5. Right is Wrong—Wrong is Right

Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism, Dale Ratzlaff, Doctrine, Feature, Investigative Judgment

Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

For most of us the fact that Miller was wrong is patently evident. However, having grown up on SDA church history and having once accepted the writings of EGW on an equal authority with the Bible, I know how hard it is for some with the same nurturing to face squarely the fact that Miller’s predictions were wrong, period. Again let me make it clear that I am not questioning Miller’s sincerity or his walk with God. However, truth and sincerity must be weighed on different scales. Regarding Miller’s predictions of the second coming, he was completely wrong. Many of his proofs relied on Scriptures which were not prophecies at all and had nothing to do with the second coming of Christ. His methods of interpretation were wrong. He relied on historical sources, some of which were wrong. Every one of his “often proofs” was built on a long string of questionable assumptions. Each doubtful assumption mathematically increases by a geometric ratio the odds against the possibility of a correct conclusion. The fact that Christ did not come in 1843, nor even in 1844 after his “mistake” was “corrected,” is empirical proof that Miller was wrong. 

The SDA saga begins!

While some of EGW’s early statements were written before the official organization of the SDA church, nevertheless, all of her published writings—even those written before 1863, the official date of denominational organization—are accepted by SDAs as part of the EGW treasured heritage. Ellen White had some very strong statements regarding those who accepted or rejected the 1843 message of Miller. Please note that the emphasis in the following quotations is mine. Any additions added within quotations will be in brackets.

I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was His design to arouse the people and bring them to a testing point, where they should decide for or against the truth. Thousands were led to embrace the truth preached by William Miller.1

Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said that they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ’s coming, but they objected to the definite time.2

Ministers who would not accept this saving message [note that in context, this “saving message” refers to the acceptance of a “definite time”] themselves hindered those who would have received it. The blood of souls is upon them. Preachers and people joined to oppose this message from heaven and to persecute William Miller and those who united with him in the work.3

The Lord showed me that the 1843 chart was directed by his hand, and that no part of it should be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them. That his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until his hand was removed.4

The most devoted gladly received the message. They knew it was from God, and that it was delivered at the right time. Angels were watching with the deepest interest the result of the heavenly message [1843 message], and when the churches turned from and rejected it, they in sadness consulted with Jesus. He turned his face from the churches, and bid his angels to faithfully watch over the precious ones who did not reject the testimony, for another light was yet to shine upon them.5

We must be careful not to pass too quickly over the above quotations. Note carefully what Ellen White states:

  1. God directed the setting of 1843 as the date for the second coming.
  2. It was God’s design to bring people to a test for or against “the truth.” And “the truth,” in context, is the acceptance of the erroneous date of 1843 for the coming of Christ. 
  3. Miller preached “the truth.”
  4. The other ministers of the day did not oppose the preaching of the second coming of Christ, but did oppose the setting of a date. These ministers, said Ellen White, would not accept the “saving message.” Therefore she calls the message of the date for the second coming of Christ in 1843, “this saving message.”
  5. The ministers who did not embrace the date-setting of Miller and encouraged their members to reject this message are described as having “the blood of souls upon them.”
  6. The message of the 1843 date for the second coming of Christ is said to be a “message from heaven.”
  7. The 1843 prophetic chart which Miller and others used was exactly as God wanted it.
  8. God purposes held His hand over the mistake in the figures in Miller’s 1843 chart.
  9. Jesus turned His face away from the churches which did not accept the 1843, date-setting message. 

Evaluation

How shall we evaluate the above facts? To begin let me say that while I was a pastor in the SDA church, I read and reread these statements man times and believed them, because I came to them from the presupposition of the authority of Ellen White. If I had problems with logic, I felt they were from my lack of understanding. However, now that I have been out of the SDA church for over fifteen years,6 I believe I see things a little bit more objectively. Ellen White is doing two things that must be called to our attention.

First, she claims the authority of God. Second, she makes numerous statements which force her readers to fully accept what she says or to reject her totally. There is no other position allowed. Could this be called mind control? Her readers are placed in a position relative to her authority very much the same as men are when they must determine “What do. You think of Christ?” Christ is either who He claimed to be or else He is the biggest imposter who ever walked the face of the earth. However, with the case of Christ, we have the evidence of hundreds of prophecies which were fulfilled. We have man other prophecies which were given by Christ pertaining to the future, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, etc., which have been fulfilled to the letter and—to settle the question once and for all—we have the empty tomb. 

