8. The Door Opens Again—Quietly

Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism, Dale Ratzlaff, Feature, Great Controversy

In the last chapter we saw that after the disappointment of October 22, 1844, early Adventists taught that the door of mercy was shut. Shortly after this, Ellen White and other Adventists gave up that teaching Then, influenced by several visions of Ellen White, they saw their “error” of giving up the shut door, repented, and again taught that the door of mercy was shut Dr. Ford, who has done considerable study in this area of Adventist history, makes this observation.

Until the summer of 1851-1852 this [shut door] was the consistent stance of Sabbath-keeping Adventists, as they repeatedly denied the possibility of conversion for the rejected sinners of earth. 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.1

A partly open door

The door opens for Adventist children

At first, Adventists were adamant that no genuine conversions took place after 1844.2,3,4   As the years went by it became harder and harder for them to maintain this teaching. The first unexpected problem they had to face was that some of their own children who had been infants in 1844 were now reaching the age of accountability.5 How could they get their own children through the shut door?

In Volume 4 of The Spirit of Prophecy, we find these words in the chapter entitled “An Open and Shut Door.” This was taken from a vision EGW had in 1849.

After the passing of the time of expectation in 1844, Adventists still believed the Saviour’s coming to be very near; they held that they had reached an important crisis and that the work of Christ as man’s intercessor before God, had ceased. Having given the warning of the Judgment near, they felt that their work for the world was done, and they lost their burden of soul for the salvation of sinners, while the bold and blasphemous scoffing of the ungodly seemed to them another evidence that the Spirit of God had been withdrawn from the rejecters of his mercy. All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended or, as they expressed it, “the door of mercy was shut.”6

But clearer light came with the investigation of the sanctuary question… “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth; I know thy works; behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.” Rev. 3:7,8) … So, when Christ passed from the holy to the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary, the door or ministration of the former apartment was closed, and the door or ministration, of the latter was opened. Christ had ended one part of his work as our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work; and he still presented his blood before the Father on behalf of sinners. “Behold, he declares, “I have set before thee an open door and no man can shut it.”

Those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of the atonement, receive the benefits of his mediation in their behalf; but those who reject the light that brings to view this work of ministration, are not benefitted thereby.7

David Arnold, defending the shut door, answers some of the objections people were raising.

But, says the objector, does not this leave the present generation, [which included the Adventist children] who have passed the line of accountability, since that time [1844] without an intercessor or mediator, and leave them destitute of the means of salvation? In reply to this objection, “I would remark, that as they were then in a state of INNOCENCY they were entitled to a record on the breastplate of judgment as much as those who had sinned and received pardon; and are therefore subjects of this present intercession of our great high priest.”8

This explanation seemed to solve the problem for the children. Soon, however, they had to open the door just a bit wider.

The door opens for those who press their way in

In 1850 a Mr. Churchill married a daughter of Sister Benson who was a “’44 Adventist.” They were quite surprised that someone who had been an unbeliever in 1844 would now want to become an Adventist. This conversion was noised abroad quite extensively.9

Ellen White recounts how those who rejected the message of Noah were lost, how God’s mercy ceased to plead with the guilty inhabitants of Sodom,10 how Jesus said to the Jews, “Your house is left unto you desolate,” and then she says:

Looking down to the last days, the same infinite power declares, concerning those who “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” “for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (Mt. 23:38; 2 Thess. 2:10-12) As they rejected the teaching of his word [in context “the teaching of His word” is the high priestly ministration of Christ in the Most Holy Place which supposedly started in 1844], God withdraws this Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love. 

But Christ still intercedes in man’s behalf, and light will be given to those who seek it. Though this was not at first understood by Adventists, it was afterward made plain.11

Adventists were for a short time united in the belief that the door of mercy was shut. This position was soon abandoned.12

