Seventh-day Adventist apologetics is a fascinating chameleon-like field where one never quite knows what new gem of "truth" will present itself for our consideration. In an attempt to continually outdo themselves, Adventists generate more and more profound and contradictory statements, all the while attempting to make sure they don’t "shoot themselves in the foot" with Adventism’s own contradictions and checkered history.

A good friend of mine, Adventist apologist, Icyspark, in a moment of candor, shared with me the following insightful statement. "I have yet to see any criticism which, if consistently applied, cannot be shown to have a correspondingly negative impact on Bible authors." One might wonder why Adventist apologists have to hide behind pseudo-names. Perhaps it is so that they can adopt another pseudo-name if their apolgetics backfires.

As I considered the implications of Icyspark’s observation, I thought to myself, "Every so often Adventist apologists actually do deliver some profound conclusions.

Let’s try to consistently apply the following experience of Ellen White to a Bible prophet.

Icysparks asks, "Would it have a negative impact on a Bible author?" I can’t even imagine a Bible prophet experiencing the following:

It obviously comes as a shock to most Adventists to learn that Ellen White’s mental faculties were significantly impaired for some time. Here is how she describes it.

I had indulged the desire for vinegar. But I resolved with the help of God to overcome this appetite. I fought the temptation, determined not to be mastered by this habit. For weeks I was very sick; but I kept saying over and over, The Lord knows all about it. If I die, I die; but I will not yield to this desire. The struggle continued, and I was sorely afflicted for many weeks. All thought that it was impossible for me to live. You may be sure we sought the Lord very earnestly. The most fervent prayers were offered for my recovery. I continued to resist the desire for vinegar, and at last I conquered. Now I have no inclination to taste anything of the kind. This experience has been of great value to me in many ways. I obtained a complete victory." (Letter 70, 1911, reproduced in Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 485)

One can be sure that this was no ordinary vinegar like we use today.

Let’s examine how vinegar was made in the mid-1800s. Here are two recipes for homemade vinegar taken from Miss Leslie’s Directions for Cookery, published in 1851:

CIDER VINEGAR: Take six quarts of rye meal; stir and mix it well into a barrel of strong hard cider of the best kind; and then add a gallon of whiskey. Cover the cask, (leaving the bung loosely in it,) set it in the part of your yard that is most exposed to the air; and in the course of four weeks (if the weather is warm and dry) you will have good vinegar fit for use.

WHITE VINEGAR: Put into a cask a mixture composed of five gallons of water, two gallons of whiskey, and a quart of strong yeast, stirring in two pounds of powdered charcoal. Place it where it will ferment properly, leaving the bung loose till the fermentation is over.

As you can see from these recipes, vinegar in the mid-1800s was made with ingredients such as "strong hard cider" and "whiskey." In your grocery stores today the alcohol content of vinegar is much lower — around .5% alcohol, which is quite small. Can you imagine how much catsup you would have to consume to produce the effect that Ellen White’s "vinegar" produced!

One truly has to wonder if she was drunk at the time she wrote the following incoherant statement:

Human minds vary the minds of different education and thought receive different impressions of the same words and it is difficult for one mind to give to a different temperament education and habits of thought by language exactly the same idea as that which his clear and distinct in his own mind. (Manuscript 24, 1886, written in Europe in 1886)

Is this how God speaks?

Over time we will endeavor to identify the approximate time period that Ellen White was "under the influence", and which of her writings were produced during this time period. Her statement above certainly adds new meaning to the term "spirit" of prophecy. What "spirit" was she under?

We have a new site, VinegarVisions.com, which is dedicated to identifying which of Ellen White’s writings were produced while she was "under the influence" of what she preferred to called "vinegar".

[Editor’s note: All 15 Proofs as well as William Miller’s 1843 chart (that Ellen White said was just as God wanted it) are also available in my Library at DefendingTheGospel.com.]

In part 1 we identified that the foundation for Adventism is laid in Ellen White’s comprehensive endorsement of William Miller’s methods and message. If Miller was right, so was Ellen G. White.

