6. “Truth” Changes—Again! – Proclamation! Online Magazine

The word spoken through angels proved unalterable

The followers of Miller, including Ellen White, who later became Seventh-day Adventists, have given a number of reasons why Christ did not come in 1843. Among these are the following:

God wanted to test the people on a point of “truth”

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.¹

God wanted them to be disappointed

I saw the people of God, joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Those who were looking for their Lord did not discover it…God designed that his people should meet with a disappointment.²

The vision tarried

The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake explained. They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and that the same evidence which 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— “Though it [the vision] tarry, wait for it.”^3,4

One wonders why God wanted to test His people, to see if they loved Him, on a point of “truth” that was really error. Ellen White makes God responsible for the disappointment: EGW said God held his hand over the mistake and it was His design that His people meet with disappointment. Then the vision (2300 days of Daniel 8:14) was seen to tarry—go past its terminal position. And yet, EGW says it actually did not tarry!

**The vision did not tarry**

It was not at first perceived that if the decree did not go forth at the beginning of the year 457 B.C., the 2300 years would not be completed at the close of 1843. But it was ascertained that the decree was given near the close of the year 457 B.C., and therefore the prophetic period must reach to the fall of the year 1844. Therefore, the vision of time did not tarry, though it had seemed to do so. We learned to rest upon the language of the prophet. “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie; though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.”^5,6

With the problem of the first disappointment now “clearly explained,” we move to the great disappointment. When Christ did not come on October 22, 1844, it was devasting—at first. We now come to the foundation of what I have called the “cultic doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventists,” which is the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. Before we consider the source for this doctrine, several things should be said both in review and as an introduction:

This doctrine continues to build on the “truth” that October 22, 1844, is a valid interpretation of Daniel 8:14,⁷ one of Miller’s fifteen questionable “proofs.”
This doctrine is a reinterpretation of the “seventh-month movement” which predicted Christ would come to the earth on October 22, 1844.
This doctrine is completely unknown in all of Christian theology and history.
This doctrine came through a “vision” to Hiram Edson, a man who was neither known beforehand nor after-ward to manifest the true gift of prophecy, nor to have any other visions which could be tested for validity.
This “vision” came on October 23, 1844, the morning after the great disappointment, at a time of extreme emotional instability among the Adventist.⁸
This doctrine was first written out by O.R.L. Crosier who soon renounced it as error.
This doctrine came packaged in a theological mix of gross error.

The following is a quotation from a manuscript written by Hiram Edson, the person who had the sanctuary vision.

After breakfast [on October 23, the day after the disappointment] I said to one of my brethren, “Let us go and see and encourage some of our brn [brethren]. We started, and while passing through a large field I was stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly, and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, that he for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of the sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth…

While I was thus standing in the midst of the field, my comrade passed on almost beyond speaking distance before missing me. He inquired, “Why I was stopping so long?” I replied, “The Lord was answering our morning prayer; by giving light with regard to our disappointment.” I talked these things to my brethren…

Br. Hahn and myself, held a consultation with regard to the propriety of sending out the light on the subject of the sanctuary. We decided it was just what the scattered remnant needed; for it would explain our disappointment and set the brethren on the right track. We agreed to share the expense between us, and said to Crosier, “Write out the subject of the sanctuary. Get out another number of the Day Dawn, and we will try to meet the expense. He did so, and the Day Dawn was sent out bearing the light of the sanctuary subject. It fell into the hands of Elders James White, and Joseph Bates, who readily endorsed the view; and it was shown in vision [to EGW] to be the light for the remenant.⁹

Sometime later, O.L.R. Crosier wrote out a lengthy article on the subject of the sanctuary and published it in The Day Star Extra of February 7, 1846, entitled, “The Law of Moses.” Of interest to our study are comments he makes relative to the ministry of Christ in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary and his teaching regarding the scapegoat. These points bear directly on the theology of what will become the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. Crosier’s conclusions on the ministry of Christ are laden with massive error.

But again, they say the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So, men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps a few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.¹⁰

If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest; but who officiated on Calvary? Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Lev. 4:1-4, 13-15, &c., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Lev. 4:5-12, 16-21.

Christ was the appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and he certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after his resurrection, and we have no record of his doing anything on earth after his resurrection, which could be called atonement.