Summary of EGW’s modified closed door statements

  1. EGW corroborates that the early Adventists were united in their belief that the door of mercy was shut.
  2. She now redefines the “door.” The first shut door dealt with the door of mercy in the parable of the ten virgins, which was closed simultaneously with the door of the first apartment in the heavenly sanctuary. Now, she does not speak of the shut door of the parable of the ten virgins, nor does she always equate the door of the first apartment with the close of probation. Now, she equates the time of the shut door of the first apartment to the open door of Revelation 3:7, 8. In this way, she still speaks of a shut door, but now it may have a different meaning.
  3. After 1844 when the door of mercy was slammed shut by EGW’s first two visions, she said that for anyone who even professed a change of heart, that change was only a change from “bad to worse.” And these converts were a work of Satan to deceive God’s true people.13 Now the shut door of mercy is partly open. It is open “to those who seek it.”
  4. The door of mercy was, however, still shut for those who did not accept the 1844 sanctuary message. “Those who reject the light that brings to view this work of ministration, are not benefited thereby.”14
  5. Ellen White states that Adventists at first did not understand this partly open door, but she does not remind them that the reason they did not understand it was because she and her husband taught that the door was closed, and that she had “visions from God” to support the tightly closed door.
  6. Ellen White states that the Adventist belief that the door of mercy was shut “was soon abandoned.” However, she does not remind them that those who soon abandoned this teaching were confronted with their “error” by her and were led to “repent of their error” in response to her prophet “visions.” She does not state that she and her husband, as well as a number of other Adventists, taught the shut door until 1851.

Of interest at this point is the footnote that appears in the appendix of The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, dealing with the shut door. We quote from page 499, Note 6:

Almost all Adventists, including Mr. Miller, did, for a short time after their disappointment in 1844 believe that the world had received its last warning They could hardly think otherwise, with their faith in the message which they had given— “the hour of his Judgment is come.” Rev. 14:6, 7. They naturally thought that this proclamation must close the dispensation. They were as unable to find their bearing at once as were the disciples when their Lord, whom they had hailed as their king coming to his throne, was crucified and buried. In both cases they were unable to comprehend their terrible disappointment.

But the idea that the work of the gospel was finished was soon renounced, except by some fanatical ones who would neither be counseled nor receive instruction. But most of those who renounced it, and yet retained their faith in the work, continued to believe that they who clearly saw the light of the Heaven-sent warning and persistently rejected it, were rejected of the Lord. There is no more fanaticism in that than there is in the common belief that those obdurate Jews who continued to reject the light of the advanced truth sent to that generation, were rejected of God.

This footnote is of interest on several accounts

  • It again corroborates the fact that the Adventists at first were united on the shut door.
  • It corroborates the partly open door. The door of mercy was then closed only to those who clearly understood the sanctuary message and rejected it.
  • It defends this partly open door with biblical parallels which do not apply. The disciples did not have visions from the Lord to support their misunderstanding.
  • It states the shut-door teachings were soon renounced. However, many Adventists, including James and Ellen White, held the door shut until about 1851.15
  • Perhaps the most interesting thing in this note, is that it states that the only people who did not immediately renounce the shut door were the “fanatical ones who would neither be counseled nor receive instruction.” It does not, however, remind the readers that Ellen White, herself, with the authority of her prophetic visions, was the one, strong voice, who proclaimed with the “authority of God,” that those who immediately renounced the shut door were in error and the door was still shut. If we are to believe this statement, it appears that we have only two choices: either the visions of Ellen White which taught the closed door were wrong or Ellen White herself was one of those “fanatical ones who would neither be counseled nor receive instruction.”

The problem of credibility

It is clear that EGW held a shut door for those who had not accepted the reinterpretation of the 1844 sanctuary message, until at least June 29, 1851, when she had the Camden Vision. There is some evidence to believe that James and Ellen White accepted Joseph Bates’ theory of the seven-year Day of Atonement which anticipated October 22, 1851,16 as the close of Christ’s ministration in the Most Holy Place. From the evidence I have been able to find, it appears that the shut door (of salvation) was given up in small increments. In 1849 it opened up wide enough for the children of the Adventists, and then in 1850 it opened up a little more for Mr. Churchill who forced his way through. Sometime after the autumn of 1851 the shut door doctrine was given up by Adventists.17 Canright says:

Evidently this Churchill conversion, and the case of their own children growing up, began to open their eyes to the folly of their “shut door” views and caused them to hasten their modification and finally give them up entirely.18

Now, Adventists in general, and EGW in particular, had another problem. The visions of EGW to this point had contained so many “I was shown,” etc., conflicting statements where God was supposedly on record supporting their various conclusions of “truth,” that changing them again would create a major problem of credibility. One could not expect people to flip-flop on “truth,” which was supported by prophetic authority, too many times without it becoming evident something was fundamentally wrong. 

In other words, they were faced with the problem of how to change the erroneous statements which were made by Ellen White based upon her “God-given visions,” These visions had been printed in a number of early periodicals and pamphlets. Now they needed to change these “heaven-sent” doctrines again. How would they do this?