In part 2 we carefully examined what Ellen White said about William Miller and saw that her endorsement of William Miller was comprehensive. We found that Ellen White unequivocally stated that Miller was guided by God in his methods, his conclusions, and his message.

Part 3 began an examination of William Miller’s 15 proofs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) that Ellen White said constituted a “a perfect chain of truth” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 129).

Part 18 asked a number of important questions.

Much of the material covered in this series is explained in much greater detail in Cultic Doctrine by Dale Ratzlaff. Dale has done a masterful job with the facts clearly laid out before the reader to evaluate. I consider this book to be invaluable in understanding how the 1844 Sanctuary doctrine and the 1857 Investigative Judgment doctrine came to be in the first place. No matter what your theological perspective, this book presents the historical backdrop in a gripping, easy-to-read, narrative. This is one of those books that you will be unable to put down until you complete it. If you don’t have it, you should order it today.

As we have readily seen, the Adventist Church in its unconditional endorsement of Ellen White has a huge dilema. You need to get Dale’s book to learn how they try to work their way out of this mess.

Here is Dale’s chapter 5 summary.

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 message 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 camp 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

Ellen White said Miller was right in his 1843 message when he was wrong.

1. Ellen White said Miller was right in his 1843 message 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 never 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 knoweth 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 erroneous message were said to have “the blood of souls” upon them.
10. Churches who rejected Miller’s false 1844 message were dubbed “Babylon,” and were understood to be apostate, “fallen” churches.
11. The bottom line: What Ellen White said was right, was wrong. What she said was wrong, was right.

I would like to once again thank Dale Ratzlaff for allowing me to explore portions of his excellent and thought-provoking book Cultic Doctrine with you. Now you know where the 1843/1844/1851/1857 Sanctuary and Investigative Judgment doctrines originated. I have just begun to share with you “the rest of the story.” Dale’s 20-chapter book, with its exhaustive references for each chapter, is a real eye opener that you will definitely want to have as a part of your early Adventist study library!

I am so thankful for that we have God’s Holy Word, the Bible, to guide us into all truth. I am reminded of John 8:32 (KJV)

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 Next time we will begin looking at William Miller’s 1843 chart, that Ellen White said God showed her  was just as God wanted it and it should never be changed, although it was wrong. It shows how William Miller calculated the dates for the proofs we just covered. Informed Adventists desperately try to divorce themselves from William Miller’s 15 "Proofs" by claiming that most certainly something else had to be the "perfect chain of truth" that God showed William Miller. The facts speak for themselves. The 15 Proofs and the supporting 1843 chart go together. The chart speaks to the 15 Proofs.

Very few Adventists have any idea how the Seventh-day Adventist church began. This is a part of SDA history that they won’t teach you!

[Editor’s note: All 15 Proofs as well as William Miller’s 1843 chart (that Ellen White said was just as God wanted it) are also available in my Library at DefendingTheGospel.com.]

In part 1 we identified that the foundation for Adventism is laid in Ellen White’s comprehensive endorsement of William Miller’s methods and message. If Miller was right, so was Ellen G. White.

In part 2 we carefully examined what Ellen White said about William Miller and saw that her endorsement of William Miller was comprehensive. We found that Ellen White unequivocally stated that Miller was guided by God in his methods, his conclusions, and his message.

Part 3 began an examination of William Miller’s 15 proofs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) that Ellen White said constituted a “a perfect chain of truth” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 129).

Much of the material covered in this series is explained in much greater detail in Cultic Doctrine by Dale Ratzlaff. Dale has done a masterful job with the facts clearly laid out before the reader to evaluate. I consider this book to be invaluable in understanding how the 1844 Sanctuary doctrine and the 1857 Investigative Judgment doctrine came to be in the first place. No matter what your theological perspective, this book presents the historical backdrop in a gripping, easy-to-read, narrative. This is one of those books that you will be unable to put down until you complete it. If you don’t have it, you should order it today.

As Dale points out in chapter 4, “William Miller: His Methods and Message”

Did he really discover “a perfect chain of truth,” as Ellen White stated? The stakes are high for Adventists. If Miller was wrong, then Ellen White was equally wrong.