The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

He could not, according to Heb. 8:4, make the atonement while on earth, “If he were on earth, he should not be a Priest.” The Levitical was the earthly priesthood, the Divine, the heavenly.

Therefore, he did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after his ascension, when by his own blood he entered his heavenly Sanctuary for us…

After quoting Acts 2:38, Crosier continues:

Now put by the side of this text another on this point from his [Peter’s] discourse at the 9^th hour of the same day, Acts 3:19, “Repent ye; therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” …Everyone can see that the blotting out of sins does not take place at repentance and conversion; but follows and must of necessity be preceded by them. Repentance, conversion, and baptism had then become imperative duties in the present tense; and when performed, those doing them “washed away” (Acts 22:16,) remitted or sent away from them their sins. (Acts 2:28;) [(sic.) Acts 2:38] and of course are forgiven and have “received the atonement;” but they had not received it [the atonement] entire at that time, because their sins were not yet blotted out…¹¹

The cleansing of the Sanctuary did not finish the cleansing of the people; for, after the scapegoat had born away all iniquities of the people, the high priest had yet to offer the burnt-offering and burn the fat of the sin-offering on the altar in the court which formed a part of the atonement of the day, and it required the whole atonement of the day to cleanse the people; Lev. 16:22-30.¹²

Crosier also sees “the scapegoat as a type of Satan.”¹³ This is the origin for the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation that Satan is represented by the scapegoat in the Lev. 16 Day of Atonement service.¹⁴

Summary of Crosier’s “Truth”

At this point we must summarize our findings: Crosier, writing out the theology of Hiram Edson and F.B. Hahn,¹⁵ reached a number of conclusions, among them:

Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary for the first time on October 22, 1844.
No atonement was made at the cross.
Atonement is made by the High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.
The blotting out of sins does not take place at the point of repentance and conversion.
The atonement is not complete until Christ lays the sins upon Satan, who is represented by the scapegoat in the Levitical Day of Atonement
The atonement is not complete until after the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary which started October 22, 1844.

Evaluation

While the biblical evaluation of the SDA cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment is reserved for a later chapter, it should be noted that few, if any evangelical scholars would agree with any of the above statements. Most would consider them to be gross error, if not outright heresy. However, note how Ellen White evaluated this new theology, this changing “truth.”

The Lord has shown me in vision; that Jesus rose up, and shut the door, and entered the Holy of Holies at the 7^th [Jewish] month 1844…

I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the new Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is minister. The Lord shew (sic) in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; [please note the “&c” (etc.)—referring to the other points of his “truth”] and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint.¹⁶

Many Evangelical Adventists would totally reject this “vision” of Edson, and its accompanying theology, as Crosier, himself quickly did.¹⁷ However, it should be noted that leading SDA denominational writers still see the “revelation” to Edson as the work of God. Dr. Roy Adams in his book, The Sanctuary, commenting on Edson’s vision states:

Despite Edson’s tears, the following morning God broke through as best He could. In Edson’s words: ‘Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, he for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of the sanctuary….” This position was adopted by the group of Millerites who later became known as Seventh-day Adventists. Historically it has held an important place in our system of beliefs.¹⁸

This “truth” of the change of ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary as a fulfillment of Daniel 8:14, is the foundation of Adventist theology. It is vitally important to remember that this “truth” did not come from diligent, rational Bible study. Rather, it came as a “vision” to Edson. Just as the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 came in a setting of Miller’s erroneous fifteen “proofs,” so their sanctuary theology came in a setting of gross, theological error.

However, some leading Adventists still cling to Edson’s “truth,” although they state it in slightly different terms. For example, Dr. Roy Adams states:

At the end of the prophetic period of Daniel 8:14, Christ commenced a phase of ministry that was new in kind—and one that had as its goal the final vindication of God’s name and honor, the vindication of God’s sanctuary and people, and the eternal security of the universe….We stand on their [SDA pioneers] brave and inspiring shoulders now, and without altering a single plank of the basic pillars of faith, [his emphasis] we do indeed perceive a clearer vision….Perhaps a better way, then, of expressing the same [his emphasis] truth that came to Hiram Edson on that tear-filled morning would be as follows: At the Ascension, Christ went into the presence of God (and in saying this, we are in line with the New Testament) and there commenced a “first-apartment ministry” (in line with the ancient typical service). At the end of the 2300 days (years) in 1844 (in line with the book of Daniel). He commenced a “second-apartment ministry” (in line with the ancient typical service on the Day of Atonement)—namely, the restoration or vindication or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (in line with Leviticus 16 and Daniel 8:14).

