10. The Great Disappointment

Books, Feature, White Washed

“Of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles, none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan than was that of the autumn of 1844.” — Ellen G. White in Great Controversy, page 401

No other doctrines are more distinctly Seventh-day Adventist than those of the 2300 days, the Sanctuary, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. These concepts led to the “Great Disappointment” when Millerites and founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church expected Christ to return to earth on the Day of Atonement, October 22, 1844. Biblically, the Day of Atonement is an annual event occurring on the tenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish calendar (the month of “Tishri” [see Leviticus 23:27-32]).

At first William Miller had Adventists believing Jesus would return in 1843. Disappointed, they re-examined their mathematics and set a new date for the spring of 1844. Disappointed again, they picked the fall of 1844, specifically October 22, 1844.

Fourteen years later Ellen White made a number of unusual observations as she wrote about their first disappointment in 1843:

EGW

  • “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. … Thousands were led to embrace the truth preached by Wm. Miller, and servants of God were raised up in the spirit and power of Elijah to proclaim the message. … Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ’s coming; but they objected to the definite time. … These false shepherds stood in the way of the work of God. The truth spoken in its convincing power to the people aroused them. …

    But these (false) shepherds stepped between the truth and the people, and preached smooth things to lead them from the truth. Many ministers would not accept this saving message themselves, and those who would receive it, they hindered. … I saw the people of God, joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove (“test”) 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.” — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 133-137, 1858.

Did you notice Ellen White blamed God for the disappointment of 1843? And did you also notice even though she stated there had been a mistake made in the figures, even though she admitted the 1843 prediction was wrong, she still called it “the truth” and a “saving message?” I ask you, would a divinely inspired prophet call a false message and a false prediction “the truth?” Worse, how could a genuine prophet ever call a false message a “saving message?” Wouldn’t you say, at the very least, Ellen White was very confused? But there is more!

Instead of recognizing these errors and simply admitting she and the leaders of the Advent movement of the middle 1800s were wrong, Ellen White approved those same faulty calculations as the basis for a new prediction that Jesus would come in the fall of 1844:

EGW

  • “The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and that the same evidence they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844. … Again they had a point of time.” — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 138.

If the “same evidence” that produced the mistake and disappointment of 1843 was used again, to set dates in 1844, wouldn’t one logically expect the results to also be the same — wouldn’t they be disappointed again? Or does God actually fool His people by covering their errors so they cannot discern them only to later remove His hand? Is that the way the God of the Bible works to reveal truth? No. Titus 1:2 tells us that God “cannot lie!” How could any Christian ever have any confidence in God, or the Bible, if God lies or deliberately leads His people astray from truth? How can God be God if He uses the methods of Satan? These questions were not asked of Ellen White, but they are only the beginning of the issues raised by her false predictions.

Remember, Ellen White’s emphasis on setting a specific time for Christ to return was the crux of the problem. Ministers whom Ellen White called “false shepherds” and whom she accused of leading people away from the “truth” were not objecting to the preaching of Christ’s second coming — they were objecting to Adventists setting a specific date for Christ’s second coming. When they objected to the false prophecies of 1843 and 1844 those Christian ministers were strongly affirming the words Jesus himself had spoken:

BIBLE

  • “Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.” — Matthew 25:13.
  • “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” — Matthew 24:36.
  • “He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” — Acts 1:7.

Nevertheless, Ellen White called those Bible-believing, Christ- quoting Christian ministers “hypocritical ministers,” “bold scoffers” and “false shepherds.” Why? Because they held firmly to Scripture instead of accepting her errors. Think about that.

I ask you, does a true prophet of God condemn Christians for believing the Bible? Of course not. Ellen White was wrong when she called her false predictions of Christ’s coming in 1843 and 1844 “the truth,” for Jesus tells us in 1 John 2:21 that “no lie comes from the truth.” But she went deeper into error by calling her false predictions a “saving message.” A false message cannot possibly be a “saving message!”

Worse, over the next six decades Ellen White never retracted her error of setting a time for Christ to return in 1843 and 1844. Instead, caught up in her own hysteria, she went on to “firmly believe” Christ would come in 1845 (see Word to the ‘Little Flock,’ p. 22). Prophesying Christ’s second coming had become such an opiate for Ellen White that she could not let go and acknowledge her time-setting errors.

