One of the hallmarks of maturity, wisdom, and above all the realization of the duty incumbent upon us before God, in the spirit of the Bereans (Acts 17:11), is a perpetual willingness/readiness/examining whether be wrong, that the Word of God may be found right (Rom. 3:4). To prove all things whether they be so (1 Thess. 5:21), in order that we may then be able to conform ourselves to the truly objective position, upon having taken a careful and prayerful investigation into all sides on any given matter. If you identify as a Seventh-Day adventist, if you love God, and if you desire to reach the world with the Three Angels Message, you need to examine the evidence which will presented in this exposition, as well as to carefully consider the ramifications which will be elucidated of said evidence.

Introduction: Motivation and Spirit of Writing, etc.

To begin, I want to make it clear that, while I ultimately must consider myself non-denominational (the reasons for this, which are scriptural, will become clear very shortly, for they are the chief subject of this post); nonetheless, in theology, doctrine, eschatology, and lifestyle (health-reform, music reform, dress reform, etc.) I am a Seventh-Day Adventist. In other words, I’m technically not a Seventh-day Adventist, but in essence I am, and therefore I identify with SDA’s.  I am an independent Sabbath-keeping, God-fearing man, whose laid down his life entirely for the gospel’s sake and to preach the Three Angel’s Message. My ministry, like the Waldenses {GC 67.3, GC 69.1, etc.}, and the school of the prophets {PP 593.3} is 100% supported by the sweat of my own brow, toiling daily doing manual labor, and I come to you in the name of the Lord; out of love and obedience to my Master, in defense of the Bible and the protestant principles which are supposed to epitomize the SDA church and her mission (i.e. those of the protestant reformation). 

God called me, saved me and transformed me, by impregnating me with His Holy Spirit in 2012. After a couple years of study I came across an SDA webpage discussing the identity of the two-witnesses, the mark of the beast, etc. and immediately recognized it to be the most logical and Biblical explanation I’d come across so far. It’s now been about 5 years or so that I’ve learning from and studying various SDA sources (both original and contemporary). I believe that the SDA faith is the closest system of organized Christianity to true primitive 1st century Biblical-Christianity. And as a denomination there can be no question they’ve been blessed with the most light regarding the prophetic present truths for our time. They’ve also done the most good in restoring the true and ancient gospel in establishing the law of God (Rom. 3:31; Rom. 8:7, 4; Heb. 10:16; Rom 2:14-15, etc.), which is the foundation of God’s government (Mt. 22:35-40). Therefore there can be no doubt that the Seventh-day Adventist Movement is indeed part of the succession of those great movements of God which E.G. White traces in her book Great Controversy. Also, I can really only truly enjoy fellowship with SDAs because my beliefs are generally so in harmony with them, and I share nearly all of their grievances with traditional Christianity. To this day most of the sermons/teachings I listen to on a regular basis are from SDA pastors/evangelists (the late Jim Arrabito’s lectures probably having had the greatest influence on me, above any other Christian teacher since I’ve come to faith) and most Recently Pastor Andrew Henriques’ youtube channel ProphesyAgainTV (to whom I dedicate this exposition). Regarding Mrs. White, I’ve read through her Conflict of the Ages series several times, as well as Steps to Christ, and am familiar with quotes from many of her other manuscripts. Her book Great Controversy is probably my favorite book outside the Bible. I have great respect for her, and I think she had many, many, wonderful, and indeed prophetic things to say. 

But the reason I’ve been unable to officially become or call myself a SDA (and the same reason why any conscientious believer will not be able to, who, like Luther, concede that their conscience is captive to the Word of God, and their fidelity to the scriptures alone: the chief principle of the protestant reformation) is because upon seeking to join the denomination; between the Baptismal Vow and the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, one is forced to acknowledge Mrs. White as “The Lord’s Messenger”, her writings the chief “authority” alongside the Bible, etc.  Now, I shall set the example by myself being faithful to the principles elucidated at the very beginning of this introduction. I truly have no problem accepting these conditions regarding Mrs. White and her writings if A) she does indeed pass the test when compared against scripture. If there are absolutely no irreconcilable contradictions between her writings and the Bible, I have no reservations whatsoever in receiving her as “God’s prophet”, “her writings inspired”, etc. or B) there remains freedom of interpretation within the denomination to differ from Mrs. White’s without threat of persecution. Because as shall be demonstrated in section two of this article, she’s definitely undeniably, absolutely, and irreconcilably in contradiction to scripture on several points.

And while the honest SDA’s who realize there’s a conflict between these vows and the foremost principle of Protestantism (which Seventh-day Adventism is supposed to epitomize), namely ‘Sola Scriptura‘, will commonly retort with statements such as “yes but even she teaches we must test her writings against the scriptures”, “she’s only a lesser light”, “the Bible is still the final authority” etc. (and I believe when folks say these things they’re being sincere; they just don’t perceive the cognitive dissonance which must exist, as shall be demonstrated), history testifies that when the proverbial “rubber meets the road” it quickly becomes evident that things aren’t so “cut and dried”. And that those who’re part of the organized church and express disagreement with E.G. White on matters are often disfellowshipped. For instance, most recently this couple for their views of the trinity; perhaps most notably Desmond Ford in 1980 for his interpretation of Dan.  8:14 which resulted in hundreds of Pastors, teachers, etc. being fired, as documented by Walter Martin/John Ankerberg (7:25-8:10; 10:00-11:10); and perhaps most importantly Verne Bates for discovering that all the spirit of prophecy books had been re-written after James White passed by comparing with the original publications. In actual fact, in SDA circles, if one even hints that perhaps Mrs. White’s interpretation could be incorrect on any given matter, by merely espousing another, they’re looked upon as a threat or with with suspicion as being an apostate, spiritually in darkness, or as someone seeking to destroy the SDA church (the same way, very unfortunately, I no doubt will likely be regarded by those who dismiss this appeal before even reading all the way through it, and considering the contents thereof).

And so while the declared supremacy of The Word over Mrs. White’s writings may sound compelling, it’s no wonder that in practice it isn’t actually so, given many prominent SDA leaders have proven that SDAs speak out of both sides of their mouth, having openly made statements literally declaring her writings to be “the Word of God” (Walter Veith, 2:14-2:30, Latest Events 2019 – Walter Veith (Part 4 of 5)), as being ‘inspired the same way scripture was,‘ and ‘even more infallible than any Bible translation’ (Bill Hughes, Pressing Issues: Which Bible Translation? with Pastor Bill Hughes (7:40-11:00, also refer to his response to me (Contending For the Faith )in the comment section), and referring to her writings as “scripture” (Pastor Andrew, 2:48-2:53, or Javier Chipi, Last Warning Truth Minisitries; 2:32-35). Expressing similar sentiments you have the following statements: 

“The Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted, to avoid confusion and division. When will the people of God cease trusting in their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret by their own reason what God says to them through His appointed channel? When we come to the place where we place no trust in man or in the wisdom of man, but unquestionably accept and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy as set before us in the Bible and confirmed among us and become in fact a counselor, guide and final court of appeal among God’s people”-Adventist Review (official organ of SDA), June 3. 1971, p, 6.

“Ellen white had that gift, she was cannonical, in so far as doctrinal interpretational authority is concerned“-D.A. Delafield, Trustee of E.G. White Estate.