As we evaluate what took place in early Adventism, we note the changing nature of “truth.” The “first angel’s message” was the “truth” that Christ would come in 1843. The “second angel’s message” was the call for the faithful to “come out of Babylon”—the churches which rejected the date-setting of the Millerites. This second message was preached simultaneously with the seventh-month movement, which predicted that Christ would come to the earth on October 22, 1844. Now, using the same prophecies of Daniel 8:14, coupled with Leviticus 16, the “truth” is that Christ, instead of coming to this earth at the close of the 2300-day prophecy, entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary for the first time. Here Christ was to “complete the atonement” which was not complete at the cross and blot out sins which were not blotted out at the point of repentance and faith.

In Chapter 5 it was documented how Ellen White said that the pastors who rejected the date-setting message of the Millerites were working against God, were on the side of Satan, that the face of Jesus was turned from them, and that they had the blood of souls upon them for their error. She also dubbed those churches, which rejected the seventh-month movement, as “Babylon.”

Now, these messages have all been reinterpreted. The “truth” is no longer that Christ was to come to the earth, but that on exactly October 22, 1844, Christ, for the first time, entered into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to finish the atonement.

By this time many of the Millerites who had been twice disappointed, renounced the whole package of date-setting.¹⁹ Miller himself realized that his predictions were wrong. He continued to believe that Christ’s coming was soon, but he never accepted the heavenly sanctuary reinterpretation of Daniel 8:14 promoted by the small group of Millerites, many of whom later became the founders of the Seven-day Adventist church.²⁰

Of interest to us at this point are the statements of Ellen White regarding those who did not accept the “new light” of Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary.

Prophecy was fulfilled in the first and second angels’ messages. They were given at the right time and accomplished the work God designed they should.²¹

I was then shown the grievous disappointment of the people of God. They did not see Jesus at the expected time. They knew not why their Saviour did not come. They could see no evidence why prophetic time had not ended. Said an angel, Has God’s word failed? Has God failed to fulfill his promises? No: he has fulfilled all he promised. Jesus has risen up and has shut the door of the Holy place of the heavenly Sanctuary and has opened a door into the Most Holy place and has entered in to cleanse the Sanctuary. Said the angel, All who wait patiently shall understand the mystery. Man has erred; but there has been no failure on the part of God. All was accomplished that God promised; but man erroneously looked to the earth, believing it to be the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the prophetic periods. Man’s expectations have failed; but God’s promise not at all. Jesus sent his angels to direct the disappointed ones, to lead their minds into the Most Holy place where he had gone to cleanse the Sanctuary and make a special atonement for Israel. Jesus told the angels that all who found him would understand the work which he was to perform.²²

One is led to wonder how it was that men “erred” and had come to “erroneously” look to the earth as the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the prophetic periods. Was this not the “truth” that the angels of God revealed to Miller? Was this not the teaching of Miller’s charts, which were shown to be just as God wanted them? Was it not this error that the Christian pastors rejected, whom Ellen White said had the blood of souls upon them for not accepting? What has happened to the “perfect chain of truth”?

I was then shown what did take place in heaven as the prophetic periods ended in 1844. I saw that as the ministration of Jesus in the Holy place ended, and he closed the door of that apartment, a great darkness settled upon those who had heard, and had rejected the messages of Christ’s coming, and they lost sight of him.²³

The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the Most Holy place where Jesus stands before the ark, making his final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers, and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. Jesus makes an atonement for those who died, not receiving the light upon God’s commandments, who sinned ignorantly.²⁴

We begin to see all “truth” seems to revolve around the understanding of this little flock of Adventists. Even though Ellen White never originated a single doctrine of Adventism,²⁵ her writings hold the central position in shaping and defining the center of “present truth.”²⁶ EGW apparently thinks that the “light upon God’s commandments,” which the little band of Adventists discovered, is something that was not known by Christians throughout history. I believe she is referring specifically to the seventh-day Sabbath. After this little group discovered this “truth,” then Adventists taught that all the world became accountable to God for the Sabbath.²⁷ We begin to see a pattern worked out over and over again in SDA history. Things were right as long as EGW had not been “shown by God” that they were wrong. They became wrong when she said they were wrong, even if she had previously said they were right.²⁸