Dale concludes chapter 4 of his book with the following thoughts for your consideration

We must now begin to wrestle with the tension between what Ellen White said about Miller, and the facts.

• Was Miller in fact guided by angels in his search of the prophecies?
• Was Miller really chosen by God and entrusted with a special message from God?
• Was Miller’s mind truly guided by God and connected to the source of wisdom?
• Did God actually guide Miller to his conclusions?
• Were Miller’s conclusions truly “great light” from heaven?
• Did God really open up Miller’s understanding of the prophecies which had ever been dark to God’s people?
• Did God guide Miller in his discovery of how one text of Scripture opened up the meaning of another, and thus endorse his proof-text method?
• Did God reveal to Miller a “perfect chain of truth”?
• Should Miller be associated with the “greats” of Bible history such as Elisha, John the Baptist, and Noah?
• Could one honestly describe Miller’s message as “the everlasting gospel,” “the mysteries of the Kingdom of God,” “this saving message,” and a “heavenly message”?
• Was Miller truly correct in his multiple periods ending in 1843 and his “many proofs”?
• Can we say for certain that Miller was not a fanatic?
• Was Miller’s chart, which listed his multiple proofs, exactly as God wanted it?
• Does God still want it that way? Ellen White said, “It should never be changed.”

We are only at the beginning of Dale Ratzlaff’s excellent book Cultic Doctrine, but those who have accepted Ellen White as a true prophet must begin to wrestle with the facts. Was Miller right or wrong? Was Ellen White right or wrong? The stakes are high and the facts speak for themselves.

Dale notes

Had Ellen White given her support of Miller before 1844 one could almost excuse her if she had not claimed to speak for God. However, what she wrote about Miller and his being led by God in his methods and conclusions was written after 1844.

It is very doubtful if any trained, evangelical scholar would support Miller’s methods, or any of Miller’s conclusions today. But herein lies the beginning of a theological and historical saga that rivals fiction.

And yet Ellen White said God chose William Miller, guided his mind, his methods of Bible study, his conclusions, his charts, his mission, and more.

Remember that Ellen White wrote in Early Writings, p. 74

I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them. Early Writings, p. 74

She also wrote

I also 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 truth. Early Writings, p. 232

And

Ministers who would not accept this saving message themselves hindered those who would have received it. Early Writings, p. 235

Also

Angels were watching with the deepest interest the result of the heavenly message, and when the churches turned from and rejected it, they in sadness consulted with Jesus. Early Writings, p. 235

How do we evaluate these facts? Next time we will consider what we have learned about the origin of Adventism’s 1844 doctrine.

Hebrews 10:25 exhorts us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is. Adventists promote a unique belief that Christians assembling themselves together on any day other than Friday night sundown to Saturday night sundown are ignoring the fourth commandment of the Old Covenant decalogue. They specifically target those who, in the spirit of Hebrews 10, assemble themselves together on Sunday with the admonition that they will receive the "mark of the beast" for doing so.

If we are exhorted by the writer of Hebrews to assemble "ourselves together … so much the more, as ye see the day approaching", does this mean that we should be assembling ourselves together more times on the Jewish Sabbath, or do other days of the week count as well?

Hebrews 10:23-25 (King James Version)
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

[Editor’s note: All 15 Proofs as well as William Miller’s 1843 chart (that Ellen White said was just as God wanted it) are also available in my Library at DefendingTheGospel.com.]

In part 1 we identified that the foundation for Adventism is laid in Ellen White’s comprehensive endorsement of William Miller’s methods and message. If Miller was right, so was Ellen G. White.

In part 2 we carefully examined what Ellen White said about William Miller and saw that her endorsement of William Miller was comprehensive. We found that Ellen White unequivocally stated that Miller was guided by God in his methods, his conclusions, and his message.

Part 3 began an examination of William Miller’s 15 proofs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) that Ellen White said constituted a “a perfect chain of truth” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 129).

