1860s. Here is their response:

"As to statements in “Spiritual Gifts,” page 75, it is not difficult to believe that there have been attempts at amalgamation between man and beast. The difficulty is to believe that the results of such attempts could be perpetuated, and we do not understand the statement to affirm that it could be carried to such an extent as to violate or invalidate physiological law.  Thus,  if amalgamation could be carried to such an extent as that a human being should beget a beast, such beasts could not perpetuate their species, but might it not be that sufficient results of bestiality would appear as to leave a trace of amalgamation, without destroying the power of generation?  The horse and jackass can produce the mule, but mules cannot perpetuate their own species. But the amalgamation of which “Spiritual Gifts” speaks is seen in what is called certain “races of men.” This shows that deterioration was not recognized to such a degree as to eliminate the human, and transform any such offspring into beasts. That objection, therefore, may not be raised against any class of human beings."[10]

The Adventist publication emphasizes that human-animal interbreeding must not violate physiological laws. It states that if "amalgamation" led to a human begetting a beast, the resulting animal would be unable to reproduce. The text also mentions a trace of amalgamation in some humans and affirms that the power of regeneration in these individuals has not been destroyed by "bestiality."

Based on our studies, Ellen White and the Adventists unanimously believed that Black people, Hottentots, the Bushmen of Africa, Digger Indians, Patagonians, and other similar dark-skinned racial groups were the result of the amalgamation of humans and animals.

Is it any wonder, then, why, according to The Ellen White Encyclopedia we cited earlier, one reason Ellen G. White removed this controversial statement about the amalgamation of man and beast from her writings after 1871? The primary reason, according to her son Willie White, was that it offended the "Southern authors" or Black people of the Southern States. However, I have read many rebuttals from SDA apologists quoting numerous positive statements about Black people from Ellen G. White to debunk the claim that she was racist and to argue that our interpretation that she said Black people are the product of the amalgamation of man and beast is incorrect. But is this true? I will share the words of my friend, Rev. E.J. Lauriston, a former Adventist theologian and author of several books critiquing the teachings of the SDA church, about Ellen G. White's motivations for her positive statements about Black people. He stated the following:

"This seemed revolutionary. However, it comes across as altruistic. Bad trees only produce bad fruits. The name of the game becomes one of trying to look good. But what was her motive? They were free now and wage earners. Money was to be had for herself, her church, and its institutions. They were just another brand of cash cows. . . "Her altruistic statements supporting Blacks are brought into question. What changed? Blacks were no longer slaves, devoid of any income or means of gain. They were now free and could populate the Adventist Church, dedicating their lives, talents, energies, money, influence, and focus to the promulgation of Ellen White, her books 

and teachings, and the Adventist Church system. This strategy has worked."[11]

I heartily agree with Rev. E. J. Lauriston. Ellen G. White's positive statements in favor of Black people were motivated by selfish interest, so all of that pro-Black advocacy is just a show of hypocrisy. As proof of her hypocrisy, she made statements and gave advice that contradicted many of the ones she made in favor of Blacks six years before her death in 1915. On March 16, 1901, Ellen White spoke to a Black Adventist congregation in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Vicksburg, a Confederate bastion, was a place where Black individuals faced relentless discrimination, persecution, oppression, and mistreatment by White supremacists. This statement exposes the deep-seated racism of Ellen White:

“You are the children of God. He has adopted you, and He desires you to form characters here that will give you entrance into the heavenly family. Remembering this, you will be able to bear the trials which you meet here. In heaven, there will be no color line, for all will be as white as Christ himself. Let us thank God that we can be members of the royal family."[12]

Ellen G. White believed that Jesus was a white man. She thought that in heaven, people's circumstances would change, including their physical appearance. She encouraged Black individuals to keep heavenly hope in mind as they faced their trials, believing that they would be transformed into white people upon reaching heaven.

The last statement from Ellen White on this matter is one in which she advocated for the integration of Black individuals into White Adventist churches and worship services. However, she maintained the belief in the racial inferiority of Blacks and prohibited intermarriage with them, thereby contradicting herself:

"Every effort should be made to wipe out the terrible wrong [slavery] which has been done to them. At the same time we must not carry things to extremes and run into fanaticism on this question. Some would think it right to throw down every partition wall and intermarry with the colored people, but this is not the right thing to teach or practice."[13]

Ellen White believed it was wrong for individuals to "throw down every partition wall and intermarry with the colored people." While she advocated for some level of integration, she did not support full and complete equality. In her view, certain forms of segregation should remain. She maintained that Black people should not be politically, socially, or maritally equal to White people and should remain in their inferior positions. White advised against intermarriage between White and Black individuals, stating that it should neither be taught nor practiced. These statements highlight the extent of Ellen White's racist beliefs.

SDA CALLER BRO. RO VIN ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT SALVATION!

Why I LEFT Adventism | SDA of 39 Years: Teresa Beem | For the Record: Ep. 2

“MAG-INGAT SA MGA BUS PREACHERS NG SABADISTA HINDI MENSAHE NG KALIGTASAN ANG DALA NILA!"

ANG FALSE PROPHECY NA DI MAITATANGGING BULAANG PROPETA TALAGA SI ELLEN G. WHITE!

ELLEN G. WHITE'S FAILED PROPHECY "THE JUNE 29, 1851 CAMDEN VISION!!"

SUNDAY PALA ANG SABBATH NI KUYA KIM AKALA NG MGA ADVENTISTS SATURDAY! NA WOW MALI TULOY SILA!!

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON MATTHEW 5:43-47: "ELLEN G. WHITE'S FAILED PROPHECY: "THE JUNE 29,1851 CAMDEN VISION!"