EGW often uses the terms first, second and third messages or angels’ messages. By the term “the first angels’ message” she means the 1843 message of Miller.²⁹ By the term “the second angel’s message” she means the call to come out of Babylon—the fallen churches³⁰ that rejected the Millerite date-setting—coupled with the revised, “corrected,” 1844 message of the Millerites.^31,32 By the term “the third angel’s message she means the reinterpreted, revised October 22, 1844, message that teaches Christ’s change in ministry in the heavenly sanctuary coupled with the “truth” of the seventh-day Sabbath.³³ Some of these terms Adventists will later reinterpret again, but for now this is “present truth.”

Many who embraced the third message had not an experience in the two former messages. Satan understood this, and his evil eye was upon them to overthrow them; but the third angel was pointing them to the Most Holy place, and those who had an experience in the past messages were pointing them the way to the heavenly Sanctuary. Many saw the perfect chain of truth in the angels’ messages and gladly received it. They embraced them in their order and followed Jesus by faith into the heavenly Sanctuary. These messages were represented to me as an anchor to hold the body. And as individuals receive and understand them, they are shielded against the many delusions of Satan.³⁴

EGW again mentions the “perfect chain of truth” in these three messages. This seems difficult to comprehend. She has just mentioned the “errors” and “erroneous” conclusions of man which are exactly what was taught in the two former messages. She states that these messages are an “anchor for the body” and their acceptance will prevent one from being deluded by Satan.

I then saw Wm. Miller. He looked perplexed and was bowed with sorrow and distress for his people. He saw the company who were united and loving in 1844, losing their love for each other, and opposing one another. He saw them fall back into a cold, backslidden state. Grief wasted his strength. I saw leading men watching Wm. Miller and fearing lest he should embrace the third angel’s message and the commandments of God [meaning in context, especially the seventh-day Sabbath]. And as he would lean towards the light from heaven, these men would lay some plan to draw his mind away. I saw a human influence exerted to keep his mind in darkness and to retain his influence among them. At length Wm. Miller raised his voice against the light from heaven [the reinterpretation of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14]. He failed in not receiving the message which would have fully explained his disappointment and cast a light and glory on the past, which would have revived his exhausted energies, brightened up his hope, and led him to glorify God. But he leaned to human wisdom instead of divine, and being broken with arduous labor in his Master’s cause, and by age, he was not as accountable as those who kept him from the truth. They are responsible and the sin rests upon them.³⁵

For Ellen White, the veracity of these messages becomes the cornerstone for all future Adventist theology. She will never admit that she was wrong in her statements about God’s leading. These messages became, and remain, the testing truth for all of Adventism.

I was shown three steps—one, two and three—the first, second and third angels’ messages. Said the angel, Woe to him who shall move a block, or stir a pin in these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received. I was again brought down through these messages and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. Step by step had God brought them along, until he had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform. Then I saw individuals as they approached the platform, before stepping upon it examine the foundation. Some, with rejoicing, immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the laying of the foundation platform. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform and examined it, then found fault with it, declaring it to be laid wrong. I saw that nearly all stood firm upon the platform and exhorted others who had stepped off to cease their complaints, for God was the master-builder, and they were fighting against him. They recounted the wonderful work of God, which had led them to the firm platform, and in union nearly all raised their eyes to heaven, and with a loud voice glorified God. This affected some of those who had complained and left the platform and again they with humble look stepped upon it.³⁶

This statement cements into Adventist teaching the veracity of what is called “the great second advent movement” of Miller. It locks in the October 22, 1844, date as the fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 and the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as a perfect platform of truth. It condemns all who would even examine this platform.³⁷ More than that, it undermines the gospel by making “testing truths” out of dates and speculative interpretation. EGW states that those who step off this platform of “truth” are “fighting against God.” She says that “the destiny of souls hangs upon the manner of which they are received.”

One evangelical pastor added this note from his review of the first draft of this book.

It [referring to the quotation of EGW above] also undermines the rules of logic and epistemology making rational discourse and sensible exegesis impossible. The only thing SDA’s have is EGW. Clearly it is EGW or the Bible.³⁸

According to EGW the experience of the early Advent movement is never to be renounced and the doctrines that came out of that experience are never to be changed. In the following quotation she sets forth this experience and these doctrines as supreme truth.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s Word and are to be respected, the applications of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.³⁹

A careful analysis of the above quotation will show that EGW is making the experience of the early Adventists normative. This experience appears to take precedence over the Scriptures.