There’s many other statements by other church officials that could be cited but I don’t want to belabor the point. And again, while the honest SDA’s who realize the conflict of interest here may try and argue that these men or their statements aren’t typical of their personal beliefs, or don’t represent the views of the SDA Faith as a whole, etc. The bottom line is, at the end of the day, if one truly believes that E.G. White is “God’s Prophet” (etc.) then by implication, the statements that these men have made ultimately must reflect an an identical sentiment of those who deem her a prophet or her writings inspired in light of 2 Pet. 1:20-21 (though perhaps unrealized). If one deems the scriptures, which declare themselves to be “inspired” (2 Tim. 3:16) as “infallible”, then so to must Mrs. White’s writings be “infallible” or “equivalent to scripture” if they are indeed likewise “inspired”. Otherwise if we deem Mrs. White a prophet or her writings “inspired” but not “infallible” then we are ultimately attacking the infallibility of the Bible which likewise claims to be “inspired.” 

Now  again, if upon reviewing the content below, you believe you’re able to reconcile these several objections presented, I’m happy, ready, and moreover have a duty to listen and to concede. But, on the other hand, granted the evidence which will be presented below holds up to scrutiny and earnest prayer, then the ramifications are, to have a superstitious view of  EG White in anyway (that means deeming her “God’s prophet”, her writings “inspired”, “the spirit of prophecy”, etc.) is not only personally extremely spiritually dangerous (as it will render you unable to receive divine truth beyond what she affirms; and thus rendering you in spiritual darkness), but moreover, and as will be elaborated on later, is actually counter-productive to the promulgation of the sacred truths for our time that the SDA has most definitely been entrusted with (i.e. The Three Angel’s Message), and therefore is ultimately sin against our fellow man.

Now before we examine the evidence, I just want to make a couple final statements.

If you’ve stuck with me from the beginning of the introduction you know that I have a high regard for Mrs. White, and therefore I obviously believe that God did use her. But, to quote Isaiah, “come and let us reason together” (Is. 1:18). Surely to believe that God used Mrs. White any more than He used Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Huss, Calvin, Wesley, etc. to go so far as to develop a superstitious view of her or her writings, not only goes against common sense, but furthermore, being an absolute repudiation of the foremost protestant principle ‘Sola Scriptura‘, renders those who so regard her while yet claiming to be protestant hypocrites. What would you think, dear reader, if someone came up to you and declared any of those men to be “God’s prophet”, that it was their writings (rather than the Spirit of Christ) to which was being referred as “the spirit of prophecy” in Rev. 19:10, or that all their writings were “inspired” in the same way as scripture? And what would you advise them would become of them, should they continue to so regard one of those men or their writings? Haven’t we learned as the centuries have passed, that while these men were no question mightily used by God, that nonetheless there were things that they were in error regarding, that that none of them had the full picture; and that God’s revelation is indeed progressive, even as Mrs. White maintains in {GC 103.1}? Did not Mrs. White herself warn about this type of superstitious disposition (for instance in {GC 385.1})? Doesn’t she maintain this type of mentality is what causes folks to put the spiritual “breaks” on, to proceed no further, and thus the reason there are so many denominations of protestant Christianity? Did not the SDA pioneers (including Mrs. White) allude to these very principles in their warnings about creeds? Since the underlying greek for “prophet” (Acts 15:32) is also translated “witness” (Acts 10:43), which technically by implication would make anyone who preaches the Gospel or Word of God a prophet, mustn’t we at least allow for the possibility that “the spirit of prophecy”,  rather than referring to the Collective writings of a singular but unspecified “infallible” individual, it rather refers to an understanding of the prophecies in general of the infallible Bible, which the remnant would possess, regardless of where, or from who they learned it, or which denomination they officially belong to? And lets grant that the majority of that understanding did come through Mrs. White. Does that mean that everything she wrote has to be infallible? Or is it more likely that like Wycliffe, Luther, Wesley, and Calvin (etc.) who possessed the original “spirit of prophecy” (being the first to identify the antichrist, etc.) are likewise not infallible?

Make no mistake about my friend, just as the Bible doesn’t include men’s writings, it’s also no coincidence that Providence saw to it that Mrs. White’s writings were not inducted into the canon of sacred scripture. If God wanted it to be so, her writings (either in part or in whole) would be contained in every Bible. Obviously God mustn’t have willed it to be so. As a matter of fact, both the new and old testaments contain passages indicating that the books which should comprise them as Holy Writ have been Divinely chosen, and are, in and of themselves complete. And furthermore both testaments contain curses for those who’d seek to add or remove to them (Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:2). And again, to be clear, I’m not attacking her writings, rather to have a superstitious regard of them.

Furthermore, my friend, we must acknowledge undeniable reality that the Seventh-Day Adventism meets all of the following criteria indicative of any cult: #1) having an authoritative spokesperson outside the Bible (let us ask ourselves, how is this any different than having a “pope”?) #2) having it’s own set of supposedly inspired extra-Biblical writings (i.e. kind of like the papal doctrine apostolic succession, which elevates of the traditions as championed by her church fathers to equal footing with scripture?) #3) teaching that their denomination alone represents the exclusive group of God’s people (i.e. kind of like the papal bull “Unam Sanctam” which states there’s no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church?).

Do we not see how these sentiments, if held, regardless of having generally correct doctrine and eschatology, yet indeed render us to one degree or another part of the image of the beast?

Okay in the next section we’ll examine the evidence.

Seven Points in which Mrs. White is in undeniable, absolute, and irreconcilable contradiction with the scriptures

1.

Regarding the chronology surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, Jesus was crucified on on the passover day (which the passover meal precedes, i.e. the evening before, as the Bible/Jews start the new day at sunset, Lk 22:15; Ex 12:6; Mk. 15:25; etc.) and was placed in the tomb that evening (passover day) before sundown (Jn. 19:31). The day which follows the passover is a High Day (one of the annual “sabbaths” of lev 23:24; 32; 39, etc.) known as Unleavened bread (Lev 23:5-7). Now, Mk. 16:1 indicates that following the crucifixion, the women purchased spices to anoint His body after the Sabbath passed. Now obviously it cannot be referring here to after the 7th day sabbath, because it says when they came to the tomb to anoint him with these spices it was early before the sun had even risen (v. 2), i.e. when shops would not have been open, and by the time the shops had opened they wouldn’t have bought them because they would’ve known He had risen, so it must be referring to after Unleavened bread (which follows the Passover day). Now, at the same time we also have Lk 23:55-56 indicating that after preparing the spices they purchased, then they proceded to “rest on the Sabbath day according to the commandment”. Therefore there had to be a day in between the two sabbaths that week on which they purchased the spices, as shops to do so would’ve been closed for passover through the following day (Unleavened Bread, in accordance to Lev. 23:6-7). With this knowledge, working backwards from the Sabbath day, that means Jesus had to have been crucified and placed in the tomb on a wednesday passover (at evening just before sundown) with a thursday unleavened bread, and then the day in between on which spices could be bought preceding the Sabbath Day (interestingly enough, in harmony with SDA interpretation of the 70 week prophecy, which put’s Jesus’ Crucifixion in the year AD 31, astronomical calculations also indicate Passover fell on a wednesday that year).  Notice, this chronology is harmony with Jesus who said He would be in the tomb for three mornings and three evenings. So just as Jonah was literally in the belly of the whale (Mt. 12:40; Jon. 1:17), so was Christ (and therefore not figuratively as Uriah Smith tries to argue against all common sense and reason). And wednesday evening to sunday morning would be 4 evenings and 4 mornings. So since He was put in the tomb just before sunset on the wednesday passover, he had to rise just before sunset on the weekly Sabbath. Since, as was demonstrated, a day in between the sabbaths is indicated by scripture, this is the only possible chronology. And if you read the gospel accounts carefully, you’ll notice it never says that He rose on the 1st day, rather that on the 1st day, early the morning when the ladies had arrived at the tomb, he had already risen. Indeed try as one might, friday evening to to sunday morning can never = 3 days and 3 nights, and thus we see how E.G. White who maintains that Jesus was resurrected the 1st day of the week and crucified on friday, must be in error (and it’s actually tragically ironic that SDA’s uphold a sunday resurrection despite of the testimony of scriptures, as to uphold the testimony of scripture refute the number one rationalization used by sunday keepers, that He supposedly rose on a sunday.