Content of the Vision:

The Camden Vision, ascribed to Ellen G. White and dated June 29, 1851, includes strong declarations about the "Shut Door," indicating that probation had closed for those who did not support the Millerites during the Great Disappointment in 1844. Within the vision, Ellen G. White misinterpreted passages of Matthew 5:43-47, suggesting that no more sinners could be converted and that the preaching work was finished. Understandably, numerous Seventh-day Adventists have sought to disbelieve that Ellen G. White authored the Camden Vision, contending that it was schemed by an adversary and falsely attributed to her. Nonetheless, if it can be confirmed that Ellen G. White did write the Camden Vision, it would incontrovertibly establish her as a false prophet. The deception surrounding the vision raises significant doubts about her credibility as a messenger of the Lord. This article will demonstrate that the 1851 Camden Vision did indeed originate from Ellen G. White and was not concocted by an adversary.

Here is the complete content of Ellen G. White's June 29, 1851 Camden Vision:

Camden, N. Y. June 29, 1851:

"The Lord shewed 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 or lead 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 benefitted 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 benefitted by our prayers now -- and although he sent it upon the unjust, yet their day was coming. Then 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."

(Signed) E. G. White.

Copied by R. R. Chapin

Let's analyze the supposed vision and divide it into three categories:

1. Strong Shut Door Statement:

According to her vision, it was revealed that Adventists were no longer required to adhere to Jesus' prayer for his enemies. This belief stemmed from the notion that those outside their faith had already been condemned by God for their sins since the close of probation on October 22, 1844. Ellen White's vision suggested that Jesus had withdrawn His "spirit and compassion" from the world on that date, leading to the conclusion that "wicked people" would no longer benefit from Adventists' prayers.

2. Misapplied Text of Matthew 5:43-47:

In this vision, Ellen G. White also alluded that Christ's reprimand of the Jews and Pharisees' hypocrisy, as depicted in Matthew 23, was no longer applicable during her time. This statement is believed to have been made to avoid conveying the impression that Adventists were displaying pride at that time, as they upheld their separation and abstained from association with outsiders labeled as "wicked" and "condemned by God" following the closing of the door of mercy on October 22, 1844.

This vision offered insight into the identity of those referred to as our "neighbor" in Matthew 5:43 ("Thou shalt love thy neighbor"). According to Ellen G. White, "Our neighbors whom we were to love were those who loved God and were serving Him," and "He meant our neighbors in the household and did not extend beyond the household." However, it's important to note that her understanding of Matthew 5:43 was derived from her vision rather than from the immediate context of the Scripture itself, which actually suggests otherwise. In Matthew 5:47, Jesus states, "And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" These words of Jesus directly refute a false prophet like Ellen G. White, who teaches that "neighbor" only refers to those within their household and does not extend beyond it. Since she is not a true prophet of God and her vision is merely a product of her own imagination, it leads to a dangerous misinterpretation of the Word of God. God warns us in Jeremiah 23:16:

Jeremiah 23:16 (ESV) "Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD."

Ellen G. White's vision led her to assert that Christ's rebuke of the Jews' hypocrisy was no longer relevant in her time. As a result, the Adventist community of her era could essentially adopt a lifestyle resembling that of the hypocritical Pharisees, displaying love only to those within their religious circle. It is contended that this mindset still persists among the majority of Seventh-day Adventists today.

3. Alleged Vision from God:

In this vision, Ellen G. White used the phrase "I saw" 10 times, a common expression indicating her reception of a vision from the Lord and indirectly signifying her recognition as a prophet. The deception linked to the vision raises substantial doubts about her credibility as a messenger of the Lord, as we will illustrate later. Indeed, Prophet Jeremiah's warning strongly echoes the concerns about Ellen G. White as a false prophet.

Jeremiah 14:14 (ESV) "And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds."

The Authenticity Debate

The original text of the vision is not held by the Ellen G. White Estate, only copies of it. Although the vision bears the signature "E. G. White," the Estate asserts that it is not genuine, indicating that it may not have been witnessed or published by Ellen G. White. In the copy at the E. G. White Research Center at Andrews University, the word "spurious" is written on the front page in red pencil. Additionally, there is a handwritten note after "R.R. Chapin," stating: "who renounced his beliefs and became a harsh critic, and some aspects of the vision lead us to believe it is not an accurate account - A. L. White."

Arthur L. White's rationale illustrates the genetic fallacy, where arguments or information are dismissed or validated solely based on their source rather than their content. It's important to evaluate the merit of the 1851 Camden Vision document based on its content, independent of its source. Over time, inquiries about the vision to the Estate have been met with responses from trustees discrediting it as false. D. E. Robinson crafted these explanations into a standard response [1], and F. L. Wilcox provided a similar reaction in 1941.

Their explanation includes:

• The vision is credited to R. R. Chapin, a man who abandoned the Adventist faith in 1854.

• No similar "strong" statements about the Shut Door exist in any other of Ellen G. White's published writings.
  
  
• As per D. E. Robinson, the document is dated 1851, a year when Ellen White was not in Camden.

• When Ellen White was in Camden in 1850, she did experience a vision, but it was related to a woman living immorally.
  
  
• Brother Preston, who witnessed the 1850 vision, indicates that it was specific to this woman and not to sinners in general.
  
  
• In 1885, J. N. Loughborough mentioned a document purporting to be the Camden Vision, implying that he did not consider it authentic.

F. D. Nichol also addresses the vision, providing clarification on the confusion surrounding the two visits to Camden. A vision in 1850 at Camden did involve an immoral woman. On June 21, 1851, there was a vision related to time-setting, of which the Estate possesses the original text. The disputed vision is dated June 29. [2]

The 1851 Camden Vision is Genuine

Two credible witnesses can testify to the genuineness of Ellen G. White's 1851 Camden Vision, a claim that remains unrefuted by the Ellen G. White Estate to this day. These witnesses are not critics but are faithful Seventh-day Adventists and esteemed authorities within the organization. They are Uriah Smith and Dr. Gilbert Valentine.

