The Lure of Sabbath Deception

Are Christians who meet together to worship God on Sunday deceived? Historically, the Adventist church has answered this question in the affirmative. “Sunday-worshipers”, as they are often labeled by Adventists, are obviously misled because they ignore God’s clear command to worship on Saturday, citing the Fourth Commandment as evidence (Exodus 20:8-11). And if those who worship on Sunday are deceived, someone must be guilty of promoting this deception. As such, it is perhaps not surprising to see an Adventist conclude that Christians who believe the Fourth Commandment supports Sunday “Sabbath” observance are guilty of promoting great deception. This is sadly the conclusion of a recent Adventist Review article by journalist Mark Kellner entitled “The Lure of Sabbath Deception”.

The stimulus for Kellner’s article was a sermon series he heard on the radio by Alistair Begg, pastor of Parkside Church near Cleveland, Ohio. In this series, Begg argued for a continuing role of the Old Testament Sabbath for Christians. Because Christians worship together on Sunday, Begg belives the Sabbath principle should continue to apply to this day. To an Adventist, Begg’s teaching is part of the great deception about the Sabbath that has been promoted in Christianity since the fourth century rule of the Roman emperor Constantine. Adventist prophetess Ellen White claimed that Christians would one day be tested on their loyalty to God on the basis of their day of worship—those who worship on Saturday will be eligible for heaven while those who worship on Sunday will not.

Kellner revives this Adventist teaching in his criticism of Begg. “So how did [Begg] move from dogmatic insistence on honoring the fourth commandment to an about-face on the God-specified day?” Begg’s answer, of course, is that the day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the first century as a result of Jesus’ Sunday resurrection. Striking at the heart of Adventism’s view of early Christian history, Begg stated that Constantine did not change the day of worship 300 years after Christ’s death, but merely endorsed a widespread and long-standing Christian practice. Kellner, obviously not moved by this argument but providing no evidence of his own, writes, “Such assertions, however, lack much in the way of actual historical proof...”. Nevermind that over one hundred years earlier, former Adventist preacher D.M. Canright provided ample historical evidence to support Begg’s conclusions.

Not surprisingly, Begg reported receiving harsh criticism of his position from Adventists, some even accusing him of not being a Christian. Kellner casts doubt over the truthfulness of Begg’s account, saying, “...there’s little way of proving that such a charge was made”. Perhaps Kellner chose his words poorly, but the way the article reads, Begg’s honesty is at least implicitly questioned. Kellner proceeds to counter the Adventist criticism of Begg by citing the Adventist fundamental belief statement that “the universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ.”

While Kellner is willing to give Begg the title of “Christian” with the one hand, he endeavors to take it away with the other. “To be sure, God will hold responsible those who don’t keep the Bible Sabbath when it is plainly revealed that Sundaykeeping is a counterfeit. But to multiple millions—and even perhaps to Alistair Begg himself—there is justification for ignoring the Bible’s clear command, at least for now.” It is left to the reader to decide whether Begg is really a Christian, but we can be sure that if he has ignored the Bible’s “clear command”, he will be “held responsible” for his actions. For those who know the Adventist version of end-time events, the underlying message is fairly obvious. If Begg rejects the teaching of God’s Word about the Sabbath when it becomes “plainly revealed”, he will receive the mark of the beast. The only hope is that God will not make Sunday “plainly revealed” as a “counterfeit” during his lifetime so that Begg won’t be held accountable for accepting Satan’s false Sabbath and receive his mark.

Turning his attention toward other Christian teachers, Kellner presses home his point. “...there is an added level of concern now—a lure, if you will, of deception about the Sabbath.” Listing a group of Christian authors who have written about the Sabbath as it applies to Sunday, Kellner claims that a great deception is unfolding before our eyes. Satan is using these Christian authors to lure more people into false Sabbath worship so that apparently, more people will be lost by receiving his mark. In a sarcastic tone, Kellner singles out the noted Christian author Marva Dawn. “The lures posed by radio expounders such as Begg, Tony Evans of the Urban Alternative, and some Christian authors—including Marva Dawn (author of several books on ‘keeping Sabbath’ without keeping the Sabbath)—appear to be that one can freely choose how to observe a commandment of God without adhering to what God dictates.” Using the same logic, an orthodox Jew could just as easily include Kellner among a list of authors who write about the Sabbath without actually keeping it the way God prescribed. One wonders what Kellner does with the very clear list of commands God gave to the Israelites about how the Sabbath was to be observed, much less the commands to observe festivals and holy days.