The earliest date-setting mistakes were said to be caused by a mistake in Miller’s chart aided by the fact, according to EGW, that God had “held His hand over the mistake” and when “He removed His hand” they instantly saw their error and corrected it.19 Then they found that their October 1844 prediction of the second coming had to be reinterpreted. This reinterpretation included their teaching on the shut door of mercy. Now they were faced with having to reinterpret the reinterpretation. The heaven-endorsed message of the shut door of mercy they had now opened again—the fourth swing of the door. How could they do this and maintain credibility?

Add a new door

The first thing Adventists did in opening the door of mercy was to include the open door of Revelation 3:7,8 in their “door theology.” But this did not solve all their problems. What would they do with all the early written documents which clearly taught the closed door of mercy?

Change and omit statements

Dr. Ford, who has done considerable study in this area, makes this comment.

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.20

This took care of what James White had written, but he did not have visions, nor did he claim to write with heavenly authority. What would they do about the early visions of EGW?

Suppress the vision

There is evidence that some of the early visions of EGW that taught the shut door were suppressed. The preface to the first edition of Early Writings claims to include all the early visions of EGW.21

A vision which Mrs. White had at Camden, N.Y., June 29, 1851, is entirely missing from this volume [Early Writings] which professes to include all of Mrs. White’s early writings.22

Uriah Smith, an early Adventist leader who worked at the Review office saw a copy of A Word to the “Little Flock” in 1851,23 about the time Adventists gave up the shut-door teachings. This copy apparently disappeared, and for the next twenty-eight years he never saw another copy of this important, early Adventist document. This is very unusual, as the visions of EGW were cherished, important documents.24

Change the vision

A third way the Adventists dealt with the doctrinal error in the early visions of Ellen White was to change her visions. In her book Early Writings there is this note in the preface.

To the first edition of “Experience and Views” has been added two very interesting dreams, which were mentioned, but not related in the original work Footnotes have also been added, giving dates and explanations.

Aside from this, no changes from the original have been made,25 except the occasional employment of a new word, or a change in the construction of a sentence, better to express the idea No change has been made in any idea or sentiment of the original work, and the verbal changes have been made under the author’s own eye, and with her approval.26

We quote now from two versions of EGW’s first vision. The one on the left is the original taken from “To the Remnant Scattered Abroad.”27 The one on the right is the revised vision as published in the 1882 edition of Early Writings, which has the above note in the preface. The highlighted portion is that which was omitted in the revised version.

Original Vision:

Others rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below. It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected. They fell all the way along the path one after another, until we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus’ coming.

Changed Vision:

Others rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below Soon we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus’ coming.

In consideration of the above evidence, we can justly make the following conclusions:

  1. The change in the vision was a purposeful change.
  2. The change in the vision was a doctrinal change.
  3. The change in the vision was a major change.
  4. The change in the vision was denied.28
  5. The change in the vision was said to be done “under the author’s own eye and with her approval.”

Change the place and the time of the shut door

There is yet another way the early Adventists dealt with the doctrinal errors in the early visions of EGW. They quietly redefined their terms. They not only added the open door of Revelation 3:7,8, they redefined the meaning of the shut door.

It is evident by the term “shut door” the early Adventists meant “the door of mercy” or “the close of probation.” And they used the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25 to show that Christ rose up and shut the door in 1844 This happened, according to them, simultaneously with the shut door of the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. 

However, in later revisions of her work, EGW changed the place and the time of the shut door. Note in the quotation below how the “shut door” of the parable is now applied differently.

When the work of investigation shall be ended, when the cases of those who in all ages have professed to be followers of Christ have been examined and decided, then, and not till then, probation will close, and the door of mercy will be shut. Thus, in the one short sentence, “They that were ready went in with Him to the marriage: and the door was shut,” we are carried down through the Saviour’s final ministration, to the time when the great work for man’s salvation shall be completed.29

Now the shut door in the parable of the ten virgins is no longer associated with the door of the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary but is applied to the end of Christ’s ministration in the second apartment of the sanctuary. This changes the time of the shut door from 1844 to sometime in the future. This stands in direct contradiction to her early visions. One wonders which interpretation is “the inspired commentary” and which is to “continue as an authoritative source of truth” for Seventh-day Adventists.

Canright makes the following peppery summary:

Do Baptists, Methodists, Disciples, or any other evangelical church, have to practice such methods to cover up past mistakes? Not one of them. All are proud of their past. But Seventh-day Adventists are ashamed of theirs, and well they may be.