Uriah Smith was a prominent Seventh-day Adventist author, editor, and pioneer. He was a respected figure within the church, best known for his work as an editor and writer for the "Review and Herald" magazine. Smith also authored several books and played a significant role in developing Seventh-day Adventist beliefs and teachings early. His collaboration with Ellen G. White and his influential role within the church made him a key figure in shaping the beliefs and literature of the denomination.

Dr. Gilbert Valentine has made significant contributions to Adventist education and historical research. He has held teaching and administrative positions in countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Pakistan, England, Thailand, and the United States. Dr. Valentine is recognized as an accomplished writer and historian. A professor and chair of the Department of Administration and Leadership at La Sierra University in Riverside, California, and also one of the contributors to The Ellen White Encyclopedia. His notable work includes a biography of Adventist pioneer J. N. Andrews and books on other prominent Adventist figures, including W. W. Prescott. Dr. Valentine has played a key role in dispelling myths and misunderstandings about Ellen G. White and the development of the church. His dedicated involvement with Adventist history enhances our comprehension of the past and instills appreciation and reverence within the faith community.

Their perspective on Ellen G. White does not stem from any bias or antagonism against her or the SDA Church. Therefore, their position that the 1851 Camden vision is genuine is highly significant and reliable. This is because they are honest and objective, even though their stance goes against the established position of the SDA Church regarding the 1851 Camden Vision.

Uriah Smith

In 1868, Uriah Smith wrote a book called "The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White" to defend Ellen White's ministry. Smith addresses various objections to the visions in the book and provides detailed answers. One of the objections he tackles is the Shut Door, and he discusses Ellen White's statements on the topic. On pages 27-40 of his book, Smith discusses several statements that seem to imply acceptance of the Shut Door doctrine. However, he argues that these statements do not unequivocally support the doctrine. 

Smith also explains the rationale behind his selection of the seven statements below. He affirms that he will only address authentic documents with the following criteria:

"Much is reported purporting to be the testimony of the visions, for which they are not at all responsible . . . Our only proper course, 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."[3]

He refutes the following points one by one:

1. "I saw that Jesus finished his mediation in the holy place in 1844."
2. "He has gone into the most holy, where the faith of Israel now reaches."
3. "His Spirit and sympathy are now withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy should be with him."
4. "The wicked could not be benefitted by our prayers now."
5. "The wicked world whom God had rejected."
6. "It seemed that the whole world was taken in the snare [of Spiritualism], that there could not be one left."

In defending the vision's validity, Smith expressed his confidence in the 1851 Camden Vision's authenticity, indicating that he trusted it to be a publication by Ellen White, portraying something she had genuinely witnessed. However, her critics misinterpreted the three highlighted statements above from the 1851 Camden Vision. Hence, Uriah Smith considers Ellen G. White's Camden Vision from June 29, 1851, in Camden, New York, to be a genuine document. Among the seven points he elaborated as meeting his authenticity criteria, he included the three statements of Ellen G. White that are exclusive to the 1851 Camden Vision.

a.) "published under Sister White's own supervision"

b.) "by her own authority"

c.) "what appears in manuscript over her own signature in her own handwriting."

If the 1851 Camden Vision were truly a spurious text, he wouldn't have included these four statements from it! Additional evidence from Smith's book indicates that during Ellen White's lifetime, both Ellen G. White and the pioneers accepted the 1851 Camden Vision as genuine. Smith's book initially emerged as a series of articles in the Review and Herald. It is evident from his article on the Shut Door that Smith presumed the Review's readership would acknowledge the authenticity of the Camden Vision. Before their publication, the prominent brethren thoroughly reviewed Smith's articles. Their statement reads:

"This manuscript was prepared before our late conference, but its publication was withheld till it could be submitted to the ministering brethren . . . 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 . . . Most of the manuscript was also read before a joint session of the General and Michigan State Conferences, whereupon the following action was taken. Resolved: That we, the members of the General and Michigan State Conference, having heard a portion of the MS read . . . hereby express our hearty approval . . .Resolved: That we tender our thanks to Brother Smith for his able defense of the visions . . ." [4]

The fact that Ellen White did not object to Smith defending the vision indicates her acceptance of having had the vision. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that she read the Review, as she quoted a lengthy section from Smith's Shut Door answer in writing Great Controversy.[5] When defending Ellen White against the "strong statements" on the Shut Door from the Camden Vision, Uriah Smith's most persuasive option would have been to dispute that she had the vision. However, it appears this option was not available to him.

Dr. Gilbert Valentine

In his essay "The Camden Vision Genuine," Dr. Gilbert Valentine, an Australian SDA scholar and church historian, presents several strong arguments supporting the authenticity of Ellen G. White's 1851 Camden Vision. One of the key points highlighted by Valentine is that Uriah Smith, a prominent figure in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, defended the genuineness of the Camden Vision. Smith's defense was based on specific criteria for evaluating authentic visions, including those published under Ellen White's supervision or in her handwriting. Additionally, Smith incorporated statements from the Camden Vision into his discussions, signaling his acknowledgment of its authenticity. Valentine also notes that the Camden Vision was accepted as genuine by Ellen White and the early Adventist pioneers during her lifetime. The absence of any public denial or disavowal of the vision by Ellen White or her contemporaries, even when it was used in critiques against her, further supports its authenticity.