But how are we to deal with the self-proclaimed authority of Ellen White? She says Miller was right, when he was wrong. She says he taught truth, when he taught error. She says that God guided Miller’s mind and led him to his conclusions, which in retrospect were false. His chart, that proved to be erroneous, she said was just how God wanted it and no changes were ever to be made to it. More than that, she said that God held His hand over the mistake in Miller’s chart. In so doing she makes God a partner in deception! Ellen White states that Jesus turned His face away from the churches which did not accept Miller’s date-setting message, which proved to be wrong. The worst thing, however, in all of her statements listed above, is not only a misunderstanding of the gospel, but a perversion of the gospel. She calls the 1843 date-setting message a “saving message.” The fact that she believed this, is shown conversely when she said that pastors who kept their flocks from accepting the date-setting message of Miller, “have the blood of souls on them.” This is not the gospel. While we will deal more fully with this in later chapters, we ought to remember clearly what Paul said when the Galatians strayed away from the new covenant gospel of God’s grace—belief and trust in the perfect life, death and resurrection of Christ on behalf of sinful man. 

But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received let him be accursed.7 

Paul was so emphatic about those who pervert the gospel that he stated his warning twice. Ellen White speaks about an “angel” coming to Miller and guiding his mind into the “truth” of date setting. Paul says that even if “an angel from heaven” were to preach a different gospel, “let him be accursed.”

The 1843 “truth” becomes the 1844 “truth”

The next step in the unfolding drama was when 1843 came and went, but Christ did not come. In checking their figures the Millerites found that they had not accounted for the fact that there was no year zero between 1 B.C and 1 A.D.,8 therefore, instead of Christ coming in 1843 as they had predicted, He now was to come in 1844.

Soon another event electrified Miller’s followers. While Miller had used Daniel 8:14 coupled with Daniel 9, to prove Christ was to come in 1843 (see Miller’s proof number 7 in the previous chapter), they now found a “connection” of this prophecy with the “cleansing” of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary in Leviticus 16. That connection came from a mistranslation9 found in the wording of the Kings James Bible in Daniel 8:14.

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Using their proof-text method of interpretation, disregarding the context of the “cleansing” of Daniel 8:14, which deals with the restoration of the temple services after Antiochus Epiphanies had desecrated them, they reasoned that if the “cleaning” of Daniel 8:14 pointed forward to the coming of Christ, as Miller taught, and Leviticus 16 mentioned the cleansing of the sanctuary in connection with the Day of Atonement, then Christ’s coming must take place on the exact day prescribed for the Day of Atonement. This, they concluded, was the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month which they were led to believe was on October 22, 1844.10 Now, not only did they have the year of Christ’s return, they also had it nailed down to a specific day! Miller at first opposed the “seventh-month movement,” but later joined it. The enthusiasm generated by this “new light” spread like wild fire. 

The 1844 message said to be endorsed by God

Those faithful, disappointed ones, who could not understand why their Lord did not come, were not left in darkness. Again they were led to their Bibles to search the prophetic periods. The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the prophetic periods [note that Ellen White mentions periods, referring to the many proofs of Miller] reached to 1844, and that the same evidence they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844. Light from the word of God shone upon their position, and they discovered a tarrying time.—If the vision tarry, wait for it.—In their love for Jesus’ immediate coming, they had overlooked the tarrying of the vision, which was calculated to manifest the true waiting ones. Again they had a point of time. Yet I saw that many of them could not rise above their severe disappointment, to possess that degree of zeal and energy which had marked their faith in 1843.11

Satan and his angels triumphed over them, and those who would not receive the message, congratulated themselves upon their far-seeing judgment and wisdom in not receiving the delusion, as they called it. The realized not that they were rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, and that they were working in union with Satan and his angels to perplex God’s people, who were living out the heaven-born message.12

The churches would not receive the light of the fist angel’s message [the content makes it clear that the “first angel’s message” is the 1843 date-setting message], and as they rejected the light from heaven they fell from the favor of God. They trusted in their own strength, and placed themselves by their opposition to the first message where they could not see the light of the second angel’s message. [In context the “second angel’s message” is the call to eave the “fallen churches” who rejected the date setting of the Millerites and were dubbed “Babylon.” It was first preached in the summer of 1844,13 therefore, it was closely connected with the “seventh-month movement” which held October 22, 1844, as the day for the second coming of Christ.] But the beloved of God, who were oppressed, answered to the message, Babylon is fallen, and left the fallen churches.14