Concluding the article, Kellner leaves his audience with the take-home message. What are we to do with this growing evangelical Christian interest in Sabbath—interest that is clothed in the world’s greatest deception? “The opportunity for Adventists, in their words and in their living witness, is to present Sabbath, and Sabbathkeeping, as not only delightful, but attractive. It may surprise many to see who shows up when we treat the Sabbath as a true delight, and share that delight with the world.” The centerpiece of Adventist evangelism is here on vivid display—it is all about the Sabbath. Non-Christians and Christians alike need this precious message, because without it, they may stand condemned. If the Sabbath is made attractive enough, people will begin to realize that they should be keeping it and thereby avoid God’s condemnation.

It’s tragic, but what’s missing from all of this is Jesus. If only Adventists had the same zeal for converting people to Christ that they have for converting them to a day of worship. Sadly, the most precious message of Christianity has been replaced in Adventism by the worship of a day. The day was never meant to be the object of worship or the dividing line between believers, but a sign pointing the way to Jesus, who deserves all worship. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17, see also Romans 14:5-6) The apostle Paul’s teaching is straightforward. All who would divide the body of Christ over a day of worship have missed his point. While Christians hold fast to the substance of Christ, Adventists continue to direct people to his shadow and in so doing, risk missing the Savior who can redeem them from their sin, even their sin of imperfect Sabbath-keeping.

Re-inventing Ellen White for Kids, part 2

Previously, we discussed a new project of the Ellen G. White Estate aimed at re-defining the life and work of Ellen White for the youngest generation of Adventists. In the January-March 2008 issue of Ellen White: Visionary for Kids, an article by Kessia Reyne Bennett was published entitled ”My Friend Ellen”. Bennett is an Assistant Evangelism Coordinator for the Oregon Conference and writes of her upbringing in Adventism, particularly regarding the impact Ellen White played in her spiritual life. Writing about the relationship to the Adventist prophetess, Bennett writes: “My friendship with her began about 11 years ago. I was a teenager at the time and had just moved 500 miles to learn more about faith and the Bible and the Adventist message. I was starting at a new school in a new place—and I felt plenty of awkwardness trying to navigate the unfamiliar hallways and social networks. I was always glad when I could spend the weekend with my new friends at Hockinson Heights Church. It was there that I first heard about Ellen, though it was several weeks before I met her personally. And when I did, I thought that she and I would be friends for a long time.”

The reverence shown here for “Ellen” is very similar to the way Christians speak of finding Jesus Christ for the first time, which makes reading the rest of this article particularly troubling. Instead of speaking about Jesus as the revealed Son of God who is able to save and keep his sheep, Bennett places the prophetess in a mediatorial role between herself and Jesus. “Most of the reason that I liked Ellen was that she was a devout Christian. It seemed she had nothing to say that wasn’t about God, and when she talked about Him it was like she really knew Him—and I could sense it. It was inspiring, really. ... The other reason I liked Ellen was that she talked straight. Flattery is annoying, and she never flattered anybody. She was always real and always concerned about what mattered. If you were too caught up in yourself, Ellen would let you know. If you were neglecting what Jesus had asked of you, Ellen would remind you of your responsibility.”

The message for the young children reading this article is clear: make friends with Ellen White so you can be reminded of what Jesus has asked you to do. But wait! Hasn’t Jesus already spoken clearly enough? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that “long ago” God spoke by the prophets, but in “these last days” he speaks to us directly through his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2)? Apparently not in the mind of Ms. Bennett and all who would saddle the next generation of Adventists with another voice competing for their attention, ultimately drowning out the voice of the Son who has already spoken with forceful clarity.