Furthermore, both the Camden Vision and Smith's defense of it underwent scrutiny and received approval from prominent church figures. Smith's articles, initially published in the Review and Herald were meticulously examined by ministering brethren and endorsed by them. This indicates a widespread acceptance of the vision's authenticity among the church leadership. Dr. Valentine's comprehensive analysis and additional evidence contribute to the conclusion that the Camden Vision was indeed considered genuine by influential figures within the Seventh-day Adventist Church and holds historical significance.

Ellen G. White Estates Objections and Our Response:

Here is the official response from White Estate Inc., which appears in Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts, Volume 1, page 915, under the title Ms 1a, 1851—June 29, 1851, Camden, New York. It 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. Two variants are known."

Response:

The mere absence of an original copy of the 1851 Camden vision is insufficient grounds to declare it inauthentic. Using this line of reasoning could lead to questioning even the authenticity of the Bible, as no original manuscripts are available today. The Ellen White Estate acknowledged this weakness as a challenge to authenticate any missing original copy, including that of the Camden vision.

According to their official statement: 

“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 further 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]

As we did earlier, we took Uriah Smith's statements from his book, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, as reliable "evidence to accept the essential content of any of these visions." This helps confirm the authenticity of Ellen G. White's 1851 Camden Vision. Because of this, we concluded that the contents of the Camden Vision indeed authentically originated from Ellen G. White's vision.

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:

Dr. Gilbert Valentine, a church historian, professor, and chair of the Department of Administration and Leadership at La Sierra University in Riverside, California, and a contributor to The Ellen White Encyclopedia contends that the uncertain date of the 1851 Camden Vision alone is insufficient to determine its validity. He has conducted comprehensive research titled "Camden Vision Reconsidered," which will significantly enhance our understanding of this subject.

“This leaves the remaining problem of the date, June 29, 1851. Because other documents in the White Estate files have had to be redated and refiled because a wrong date was assigned to them at a later time, this may not be a very serious problem. Two explanations suggest themselves. Firstly, because Ellen White was in Camden from June 18:23, 1851, the date of June 29 could perhaps be a miscopying of figures 20, 21, or 22. Alternatively, the vision may have been written out afterward while Ellen White was at nearby West Milton and the then-current date of June 29, 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 provides an example of an Ellen White manuscript that exhibited a similar date issue 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.”

Response:

This is a frequent argument made by SDA apologists, particularly those who are not thoroughly familiar with the Camden vision and Ellen White's writings. However, this argument lacks validity and can sometimes be categorized as the fallacy of argumentation, known as the Genetic fallacy that we discussed earlier. Dr. Gilbert Valentine has observed that the concern about its source, as copied by a certain R. R. Chapin, who was a critic of Mrs. White, did not surface during the pioneering period.

“Even though 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 a number of the leading brethren who 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 other texts of the vision were 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]

Those who defend Ellen White often argue that the absence of an original copy of the Camden vision in the White Estate Inc. archive implies that the alleged vision is a forgery. However, there is another reason why some copies of Mrs. White’s writings cannot be found: many of her early publications were lost due to her constant traveling. 

Dr. Gilbert Valentine observes:

“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 traveling. 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 before 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]

It's worth noting that Mrs. White was appealing to the brethren at that time to send her copies of her missing writings, including those "published before 1851." As the date of the Camden Vision is June 29, 1851, it is possible that it was composed earlier than that, or perhaps that date reflects the day when a copy of the missing original (before 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:

Even if Uriah Smith claims that the controversial statements he referred to are not from the Camden Vision but from all shut-door expressions "that are claimed to have been given through any vision, either published or unpublished," this is not a strong argument for excluding Ellen G. White's 1851 Camden Vision. The Camden Vision also contains shut-door statements; the important point is that it was written by Ellen G. White herself, and signed her name on it whether published or not.

During her lifetime, Uriah Smith was one of Ellen White's most trusted workers and a strong advocate of her nearly 70 years of ministry. According to The Ellen White Encyclopedia p. 684:

“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]

It is undeniable that Uriah Smith authored a book defending Ellen's visions, which is widely regarded as reliable. The Ellen White Encyclopedia also references 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 he individually refuted all the objections raised by Ellen White's contemporary critics.

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 the introductory article “The ‘Shut Door’ and Ellen White's Visions”)."

Response:

That argument was countered by the 1851 Camden Vision itself, demonstrating that as of June 29, 1851, Ellen White still believed in the shut door/close of probation in 1844. SDA theologians continue to be divided on this issue, which is one of the reasons why James White omitted and altered several 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 argue that the evidence is insufficient, but this claim is not accurate. In the aforementioned evidence, it is evident that many of them simply overlooked numerous available pieces of evidence on the issue. Let's reconsider 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.”

In essence, Dr. Valentine promotes a scholarly approach, emphasizing the importance of carefully evaluating the evidence rather than making rushed judgments based on convenience or preconceptions. His perspective highlights the significance of critical analysis in historical and theological discussions.

Conclusion

The apostle Paul cautioned about the false teachers or prophets preaching another gospel in Galatians 1:8:

Galatians 1:8 (ESV)"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."

Ellen White's erroneous teaching regarding the close of probation on October 22, 1844, is regarded as "another gospel" because it presents false information about the true nature of our Lord Jesus. It distorts the essence of the message of salvation and portrays a merciless God devoid of love for individuals under the influence of sin. This portrayal is contradictory to the loving God described in John 3:16.

John 3:16 (ESV) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Please note that God's love is not limited to those who "love God and serve him," as taught by Mrs. White, but it extends to all "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's love is not contingent on us becoming good people first. This is an exceptional kind of love found in heaven and the kind of love that Christ desires to see in each of us. He referred to it as "perfect love."

Matthew 5:48 (ESV) "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

How did God the Father demonstrate His perfect love for us?

Matthew 5:45-48 (ESV) 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is the essence of the authentic gospel: God's love for us is eternal and knows no boundaries of time or limitations on the calendar. It is the cornerstone of the true gospel.