In attempting to defend Mrs. White’s visions as divine revelations, and in permitting her and her writings to occupy so prominent a place in their work, they have simply invited difficulties from which it is impossible for them to extricate themselves without exposing her mistakes and the falsity of what she claims. In order to cover up her mistakes, they stultify themselves and harden their own consciences They become practical Jesuits.30

Chapter Summary

  1. It is apparent that the early visions of EGW presented gross doctrinal error.
  2. The early visions of EGW presented this doctrinal error in authoritative wording as if it were a revelation coming from God.
  3. It is clear that some Adventists after 1851 knew of the errors in the visions of EGW.
  4. It is clear that EGW also knew these errors.
  5. To my knowledge, neither Ellen White nor the SDA church at the official level, has ever admitted that any “revelation” EGW received in vision was erroneous and doctrinally wrong.31
  6. Ellen White did admit the errors of “early Adventists” and included herself in this group, but she never mentions her own role in promoting these errors by her “visions.”
  7. During the years between 1849 and 1851 and perhaps even after this time, EGW and her associates used at least six main ways of trying to maintain credibility while changing their theology and her early erroneous visions:
    1. They suppressed the early visions of EGW which taught the shut door.
    2. They added the open door of Revelation 3:7,8 to their “door theology.”
    3. They made small, incremental changes over the years. The door of mercy opened for Adventist children, for Mr. Churchill, and for those who accepted the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, but not for those who rejected it.
    4. They actually omitted or changed the wording of early written documents, including the early visions of EGW.
    5. They redefined the meaning and the place of the shut door.
    6. They changed the time of the shut door from 1844 to the close of Christ’s mediation in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.
  8. These facts bring into question the integrity of the early Adventist message and the authenticity of the prophetic ministry of EGW.32

Endnotes

  1. Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 355.
  2. “I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformation would increase, and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth but from bad to worse; for those who professed a change of heart, had only wrapt (sic) about them a religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God’s people; but if their hearts could be seen, they would appear as black as ever.” Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 1849-08-01.
  3. “Many will point us to one who is said to be converted, for positive proof that the door is not shut, thus yielding the word of God for the feelings of an individual.” James White, Present Truth,1849-12-47.
  4. Miller himself held the shut door until at least Feb. 1845, when he wrote, “I have not seen a genuine conversion since [1844].” Voice of Truth, Feb. 19, 1845, as printed in Canright, The Life of Mrs. E. G. White, p. 107.
  5. See Canright, The Life of Mrs. E.G. White, p. 123, for a more detailed account of this incident.
  6. Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 268.
  7. Ibid., p. 269.
  8. David Arnold, “The Shut Door Explained,” The Present Truth, Dec. 1849, pp. 45,46. Printed in Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 354.
  9. See Canright, The Life of Mrs. E.G. White, pp. 133, 134, for a more detailed account of this incident.
  10. Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4. p. 270.
  11. Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 271.
  12. Ibid.
  13. Ellen G. White, The Present Truth, Aug. 1849, p. 22. Printed in Ford Daniel 8:14, p. 356.
  14. Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 269.
  15. See Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. 350-362.
  16. See Ellen G. White, Early Writings, pp. 64, 67, where EGW was “shown” that there were only a few months of time left.
  17. To receive salvation, however, one still had to accept the Adventist teachings of the sanctuary and Sabbath. Based upon a recent visit (January 1996) to an SDA church, some Historic Adventists still teach the same requirement.
  18. Canright, The Life of E.G. White, p. 135.
  19. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 137, 138.
  20. Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 355.
  21. See Canright, The Life of Mrs. E. G. White, p. 148.
  22. Ibid., p. 150.
  23. Ibid., p. 158.
  24. Ibid., pp. 157-159.
  25. There seems to be some question as to what the “original” here refers. If it is “Experience and Views”, then the statement is correct. However, if “original” refers to White’s original vision, then this is deceptive because the original vision had a statement about the shut door that was left out.
  26. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 3.
  27. This first vision is also printed in The Day-Star, p. 31, in a “Letter from Sister Harmon,” Dec. 20, 1845. See Knight, Rise of Sabbatarian Adventism, p. 146.
  28. See footnote No. 25.
  29. Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 428.
  30. Canright, The Life of Mrs. E.G. White, pp. 167, 168.
  31. Some SDA scholars and Evangelical Adventist pastors freely admit these early errors. Their response to them, however, is mixed. While some no longer hold the writings of EGW as authoritative, others do not see the early errors as undermining EGW’s prophetic ministry because of the dynamic of “progressive revelation.”
  32. At least this was Canright’s conclusion and the reason he left Adventism and wrote the book, The Life of Mrs. E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet, Her False Claims Refuted

 

Dale Ratzlaff
Latest posts by Dale Ratzlaff (see all)

Leave a Reply