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:
- "I saw that Jesus finished his mediation in the holy place in 1844."
- "He has gone into the most holy, where the faith of Israel now reaches."
- "His Spirit and sympathy are now withdrawn from the world, and our sympathy should be with him."
- "The wicked could not be benefitted by our prayers now."
- "The wicked world whom God had rejected."
- "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.
Footnote:
[2] Nichol, F. D. "Ellen White, and Her Critics." USA, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1951., p. 615-619).
[3] Smith, Uriah.
The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, Manifestations of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures. USA, Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868, pp. 20-41
[4] Review and Herald, June 12, 1866, p. 16.
[5] Ellen White, Great Controversy, pp. 428 to 431.
No comments:
Post a Comment