QUESTION: ANO BA ANG IBIG SABIHIN NG "AWAY FROM THE BODY AND AT HOME WITH THE LORD" SA 2 CORINTHIANS 5:8?

QUESTION: "SINO YUNG BINISITA NI JESUS NA "SPIRITS IN PRISON" AYON SA 1 PETER 3:19?

ANG TAMANG PALIWANAG SA MATEO 10:28: "MAYROONG KALULUWA NA HINDI NAMAMATAY ANG MGA TAO!"

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON MATTHEW 10:28: "IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL OR SOUL SLEEP?"

Matthew 10:28 (ESV)

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Seventh-day Adventists Common Objections:

#1.  From SDA Bible Commentary p. 379:

"There is nothing in the word psuchē (soul) itself that even remotely implies a conscious entity that is able to survive the death of the body and hence be immortal. In no instance of its use in the Bible does psuchē {soul) refer to a conscious entity able to exist apart from the body. The Bible knows nothing of a living, conscious soul that, supposedly, survives the body."[1]

#2.  From Andrews Study Bible notes p. 1263:

"Jesus is not making or supporting the Greek dichotomy between soul and body as separate entities. Jewish teaching did not think of persons as having souls separate from the body as Greek philosophy taught. Thus, here Jesus is using the term “soul” to mean “eternal life”: Do not fear those who can take you from this present life (body), but fear Him who can also take away eternal life (soul)."[2]

#3.  From the SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs book p. 94 :

"Then God breathed into this lifeless matter the breath of life, and "man became a living being." The scriptural equation is straightforward: the dust of the ground (earth's elements) + the breath of life = a living being, or living soul. The union of earth's elements with the breath of life resulted in a living being or soul. . . It is important to note the Bible says that man became a living soul. Nothing in the creation account indicates that man received a soul — some separate entity that, at Creation, was united with the human body."[3]

Answer:

The concept of conditional immortality should not create significant divisions among Christians, as it does not impact the core beliefs of the Christian faith or the redemption of the soul. It is mainly a topic for theological discussion and does not directly influence any of the essential teachings of the Bible. Our unity should be based on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the love He instructed us to have for one another (John 13:34–35), rather than differing views on the state of humanity in death. Several well-known historical Christian figures, including Martin Luther, William Tyndale, and John Wycliffe, supported the concept of conditional immortality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of a particular viewpoint or the opinions of a few influential thinkers cannot validate theological speculation or interpretation. The Christian church bases its belief in the conscious bliss of departed saints not on individual opinions, regardless of their prominence or scholarship, but on the historical and biblical foundation of the Christian faith.

The Seventh-day Adventist's belief regarding conditional immortality or soul sleep is best expressed as follows:

"Since death is a sleep, the dead will remain in a state of unconsciousness in the grave until the resurrection, when the grave (hades) gives up its dead (Rev. 20:13)."[4]

The SDA perspective that regards man as a singular entity, with his physical body being the entirety of his being, is known as monism. According to monism, the terms "soul" and "spirit" in scripture simply refer to the person himself or to the person's life. Evangelical theologians have generally not embraced this viewpoint due to the numerous scriptural passages that appear to affirm that our souls or spirits continue to exist after our physical bodies perish.

Some Christians believe that humans have a third component beyond the "body" and "soul," called the "spirit," which is thought to have the closest connection to God. This view, which claims that humans are made up of three parts—body, soul, and spirit—is known as trichotomy. Others believe that "spirit" is synonymous with "soul," with both terms referring to the immaterial part of humans. This perspective, known as dichotomy, asserts that humans consist of two parts: body and soul/spirit.

Biblical Arguments for Dichotomy/Dualism vs. Monism

My perspective since becoming a born-again Christian is the dichotomy or biblical dualism. At first, it was difficult for me to accept this view because, for a long time, I was convinced that the monistic perspective was correct—that the person is referred to as the soul and that the Bible never identified the soul as the immaterial and conscious part of a person that separates from the body upon death. This was my perspective for 16 years as a Jehovah's Witness. When I converted to the Seventh-day Adventist church in 1995, I found it easy to accept the SDA doctrine of conditional immortality or soul sleep because it aligned with my existing beliefs about the state of the dead. This alignment was one of the reasons I was easily convinced to join the SDA church, as other churches believe in this doctrine as well as the eternal torment of hellfire. 

The similarities between the two groups can be traced back to their origins. The Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses were born from “The Great Disappointment” of 1844. The shared Millerite heritage and the influence of early Adventist teachings on Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, contributed to the similarities in their beliefs about the state of the dead.[5]

What helped convince me that humans comprise two parts, the body (material part) and the soul/spirit (immaterial part)? When I was still an Adventist, there was a passage in the New Testament that helped me regain interest in studying again my perspective on the nature of death. This passage is Hebrews 12:22-23, which says:

Hebrews 12:22-23 (ESV) "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect."

The writer of Hebrews compares the fear and limitations of the old covenant at Mt. Sinai with the joy and intimacy of the new covenant at Mount Zion. In God's presence, we are surrounded by a great assembly that includes angels and the redeemed church of the firstborn. Through faith, we behold God's transcendent glory, and the "spirits of the righteous made perfect," according to the Bible scholars are referring to the Old Testament saints mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11, justified by faith, and anticipating the resurrection. And Jesus who fulfills the role of the Mediator of the new covenant within this assembly. The SDA Bible Commentary explains that "The writer here speaks figuratively of living Christians as being assembled about the throne of God in heaven, a great gathering of the church invisible."[6]

If "gathering of the church invisible" is mentioned in Hebrews 12:22-24, we can be assured that the "spirits of the righteous made perfect" refer to none other than the spirits or souls of the faithful believers who have passed away and are now in the presence of the Lord in heaven. This is not difficult for SDAs to accept because they believe that when a person dies, according to Ecclesiastes 12:7, their spirit separates and returns to God who gave it, while their earthly body returns to the earth.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV) "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

Isn't it obvious to the SDAs that Ecclesiastes 12:7 contradicts their belief in monism? Doesn't it go against their belief that no immaterial spirit survives after death? And haven't they noticed that it also states that the spirit comes from God who gave it? Now, the next question is, when did God give humans the spirit? The spirit of man that returns to God when he dies is the same as the "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam, bringing him to life from the dust.