2.

While Jesus was born in the fall season in fulfillment of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles (lev 23:33-36), traditional Christianity (as a whole) has instead adopted the observance of one of those holy days implemented in its place by that man of sin (as foretold in Dan. 7:25). While borrowing names and figures from the gospel story, ChristMASS is yet utterly pagan (and according to that harlot herself, represents another one of her marks of authority, “The Protestant mind does not seem to realize that in…keeping Christmas and Easter, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.”-Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950). Now I wont here go into all the details regarding the pagan nature of Christmas (for that’s not the scope of this exposition, most of my readers will already be familiar with those matters, and in the future I will be devoting an entire article to the subject of Christmas), but suffice it to say, one of the hallmarks and centerpieces of Christmas is the evergreen or “christmas” tree (a practice of pagans from the time of the Egyptians to the druids of great britain) and exchanging of gifts (in the tradition of the roman saturnalia). The Bible describes the process of the pagans making their idols in way that no one can deny sounds remarkably similar to the the christmas tradition of putting a tree up and decorating it, “For the customs of the people are vain: For one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.” (Jer. 10:3-4) And in the in the very context declares in no uncertain terms, “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…” (v.2), or as the apostle Paul put it, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Eph. 5:11). And yet, Mrs. White, instead of likewise teaching to have nothing to with these pagan customs since the Bible’s pretty clear and we’re called to be separate, teaches, “God would be well pleased if on Christmas each church would have a Christmas tree on which shall be hung offerings, great and small, for these houses of worship. Letters of inquiry have come to us asking, Shall we have a Christmas tree? Will it not be like the world? We answer, You can make it like the world if you have a disposition to do so, or you can make it as unlike the world as possible. There is no particular sin in selecting a fragrant evergreen and placing it in our churches; but the sin lies in the motive which prompts the actions and the use which is made of the gifts placed upon the tree…the tree may be as tall and its branches as wide as shall best suit the occasion; but let its boughs be laden with the golden and silver fruit of your beneficence, and present this to Him as your Christmas gift. Let your donations be sanctified by prayer.” {EGWSROCHG 9.5, 7}. Okay, now again, look, as I stated in the introduction, my aim is to be biblically fair and mature about this, so I will acknowledge that, speaking in general terms, she’s right that in and of itself there’s no sin in putting a “fragrant evergreen tree” in the home or the church. If you want to grow an evergreen as “house plant” of sorts, or put one up for spring, or even the Feast of Tabernacles, then okay sure, that’s not overtly sinful. But let’s be honest with ourselves here, not only putting up an evergreen tree, but “on christmas”, and then going on to also decorate it, and give gifts, etc. is celebrating christmas. How are Mrs. White’s sentiments above any different than when the catholic missionaries, in seeking to covert the “savages”, would tell them it was okay to continue their pagan customs as long they directed their worship to the crucifix necklace they gave them to wear around their necks? Now I know there are many SDA ministries today on youtube protesting against the celebration of christmas (and amen). So my only question is when do we realize the implication and finally acknowledge that Mrs. White was obviously wrong in advocating this baptism of pagan customs, and that therefore that her writings cannot be considered “inspired”. Would “God’s prophet” ever say it was okay compromise and so partake? Obviously not as the scriptures quoted above bear testimony.

3. 

As indicated in the introduction, I believe in health-reform. To give you a little back story, I didn’t come to know the Lord until I was 23 years old. I grew up almost exclusively on fast food, candy, and other horrible junk foods, and continued to eat that way until I was saved. Subsequent to the Lord saving me, my diet consists almost exclusively of meals which would be considered vegan. I am not sure that too many would contest the fact that a diet consisting exclusively of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, etc. is ideal. And because I see my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, and my productive potential, mental faculties, etc. the Lord’s who bought me, I therefore seek to put into my body what’s best.

Now having made my position clear, nonetheless, if one were going to be dogmatic about diet, let us consider, what does the Word of God record the Lord Jesus Christ in His infinite wisdom choose to eat when on earth with His resurrected body? Honey and and fish (Lk. 24:42), neither of which are considered vegan items (that’s right, believe it or not honey isn’t technically considered vegan either). Now since we know the Lord obviously didn’t chose these items in His Providence to advocate some sort of ideal diet, is it possible that what He was doing, in making such a decision for posterity to forever behold in His Eternal Word, was to repudiate, rebuke, and expose those, who like Mrs. White, would teach that to eat meat is sin, in complete, stark, and absolute contradiction to the Word of God, which regarding the religious mandate of abstaining from meats, it declares to be a “doctrine of devils” (1 Timothy 4:1,3)? Did not the apostle Paul teach that those who would only eat vegetables because they were concerned about the fact that the meat may have been sacrificed to idols, were, rather than being the strong ones in faith, were the weak (Rom 14:1-4)? Now any good SDA will respond by talking about the supposed “restoring the eden diet” (but since God subsequent to eden declared eating meet okay (Gen. 9:3) and more importantly since Jesus in His glorified body ate meat, this obviously cannot scripturally be maintained), or saying something along the lines of how polluted meat is today etc. Now regarding the latter point, my friend, if you think, between the pollution in general of the industrialized world, pesticides, herbicides, GMOs, the chemtrails they’re spraying from planes all day long to poison us, the neglect of the heavenly mandated sabbaticals (Lev. 25:1-7, which kept the soil from becoming nutritionally depleted), that the fruits of the field are any less polluted than the meats, I’m very sorry to say, but you just illustrate the extent to which self-deception is possible in spite of all common sense, and likewise the dangers of placing tradition above scripture. And if you think that just because something is sold to you as “organic” that it means it actually is, again I’m sorry, but it just goes to show that you totally underestimate the absolute depravity of fallen man. In fact my mother was seeing a guy who was operating at a farmers market, and according to her, he asked one of the guys if what they were selling was really organic, and the person responded “if they’re dumb enough to believe it’s organic, I’m dumb enough to sell it to them as organic”. It should be obvious “organic” is generally used as a marketing ploy by those who know not the Lord, and therefore will naturally bring forth fruits of the mystery of iniquity in seeking to make more money (1 Tim. 6:10). Presumption is one thing no doubt, but since the Bible says that God will neutralize poisons put in our foods (Mk. 16:18; 2 King. 4:38-41), then wouldn’t it be a matter of unbelief, to not eat fish for example, on account of a fear it’s somehow absorbed dangerous amounts of toxins from the ocean, and which God wouldn’t neutralize in accordance to His Word if prayed over and sanctified unto Him and His service?

Now I know that Mrs. White wasn’t personally totally against dairy products, eggs, etc. but because I’m aware that many SDAs today do tend to be dogmatic about these food items I shall take this opportunity to mention in passing that, in the Bible, we have Men of God eating: meat (kosher of course), butter, and milk (Gen. 18:8, Is. 7:15), olive oil (1 king 5:9, 11), cheese (2 Sam. 17:29; 1 Sam 17:18), etc.

4.

As somebody who entirely self-supports their ministry through full-time and rigorous daily toil (again, in the manner of the Waldenses, and School of the Prophets; typically yard work and other forms of manual labor) and therefore has to get up around 4 AM and devote all of his free time outside of work to ministry to be able to make any progress at all, and yet cannot afford proper health care, dental care, vehicle maintenance, etc. you can imagine, I should be one of the first to cry with Mrs. White and the other SDA ministers, “Tithe should be returned as first fruits when the personal income is received” and which is mandated to SDAs in the baptismal vow. So why don’t I? Because as I shall demonstrate, when one rightly divides the Word of Truth, comparing scripture with scripture, this is totally unbiblical, and as you will see, ultimately makes those who preach it hypocrites. Now again, don’t misunderstand me, I am not against supporting ministries, nor would I ever advocate that it’s not a duty to do so, especially if one’s not engaged in their own ministry of the gospel. The point is the Bible defines the “tithe” as something altogether different, and if we’re going to teach the duty of supporting ministries, let’s at least do it in a truly Biblical way.