Bennett gives us a peek into what results from listening to the competing voices—as she says it, reading Ellen White gave her a “guilt complex”. “It started to drive me crazy! And besides, she was so old-fashioned and a lot of good Christians had never read anything Ellen had written . . . I was friendly on the outside but angry on the inside, hoping I’d never run into her again.” For Bennett, these feelings of guilt did not last long. Now we reach the real heart of Bennett’s message. “But when I heard people talking bad about her, calling her a liar and fake and a cheat, it kind of woke me up. Because I knew that what had bothered me about Ellen White was her truth-telling.”

The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that it can be easily transposed to any number of “prophets” who carry similar messages aimed at inducing guilt, modifying behavior and speaking for God. Consider the dietary and behavioral restrictions placed on Mormons. Should a young Mormon “wake up” to the truth of Joseph Smith’s ministry simply because others are critical of his message?

But there is more to the story here. Bennett seems intent on keeping the kids who are reading her article from thinking critically about Ellen White, long before they reach the age where they may gain the necessary skills to do so. She writes, “...I read up on the criticisms of her ministry and the responses too. Eventually I became convinced that the critics were wrong: Ellen G. White was a faithful messenger of Jesus. Her love for and commitment to Him was so evident on every page, and she never said anything to me that contradicted the Word. I couldn’t hold against her my hardheartedness, I couldn’t hold against her the way other people quoted her, I couldn’t hold against her her faithfulness.”

The message couldn’t be more clear. Ellen White is infallible, never contradicts Scripture, and is absolutely essential to understanding what Jesus wants you to do. Nevermind that the poor children are potentially dead in their sins and enemies of God, needing to be reconciled to the Father through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s beside the point. Instead, the children need to discover their “friend” Ellen, who will tell them exactly how to be “good” boys and girls if they listen well, unless they harden their hearts against her.

For further reading, see Re-inventing Ellen White for Kids, part 1.

James White talks with an Adventist

An interesting exchange took place on 4/14/2005 between the Christian apologist James White (not to be confused with Ellen White’s husband) and a Seventh-day Adventist on White’s Internet radio call-in program The Dividing Line. The caller did not initially identify himself as a Seventh-day Adventist and quoted several texts to support the doctrine of soul sleep. White picked up immediately on the caller’s theological position and the following exchange took place:

White: “Would you be coming from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective?”

Caller: “Absolutely, I am a Seventh-day Adventist.”

White: “Well, this particular issue would be one that we would certainly disagree on, but far more importantly, would you be one of those Seventh-day Adventists who holds to the Investigative Judgment?”

Caller: “Oh absolutely.”

White: “I would put that as being as false a gospel as Rome’s. Personally I don’t see any difference between the Investigative Judgment and the grounds that this places one’s relationship to God on, and what Rome teaches.”

[...]

White: “The reason I went to the [Investigative Judgment] and asked you where you’re coming from is because I tend to think (unfortunately) that a lot of these discussions, especially with a believing conservative Seventh-day Adventist, misses the point. Because to me, I could sit around and talk with a Roman Catholic about papal infallibility (which I’ve done) ... and it would be like talking to you about the claims Ellen G. White made concerning her prophecies, her writings and her relationship to Scripture. But, if that’s all I ever discussed, I’m not doing you any favor. Because the real issue—and the issue that I always get to with Roman Catholics—is the issue of what the gospel is (which is most important). That’s why I raised the issue. Because to me, you can be a non-Seventh-day Adventist and believe what you believe about the afterlife, but to be a Seventh-day Adventist—what’s uniquely definitional [and] what addresses the specific issue of the gospel is the issue of the Investigative Judgment. That’s why I raised the issue, that’s why I mentioned it.

[...]

White: “The reason I went to the [Investigative Judgment] and asked you where you’re coming from is because I tend to think (unfortunately) that a lot of these discussions, especially with a believing conservative Seventh-day Adventist, misses the point. Because to me, I could sit around and talk with a Roman Catholic about papal infallibility (which I’ve done) ... and it would be like talking to you about the claims Ellen G. White made concerning her prophecies, her writings and her relationship to Scripture. But, if that’s all I ever discussed, I’m not doing you any favor. Because the real issue—and the issue that I always get to with Roman Catholics—is the issue of what the gospel is (which is most important). That’s why I raised the issue. Because to me, you can be a non-Seventh-day Adventist and believe what you believe about the afterlife, but to be a Seventh-day Adventist—what’s uniquely definitional [and] what addresses the specific issue of the gospel is the issue of the Investigative Judgment. That’s why I raised the issue, that’s why I mentioned it.