Genesis 2:7 (ESV) "Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

In Job 32:8, the "spirit" of man is referred to as the "breath" of God.

Job 32:8 (ESV) "But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand."

Even the official website of the SDA church agrees that the "spirit" that separates when a person dies is the same as the "breath of life" in Genesis 2:7,

"A person’s “spirit” is his or her life force. This refers to the breath of life God breathed into Adam (Genesis 2:7), and into each of us. This life force comes from God (Isaiah 42:5) and goes back to Him when we die (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Psalm 104:29; Acts 7:59).[7]

If this is the case, then why is it so difficult for SDAs to accept that the "spirits of the righteous made perfect" in Hebrews 12:23 are the same "spirit" that separates when a person dies (Eccl. 12:7) and the same "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam's nostrils (Gen. 2:7)?

It's embarrassing to say, but the truth is that SDA theologians twist the explanation of Hebrews 12:23 to fit their theology and avoid acknowledging that the "spirit" remains alive after the earthly body dies. They cling to this interpretation even if it goes against the truth to avoid embarrassment.  Let's consider once again the SDA Bible Commentary's explanation about what "spirits of the righteous made perfect" in Hebrews 12:23 means to them:

"In this same figurative sense living Christians find “the spirits” of all other “just men made perfect” assembled there in spirit, not in an imaginary disembodied state. To make “the spirits of just men made perfect” refer to supposedly disembodied “spirits” would be to set the writer of Hebrews at variance with the clear statements of the Holy Scriptures concerning the state of man in death."[8]

According to this interpretation, "the spirits of the righteous made perfect" supposedly refers not to the disembodied spirits of deceased believers but merely to their presence, which, although physically absent, is spiritually present in heaven. However, this is not what the passage actually says. SDA theologians have twisted its true meaning. Instead of addressing the actual “spirits of just men made perfect,” they have reinterpreted it as “spiritually present men made perfect.” To avoid admitting that their doctrine is wrong, they have altered the word of God rather than accepting what is written and inspired by the Holy Spirit. They changed the noun "spirits" to the adverb "spiritually."

The SDA church faces significant problems with its theology of salvation, leading to confusion and differing understandings among its members. Regarding the manipulation of Hebrews 12:23, they claim that the "spirits of just men made perfect" refers to living believers on earth, thus denying that it means disembodied spirits. According to their SDA Bible Commentary, the "just men made perfect" supposedly refers to spiritually "mature Christians"[9] still living on earth. Such an interpretation, contradicting the truth, will only lead to more confusion because even mature Christians on earth, including those in the SDA, still sin. Therefore, how can they be referred to as "just men made perfect"? The correct biblical doctrine of sanctification among evangelical Christians never teaches that mature Christians still living on this earth are actually made perfect or righteous. Additionally, "made perfect" in Greek, τετελειωμένων (teteleiōmenōn), is a passive verb, indicating that these "spirits" are receiving the action (perfection) rather than achieving it themselves. For Christians still living on earth, they are only considered righteous, justified, sanctified, or perfect in a positional sense, but not ontologically perfect. The perfection of Christians is solely credited based on their union with the perfection and righteousness of Christ through faith (1 Corinthians 1:30). Hebrews 10:14 provides clarity on this matter:

Hebrews 10:14 (ESV) "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."

According to this text, all Christians are considered "perfected for all time" through their faith and union with the righteousness of Jesus, due to their relationship with Christ. However, they are not yet actually "made perfect" because they are still in the process of "being sanctified."

Therefore, the interpretation of the SDA Bible Commentary regarding the identity of the "spirits of just men made perfect" is incorrect. It cannot refer to mature Christians who are still alive on earth. Based on our analysis, the "spirits of just men made perfect" specifically refer to the disembodied souls or spirits of the faithful servants of God in the Old Testament who remained faithful to the Lord unto death (Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 11). In this section, we have also proven that the monism of Seventh-day Adventists is incorrect because humans are actually composed of two unified parts: the material physical body and the immaterial soul or spirit, which continues to exist after the physical body dies.  This is clearly taught even in the New Testament, where faithful servants of God commend their "spirit" to God at the brink of death.

Moses and Elijah:

Matthew 17:1-8: The transfiguration of Jesus, where Moses and Elijah appear and speak with Him, suggests that these figures are conscious after death.

David and Jesus:

David prayed, with words later quoted by Jesus on the cross, "Into your hand, I commit my spirit" (Psalm 31:5; cf. Luke 23:46).

Stephen:

Acts 7:59 (ESV) "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

The stoning of Stephen, where he sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God and praying for his spirit to be received, indicates consciousness after death. Therefore, dichotomy/dualism is more biblical than monism.

Biblical Arguments for Soul/Spirit Consciousness vs. Soul-Sleep

The biblical terms "soul" (Hebrew: nephesh; Greek: psychē) and "spirit" (Hebrew: rûach; Greek: pneuma) are used interchangeably in certain instances when we analyze their usage. The interchangeable use of these terms explains why individuals who have passed away and entered heaven or hell can be called either "spirits,"

Hebrews 12:23, "the spirits of the righteous made perfect";

1 Peter 3:19, "spirits in prison"

or "souls," 

Revelation 6:9, "the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne"; 

Revelation 20:4, "the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus".