I believe Seventh-day Adventists ought to give serious consideration to what has been presented thus far. There will be some, without doubt, who will condemn me for even examining this “platform of truth.” Elsewhere, however, Ellen White states:

Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error, other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth. Therefore, they have felt that investigation should not be permitted; that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in God’s word will not stand the test of an investigation of the Scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but one who is infallible,—He who is the Way the Truth, and the Life.⁴⁰

We should recognize, however, that anytime someone would point out the errors in her understanding of the three angels’ messages, she would immediately condemn them.⁴¹ Also, the context of the above statement is not concerned with the “truth” she had received “from heaven,” but with what others believed.

Chapter Summary

Ellen White endorsed, in the strongest terms, the reinterpretation of the 1844 message of Edson and Crosier. She said that “The Lord shew (sic) her in vision…that Brother Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c.” She said, “I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint.
The article published in the Day Star Extra, to which EGW referred, is full of doctrinal errors which undermine the gospel. These are that:
1. Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary for the first time on October 22, 1844.
2. Christ made no atonement for sin at the cross.
3. The blotting out of sins does not take place at the point of repentance and conversion.
4. The atonement is not complete until Christ lays the sins of the righteous upon the head of Satan, which takes place after the cleansing of the sanctuary which started on October 22, 1844.
Dr. Roy Adams, associate editor of the Adventist Review, states that God “broke through as best He could” in revealing to Edson the “truth” of the heavenly sanctuary.
Dr. Roy Adams says that Adventists can stand on the brave and inspiring shoulders of the Adventist pioneers, such as Edson, “without altering a single plank of the basic pillars of [the SDA] faith.”
Regarding the first and second messages, Ellen White said, “man has erred” and “man erroneously looked to the earth” as the place to which Christ was to come. However, these were exactly the “truths” which Miller preached and EGW later endorsed through her “visions” from God.
EGW stated that the first, second, and third angels’ messages were “a perfect chain of truth” even though they disagreed with one another.
EGW said these three messages were “an anchor to hold the body.”
EGW said that the acceptance of these three messages would be shield “against the many delusions of Satan.”
EGW said that the destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which these three messages are received.
EGW said that these three messages were a “solid, immovable platform.”
EGW said that those who found fault with these three messages were fighting against God.
EGW made the experience of the early Adventists normative for interpreting the Scripture; any scriptural arguments to the contrary were wrong.