[White gives the caller the opportunity to explain the Investigative Judgment. The caller explains the historic Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844.]

White: “What did Ellen G. White say was the basis upon which Christ would decide to apply his atoning sacrifice [to the sinner] or not?”

Caller: “Well, the biblical answer is ‘by faith’. I don’t know which quote of Ellen White you might be referring to.”

White: “So that’s all? Why would there be an examination of their lives if the only ones being examined were those who had believed in [Jesus] anyway?”

Caller: “Well, God doesn’t need to do this examination for His benefit...in other words, He already knows...He’s omniscient.”

White: “Right...”

Caller: “But the heavenly hosts are not. The books are opened not only for the Lord to examine, but the books are really opened for the heavenly hosts to examine the books to see that God’s judgment has been righteous.”

White: “And what books are these?”

Caller: “The book...the Book of Life...the Lamb’s Book of Life.”

White: “But how do you get in there? How do you get into the Lamb’s Book of Life?”

Caller: “By faith.”

White: “By faith alone? It’s not an examination of your life?”

Caller: “Well, by faith you appear in the Lamb’s Book of Life.”

[White asks the caller whether he’s read a book by the Adventist W.H. Branson entitled, In Defense of the Faith, written in response to D.M. Canright. The caller says he has not. White then quotes from the book out of the section on the cleansing of the sanctuary.]

White (quoting Branson): “Someone may say, ‘I thought that when Christ forgave my sins, he took them clear away.’ Yes he did, as far as you were concerned. He promises to make us white as snow, but this does not mean that the sins are finally disposed of. He takes them from us, but the record is still there. We are free because we’ve accepted him as our substitute and sin-bearer, but the record of sin is held in the sanctuary. ... Another may ask, ‘Why couldn’t Christ have immediately blotted out the sins of the people? Why wait until 1844?’ We reply, there must come first an investigation of the records. This is essential. [Consider] a man who has accepted Christ. His sins have gone on before him into the sanctuary. But Christ cannot blot those sins out of the record until the man’s life is finished or until probation closes for him. Why not? Because he may not continue in faith and we are told in Ezekial 33:12-13 that if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, all the righteousness that he has done shall not be remembered. If he does not continue in faith, all his past sins will come back upon him again. Jesus does not plead before the throne of God in the final judgment for one who has died in sin. He cannot plead his blood on behalf of one, who, though once a Christian, refuses to continue in grace. Thus, before the Lord can blot out the sins from the record books, a very careful examination has to be made to see whether those who accepted Christ have remained true. It is not the beginning of the race that gives assurance—it is the successful finishing. ... During the judgment, the names of those who were once Christians but who have given up their faith in Christ are blotted out of the Book of Life.  ... God must out of necessity, have a log by which he will test men’s lives, a standard by which they will be measured. And if so, surely in this solemn hour, when court week has already begun and cases are already being tried, it behooves every man to inquire seriously what that standard is, and to take the necessary steps to bring his life into harmony with it before his name is called. ... Do not allow yourselves to be deceived, therefore, into believing that nine points of the law will suffice, and the Sabbath point can be dropped out as non-essential.”

White: “Does it not follow, then, that a person can believe in Christ but if they do not, for example, follow Ellen G. White’s understanding of the Sabbath law, then Christ will refuse to apply his blood to that individual in the Investigative Judgement?”

Caller: “Well, Seventh-day Adventists don’t believe...well...they believe that [Sunday worship] is the Mark of the Beast...in other words, for the last 2000 years, Sunday-keepers who did so, fully believing they were in God’s will, that will not be counted against them.”

White: “Is that what Ellen G. White believed?”

Caller: “Yes...it’s only when the Mark of the Beast comes before the world and is enforced by law that people are faced with a choice as to whether they take the seal of God—the seventh-day Sabbath or Saturday—or the Mark of the Beast, which would be Sunday-keeping. So it is an issue that will be before the world shortly, but it is not something for which people will be condemned in ignorance.”