To begin, 1) the tithe was only produce of the land, it was never money (Lev. 27:30). Now there were certain provisions for long-distance travel where the tithe could be exchanged for money to avoid having cart a bunch of extra stuff along, but this ultimately upon arrival had to be re-exchanged (for more details on these matters, the scriptural references, etc. refer to videos #36 and #37 of the following playlist, a two-part study, titled Tithing or Extorition, which was put together by fellow Adventists).  2) The tithe was only for the tribe of Levi, on account of, unlike the other 11 tribes, they were not given land in order to grow food on in order to sustain themselves (Num. 18:20, 24). 3) Being therefore instituted as a constituent of the sacrifices and other carnal ordinances of the temple, which things the apostle paul says were “a figure for the time then present… Which stood only…imposed on them until the time of reformation…a shadow of good things to come” (Heb 8:5-7, 13; Heb. 9:9-10),  this ordinance must have likewise perished along with those things. To argue that the sacrificial system was done away with but the tithe that was merely a means to this end was not, is obviously an epitome of theological inconsistency. 4) Now, were one to seek to a give it a spiritual application and argue that in principle it’s still binding for the maintenance of the spiritual temple (overlooking the inconsistency of this argument in making temple spiritual but not the tithe); according to the new testament all believers are priests (Rev 5:10; 1 Pet. 2:9, and for that matter every believer is also called to spiritually be the temple, the sacrifice, the ark of the covenant, the altar of incense, and so on, 1 Cor. 3:16; Rom. 12:1; Heb. 10:16; 2 Cor 2:15), and therefore were we to argue the perpetuity of a literal tithe, it would have to be distributed amongst all the believers, as all believers are called to maintain the spiritual temple and its spiritual services (and indeed the Bible indicates that the 1st century church held all things in common, and distributed according to the needs of the members of the church, Acts 2:44-45; acts 4:34-35; Rom. 12:13; 1 Jn. 3:17, etc.). But of course, and rather ironically, 501c3 churches are actually technically legally forbidden to give their funds to individuals. 5) the notion of the tithe actually demeans the Holy standards of God. God doesn’t require 10%. He requires 100%, of everything be sanctified to Him and his cause, not just 10% of our income, but every single penny earned, and not just our income, but everything we possess, every meal, every day, every hour, every second, every moment, every breath we’re gifted with to yet be on this earth is to have inscribed on it “HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD” on it.  

And of all the passages in the new testament that could be used to suggest that believers are “required” to give money to their church leaders, in their immediate context one finds statements such as, “If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ…Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die…“ (1 Cor. 9:12, 14-15), “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.“ (2 Cor. 9:7). Based on this text, the “nail in a sure place” we see that not only is “tithing” not required, but the the implication that if giving is done under such a pretense, it’s actually sin (see also 2 Pet. 2:3). And getting back to our theme of the image of the beast, wasn’t it the Roman Church who exacted money from it’s parishioners as the pretense to be right with God, even when they couldn’t even afford food or adequate shelter? In harmony with James. 2:15-16 There’s a scene in the film Luther (2003) where one of the beggarly parishioners excitedly tells Martin Luther about an indulgence she bought for her little girl, and Luther tells her it’s meaningless, gives her the money back from his own pocket and says, “use it to feed your daughter”. In such a spirit, my question is (and this is of course rhetorical), when there’s people who cannot find work because their faithfulness to Christ and unwillingness to bend in regard to sabbath keeping (which the SDA claims to epitomize), and they’re threatened with homelessness and can’t pay their bills, how many of these individuals are being provided for by these SDA churches collecting “tithes”? Or the SDA’s who teeth are rotting and falling out and cannot afford dental care; or that don’t have a vehicle to get to work, are they having their needs met out of the tithe in accordance to Rom. 12:13; 1 Jn. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:9-10? And if one is a Sabbath keeper in harmony with Seventh-Day Adventism in all major points of doctrine, but they refuse to have a superstitious view of Mrs. White, vocally disagree with her on issues, or are not an official member of the denomination, and reach out for help, will they nonetheless be helped in the Spirit of Christ, or do they have to “join”, recant, and conform to the denominational dogmas to receive true Christian mercy?

One final point regarding tithes. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded in the parable of the talents (Lk. 19:11-27), clearly gave talents to each individual, and expected them each as individuals to personally promulgate and multiply it (v. 15). And to the one who hid his talent in the ground, Jesus essentially says, “hey, if you weren’t going to do the work of an evangelist in multiplying the seed of the Gospel, then you should have given your means to one of these evangelical organizations, who at least would of multiplied it for Me” (v.23). So the implication is that the duty of the believer to support a supposed ministry is only binding if they’re not engaged in their own ministry. And notice, in harmony with Peter’s prophecy (2 Pet. 2:3), the Lord Jesus Christ identifies these tithe-exacting “churches” as “usurers” (v.23). According to Webster’s 1828 dictionary a Usurer is “one who lends money at a rate of interest beyond the rate established by law.” In other words, simply put, someone who is making money in way that is immoral or illegal (or concerning God’s law, in away contrary to the scriptures). So since the Bible tells us “Buy the truth, and sell it not“ (Pro. 23:23), and based on all the other scriptures covered in this section, wouldn’t the teaching of tithing as mandatory be considered Usury?

5.

One of the truly Biblical doctrines championed by the SDA church is the death-knell to spiritualism: that consciousness doesn’t exist beyond the grave, that no one is presently suffering in hell nor others rejoicing in heaven, but rather, as Bible plainly teaches, the dead are unconscious: the righteous until the second coming of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-17), and the wicked following millennium (Rev. 20:5). For this reason it is of greatest irony that Mrs. White, while generally maintaining this view, in spite of herself, and totally inconsistently, also teaches, not only that Moses, Elijah, and Enoch are in heaven, but also the saints of Mt. 27:52-53. Now there’s no doubt that Elijah was taken up into “heaven” for the scripture plainly tells us that (2 King. 2:11). The problem, it will become clear, is in what the implications/nature of this are interpreted to be (to begin we must keep in mind the word “heaven” is used in the Bible not only to describe the throne room of God (Heb. 8:1) but also the atmosphere (Jam. 5:18), and outer space (Mt. 24:29)). And as shall be demonstrated, no matter what, it’s absolutely impossible to maintain from scripture that Moses, or especially the saints of Mt. 27:52-53 were taken to heaven; and that anybody presently “in heaven”, are only there in the same exact way as every other saint who’s died, i.e. in accordance to 2 Cor 5:8; Ecc. 12:7; 3:20. But the implications of Mrs. White’s statements are, that the aforementioned enjoy a special condition in heaven, for otherwise, to make such statements at all concerning them would be redundant, if they were only present with the Lord the same way the rest of the Dead in Christ are (2 Cor 5:8; Ecc. 12:7; 3:20).

Now let’s start with Moses. The scriptures plainly state “Jesus Christ…the first begotten of the dead...For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (Rev. 1:5). This means that Moses could not have been resurrected before Christ (because Moses obviously died before Christ, and according to this passage Jesus was the first begotten from the dead), and therefore Jd. 1:9 cannot be interpreted in such a way to to argue he was, or we make the scriptures to irreconcilably contradict themselves. Additionally 1 Cor. 15:22-23 tells us “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” So according to this passage Christ alone has been resurrected to heaven, and the rest will not be so resurrected until the 2nd coming. But there’s more. What did the Lord Jesus Christ Himself say? “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.“ (Jn 3:13). And then we’re also told (through a typological interpretation of The Day of Atonement, consistent with SDA interpretation) , “And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation [i.e. in heaven, Heb. 9:24] when he [i.e. Christ] goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place [Jn. 20:17; Heb. 7:25; Heb. 4:15-16; 1 Pet. 1:2; etc.], until he come out [i.e. at the second coming]…” (Lev. 16:17).