What she tolerated in her own life, however, she denounced in the harshest terms in the lives of others. Ellen White taught her false prophecies were “ordered of God,” but that others who set specific dates for Christ’s coming “suit the purposes of Satan”:

EGW

  • “The preaching of a definite time for the judgment, in the giving of the first message (1843 and 1844), was ordered of God. … The repeated efforts to find new dates for the beginning and close of the prophetic periods, and the unsound reasoning necessary to sustain these positions, not only lead minds away from the present truth, but throw contempt upon all efforts to explain the prophecies. The more frequently a definite time is set for the second advent, and the more widely it is taught, the better it suits the purposes of Satan.” — Great Controversy, p. 457, written in 1888.

Harsh words by a “prophet” who repeatedly failed in her own predictions! Finally, Ellen White tried to smooth over the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, by assuring the faithful that they really had been right all along even though Jesus had not returned:

EGW

  • “True, there had been a failure as to the expected event … The mistake had not been in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, but in the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days.” — Great Controversy, pp. 406, written in 1888.

I ask you, if there had been no mistake “in the reckoning of the prophetic periods,” then why did Ellen White mistakenly believe Jesus was going to come in 1843, 1844, and 1845? If there was no mistake in their calculations, then why so many dates for the Second Coming?

The day after October 22, 1844, in the midst of dark depression, a solution was proposed in order to salvage the Advent movement. By admitting that the expected event was wrong Adventists were able to maintain they had been correct as to the date of October 22, 1844. They explained that instead of Jesus returning to earth on the Day of Atonement, He went into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the Investigative Judgment. This crucial doctrinal shift resulted from a “vision” received by Hiram Edson which subsequently was sanctioned by three of Ellen White’s own “visions!”

Even though Hiram Edson later changed his mind about having a “vision” (see Moving Out, page 27), Seventh-day Adventists continue to explain this crucial doctrinal switch to their high school students through the following distortion of the truth:

SDA

  • “‘While passing a large field I (Hiram Edson) 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 earth …, that He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of the sanctuary.’ So simple — yet it rates among the most dramatic moments in religious history. … In December … Ellen received her first vision. … Here was the answer to their prayer. It was the very thing the Adventists needed. God was telling them as plainly as He could that the October 22 movement … was true light!” — Moving Out, Department of Education, General Conference of SDAs, pp. 27, 29, revised in 1980.

Was October 22 the 10th of Tishri in 1844?

Remember, it was after the “Great Disappointment” that Ellen White claimed God told her in vision Edson’s idea of Christ entering the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary instead of returning to earth was “true light!” But before the “Great Disappointment” she anointed S. S. Snow’s view that the Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844 (the 10th of Tishri) occurred on October 22:

EGW

  • “The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord’s coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn … the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment.” — The Great Controversy, pp. 400, 457.

Where did the specific date of October 22, 1844 come from?

It did not come from William Miller. Miller taught 457 B.C. marked the beginning of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, but he gave no specific month or day. The facts are October 22, 1844 came from Ellen White and her friends.

You see, after being disappointed in 1843 and again in the spring of 1844, Ellen White and her friends agreed that the Jewish Day of Atonement (the 10th of Tishri) marked the end of the 2300 days. They prophesied Jesus Christ would leave the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary and return to earth on the Jewish Day of Atonement in the fall of 1844 — specifically, October 22.

But, in the year 1844, the Jewish Day of Atonement, the 10th of Tishri, did not occur on October 22. October 22 was the wrong day and the wrong month, for, in 1844, the Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement on September 23 – the very day required by the Biblical 10th of Tishri! Consider the following sampling of evidence gathered by ex-Seventh-day Adventist researchers:

Donald E. Mote (1980)

  • “Writing to the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, I learned some very surprising things. The Day of Atonement in 1843 occurred on Wednesday, October 4th. In 1844, the Day of Atonement occurred on Monday, September 23rd. I have the letter from the Seminary on file as proof. Anyone can check it out if they want to by paying me a visit, or writing to the Seminary themselves.” — The GC News-letter, September, 1980, by Donald E. Mote.

Robert K. Sanders (1994)

  • “In 1994 I spoke with Indiana’s Purdue University professor Susan Prohofsky of the Hillel Foundation of the B’nai Brith concerning the date of the Day of Atonement in 1844. Professor Prohofsky verified the September 23 date through the Inter Luach computer program (Hebrew for “lunar calendar”) and stated that the Day of Atonement has never occurred so late in the year as October 22.” — Conversation with Robert K. Sanders, Lafayette, Indiana, November, 1994.

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

  • If you visit a good public library request The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, © 1939, volume 2, and look carefully at pages 636-637. You will discover conclusive evidence that, in 1844, the Jewish Day of Atonement began at sunset on September 23 — not October 22. Even Karaite Jews agree that Ellen White and the Adventists are wrong about the year, month, day, and event which was supposed to occur in 1844!