Much of the material covered in this series is explained in much greater detail in Cultic Doctrine by Dale Ratzlaff. Dale has done a masterful job with the facts clearly laid out before the reader to evaluate. I consider this book to be invaluable in understanding how the 1844 Sanctuary doctrine and the 1857 Investigative Judgment doctrine came to be in the first place. No matter what your theological perspective, this book presents the historical backdrop in a gripping, easy-to-read, narrative. This is one of those books that you will be unable to put down until you complete it. If you don’t have it, you should order it today.

As Dale points out in chapter 4, “William Miller: His Methods and Message”

Did he really discover “a perfect chain of truth,” as Ellen White stated? The stakes are high for Adventists. If Miller was wrong, then Ellen White was equally wrong.

Let’s examine the last proof, #15 of William Miller’s “Time Proved Fifteen Different Ways”

FIFTEEN: It can be proved by the numbers in Rev. 13:18: “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” connected with Daniel 7:12, as before quoted.

This text shows the number of years that Rome would exist under the blasphemous head of Paganism, after it was connected with the people of God by league; beginning B.C. 158, add 666 years, will bring us to A.D. 508, when the daily was taken away. Then add Daniel 12:12, the 1335 to 508, makes the year 1843. When the beast and his image will be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and the Lamb. See Rev. 14:9-12: “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image will be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and the Lamb. See Rev. 14:9-12: “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever: and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the command¬ments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”

As Dale Ratzlaff notes in Cultic Doctrine

The number of the mark of the beast is not a time prophecy. Rather, it is a description of a coming evil power, or person, which makes war against God’s people. To portray the number of the beast—a wicked power—as a prophecy of the second coming of Christ—a righteous and holy event—is completely unwarranted.

Dale observes

We have now looked at Miller’s fifteen “proofs” and have seen his methods and resulting conclusions. That Miller was in error in his conclusions cannot be denied: Christ did not come in 1843, nor did he come in 1844 when “the error” of one year was discovered in his calculations.

And yet Ellen White said God chose William Miller, guided his mind, his methods of Bible study, his conclusions, his charts, his mission, and more.

Next time we will reflect on Ellen White, William Miller and the facts.

[Editor’s note: All 15 Proofs as well as William Miller’s 1843 chart (that Ellen White said was just as God wanted it) are also available in my Library at DefendingTheGospel.com.]

In part 1 we identified that the foundation for Adventism is laid in Ellen White’s comprehensive endorsement of William Miller’s methods and message. If Miller was right, so was Ellen G. White.

In part 2 we carefully examined what Ellen White said about William Miller and saw that her endorsement of William Miller was comprehensive. We found that Ellen White unequivocally stated that Miller was guided by God in his methods, his conclusions, and his message.

Part 3 began an examination of William Miller’s 15 proofs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) that Ellen White said constituted a “a perfect chain of truth” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 129).

Much of the material covered in this series is explained in much greater detail in Cultic Doctrine by Dale Ratzlaff. Dale has done a masterful job with the facts clearly laid out before the reader to evaluate. I consider this book to be invaluable in understanding how the 1844 Sanctuary doctrine and the 1857 Investigative Judgment doctrine came to be in the first place. No matter what your theological perspective, this book presents the historical backdrop in a gripping, easy-to-read, narrative. This is one of those books that you will be unable to put down until you complete it. If you don’t have it, you should order it today.

As Dale points out in chapter 4, “William Miller: His Methods and Message”

Did he really discover “a perfect chain of truth,” as Ellen White stated? The stakes are high for Adventists. If Miller was wrong, then Ellen White was equally wrong.

Let’s examine proof #14 of William Miller’s “Time Proved Fifteen Different Ways”

FOURTEEN: It is proved by Rev. 13:5: “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.” This time began at the same time as the preceding, when power was given to the Pope by Justinian, A.D. 538, and lasted until the Pope was carried into captivity, and his power abolished, in the year 1798.

See 10th verse: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword, must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” This beast is the same as the little horn in Daniel 7th, and synchronizes with Daniel’s “abomination that maketh desolate,” or “that astonisheth,” (See marginal reading.)