So having established that Moses (who we know definitely died, Deut. 34:5) cannot be in heaven, we know that the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration cannot be considered as an evidence of some sort of unique consciousness/presence of either of the men. If Moses isn’t conscious/physically present in heaven, it would be inconsistent and illogical to assume Elijah was (or Enoch for that matter). And in fact, if one very carefully studies the scriptures, they’ll find Elijah was evidently just relocated, as he’d later go on to write a letter to one of the kings, and thus was not taken to the 3rd heaven (2 Cor. 12:2). So while the latter two were translated so as not to experience death, their presence in heaven must yet likewise be in accordance with all the other saints dead in the Lord (2 Cor 5:8; Ecc. 12:7; 3:20), because the scriptures covered in the paragraph above speak in absolute terms, “and there shall be no man…in the tabernacle…until He come out”. Since it doesn’t state parenthetically, “with the exception of Moses, Enoch, Elijah, etc” to maintain the opposite would render the Word of God in irreconcilable contradiction to itself. We’d be forced to concede, “well even though it says that, it doesn’t really mean that, the opposite is actually true”. Now if that were the case, then Bible just bore false witness (which obviously it cannot). 

Finally, concerning the saints of Mt. 27:52-53, had Christ taken them with Him up to heaven at His ascension, surely that would’ve been likewise documented in Acts 1:9-10. Other people ascending up to heaven with Him would be no small detail, and the ramifications thereof huge, and therefore the author, who’s in fact reputed for his attention to detail, would not have left it out. It’s much more reasonable to assume that the saints of Mt. 27:52-53 were relatives of Israelites then living, and who had recently died (as the patriarchs, etc. were they then resurrected wouldn’t have been recognized), and that they eventually died again, even as the child raised by Elijah (1 King 17:17-24) must’ve died again.

6.

So now that we’ve covered some of the fundamental ways in which Mrs. White’s teachings are in contradiction to the Bible, let us now elucidate how she actually from the get-go fails to meet the very first Biblical requirements in order to be considered a teacher (or at least anyways one that’s in obedience to God’s Word). One need only go to EGWritings.org and browse her various books and manuscripts to realize she was a prolific writer who imparted instruction regarding nearly every aspect of the Christian walk and religion. There’s only one major problem. While her writings are full of instruction, teaching, and laden with doctrine, the Bible states plainly, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence….For Adam was first formed, then Eve.And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:12-14). There are also pictures of Mrs. White behind the pulpit preaching. Now let me be very clear, I’m not a misogynist, I understand that God took eve from Adam’s side and not his foot, to love and be his help meet. I also know that women are equally competent. And I also know that even in spite of God’s prescribed order, He will still use a woman if she’s willing, especially if all the men are failing to perform their duty. But let us not doubt that God has established a certain order of things for a reason, and we must ultimately go by His Word, and these matter of facts cannot be used to justify disobedience. Now, of course a a good adventist will rationalize this away by saying, “oh well she was God’s prophet, and the Bible many times throughout the old and new testaments mentions prophetesses.” But based on this text in 1 Timothy there must be a difference from teaching on matters theology, doctrine, religious practice, etc. verses speaking to local or future situations (i.e. the chief definition of a prophet), or again we cause the Bible to irreconcilably contradict itself. If the prophetesses mentioned in the Bible were exercising those offices, then what is the meaning of 1 Tim. 2:12-14? No where in the Bible when it mentions the various prophetesses does it ever indicate they were teaching doctrine or leading in matters pertaining to the practice of religion. And that brings us to the next point regarding why this rationalization (i.e. that it’s “different” with Mrs. White because she was God’s prophet), upon examining the evidence, is doubly untenable:

7. 

Did Mrs. White speak things that are prophetic? Most certainly. In fact I would say at least 90% of what she wrote is biblically accurate as well as prophetic. But as Jn. 11:49-53 testifies, prophetic utterances alone cannot be the grounds that define one as “God’s Messenger”.  Especially when not everything that Mrs. White wrote came to pass. For one thing, in the early days of the Adventist movement, she made several statements indicating Jesus would return in her lifetime, as well as setting dates (and that obviously didn’t come to pass), for instance, at a conference in 1856 Mrs. White declared: “I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.” {EGWC 102.2}. Now obviously all that were at the conference have since died, and Christ has still not returned. According to the Bible, the only definition of a false prophet is one who proclaims something that in turn does not come to pass (Deut. 18:20-22). And it only takes one false prediction to make one a false prophet. And, while good SDA’s will commonly argue “the great disappointment” was prophesied (and I agree that it can easily be read into certain texts), could there perhaps be another reason Providence saw to it this movement would be founded on false prophecies, i.e. William Miller’s original 1844 second coming prophecy (and evidently according to SDA Stephen Bohr there were other dates set before this)? Could it be that God who foresees history knew that the majority of those those who’d be drawn to this movement to absorb it’s light would, rather ironically, at the same time become superstitious and thus make idols of it’s leaders, and thus that ultimately in turn prevent them from receiving light beyond these fallible men and women, and from which thing He wanted to safeguard them from with such an obvious preface?

SDA Apostasy

As I had stated previously, one of my favorite and most influential teachers ever has been the Seventh-Day Adventist Jim Arrabito, even in spite of his superstitious view of Mrs. White. And, well, before I continue… this brings up another point which shall be demonstrated through a relaying of my personal experiences. God called me out of the world a heathen. Up to that very moment I lived a very worldly life, had very worldly friends, etc. In those first few days, following being saved, I made it known to my roommate (unsaved, totally non religious), who had been my best friend all my life. My mind had been instantly and radically transformed by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I suddenly had eyes to see, and ears to hear; conviction of sin, righteousness, and the judgement to come; I knew I’d inevitably have to separate, that I couldn’t live the lifestyle we had lived together any longer. Nonetheless, he was my best friend. I still loved him, and I intended to be there for him, stay in touch, etc. But because of my transformation, even though it was he who was in sin and error, and me who should be offended and threatened by His sinful lifestyle, it was he who it turned out wanted nothing to do with me, and immediately asked me to move out, and after which, would go on to never even answer my phone calls or ever speak to me again, even though we were best friends for all our lives (1 Jn. 2:19). Well in my experience, the same has proven to be true regarding Seventh-Day Adventism. While I believe to hold a superstitious view of Mrs. White is, to be frank, silly, spiritually suicidal, and ultimately an affront to God; since I think she had a lot of wonderful (and indeed also prophetic) things to say, I will still always listen to and consider what she has to say. I don’t mind if SDAs want to quote her. I honestly personally don’t even care if SDAs want to have a superstitious view of her. I’m able to accept them for who they are, still fellowship with them, and not make a big deal about it. Rather, like my unsaved friend, it’s SDAs who don’t want to fellowship with those like me, who don’t regard Mrs. White the same way they do. For example, when I called the only SDA church in my area seeking fellowship, and spoke with the pastor, expressing my desire for fellowship, while at the same time yet being open and up front with him about my concerns with having to have a superstitious view of Mrs. White as reflected in the baptismal vow, and inquired whether that would be a problem or if I could still fellowship there, well, long story short, he never answered me, told me he would call me back, and never did.