How was the Heavenly Sanctuary Contaminated?

The entire Seventh-day Adventist concept of “cleansing” the heavenly sanctuary requires it to first be contaminated by our sins. Ellen White claimed the blood of animal sacrifices was taken into the Holy Place repeatedly during the course of each day. Through this animal blood Ellen White claimed both the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries were polluted by sin — even though animal blood never reached the heavenly sanctuary. To get around this fact, she skillfully introduced the concept of “shadows.” Here is what she taught:

EGW

  • “The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and, placing his hand upon the victim’s head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. … Such was the work that went on day by day throughout the year. … Such was the service performed ‘unto the example and shadow of heavenly things’ (Hebrews 8:5)” — Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354-356, written in 1890.

Unfortunately Ellen White had to once again contradict the Bible to support her theory. A careful reading of Leviticus chapter 4 states that the only time blood was taken into the Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary, other than on the Day of Atonement, was when the High Priest sinned, or when the entire congregation sinned. Ellen White’s own editors verified this after her death by inserting Appendix Note number 6, on p. 761 of Patriarchs and Prophets. Sin was never transferred into the heavenly sanctuary – only the record of sin is there, thus the heavenly sanctuary cannot be polluted nor is it in need of “cleansing.” Thus even Seventh-day Adventists admit Ellen White’s doctrine of defilement and cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is wrong.

SDAs Try to Make Sense of Ellen White’s Sanctuary Errors

The 1950’s presented SDAs with two opportunities to officially admit their sanctuary doctrine errors. First was when the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on the book of Daniel was revised by editors Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld and Francis D. Nichol.

In a taped address (given around 1985) Cottrell remembered the stormy sessions where “we really struggled” to make sense out of Daniel 8 and 9 and wondered “what are we going to put into the (Seventh-day Adventist Bible) Commentary?”

As a result, Cottrell researched the position of non-SDA scholars and discovered that no reputable Christian scholar has ever bought into Adventism’s sanctuary doctrine! Highly regarded cult watcher Walter Martin examined Bible texts presented by SDAs and wrote in his book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists: “None of these texts has anything to do with any judgment now going on. Neither the grammar, nor the context supports such a contention. ... (The SDA sanctuary doctrine) relies on out-of-context quotations. The Adventist error is that they draw from the Scriptures interpretations which cannot be substantiated by exegesis, but rest largely upon inference and deduction.”

Writing in Eternity magazine, Martin’s associate, Barnhouse, said: “The (SDA sanctuary doctrine resulting from the Great Disappointment of 1844) is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history! We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position. And we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable.”

Cottrell’s research led him to exclaim: “Time and again non-Adventist Bible scholars have examined Adventist beliefs and have given all of them a bill of health as having some roots in Scripture. … But without exception, and often in the most emphatic terms, they denounce our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as ‘eisegesis of the worst kind’ (that is, reading into the Bible something that is not there). Perish the thought, but the invariable rule appears to be that the more a non–Adventist knows about the Bible and how to study it, the less disposed he is to look with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14!

“Now, if only minor matters were involved, we could dismiss these criticisms. But when the keystone in our theological ‘arch’ has been the target of these criticisms — you knock the keystone of an arch out — what’s going to happen? You don’t have an arch there! That has been the target of these attacks, so in a certain sense, the integrity of our Church is at stake! And, unfortunately, we have never faced up realistically, yet, to this fact!”

Bible Readings and Seventh-day Adventism’s Second Opportunity

A second opportunity for Seventh-day Adventism to resolve their doctrinal errors regarding the sanctuary occurred in 1958. Here again are Cottrell’s taped recollections:

“In 1958 … it fell to my lot, as a Review and Herald Publishing Association editor, to revise the perennial classic Bible Readings (published for nearly 100 years). … The old plates had worn out and we had to make new plates. … The Review and Herald thought it would be highly desirable to bring Bible Readings into harmony with the (Seventh– day Adventist Bible) Commentary so that we wouldn’t be saying something out of one corner of our mouth and something else out of the other corner.

“It fell to my lot, then, to come to Daniel 8:14, the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. And with all of these statements — of Martin and Barnhouse and Lindsell and DeHaan and you name them — reverberating in my mind just like an echo that kept going back and forth …, I decided that I would try to find some way to say what we wanted to say about the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in a way that would take the ammunition out of these people’s hands so they couldn’t criticize us like they were — present it as Biblical. And after struggling, I found that it couldn’t be done!