Compare Daniel 11:31, and 12:11, with Rev. 13:3-8; and of course his power is abolished with the end of his “setting up,” and the 1290 years. Then Daniel 12:12, — “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days,” — carries us to the year 1843.

As Dale Ratzlaff notes in Cultic Doctrine

Again, this is just another period of time seen by Miller to equal the 1260 days-years of papal domination. Remember that nothing significant even happened in 538.

Ellen White said God chose William Miller, guided his mind, his methods of Bible study, his conclusions, his charts, his mission, and more.

Next time we will begin examining William Miller’s proof #15. This is his last proof in what Ellen White called a “perfect chain of truth“.

Things are not going well at all for Ellen White. We have examined 14 of 15 proofs, and have only 1 proof left. Out of the first 14 we have not found a single proof to be valid, and yet the Seventh-day Adventist church would have us to trust them when they say in Fundamental Belief #18

This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth

With a success rate like this, she is a “gift” we can do without! It is time to base our beliefs on the Bible.

[Editor’s note: All 15 Proofs as well as William Miller’s 1843 chart (that Ellen White said was just as God wanted it) are also available in my Library at DefendingTheGospel.com.]

In part 1 we identified that the foundation for Adventism is laid in Ellen White’s comprehensive endorsement of William Miller’s methods and message. If Miller was right, so was Ellen G. White.

In part 2 we carefully examined what Ellen White said about William Miller and saw that her endorsement of William Miller was comprehensive. We found that Ellen White unequivocally stated that Miller was guided by God in his methods, his conclusions, and his message.

Part 3 began an examination of William Miller’s 15 proofs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) that Ellen White said constituted a “a perfect chain of truth” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 129).

Much of the material covered in this series is explained in much greater detail in Cultic Doctrine by Dale Ratzlaff. Dale has done a masterful job with the facts clearly laid out before the reader to evaluate. I consider this book to be invaluable in understanding how the 1844 Sanctuary doctrine and the 1857 Investigative Judgment doctrine came to be in the first place. No matter what your theological perspective, this book presents the historical backdrop in a gripping, easy-to-read, narrative. This is one of those books that you will be unable to put down until you complete it. If you don’t have it, you should order it today.

As Dale points out in chapter 4, “William Miller: His Methods and Message”

Did he really discover “a perfect chain of truth,” as Ellen White stated? The stakes are high for Adventists. If Miller was wrong, then Ellen White was equally wrong.

Let’s examine proof #13 of William Miller’s “Time Proved Fifteen Different Ways”

THIRTEEN: It can be proved by Rev. 12:6, 14: “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.”

It is evident that the church is not now in the wilderness, for if so, she must have been there in the apostles’ days, for she enjoys more liberty now among the nations, than in any previous time since the gospel was preached; and it is very evident, for ages past, the true church has been an outlaw among the kingdoms which arose out of the Roman Empire. The church was driven into the wilderness, where they were given into the power of the Pope, — Daniel 7:25: And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into this and until a time and times and the dividing of time,” — in the year A.D. 538; and was in the wilderness 1260 years, until 1798, when free toleration was granted in the kingdoms in the Papal territory.

This also harmonizes with the witnesses and the trumpet. Compare Rev. 11:15, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever,” with Rev. 12:10, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down which accused them before our God day and night.

As Dale Ratzlaff notes in Cultic Doctrine

This is nothing but a repeat of other “proofs” already addressed.

Ellen White said God chose William Miller, guided his mind, his methods of Bible study, his conclusions, his charts, his mission, and more.

Next time we will begin examining William Miller’s proof #14.

Things are not going well at all for Ellen White. We have examined 13 of 15 proofs, and have only 2 proofs left. Out of the first 13 we have not found a single one to be valid.

The more I think about it, the more I am impressed with the fact that it is impossible to have a correct teaching of the gospel of Christ, while promoting a faulty understanding of what constitutes the body of Christ. They go hand in hand. The body of Christ represents the "bride of Christ", the object of his supreme affection. The gospel represents the rescue process that He went through to rescue His "bride".