Just like David, and just like our Master, those who such as myself, have indeed received great light from SDA, but yet cannot perjure ourselves or the Word of God in accepting Mrs. White as “god’s prophet” or her writings “inspired”, we find ourselves forsaken by all (Mk. 14:50; Jn. 6:66-67; Ps. 55:12-14; Ps. 88:18). Just like Elijah, just like John the baptist, we’re relegated to obscurity to truly dwell in the wilderness (Rev. 12:6).  On the one hand the SDAs don’t want anything to do with us because of our legitimate Protestantism, and on the other hand we can’t have anything to do with traditional Christianity because it’s completely in disagreement to The Word. And so in consequence of such sentiments, those who are truly carrying on in the spirit of the protestant reformation led by the Word and Spirit of God get deprived of fellowship, while those who are in the denomination and hold the protestor’s faithfulness to God against them get deprived of the light.

But so in any case, getting back to Jim… even though I love the guy, there’s one thing he needs to be called out on. Throughout his lectures he refers to ancient 12th century Christian sects such as the Waldenses as “Seventh-day Adventists” (a 19th century movement). Now, while the Waldenses were definitely Sabbath Keepers who taught the perpetuity of God’s law, were definitely expecting the second coming (and in that sense, sure, shared several of the fundamental doctrines of SDA), and were definitely part of the remnant foretold in Rev. 12:17; nonetheless, to refer to the Waldenses as Seventh-day Adventists is blatantly academically incorrect (and of all people Jim should’ve known that for he put out several series on the Waldenses). The Waldenses were about 700 years removed from the 1844 “2nd coming” prediction that gave rise to Seventh-day Adventism. They knew nothing of William Miller, or Mrs. White (and should they have, they certainly wouldn’t have put her writings on par with scripture), nor the investigative judgement (the new interpretation of Dan. 8:14 after the 1st interpretation proved erroneous, yet central to Seventh-Day Adventism). Now, obviously I’m sure Jim was in no way seeking to be deceitful. His statement merely reflects the teaching of the SDA church that their denomination represents the remnant foretold in Revelation 12, and therefore is a continuation of the primitive sects, making them in essence synonymous. But as I will now demonstrate in passing, the SDA church has become totally apostate, and therefore the denomination cannot represent God’s remnant.

To begin, 1) the denomination as a whole has embraced the NKJV Bible, a provably counter-reformation, occult, ecumenical non-Bible, which departs from the Textus Receptus (the apostolic line of scriptures which those ancient sect’s translations were based on) agreeing instead with the catholic-gnostic-ecumenical Wescott-Hort manuscripts over 1200 times. 2) SDA is rife in occult symbolism from the upside-down cross & 666 logo (the flame, itself a symbol of the sun-god, made up of ‘S’, the 6th letter of the greek alphabet, and another ancient symbol of the ‘6’, the serpent), the constant using of the all-seeing eye of lucifer on official SDA publications, all the way back to the SDA pioneers making the masonic hidden hand gesture, and finally to the obelisk (an ancient phallic symbol of sun/sex worship), which either they, their family, or Providence chose should mark Mr. and  Mrs. White’s gravesite. 3) SDA has been a member of the pope’s World Council of Churches for at least half a century (and literally joining hands with the papacy through the general conference), 4) and even been sending the money of it’s faithful tithers to the pope’s cause. 5) Many SDA churches starting to observe sunday. 6) The hierarchy of SDA have literally been denouncing SDA’s who continue to protest, and/or actively preach the Three Angels message (for example  Jan Marcussen.)

Now I could go on, but I think that’s sufficient. And I know many SDA’s are aware of the apostasy of the hierarchy because you have SDA sites such as SDAapostasy.org or https://www.seventh-day.org/sda_apostasy.htm which list many more signs of apostasy, and also thus why countless independent non-General Conference splinter groups have sprung up (just like what ultimately ended up happening with the World Wide Church of God which was stared by another “prophet”, Herbert W. Armstrong, that likewise taught it was the “only true church”). So again, my only question is when do SDAs examine all the evidence to realize that while many pertinent truths came through the SDA movement, it was never what it purported to be (God’s remnant) or Mrs. White what she’s been made into (God’s inspired prophet).

SDA Image of the Beast

As was elucidated in the previous section, the SDA church has at the very least has, as evidenced by her fruits, earned the appellation “MYSTERY BABYLON” along with the other apostate churches. But is it possible that the SDA church could actually be monumental in also fulfilling the second “great error” of which Mrs. White herself warned would lead America to “follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.“? Could the SDA church actually be monumental to the enforcement of sunday laws? Well to begin, and as was demonstrated in the section above, SDA has already, at least in part, started to observe sunday (how on earth a denomination based on the Sabbath could start observing sunday at all is surely nothing short of one of those miracles foretold in Rev. 13:13-14). But has she too became a likeness to or an image of the beast? Well, aside from those 3 major (having a special prophet (pope), having extra-biblical authoritative writings (church fathers), claiming to be the only true church (Papal Bull Unam Sanctam)) ways she has which were already elucidated at the bottom of the introduction; to begin, fascinatingly enough, some SDA leaders (for instance Walter Veith in part 28 of his Total Onslaught Series, 54:37-57:40; 1:01:04-1:01-15) have not only realized, but even been proud to point out that SDA church is the other “universal” (synonymous with “catholic”) on account of having so many members, institutions, and her message being worldwide. But there’s even more commonalities of practice that SDA shares with the roman catholic church and that the primitive church such as the Waldenses and Albigenses protested against (regarding the following statements refer to first several chapter’s of Wylie’s History of Protestantism), such as 1) stockpiling money, 2) not having freedom to interpret the scriptures but having to concede to the teachings of a church “authority” 3) having an extensive church hierarchy (Jim Arrabito in his lectures often referred to himself as a “lay evangelist”, reflecting this adoption the Babylonian priesthood/laity distinctions of the mystery religions/Roman Catholic Church.) 4) baptismal regeneration (you have to be baptized into the SDA church). 5) just like the Papacy’s doctrine of Ex Cathedra, Mrs. White stated that when the general conference speaks on a matter it’s the highest authority on earth and all private independence and judgements must be surrendered to it (3T 492.2, and so if as demonstrated in the section above, the General conference is apostate and serving the pope, what are the ramifications of this concerning Mrs. White being God’s prophet? Either we admit she’s not, or if we maintain she is we must accept the return to Rome as divinely sanctioned), and last but not least, the carrying out of 6) inquisitions to root out heresy; not only the official theological inquiry made to investigate anyone within the denomination espousing “new light” and condemning their works, but also mirroring Rome’s inquisitions, literally the putting to death of those within the church deemed “heretics”, as illustrated by the attempted murder of Seventh-Day Adventist Jonathan Gray by the church, as elucidated in Chapter 43 of his book Ark of the Covenant, where he very reluctantly relays the details and names names.

Finally, when one considers that since 1988 according to the UN’s International Organization for Standardization SUNDAY (no longer saturday) is the seventh-day of the week, we realize that the SDA church with it’s teaching the law is still binding, and with sunday now internationally recognized as “the seventh day of the week”, is in perfect harmony with sunday laws. So no wonder we have SDA’s such as Ben Carson in US politics uniting church and state (which we know will result in sunday laws), many sources also indicate that Pope Francis’ brother has been an SDA minister for over 50 years. Given everything we’ve covered in this exposition, how can these strange matters of fact be a coincidence? Does not Rome indeed always eventually find a way to amalgamate EVERY movement to her own advantage?  In the final analysis then, we see that charge given in Rev. 18:2-4 is as applicable to the SDA church as to every single other denomination. And if faithful SDAs must come out of her, and if God has raised up people such as myself as part of His Great Heritage who were never a part of SDA to begin with, than surely God’s remnant is independent of the SDA denomination just as much as Seventh-day Adventism is independent of the Lutheran church.

Sola Fide?