The terms for soul and spirit differ notably in at least one significant aspect. The Hebrew word "nephesh" for "soul" and the Greek word "psychē" can sometimes refer to the entire person (Gen. 46:26; Rom. 13:1). In contrast, the terms for spirit (Heb. "ruach"; Gk. "pneuma") are not used in this way.

Earlier, we established in the Argument for Dichotomy vs. Monism section that Dichotomy is biblical. In fact, there are numerous passages in the Bible, including those in the Old Testament, that attest to the separation of the body and soul/spirit. Here are some examples:

Genesis 35:18 (ESV) "And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin."

1 Kings 17:21-22 (NKJV) "And he stretched himself out on the child three times, and cried out to the LORD and said, “O LORD my God, I pray, let this child’s soul come back to him.” Then the LORD heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived."

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV) "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God. who gave it."

We can also observe in the mentioned verses that even in the Old Testament, "soul" and "spirit" are used interchangeably when describing the separation of the soul at the time of death.

If that's the case, the argument often used by some Seventh-day Adventists in Genesis 2:7 that Adam became a "living soul," therefore implying that Adam himself was called a soul even though he had flesh and bones, is not strong. As mentioned earlier, the Hebrew word "nephesh" for "soul" and the Greek word "psychē" can sometimes refer to the entire person (Gen. 46:26; Rom. 13:1). In contrast, the terms for spirit (Hebrew "ruach"; Greek "pneuma") are not used in this manner. Therefore, anyone using Genesis 2:7 as a basis against the belief that an immaterial spirit or soul survives after death is mistaken this is because we also believe that, in the context of Adam's creation, the word "soul" specifically refers to Adam's humanity.

In the New Testament, the teaching of dichotomy/dualism became clearer and explicitly taught us the nature of death. If asked, SDAs typically understand death as the cessation of breathing. However, upon examining the Scriptures, especially in the New Testament, it clarifies for us what death truly is. According to James 2:26, death is the separation of body and soul/spirit:

James 2:26 (ESV) "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

James 2:26 once again affirms the concept of dichotomy/dualism over monism. Even Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) would grasp this, as they often cite James 2:26 in other contexts to argue that obedience to the Ten Commandments is a result of faith. However, it's crucial that they also acknowledge the truth that humans are composed of both body and spirit, as the body is lifeless without the spirit. These are just a few of the numerous Bible verses demonstrating that humans are comprised of body and soul/spirit. 

Moving forward in our study, we will examine from Scripture whether the soul/spirit remains conscious after separating from a deceased person's body. SDAs may argue that yes, a soul or spirit separates from a person when they die, but this does not necessarily mean it retains consciousness like a living person does. To explore this issue further, we could revisit the phrase "spirits of the righteous made perfect" in Hebrews 12:23 as our case study. Assuming these are indeed the spirits of deceased individuals, supported by Ecclesiastes 12:7 which states that the spirit of the deceased returns to God in heaven, the question remains: are they conscious? Do they possess their own minds? Can they think and communicate in that state? Since we established earlier based on Scripture that the "spirits of the righteous made perfect" in Hebrews 12:23 refer to the disembodied spirits of Old Testament people of God mentioned in Hebrews 11, the question now is: what does Scripture say as evidence that they are conscious beings with minds and emotions? There are verses in the New Testament that indicate they are conscious, here are some of the examples:

Revelation 6:9-11 (ESV) "When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been."

This passage depicts the souls of martyrs under the altar, crying out for justice, indicating they are conscious. The souls/spirits mentioned here are disembodied souls or spirits "who had been slain" as martyrs of God. We are sure that they have left their deceased bodies on earth but these souls/spirits continue to live in the presence of God in heaven. Of course, their dead bodies on earth are not conscious, but their souls/spirits are alive in heaven and aware. Firstly, "they cried with a loud voice" indicates the intensity and urgency of their plea, showing their emotions or feelings. Secondly, "How long before you will judge and avenge" reflects the martyrs’ longing for divine justice and vindication, demonstrating their memory of their suffering and conscious desire for justice against their persecutors. 

How about Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, which Seventh-day Adventists often use to support their view of soul sleep, teaching that the deceased are unconscious, without knowledge or feelings? 

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 (ESV) "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going."

They appear correct if you don't read the immediate context referring to those who have no knowledge, which pertains not to the soul/spirit returning to God but rather to the body returning to dust, as stated in the following verse, Ecclesiastes 9:6. In the context of "under the Sun," the discussion is about the earthly realm, not the presence of God in heaven.

Ecclesiastes 9:6 (ESV) "Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun."

Remember that according to the Bible, death is the separation of body and spirit/soul (James 2:26). Therefore, once your spirit separates from the body, you know nothing.

Next, let's examine another Bible account that demonstrates the consciousness of the disembodied soul/spirit. We can read about this in Luke 16:19-31 the parable of the rich man and Lazarus which describes both individuals as being conscious after death, with the rich man experiencing torment and Lazarus being comforted.

1. Conscious Awareness: Both Lazarus and the rich man are portrayed as being aware of their surroundings and conditions after death. Lazarus finds comfort in Abraham's bosom, while the rich man experiences torment in Hades (Luke 16:22-24).

2. Communication: The rich man and Abraham engage in conversation, indicating that these souls are not only conscious but also capable of communication (Luke 16:24-31).

3. Memory and Regret: The rich man remembers his life on earth and expresses regret for his actions, demonstrating that the soul retains memory and emotions after death (Luke 16:25, 27-28).

4. Moral Consequences: The parable underscores the moral consequences of one's actions in life, suggesting that the soul's experiences after death are a continuation of its earthly existence.