It makes me really angry when I realize what Adventism has done to malign Christ’s definition of "His bride". Men. How do you feel when someone attempts to redefine who your wife is? Surely Christ is every bit as jealous of "His bride" — His church, whom he came and died for.

It seems to me that there are two points where Adventism is forced to display her truly demonic heart — the fact that Satan is at the helm of Adventism, and it is every bit as demonic as Satanism masquerading in Bible "proof texts". Satan can be much more effective if he can mislead people to think they are promoting Christ, while he changes the definition from that defined in the Bible.

1. What does the Bible teach the good news of the gospel is?
2. Who is Christ’s church — the body of Christ?

Like a dog with a stinky sock, Adventists will try to drag us into their "doghouse" to focus on their "red herring", the Jewish Sabbath. I submit to the thoughtful Bible student that any serious understanding of the message and meaning of Christianity must begin with a correct understanding of these two foundation doctrines.

Until Seventh-day Adventism is willing to fully engage in meaningful discussion, combined with repentance and a contrite heart that truly demonstrates both a correct understanding of what the gospel is, and is not — and what constitutes Christ’s bride, they are an instrument of Satan, pure and simple.

Adventists must show a willingness to engage in genuine discussion on these two points. I was deeply, deeply disappointed when I tried to engage an SDA pastor recently on the subject of the body of Christ. He simply could not bring himself to embrace the biblical concept of what constitutes Christ’s bride. Instead all Christendom is view as "Adventist" or "non-Adventist". That is clearly unbiblical.

Adventists have a very clear choice to make. Forget everything else, and just focus on who the Bible clearly states constitutes the body of Christ — Christ’s cherished bride. Adventism totally fails on this point. Adventists have no other alternatives but to make this choice. It is a fork in the road, as it was for us as former Adventists. Does the seeker of truth cling to the "remnant church" concept, or do they follow the Bible.

My heart yearns for even one Seventh-day Adventist, in a spirit of genuine sincerity and searching for truth, to be willing to put all on the line, to commit themselves fully to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and actually engage us in real Bible-based discussion on this point. This does, of course, mean ultimately abandoning Adventism. There is no middle ground.

That is why whenever I bring up the subject of the biblical definition of the body of Christ — of who makes up the "bride of Christ" — Adventists go silent. They either don’t respond at all, they play games as the SDA pastor did. They attempt to stonewall, or just plain won’t engage in any meaningful discussion.

Is it really possible to deceive people using the Bible? How is that possible?

Seventh-day Adventist TV evangelists, such as Amazing Fact’s Doug Batchelor and 3ABN’s Danny Shelton, wave Bibles around, and claim to be a "people of the Word". We see that here on CARM. The devil could quote Scripture. So does Adventism. I do not fault the Adventist laity for deing deceived, but lay the blame squarely with the organization and those who receive pay to promote its false teachings.

How is it that Adventism appears to be able to produce a quote in support of everything they teach, and yet it still promotes doctrines that are, upon further examination, unbiblical? How can this be?

It is precisely the method that Adventism uses that makes them much more dangerous than their siblings, Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

There are three primary cultic approaches to circumventing the truth of Scripture:

1. Jehovah’s Witness approach: Re-write the truth out of it. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible (in which the word "grace" has been removed or changed).
2. Latter-day Saints approach: Add to it and cancel out the truth. Latter-day Saints have their addition to Scripture, — "another testament of Jesus Christ".
3. Seventh-day Adventist approach: "Re-interpret" the truth out of it or Filter the truth out of it. Seventh-day Adventism adds "commentary" that teaches interpretations and interpretive principles (like viewing eyeglasses) which negate the plain truths of Scripture.

Many Christians (if not most) do not recognize #3, the approach Adventism takes. They are well-aware of #1 and #2, the JW & LDS approach… no re-writing Scripture, no additions to Scripture. But the SDA approach is equally cultic, although perhaps a bit more subtle. LDS attaches "new scripture", but SDA attaches commentary/interpretation, which has the same effect as LDS’s "addition", however it twists regular Scripture and uses Scripture to cancel out the truth of Scripture. Got that?