[...]

White: “So to boil this all down...fundamentally, would you agree or disagree with the assertion that whether Christ applies his atoning sacrifice depends upon your continuance in faith?”

Caller: “Yes it does.”

White: “OK. Obviously then, Seventh-day Adventist theology does not have a concept of monergistic election to where God has an elect people and he infallibly saves those elect people not based upon what they do, but based solely upon his purpose and grace.”

Caller: “Well that’s a topic unto itself, but I believe in what you would probably call ‘Arminianism’ and I believe that we have a choice as to whether we follow Christ or not.”

White: “OK, so you would take the Arminian perspective on that and I don’t know if you’ve listened to the program before...”

Caller: “I believe that we’re faced with a choice, and that choice is either to accept Christ’s righteous blood or to reject it, and to reject it is to be lost.”

White: “And to accept Christ’s righteous blood, though, is not enough if you do not continue and if your life does not measure up to the standards that are going to be used [in the Investigative Judgment].”

Caller: “Faith without works is dead.”

White: “I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t misrepresenting [the Adventist position].”

Source here, starting around minute 21.

A few things strike me from listening to this.

1. How quickly White identified the most important issue with Adventists is whether they are holding to the authentic gospel message. This is exactly what we’ve been saying on 4TG since we started the site over a year ago.

2. How readily the caller talked about faith in the blood of Jesus, but in reality his definition of faith is necessarily linked to performance and specifically Sabbath-keeping. It is by these external measures that one will be judged righteous and worthy, and bestowed with a reward for perseverance. Salvation is no longer a gift, but a reward.

3. How the blood of Christ is rendered impotent in the face of the works a professed Christ-follower must perform in order to appropriate the benefits of the atonement. Put another way, Christ can only apply his blood to a person who is actively keeping himself “in the faith”.  The sovereign grace of Jesus Christ is powerless to save the person who does not keep himself in grace and this makes perfect sense because “God helps those who help themselves.”

4. How intertwined the Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment is with the Arminian belief that sinners are faced with a decision to accept or reject Christ. In this view, God does not act unilaterally to save sinners, instead, he waits until the sinner decides to place himself in a position to be saved. And if that decision can be held until death (or the close of probation), backed up by perfect obedience and Sabbath-keeping, God will be moved to apply the blood of Jesus.

Folks, this is scary stuff and this should remind us how closely linked and interdependent Adventist theology is with Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism. Ironically, both Roman Catholicism and Adventism have constructed theological systems that appeal to man’s natural desire to earn salvation. To the degree that anyone follows these systems faithfully, they have accepted a false gospel and their faith may be in themselves instead of Christ.

As the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians, “...we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. ... For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. ... I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Galatians 2:16-21 ESV)

Let us pray for those who are still putting their faith in a false gospel, that they may turn from it and embrace Truth.

Related articles:
The Gospel and the Investigative Judgment
The Gospel, 1844 and the Judgment - Introduction
The Experience of Salvation
The Sanctuary Truth

Ellen White and Sola Scriptura

One of the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura, a Latin phrase which means, “by Scripture alone”. In the face of the medieval Catholic Church which placed equal weight on Scripture and church tradition–a practice which continues to this day–the Reformers saw the need to strip away the layers of error added to the Bible through the “inspired commentary” of the Pope and the traditions of the church. They argued that the Bible should be its own interpreter, and that if any church body was able to control it by claiming to be its sole infallible interpreter, then God’s Word would effectively be overruled by the traditions and insights of fallible men. Indeed, the Pope is said to be endowed with “situational infallibility” which allows him–a fallible human–to be totally infallible when it comes to matters of biblical interpretation.

It might come as a surprise that some Adventists claim the same role for Ellen White, and the arguments used in support are quite similar. While her claim for infallibility in the Testimonies is not new (see 8MR 18.1), there has been an effort by church leaders over the years to soften the claims made for her ability to comment on Scripture without error. This was particularly evident during the 1950s when cult expert Walter Martin began an investigation into Ellen White’s role in the Adventist church. One of the particular points he questioned church leaders about concerned whether she was an “infallible interpreter of Scripture”, arguing that if she was effectively used this way, she would be functioning no differently than the Pope.