These elements collectively suggest that the soul remains conscious and aware after death, contradicting the SDA's concept of "soul sleep" or unconscious existence.

Another consideration is, that if disembodied spirits know nothing and are unconscious, how can Paul say that to die is gain? 

Philippians 1:21 (ESV) "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

What did he gain if he died unconscious? What is Paul's reasoning for stating that being dead and being with the Lord is better if the soul/spirit is unconscious?

Philippians 1:23 (ESV) "I am hard-pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better."

Paul expresses a desire to depart or to die and be with Christ, which he considers “far better,” implying a conscious presence with Christ after death.

He reiterates the same point in his letter to the Corinthian church with these words:

2 Corinthians 5:1, 6, 8 (ESV) "For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. . . So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. . . Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

How can these disembodied souls/spirits of God's faithful ones experience the joy and happiness of God's presence as a reward for their faithfulness in heaven if they are unconscious?

Biblical Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul/Spirit vs. Greek Philosophy

Seventh-day Adventists often argue against the immortality of the soul, claiming it is not biblical teaching but rather originates from paganism and Greek philosophy, such as Plato's concepts of dualism and the immortality of the soul. But this is the SDA's weakest argument against the biblical doctrine of the immortality of the soul. This argument is weak because the concepts of biblical immortality of the soul and the immortality of the soul in Platonic Greek philosophy are fundamentally different.

Dr. Norman Geisler explained the significant differences between them:

“Greek and Christian concepts of immortality differ. According to an ancient Greek concept of immortality (e.g., *Plato), human beings are a soul and only have a body. The soul is to the body what a rider is to a horse. Salvation is in part deliverance from the body, which is the prison of the soul. There is a basic duality of soul and soma (body).”[10]

Plato believed that the soul is inherently immortal and indestructible, existing before birth and continuing after death. His theory includes metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, where the soul is reborn into new bodies over successive lifetimes. [11]

In contrast, Christian theology teaches that the soul is created by God and is not inherently immortal. Its immortality is a gift from God. Christians view humans as unified entities of body and soul, not as naturally separate. The Bible teaches that immortality is achieved through the resurrection of the body at the end of times, where the soul and body will be reunited in a glorified state. Immortality is considered a gift of grace, not something attained through human effort or philosophical understanding. Christians do not necessarily agree with the Platonic idea that human souls are inherently immortal, but many believe that through God's power, the human soul can endure between death and resurrection. According to this view, humans possess a form of dependent immortality granted by God. See also timelessness; eternity/everlasting.

In summary, for Plato, the soul is inherently immortal, existing eternally and undergoing cycles of rebirth, with its immortality tied to its ability to understand eternal truths. In Christianity, however, the soul’s immortality is a gift from God, achieved through the resurrection of the body and eternal life granted by faith in Jesus Christ.

Here are some Bible verses that support the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul:

Matthew 10:28 (ESV) "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

This verse distinguishes between the body and the soul, implying that the soul continues to exist even if the body is killed. It suggests that the soul has an existence beyond physical death and that it is under God's sovereign control.

Luke 23:43 (ESV) "And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Jesus’ promise to the thief on the cross indicates an immediate continuation of the soul's existence in a conscious state after death. It suggests that after physical death, believers are with Christ in a state of blessedness. Seventh-day Adventists often reinterpret Jesus' promise to the criminal beside Him by arguing that the comma should be placed after the word "today" rather than before. They claim that "today" refers to the timing of Jesus' promise, not the event of being taken to Paradise immediately after death.

However, their argument is flawed because there were no commas in the original Greek text. Even without a comma, it is clear that the word "today" refers to the event of being immediately taken to Paradise by Jesus. In Greek, when Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you," He emphasizes the certainty and importance of His statement with “Ἀμήν λέγω σοι” (Amēn legō soi). The word “today,” or “σήμερον” (sēmeron), indicates the immediacy of the promise. Therefore, the "comma argument" used by SDAs is irrelevant and misleading, steering people away from the true meaning of Jesus' promise to believers.

The final passage is found in John 11:25-26:

John 11:25-26 (ESV) "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he dies, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Jesus declares that those who believe in Him will live even if they die and that they will never truly die. The Greek word used here is οὐ μή (ou mḗ) a double negative expression strengthening the denial, meaning not at all, no never.[12] points to the promise of eternal life and the soul's immortality for believers.

Conclusion:

Our study of Matthew 10:28 has made it clear that the Lord Jesus' promise to believers of eternal life and future resurrection on the last day to attain immortality remains steadfast despite the misguided distortions by some SDAs to defend their erroneous doctrine of monism or soul sleep. Jesus' promise in Matthew 10:28 is strong and unequivocal.

Let's demonstrate the three important biblical arguments that serve as pillars to prove that the Bible teaches the immortality of the soul. These three pillars are:

1.) Biblical Arguments for Dichotomy/Dualism vs. Monism

2.) Biblical Arguments for Soul/Spirit Consciousness vs. Soul-Sleep

3.) Biblical Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul/Spirit vs. Greek Philosophy

It also became clear in our study that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in Christianity emphasizes that the soul, created by God, continues to exist after physical death. It lives in a conscious state, either in the presence of God or separated from Him, depending on one's faith in Jesus Christ. This belief is rooted in the understanding that eternal life is a gift from God, granted through faith in Jesus, and involves both the soul's ongoing existence and the eventual resurrection of the body. These scriptures collectively reinforce the belief in a continued, conscious existence after death, affirming the soul’s immortality as a key tenet of the Christian faith.

I pray that Seventh-day Adventists may keep their minds open to reexamine our discussed issues. I thank the Lord for His compassion, as His grace has opened my blinded eyes and heart to the truth. If the Lord has done this for me, why wouldn't He also do it for the SDAs?