If we read the Scriptures end-to-end we see the grand theme of man’s utter failure and God’s plan of salvation repeated over and over. It is clear. It is like looking at the cycle in a stock chart on a monthly basis. Within this grand theme are mini-themes. These might be like the daily stock charts. Within these are micro-lessons specific to the occasion. In our stock-trading equivalent, this would be like the minute-by-minute charts. All of these cycles fit together to produce a whole vibrant range of activity clearly understood by looking at the macro level. Adventists yank out a verse at the micro level, totally ignoring the macro level, and then build fake Adventist macro doctrines on them. The results are the same as if an institutional or swing trader (month/week) started using day-trading data for their long term investment strategy.

The Bible is very clear about what the gospel teaches. Read in entirety it presents the "big picture" — the grand theme of man’s utterly sinful nature, and God’s plan of rescue. Adventism instead takes Ellen White’s "day-trading" building blocks and creates a totally different plan of salvation — the cultic doctrines that it teaches. The result is spiritual bankruptcy. For the institutional trader basing long-range financial investment decisions on day-trading charts it means financial disaster. The chart is there, all right. It may indicate increased value for the day, but if the long term chart is going in the other direction, misinterpreting the long-term trend by relying on the chart for the wrong charting period (month vs day) will quickly make financial ruin of such a careless investor — in our case the careless student of God’s Word.

Seventh-day Adventists do precisely the same thing with the Bible. It isn’t that they don’t use the Bible. They yank out individual, often apocalyptic verses, and totally reinterpret them to come up with bizarre "doctrines" such as 1844 and the "investigative judgment". How do we know? Because, using the investing example I provided above, no matter how you choose to interpret the day-trading chart, in-the-end it will never violate the monthly chart. That is a fact. In the end a single Scripture will never violate the integrity of the grand themes of the Scripture as a whole. In the end, Ellen White is a false prophet if she violates the grand themes of Scripture as a whole, and more specifically in her case, adds to the gospel message. She not only added to it, but changed it!

A case in point is the death and resurrection of Christ, and the totality of its contribution to God’s plan of salvation. It was not some side show. It is the centerpiece of God’s rescue mission. When Jesus said, "It is finished!", He was not announcing that he had just completed one phase of His mission, and that after that he would take a vacation until He was awoken back up in 1844! The book of Hebrews in no way, shape or form, supports the Adventist contortion. Adventists go to ludicrous extremes to try to rationalize a supposedly critical role that they alone play to a world filled with "Babylonian harlot" churche — the name they call the Christian world. That is how they treat Christ’s "bride",the body of Christ, the organization that God the Son came to this earth and died in humiliation for!

There are only two religions - Christ and Satan. How do we know that Adventism is of satanic origin? It matters not that Adventist can improvise a theme piecing together scriptures — if that theme contradicts the grand theme of Scripture as a whole. A single day-trading chart in one direction still does not violate the grand theme of a monthly stock chart. It will never provide you with a totally different destination outside the pattern of the long-range chart. That is how we know that Adventism is a counterfeit. 

Since we know that Adventism promotes a false gospel (along with many other false doctrines), and that we can indeed trace that to Ellen White, we know that both Adventism and Ellen White are false. They are instruments of Satan — the master of lies. And Satan always coats his lies with truth, as he did in the Garden of Eden. Everything Adventism teaches is not a lie. She uses truth, or rather misuses truth, in order to draw us on until we become the victims, ultimately, of her lies. But she baits her trap with truth.

This is why Adventists refuse to discuss the "grand themes" of the Bible instead substituting, for example, Ellen White’s "Great Controversy" rendition of Milton’s "Paradise Lost". They then attempt to demonstrate how their individual cultic doctrines support those "grand themes".

Instead of showing a willingness to jointly learn, they change the subject or wave around individual verses, yanked out of context and reinterpreted to say anything they want to. And then they proclaim that they alone are people of the Word. SDA Pastor Kevin Morgan refers to the gospel of the Bible as a "truncated gospel"! It is "missing" Ellen White’s so-called "present truth".

When former Adventists try to dialog with Adventists on these subjects, Adventists treat it like a game where one wins and the other looses, instead of a joint study experience where both demonstrate a true willingness to give up cherished notions subject to the unfolding of Scriptures.