Endnotes

Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol.1, p. 133.
Ibid, p. 137.
Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 236.
This is a quotation from Habakkuk 2:3. In context it has to do with the vision of Habakkuk regarding the coming invasion of Judah by the Chaldeans. It has nothing to do with Daniel 8:14, the coming of Christ or the heavenly sanctuary.
Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 52.
“The prophet” here is Habakkuk, not Daniel. We still see wild proof-texting taking place. No regard is given to context.
This will be evaluated in Chapter 10.
“They were unable to find their bearings…” See Editor’s Note in Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 499.
Hiram Edson, undated, handwritten Manuscript Fragment, reproduced in Knight, Rise of Sabbatarian Adventism, p.126.
O.R.L. Crosier, “The Law of Moses,” printed in The Day-Star Extra, Feb. 7, 1846, p. 41, reproduced in, Ibid., p. 152.
Ibid., p. 152.
Ibid., p. 153.
Ibid., p. 154.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the scapegoat in the Leviticus 16 Day of Atonement service, represents Satan. They teach that the blood of Christ transfers the record of sins of the righteous to the heavenly sanctuary. Then at the close of the investigative judgment these sins are placed on the head of Satan who will ultimately bear the penalty for them.
See their endorsement of this article, in The Day-Star Extra, Feb. 7, 1846, p. 44, reproduced in Knight, Rise of Sabbatarian Adventism, p. 155.
A Word to the “little Flock”, as reproduced in Knight, Rise of Sabbatarian Adventism, p. 171.
“The first to find fault with the Adventist sanctuary teachings was its creator—O.R.L. Crosier. Damsteegt tells us concerning him, ‘In 1846 he accepted the Sabbath but soon repudiated it together with his sanctuary teachings.’” See P.G. Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977) p. 23 as quoted in Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 29. D. M. Canright states, “The theory of the sanctuary in heaven they accepted from Elder O.R.L. Crosier, who afterwards repudiated it.” Canright, Life of Mrs. E. G. White, p. 66.
Dr. Roy Adams, The Sanctuary, Understanding the Heart of Adventist Theology (Hagerstown MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1993) pp.106, 107.
See Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 166, 167.
Ibid., p. 167.
Ibid., p. 150.
Ibid., p. 158.
Ibid., pp. 158, 159.
Ibid., p. 163.
“Neither he [James White] or his wife ever originated a single doctrine held by the Seventh-day Adventists. The doctrine of the second advent they received from Miller; and all prophetic dates they accepted from him exactly as he arranged them. The Sabbath they took from Bates…. The theory of the sanctuary in heaven they accepted from Elder O.L.R. Crosier…. Later they accepted from Andrews the theory of the three messages and the two horned beast, as applied to the United States. The sleep of the dead they got from the First-day Adventists.” Canright, The Life of Mrs. Ellen White, p.66.
It should be noted that Ellen White, herself, initiated little, if any new “truth.” Usually, other Adventists discovered “truth”, and she then corroborated it and gave it “divine” authority through her “visions.” See Canright, The Life of Mrs. E. G. White, pp. 69, 70.
“I saw that the present test of the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished and He had passed within the second veil; therefore Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened into the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month, 1844, and who had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and the test of the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened. I saw that Satan was tempting some of God’s people on this point. Because so many good Christians have fallen asleep in the triumphs of faith and have not kept the true Sabbath, they were doubting about its being a test for us now.” Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 42.
For example, some Seventh-day Adventists were promoting giving up eating pork because of the old covenant laws on clean and unclean meats. Ellen White, however, opposed them. Later after she had been shown “by God” the “truth” of this matter, then she insisted that eating pork was wrong, and all SDAs should give it up. Truth seems to be founded not in diligent Bible study, but by her “revelations from God.” “I saw that your views concerning swine’s flesh would prove no injury if you have them to yourselves; but in your judgment and opinion you have made this question a test, and your actions have plainly shown your faith in this matter. If God requires His people to abstain from swine’s flesh, He will convict them on the matter [give Ellen White a vision]. He is just as willing to show His honest children their duty, as to show their duty to individuals upon whom He has not laid the burden of His work. If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine’s flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach His church their duty…. I saw that you both must speedily be brought where you are willing to be led, instead of desiring to lead, Satan will step in and lead you in his way, to follow his counsel. Some look at your set of notions and consider them an evidence of humility. They are deceived. You both are making work for repentance.” Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 206, 207. We should note that the real problem was that these people were seeking to lead. In doing so, they were usurping EGW’s role, and therefore, received her condemnation.
See Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol, pp. 133-140.
Both Catholic and Protestant churches.
It appears that EGW connected the second angel’s message, which technically was the call to come out of Babylon, with the “midnight cray, ‘Behold the bridegroom cometh,’” which was the seventh-month movement or the reinterpretation of 1843, to October 22, 1844. See Spiritual Gifts, pp. 140, 141.
Ibid., pp. 140-143.
Ibid., pp. 162-168.
Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 165, 166.
Ibid., p. 168.
Ibid., P. 169.
This is another example of the mind control exerted by Ellen White. If God had revealed to her that these three messages are truth, then no one is even to examine the evidence. This is not the teaching of Scripture. Paul praised the Bereans for testing teachings with the Scriptures. (Acts 17:11). This type of mind control is, however, the practice of many cults.
Dr. Bud Brown, Pastor, West Sedona Baptist Church.
Ellen G. White, from the pamphlet, Call to the Watchman, 1910, p. 20.
Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, p. 125.
See Ellen G. White, Loma Linda Manuscript, 1881, No. 149.

Author
Recent Posts

Dale Ratzlaff

Dale Ratzlaff (1936–2024), is the founder of Life Assurance Ministries and Proclamation! Magazine. He served as a Seventh-day Adventist pastor for 13 years, seven at Monterey Bay Academy where he taught Bible. He and his wife Carolyn left the Adventist church in 1981 when he realized he could no longer teach the investigative judgment with a clear conscience. He has authored several books on Adventism that are available through his website, SabbathInChrist.com.