“So I went to Elder Nichol (then Editor of the Review and Herald) one day and I said, ‘Elder Nichol, what do you do in a case like this?’ I was really trying my very best to present the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in the book Bible Readings — I couldn’t do it! He said, ‘Well, what do (our) college Bible teachers have to say? … Write them a letter.’ So I composed a letter in which I asked a number of key questions on getting the sanctuary doctrine out of Daniel 8:14. And I sent this questionnaire out to every teacher of Hebrew in our colleges — we didn’t have any universities at the time — and to the head of every Bible department and a number of other Bible teachers I was personally acquainted with. And I protected them by assuring them their names would never be associated with any responses they made.

“I asked these questions and all twenty-seven I wrote to replied. Without exception the responses expressed the opinion that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the antitypical Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. There was not one college Bible teacher who came out and said there is a basis in exegesis — that is in the language or the context.

“And then I had asked another question: ‘What reason, other than language and context can you offer?’ And thirteen, half of the twenty-seven, said ‘There is no other basis.’ In other words, half of them were saying there is no basis whatever! Then there was a little scattering among the other half — two people replied this way and I was really taken back by those replies — two of them proposed that the English word ‘cleansed,’ in the King James Version, was ‘a fortunate accident!’ How about having the most important of our doctrines based upon a ‘fortunate accident’ in translation! …

“Actually, it was not an accident, the Septuagint has the word ‘cleansed,’ … and they put the word ‘cleansed’ in because they thought it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. So the (Seventh-day) Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, the interpretation of ‘cleansed,’ is based on an ancient translation made by Jewish people into Greek believing that Antiochus Epiphanes had fulfilled the prophecy. So if we take the word ‘cleansed’ there, we really ought to say that it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes.

“Well, I went to Elder Nichol. Since he had gotten me into this fix, it was up to him to get me out of it. You know what he did? He took them (the responses) over to the President of the General Conference, Elder Figuhr. And the General Conference appointed the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel to try to find some answers to these questions. Well, the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel met for five years. I was a member of the committee. We studied forty-five prepared papers for the committee and adjourned without finding any answers!

“Now, there was a majority on the Committee and a minority, altogether fourteen people. Nine of them, the majority at the end, wanted to issue a formal report in which we wouldn’t say one word about any problems or any questions. Now remember, the name of the committee was Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel. And they wanted a report that would just make everybody happy and say some nice things.

“Well there were five of us that didn’t think that was intellectually honest. We didn’t think that the Church would be well served by such a report…. The majority insisted on that ‘unanimous’ report to which we would have to sign our names — and we couldn’t conscientiously do that because we would be to blame for a report that didn’t deal with any of the problems!

“So we made several proposals. We made a proposal that would deal honestly with the facts and the different proposed solutions — the reasons for them — and let people make up their own minds. Well of course that didn’t meet the desire of the majority.

“Another proposal we made was that there be no report and any member of the committee, on his own initiative, could submit any article for publication in the Review or Ministry or any other journal, under his own name and without mentioning the committee. That way people could say what they wanted to. No, those weren’t acceptable.

“So we came out with a facetious suggestion. We proposed that they let us five step out into the corridor, and then the majority could have a unanimous vote just as they wanted it.” — Raymond F. Cottrell in taped address, circa 1985. 

In the end, the “Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel” had no solutions! This insight into the inner workings of Adventism answers a number of questions as to why the Church has continued to teach a non-Biblical, indefensible sanctuary doctrine for another half century. Without question reputable non-Adventist Bible scholars and the overwhelming majority of Adventist Bible scholars agreed the entire doctrine of 1844 is not Biblical.

Those wishing to study this subject further will find ample inspiration in the following twenty questions contributed by ex-Seventh- day Adventist pastor Phillip Wilson:

  1. It should be explained why the context of Daniel 8 is not considered and why the question of Daniel 8:13 is ignored, when seeking to interpret its answer given in Daniel 8:14.
  2. It must be proved that 2300 evening and morning sacrifices equal 2300 full days, when there is no conclusive evidence from Daniel 8:14 itself (and no other text of Scripture to confirm) that it means full days.
  3. It must not only be proved that a day equals a year in prophecy but that an evening and a morning sacrifice equal one year.
  4. In the face of the contextual implication that the 2300-year period would commence when the daily sacrifice was suspended, it must be argued that it began, rather, in 457 B.C. — a date which had nothing to do with taking away the regular burnt offering.
  5. It must be proved that the heavenly sanctuary is meant, when the context refers to the earthly sanctuary and activity against it by the little horn.
  6. It must be proved that the cleansing of the sanctuary means cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints, when the context refers to cleansing it from pollution by the desolating activities of the little horn.
  7. It must be proved that confessed sins defile the sanctuary, and that the blood of individual sin offerings was taken into the sanctuary, that such blood was sin laden, and, therefore, defiled the holy places.
  8. It must be assumed that 490 years are cut off from the 2300 years, when there is nothing in Daniel 8 or 9 that requires it.
  9. It must be assumed that the 2300 years and the 490 years begin together, although there is no proof of this.
  10. It must be maintained that the reconsecration of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14, as well as the anointing of the sanctuary in Daniel 9:24 are not the same, but are separated by nearly 2,000 years.
  11. It must be proved that there is both contextual and linguistic linkage between Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16.
  12. It must be demonstrated that the word issued in Daniel 9:25 refers to the kingly decree and that Artaxerxes made such a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, when there is no evidence that he did.
  13. It must be proved that the cleansing of the sanctuary commenced not just in 1844, but on October 22, 1844. Since such detail is not in the Bible, it must be shown that Karaites did celebrate the day of atonement on October 22 in 1844, and that their calendar is more reliable than the orthodox rabbinical calendar. This entire exercise depends, of course, upon proving the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is the same as that typified in Leviticus 16.
  14. It must be explained why, in giving the 2300 days a New Testament application, it is necessary to incorporate the Jewish Day of Atonement since SDAs teach after the cross, Judaism as a system, was disqualified; the practices of the annual holy days ceased; and that the Church is now the true Israel of God.
  15. It must be shown that the antitypical day of atonement began in 1844; and it must be explained why Christ’s great act of atonement [at Calvary] is not the day of atonement, but is separated from it by 1800 years.
  16. It must be proved that the two-apartment schema of the Old Testament sanctuary parallels a two-apartment ministry by Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, when Hebrews does not suggest such a conclusion.
  17. It must be shown that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary, and that Christ moved from the holy place to the most holy place in 1844. It must be explained also how, when the New Testament says that Christ entered God’s presence and sat down on the throne in the heavenly sanctuary (as Hebrews 9:12 says), this only means the first apartment in Heaven.
  18. It must be shown further why Christ must function as a priest after the order of Aaron, when Hebrews teaches that He has transcended that priesthood and functions as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
  19. It must be proved that the judgment that began in 1844 was an investigative judgment only for the professed people of God — not a judgment of the wicked horn or of Babylon.
  20. It must be shown this is what Revelation 14:7 is describing, though it gives no such details on this trial of the saints. Does Revelation 14:7 refer to this investigative judgment? Or does it refer to the great judgment hour of God that commenced at the cross?

    It is a fact that the majority of reputable Christian Bible scholars believe the “2300 evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 refer to the events leading up to the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes on December 4, 168 B.C. and on through its reconsecration on December 14, 165 B.C.

    Therefore, the translators could not possibly have known about the defilement and “cleansing” of Jerusalem’s temple under Antiochus Epiphanes for it occurred at least 81 years after the Septuagint was written. Thus Elder Cottrell was mistaken when he stated the writers of the Septuagint used the word “cleansed” because they thought Daniel 8:14 applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. To suggest translators deliberately manipulated the text of Scripture not only is historically inaccurate, but it betrays a lack of confidence in the integrity of God’s Word. Seventh-day Adventists continue to have difficulty coping with the inerrancy of the Bible — particularly when their own prophet Ellen White is so error- prone.

    The historical evidence is clear that the earthly temple was defiled and cleansed — reconsecrated — nearly two centuries before Christ. In the light of history, is it logical to assume Daniel was predicting an event which would not occur until A.D. 1844 in heaven — some 2,500 years after the angel spoke with him in vision? Or is it more likely that Daniel 8:14 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the temple (fulfilled just 500 years after Daniel wrote) and followed immediately by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and thus the fulfillment of Daniel chapter 9?

Seventh-day Adventists have long claimed to be the successors and completers of the Protestant Reformation. But they have long departed from the Reformation’s battle cry of “Sola Scriptura — The Bible Alone!” The Sanctuary Doctrine, the 2,300 days, the Investigative Judgment and the Great Disappointment all evolved not from the solid rock of Scripture, but from the miasmic writings of Ellen G. White. And that is the “keystone in the arch” of Seventh-day Adventism!

Ellen White’s “Biographical Information Blank”.  Notice her response to question 16: “By what meansparticularly were you brought into the truth?”  Answer: “Study of the Bible, listening to gospelpreachers, and by revelation.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

White Washed. Copyright © 2011 by Sydney Cleveland. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2011. Revised and enlarged 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2011. All Scripture quotations—except where otherwise noted—are from Holy Bible, New International Version, © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved. Life Assurance Ministries, Inc.

Sydney Cleveland
Latest posts by Sydney Cleveland (see all)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.