In July of 2006, Adventist theologians from around the world met in Izmir, Turkey for the second International Bible Conference to address topics they considered important for maintaining theological unity within the church (see Adventist Review summary here). One of the speakers, P. Gerard Damsteegt, associate professor of church history at Andrews University, presented a paper entitled, “The Adventist Theologian, the Three Angels’ Messages, and the Unity of the Church”. I’ve obtained a copy of this paper and it offers important clues into the discussions taking place behind closed doors among Adventist theologians. For Adventists who thought their church was moving away from Ellen White’s role as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, the conclusions of this document will come as a surprise.

In his paper, Damsteegt labors to reconcile the Reformation principle of sola scriptura with Ellen White’s extra-biblical writings. Under the heading, “The Meaning of the ‘Bible Only’”, he explains in a heavily-footnoted sentence how Ellen White viewed the principle of sola scriptura: “An analysis of Ellen White’s use of the phrase ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ reveals that she contrasts it with human ‘views and ideas,’ erroneous traditions on the Sabbath and the Law of God, opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians, ‘sayings and doings of men,’ ‘human wisdom,’ false visions, views of the churches steeped in popular theology from which the early Adventists separated themselves, the ‘religions of fable and tradition,’ ‘imaginary religion,’ ‘a religion of words and forms,’ and ‘tradition and human theories and maxims’.” Damsteegt follows this by stringing together several additional Ellen White quotes, driving home his main point:

“This expression ‘the Bible only’ she [sic] never used for contrasting her own writings with the Bible. In Ellen White’s mind there was perfect harmony between the Bible and her writings because ‘the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and the author of the spirit of prophecy.’ Therefore ‘it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word.’” (emphasis mine)

The logic here is simple–if God is the author of Scripture and he also speaks through Ellen White, there cannot be any contradiction between her words and the Bible. While many Adventists have hesitated to make such a sweeping conclusion, Fundamental Belief 18 recognizes Ellen White as “a continuing and authoritative source of truth”, which is essentially the same as Damesteegt’s view, albeit more general in nature.

Where this gets tricky for Adventists is in their desire to refrain from calling Ellen White’s writings an “infallible commentary” on Scripture because they realize this would put her in the same category as the Pope. But Damsteegt apparently has no trouble doing this in the company of his fellow Adventist theologians behind closed doors, and indeed, this seems to be his whole purpose. Having already placed her (using her own definition of sola scriptura) above the opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians and human wisdom, he says, “This unique relationship between the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy has given the latter (Ellen White) a place above all extra-Biblical sources. Consequently in Bible study, the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy hold a superior position over other research tools” (emphasis mine). In a circular way, Damsteegt quotes Ellen White for support: “it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word” (Great Controversy, vii), placing her squarely into the role of Scripture’s infallible interpreter. Damsteegt is not concluding aything new here, but is merely reiterating the claims Ellen White made for herself. Driving this point home to his Adventist colleagues, he writes, “Theologians have a serious obligation to see that their influence will preserve the unity of the church by upholding its end-time message and mission.” Translation: we need to be unified as theologians behind the idea that the only acceptable theological insights are those which Ellen White has already blessed.

Damsteegt’s proposal sounds very similar to the “Profession of Faith” in the Tridentine Creed used at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent:

“The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I most firmly admit and embrace.  I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother Church has held and does hold, whose [office] it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures; I shall never accept nor interpret it otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (emphasis mine) Source here.

What’s more, it is no surprise that Catholics use essentially the same argument Adventists do for the Pope’s infallibility in interpreting the Bible as the guardian of the church’s so-called ‘Sacred Tradition’:

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the
apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’ Indeed, ‘the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.’ This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other.  For both of them, flowing out from the same divine wellspring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.  It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” (Code of Canon Law, paragraphs 77-78, 80-81) (emphasis mine)

While both Adventists and Catholics claim the Bible as their infallible rule of faith and practice, both churches ironically look outside the Bible to obtain an infallible interpretation. Rome looks to tradition and the Pope for support while Adventists look to Ellen White. While many Adventists consider such practices out of style or no longer officially promoted, it is clear from Damsteegt’s conclusions that it is very much alive and promoted at the highest levels of the Adventist church today.