…the great mass seemed to be stirred against this message, and manifested the spirit of Satan. They mocked and scoffed, and everywhere was heard, No man knoweth the day and the hour.15

The 1844 message was wrong

Once again, it is easy for those who have not grown up on SDA history, or have never accepted the writings of Ellen White, to clearly see the error of the 1844 message. Based upon the fifteen proofs of Miller, coupled with the new light of “the seventh month movement” which pinned the date to October 22, 1844, the Millerites predicted Christ would come on that day. He did not. They were wrong. They were just as wrong as the recent books, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture will be in 1988;16 Rapture, the Return of Jesus Christ on Oct. 28, 1992;17 or 1994.18, 19

Some SDAs reading this will hasten to add, “No they were not wrong. Only the event was wrong; the prophesied coming was fulfilled, but it was in a different place.” The Bible tells us to be babes in evil, but in our thinking we are to be mature. If their prophecy was that Christ would come to the earth—and that is what it was—and if Christ did not come to the earth—and he did not—their prophecy was wrong. 

Today, if some psychic were to make a prediction that an earthquake was going to take place in Los Angeles on a certain day, and on that day there was a tremor in Japan, would that psychic be correct? No. Miller and his followers predicted that Christ would come to the earth on October 22, 1844. Christ did not come. They were wrong. 

Evaluation of the 1844 “truth”

Again we are forced to either accept the authority of Ellen White’s statements and reject all logic and reason, or we must recognize that her statements are totally erroneous. She appears to be arguing for error. She places those who were right in rejecting the erroneous date-setting messages as being in the camp of Satan. She clearly indicates that this erroneous date-setting messages was a “message born from heaven.” She dubs the churches who rejected the false message of date setting, “Babylon”—a term for confusion, and a symbol for the cam of Satan. One wonders which side had the confusion. We must clearly see what is taking place. Ellen White is speaking as a “messenger of God,” with the “truth of God,” and “the authority of God”—and attributing to God the errors of the date-setting message of the Millerites who were wrong. 

Chapter Summary

  1. Ellen White said Miller was right in his 1843 messages when he was wrong.
  2. Ellen White said those who rejected Miller’s erroneous 1843 message were working on the side of Satan and were rejected by God.
  3. Ellen White said Miller’s 1843 chart was just as God wanted it and it should ever be changed, although it was wrong.
  4. Ellen White said God held his hand over the mistake in Miller’s 1843 chart, thus making God a partner in their deception. 
  5. Ellen White said that as soon as God removed his hand which covered the mistake in Miller’s 1843 chart, the Millerites discovered their error, thus corroborating the fact that she makes God at least partially responsible for their error.
  6. Ellen White said that all the prophecies—probably Miller’s 15 proofs—which pointed to the 1843 date, then correctly pointed to the 1844 date. 
  7. Ellen White said that when Christians repeated to the Millerites the words of Jesus in Mark 13:32, “no man fnoweth the day and the hour,” they were manifesting the spirit of Satan.
  8. Ellen White said the 1844 message was a “saving message” and “a message from heaven.”
  9. Pastors who rejected Miller’s false 1844 message were duped “Babylon,” and were understood to be apostate, “fallen” churches.
  10. The bottom line: What Ellen White said was right, was wrong. What she said was wrong, was right.

Endnotes

  1. Ellen G White, Early Writings, p. 232.
  2. Ibid., p. 233.
  3. Ibid., p. 234.
  4. Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 1850-11-01.
  5. Ellen G. White,  Vol. 1, p. 136. 
  6. 28 years at this revision.
  7. Gal. 1:8, 9.
  8. Again, I have found no original source for this but this is what I was taught in Adventist schools. 
  9. See Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 215ff., for a discussion of the linguistic problems of “cleansed.” 
  10. Most authorities hold September 23 to be the correct date. See “The 2300 days and October 22, 1844—Wrong day, month, year and event” www.christiancommunitychurch.us/dovenet/sda2300.htm.
  11. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 139.
  12. Ibid.
  13. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 389.
  14. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1, p. 140. 
  15. Ibid., p. 142.
  16. By Edgar C. Wisenant.
  17. By the Mission for The Coming Days.
  18. By Harold Caming of Family Radio.
  19. It is of interest that these books which predicted the date of the rapture used some of the same “prophecies” Miller did. These books also display the same allegorical, proof-text method of interpretation with the same results: they were wrong. 

 

Dale Ratzlaff
Latest posts by Dale Ratzlaff (see all)

Leave a Reply