And then, while Mrs. White may not have taught that sinless perfection was obtainable, she certainly made statements which can be easily misconstrued in that way, and hence no doubt why many SDA’s today teach the same (example 1), (example 2). But Let’s a look some other statements by authorities of the SDA church, and consider if ‘Sola Fide,‘ the second foremost principle of Protestantism has also been set aside:

“A christian who through faith in Jesus Christ has faithfully kept the law’s requirements will be acquitted. There’s no condemnation if the law finds no fault with him.”-William Henry Branson, 14th President of the General Conference

“All who…as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life.”-Ellen White, {GC 483.2}

Versus the Bible which plainly states, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”-Rom. 3:28

In many ways it could be argued that this strand of sentiment that exists within SDA is not too different from gnosticism, which teaches that man is not inherently sinful, but can overcome overcome his sinful nature, of which suffering and eternal damnation are merely the consequence of leaving unchecked, and that through the knowledge of certain principles, in uniting to the divine, through determination, and discipline, man can overcome the cause of sin, and thus also it’s effect. That Jesus came above all to be an example of how a perfect life can be lived, and thus how man may obtain peace with God (rather than emphasizing that man has a sinful nature, and that Jesus came above all to live the life we will never be able, and therefore chiefly to be our Sin Bearer).

So while many SDA’s today are preaching we must have “victory over sin”, the question must be asked, dear pastor, pray tell, what is your definition of “victory over sin”? Since the Bible says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8), and since the Apostle Paul himself stated “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect…“(Phil. 3:12-14), if you mean that we will reach a state of no longer sinning or no longer having a sinful nature, you obviously contradict the Bible which speaks in absolute terms on these matters. But if by it you mean we wont be practicing sin, that sin will not be presumptuously regarded, that we will fear to sin, and that we will fight with all our might and power against it so that it becomes the exception and not the norm, than I would say amen.

Herein has satan laid a most subtle snare for God’s elect. Because after the Bible states “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us“, the next verse informs us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.“. Do you see it my friend? the implication in these passages is that if we do not confess our sins we will not be forgiven, cleansed, etc. And what happens if we, in contradiction the verse on which this statement is prefaced, believe we’ve obtained sinlessness? Well, then that means we wont be confessing sins, because we’re convinced we don’t have any.

Remember, Jesus MAGNIFIED the law (Is 42:21) he taught that if we even lust after someone we’re guilty of committing adultery (Mt. 5:28), or if we get angry or hate someone it’s murder (1 Jn. 3:15; Mt. 5:22). The law could expounded on in this way ad infinitum. That means if someone cuts out in front of you while you’re driving, and you tailgate them afterwards, or lay on the horn; my friend, that’s the spirit of murder. Or so likewise, that means if you don’t pray without ceasing as we’re commanded in the new testament, if for even a moment your heart grows cold towards our heavenly Father, you’ve violated the 1st commandment. Or if you haven’t interceded for and witnessed to every soul you came across today you’re guilty of spiritual murder. That if you’ve kept any of this world’s good that’s beyond necessity, rather than sold those things to give to those in need, you’ve violated the 8th commandment. That means if you wasted any time at all today in idleness, selfish, or otherwise vain pursuits, again you’ve violated the 8th commandment stealing from time that should’ve been given to the Lord’s service, etc.

According to the Bible, sinless perfection would have to be beyond the letter of the law. And such a walk must be perpetual if it’s to be said we’ve truly reached sinless perfection. And thus why Rom. 3:20; 4:5 states, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin… But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.“. That sounds to me like more of those absolute truths.

Indeed, concepts can only be considered “present truth” if it doesn’t contradict the eternal truths set forth in The Word. So tell me friend, are you ready to be judged by God according not only to the letter, but the Spirit of the Law? I don’t know about you, but personally I’d rather be of the disposition of “the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” of whom it’s declared, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other” (Lk. 18:9-14). In my experience, the closer I’ve gotten in my walk with the Lord over the years, the more like brother Martin Luther, I find myself constantly confessing my shortcomings to God (things that others, likely even most believers would deem trivial). For no matter how perfect a life even most Christians might declare that I live, I perceive before our Infinitely Holy God I’m yet an unclean thing, and all my righteousness are as filthy rags in light of the absolute and perpetual perfection demanded by God’s standards (Is. 64:6). I know I don’t love God as I ought. I know I don’t pray as I ought. I know I don’t love my fellow man as I ought. Yet anyone who knows me personally or who I’ve witnessed to, even if they claim to be a Christian, would probably tell you I’m a fanatical holy roller. For make no mistake about it, I do seek and strive for sinless perfection. I’m not saying we should take sin lightly as does traditional Christianity. God Forbid. But let’s not go to the opposite extreme either, for it’s just as heretical and spiritually dangerous to go to the one as the other (Is. 30:21). Let’s make sure what we’re teaching is truly in harmony with the Bible. Sinless perfection in the highest possible sense cannot exist until we receive our glorified bodies (1 Jn. 3:2). And I’ll tell you what, to further illustrate the damage of this disposition so rife in Seventh-day Adventism, I’ve known SDAs personally who’ve gotten so discouraged they’ve walked away from the Christian faith altogether proclaiming, “I just can’t reach the perfection Ellen white says we must”. And according to his person who made a post in a forum anonymously, they personally knew 3 Seventh-Day Adventists that ended up committing suicide.

Indeed, in the final analysis, it’s a best is real fine line between justification by works and grace amongst most SDA circles. And I wonder if part of the problem is due to the fact that the SDA church only gives one of the several definitions of sin of the Bible. Sin is defined not only as transgression of the law, but also as even having a foolish thought (Pro. 24:9), stubbornness (1 Sam. 15:23), or in light of Jam. 4:17, failing to yield to the convictions of the Holy Spirit on for a single moment in seeking to direct the course of our lives, our interactions, etc. through the course of a day would also be considered sin.

Why the Superstition?

Now as far as why there’s been a superstitious view of Mrs. White (in spite of her very own warnings against anyone so regarding her), I believe it’s first of all because she indeed had so many profound and prophetic things to say, it naturally tends towards towards such an end, given human weakness. Additionally I think there’s a subconscious comfort that comes along with having an “authority” to tell us exactly where to look to tell us exactly what the Bible means (being such an utterly complex book with so many works spanning centuries written on it), since human nature strives to eliminate uncertainty. It’s easier to concede to someone else’s view than embrace the fear of the unknown and the need to invest endless hours of personal research, Bible study, and Prayer to come to one’s own conclusions on every single matter. And so once again we find ourselves returning to our theme of the image of the beast. As 2 Cor. 3:17 states, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.“ Instead of allowing Mrs. White to be our vicar of Christ, and her writings our “church fathers” we should through a living relationship with Christ, be led, directed, and taught through the infinite expanses of worlds,  galaxies, nay that whole universe which is the collective body of works spanning 2000 years regarding the Christian faith.