As former Adventists, we are the ones who have done the giving up of the cherished views we grew up with, in result to the study of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. And that is why they simply will not address the "grand themes" of Scripture, that their "micro views" must support if they are to be correctly interpreted.

Over and over and over again I have tried to discuss subjects such as the "body of Christ" — a "grand theme" for sure — with paid SDA professionals, only to have them screech to a halt dead-in-their tracks rather than to participate in any genuine joint study and learning. What I see is them participating only so far as they make progress promoting their pet Adventist view.

To break out of this "prison" we, as former Adventists, had to be willing to let go of our cherished Adventist upbringing and depend totally on Jesus to lead us where He feels is best placing our total trust in Him.

When we dialog with other Christians within the "body of Christ" our hearts fill with joy as we converse with other members of the "bride of Christ" who are doing the same. That, in a nutshell, is why it is so hard to truly study with an Adventist.

As we see here, they want to be our "teacher" and teach us rather than jointly approaching the Word with a contrite heart and letting God be our teacher. After all, they are the "remnant church" with a message for a lost world of "Babylonian harlots". We are the ones who have "apostasized"! What we already learned was false doctrine, And that is what the Holy Spirit led us to give up.

Until we truly understand this, when we try to dialog with these hearts of stone, we are casting God’s "seed of truth" on stony ground.

[Editor’s note: All 15 Proofs as well as William Miller’s 1843 chart (that Ellen White said was just as God wanted it) are also available in my Library at DefendingTheGospel.com.]

In part 1 we identified that the foundation for Adventism is laid in Ellen White’s comprehensive endorsement of William Miller’s methods and message. If Miller was right, so was Ellen G. White.

In part 2 we carefully examined what Ellen White said about William Miller and saw that her endorsement of William Miller was comprehensive. We found that Ellen White unequivocally stated that Miller was guided by God in his methods, his conclusions, and his message.

Part 3 began an examination of William Miller’s 15 proofs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) that Ellen White said constituted a “a perfect chain of truth” (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 129).

Much of the material covered in this series is explained in much greater detail in Cultic Doctrine by Dale Ratzlaff. Dale has done a masterful job with the facts clearly laid out before the reader to evaluate. I consider this book to be invaluable in understanding how the 1844 Sanctuary doctrine and the 1857 Investigative Judgment doctrine came to be in the first place. No matter what your theological perspective, this book presents the historical backdrop in a gripping, easy-to-read, narrative. This is one of those books that you will be unable to put down until you complete it. If you don’t have it, you should order it today.

As Dale points out in chapter 4, “William Miller: His Methods and Message”

Did he really discover “a perfect chain of truth,” as Ellen White stated? The stakes are high for Adventists. If Miller was wrong, then Ellen White was equally wrong.

Let’s examine proof #12 of William Miller’s “Time Proved Fifteen Different Ways”

TWELVE: It can be proved by the two witnesses being clothed in sackcloth 1260 years. See Rev. 11:3: “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth.” This time began with Papacy, 538, and ended in 1798, during which time the Bible was suppressed from the laity, in all the countries where papacy had power, until the laws of the papal hierarchy were abolished and free toleration was granted to the papal states in 1798. Then the remainder harmonizes with the trumpets: see Rev. 11:14,15: “The second wo is past; and behold, the third wo cometh quickly. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.” And terminates with A.D. 1843.

As Dale Ratzlaff notes in Cultic Doctrine

This seems to be only another “proof” leading to one of  Miller’s key dates: 1798. He does not show how he jumped from 1798 to 1843. Perhaps he just takes this for granted.

Ellen White said God chose William Miller, guided his mind, his methods of Bible study, his conclusions, his charts, his mission, and more.

Next time we will begin examining William Miller’s proof #13.

Things are not going well at all for Ellen White. We have examined 12 of 15 proofs, and have only 3 proofs left. Out of the first 12 we have not found a single one to be valid.

I am reminded of the verse in Galatians 1:6-9 (NIV)

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!