Conclusion

In summary of the 10 commandments, Jesus taught that the two greatest commandments were to love God with all our hearts, and to love our fellow man as our selves. As any faithful Adventist will know, we have a duty to preach the three angel’s message before the sunday laws are passed. In a sense, the harm to this Cause of Christ that’s done by esteeming of Mrs. White/her writings in a superstitious way can be likened to that done by hypocrisies of the roman catholic church (although of course not on the same scale), which have caused, the Lord only knows, how many countless thousands to millions to concede that Christianity cannot be the true religion. Allow me to demonstrate. As Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know them. Thus when people see things that are clearly not right within an organization/religion on the surface, they tend to throw out the proverbial “baby with the bathwater” and look no further. The same is true regarding the three angels message. Protestants, catholics, and worldling’s alike, even in their spiritual blindness, have recognized the unbiblical-cult-like apprehension of Mrs. White and her writings by SDA. Therefore, they associating our message with our hypocrisy to the fundamental principle of Protestantism, the Bible and the Bible alone, likewise reject our message, because they identify it with our earned appellation of a cult (as mentioned in the introduction, in #1) having an authoritative spokesperson outside the Bible #2) having our own set of supposedly inspired extra-Biblical writings #3) teaching our denomination alone represents the exclusive group of God’s people). When preaching the three angel’s message as an evangelist, I’ve literally had people respond with statements along the lines of, “I know that’s what Ellen White taught, but since I’m not a seventh-day adventist, I don’t believe that way”. The association is so strong they wont even stop to listen to the reasoning behind it. And so, in accordance with the principles established in Jam. 3:1; Ezek. 33:1-9, the spiritual blood of those who reject our message at face value because of our hypocrisy and superstitions shall be required on our heads. And remember, as Jesus said, “Inasmuch as ye have done itunto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.“-Mt. 25:40. So we see that in having a superstitious view of Mrs. White or her writings we cause people to reject our message, and also attack God’s Word (as was demonstrated introduction), and thus His wisdom, His character, His person, and therefore are violating both of the great principles of the law SDA’s claim to uphold.

Again, I think it’s great to quote Mrs. White. I’m not saying don’t quote her. I’m not even saying forsake anything she said. I’m saying lets be true to the protestant principles, and not be hypocrites in the most fundamental way possible. Pastor Andrew has been my favorite minister since I discovered His channel. He’s on fire for the Lord and He’s always on the cutting edge of prophetic news headlines. But as Christ would say, “I have somewhat against thee”. One thing I’ve noticed, and I imagine this is not deliberate (but must reflect a spiritual disposition), is that he always puts images on the screen of people reading the BIBLE, the WORD OF GOD, when presenting an E.G. WHITE quote (Example 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex. 4, Ex. 5, Ex. 6. Ex. 7). Again, let me be very clear. I have nothing wrong with the content of ANY of those quotes!! In fact that’s the whole point! In quoting and upholding Mrs. White as scripture, or otherwise holding a superstitious view of her, we actually DETRACT from what she had to say! People wont even consider what she had to say because, after all, “she’s just a cult leader”. And don’t think for a moment to rationalize this away by likening it to the typical rejection of, or mocking of God’s messengers. This is not the same. They’re rejected for their message, as it confronts people’s sins. But our message is being rejected before it’s even heard, because of OUR unbiblical disposition towards the messenger. Mrs. White should be quoted (though probably not as a habitual supplement to scripture, as the manner in SDA circles typically is). If SDA views are truly able to stand on their own from the Bible alone (and with the exception of the 7 points covered earlier, I believe as a whole they are), than we should make it a practice to use the Bible and not her writings to make our case. After all, the Bible says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17). If we’re going to quote her, it shouldn’t be to validate what we’re saying, rather the opposite should be true. And just as spices are used sparingly to garnish a dish, quoting any “authority” outside of the Bible should also only be done sparingly, and when absolutely necessary or appropriate.

It also needs to be stated that Mrs. White is not the only person who’s received light prophetic and other relevant truths for our time. In case you didn’t know it, as undeniably proven in the book “The White Lie” by the SDA Walter Rea, (listen to his story yourself to hear of the attempted cover-up by the general conference regarding his findings when he first brought them to the church, etc.), Mrs. White did an awful lot of “borrowing” from a whole host of sources which make up her writings (and which were were generally not cited, or paraphrased so as to not merit the need to be). And I know that SDAs will say that the citation expectations were different back then, or that she was divinely inspired to extract from those volumes as necessary, etc. But ironically, James White, her husband, made statements condemning her as a prophet should she have “gathered facts from another mind in a single case”.

And as someone who’s recently started reading from Wylie’s History of Protestantism from (which Mrs. White quoted on occasion), I can attest that there’s a whole lot more in their which is prophetic, which is relevant to our times, nay even more specifically to the SDA church itself (indeed in harmony with the message I’m bringing to you now) which she did not quote. The Bottom line is that God blesses those who love Him and seek Him with all their heart. And there’s been millions throughout the centuries. And I know that most SDAs probably aren’t spending as much time drinking at other fountains of living waters (Jn. 4:14, notice it says “whosoever”; it’s not restricted to a particular denomination), for example, the commentaries of Barnes, Gill, Spurgeon (His exposition on the psalms titled The Treasury of David is a must read; There’s indeed a good reason he was called “the prince of preachers”), or even the writings of the reformers which Mrs. White devoted chapters to in GC. Another couple of my favorites are Chiniquy’s 50 years in the church of Rome (there are entire chapters in this book prophetic and in harmony with the principles established in Great Controversy) and William Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series (I listen through both of these in their entirety on audiobook every year).

Just as the papal reign has appropriately earned the name by Providence “the dark ages”, reflecting the stifling of progress. In only looking to “the spirit of prophecy”, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has truly become to one extent or another an echo chamber, and SDAs are robbing not only from themselves blessing, but those which could’ve been subsequently imparted to their neighbors. Again, let me be VERY clear, I’m not suggesting you to join up with apostate disobedient Christians, become ecumenical, forsake the teachings which make SDA unite, etc. Not at all. I’m just saying there are other books etc written over the centuries to to plum the depths of, where more light may be gleaned. I’ve even received great blessings and light from certain messianic/hebrew roots teachers, and even sunday keepers (you can see a list of some of my favorite ministers at resources link above). The law of reaping and sowing is indeed true, and those who hold a superstitious view of anyone or anything (turning them into an idol) will renders them in darkness not only because they’ll immediately turn off their brains when their idols are attacked (like for instance when you try and show a JW from the Bible the verses proving Jesus deity), but also because they will look no further than that idol, saying within their hearts, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing”, “Mrs. White is God’s chosen instrumentality and endtime prophet, she’s given us everything we need to know, no more, no less, so let us look or consider no further”. This is epitomized for instance in the book Omega by the SDA Lewis Walton which essentially maintains that those who protest the dark age superstitions of Mrs. White in the spirit of the reformers are the ones that are the apostates, foretold by Mrs. White.

As the saying goes, those goes, those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. So, with much prayer, in the name of Wisdom, and for the love of Christ, those of you with sentiments similar to those recently expressed by Pastor Andrew calling those who’d say EG White is not “Gods prophet” or who would declare her writings not to be inspired as scripture, “Traitors, spies, Judas Iscariots, etc.” Take heed to 1 Cor. 10:12, and the example given for us (v.11), of Jeremiah likewise so being falsely accused and persecuted for essentially proclaiming the same message that the Babylonian captivity is inevitable, and to not resist. It should be very clear that I am, as a whole, not attacking her message, but rather the denominations idolatry of her and her writings. As stated previously I agree with at least 90% of what I’ve seen that she’s wrote. Again, I am not even necessarily asking you to forsake those teachings of hers I proved are unbiblical. I am merely calling for a restoration of the rightful place of the HOLY SCRIPTURES, and to illustrate why having a superstitious view of her or her writings should be FOREVER forsaken for our good, our fellow man’s, and to the Glory of God. Remember the devil is the great counterfeiter. Obviously there are many principles of EG Whites teachings that are counterproductive to a new world order, and therefore of course the devils minions inside the denomination will seek to dethrone her and her writings. But that certainly cannot be made to mean that everything she said must be true, or that those who seek to point out the errors that definitely exist, and superstitions, are necessarily actuated by satan, are part of some sort of agenda etc. God forbid, our sole aim is to restore fidelity to the Bible. To see the protestant principles once again restored and integrated into the last great movement of God known as Seventh-day Adventism.

Only those who confront these proven errors can truly claim to be the heirs of the reformation, while those who refuse to abandon unbiblical superstitions and traditions obviously cannot be considered so to be.