Returning again to the work of cult expert Walter Martin, it is important to examine what he said in an interview on the John Ankerberg show in January 1985, when he and then-editor of the Adventist Review, William Johnsson were interviewed. Martin recounted a question he asked then-director of the White Estate, Robert Olson, about whether Ellen White was an infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture. Olson refused to answer directly, saying she was “the authoritative voice” of the church. Upon hearing this, Johnsson said, “I’ll give you my answer. She is not the infallible interpreter of Scripture” “You’re sure of that?”, countered Martin. “I’m sure of it”, said Johnsson. Wanting further clarification, Martin asked, “That is your position or the denomination’s position?” At this point, realizing he was getting into a difficult spot, Johnsson backpedeled, “I think we ought to go to the official Statement of Beliefs”. To support his belief that Adventists were bound by Ellen White for their interpretation of Scripture, Martin cited a June 3, 1971 Review and Herald editorial which concluded, “the Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted”, an obvious reference to the role of Ellen White.

After repeated unsuccessful attempts in the ensuing months to get a straight answer on this issue, Martin concluded, “If Seventh-day Adventism depends upon Ellen White’s reputation rather than upon the gospel of grace alone, its classification as a cult will be well earned before the next twenty years has passed” (Adventist Currents, October 1985).

As Damsteegt’s paper testifies, Adventist theologians continue to effectively characterize Ellen White as an “infallible interpreter” of Scripture. One wonders what Walter Martin would say if he could examine the evidence today, now over 20 years since his 1985 prediction.

One thing is certain, the Bible identifies no need for an external source outside of the Holy Spirit to protect or interpret its message. Jesus said, “the Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and the prophet Jeremiah proclaimed, “Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29 ESV). God’s Word cannot be broken from its purpose and it will go wherever it pleases by the power of the Holy Spirit, without requiring an external “infallible” tradition or interpreter. Indeed, the prophet Isaiah says, “...so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11) ESV.

Summarizing this situation in his 1988 assessment of Adventism and the role of Ellen White, Kenneth Samples, a Christian apologist and close associate of Walter Martin, wrote, “Unfortunately, many Adventists see the writings of Ellen White as an infallible shortcut to scriptural understanding. Adventists must understand that if they elevate Ellen White to the position of infallible interpreter, then the dramatic irony of the ages has come true – SDA has a Pope.” To the degree that Adventist theologians continue to promote such a view among themselves and the church body believes them, I cannot find grounds to disagree. Just as Catholics must free themselves from the rule of tradition if they are to stand upon the solid ground of sola scriptura, Adventists must contend with the weight of Ellen White’s legacy and continued promotion by church leaders who know the price of “Scripture alone” but are unwilling to pay it.

The Gospel and the Investigative Judgment

In his book, “Judged by the Gospel,” former Adventist theologian Robert Brinsmead opens his chapter on the investigative judgment by observing, “If we accept the New Testament gospel, which declares that Christ’s redemptive act is finished, that He already reigns at God’s right hand and that His victory over sin and death inaugurated the last days, we cannot accept the traditional Adventist doctrine of an investigative judgment beginning in 1844.  This does not mean that anyone who believes in the investigative judgment does not believe the gospel.  But their understanding of the gospel is so immature that they have not discerned its eschatological implications.” The book of Hebrews drives a nail through the heart of the investigative judgment and if this book had been studied carefully by the early Adventists in the years following 1844, much confusion and doctrinal error could have been avoided.  The good news of Jesus Christ is that all our sins–past, present and future–have been forgiven and that those who believe in Him will never be condemned, much less be subjected to the searching scrutiny of an investigative judgment (Romans 8:1, John 5:24).  What follows is a brief study of three chapters in Hebrews that stand in opposition to this unique Adventist doctrine, a doctrine that removes our security in Christ and is impossible to reconcile with the gospel.

“Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?” (Hebrews 7:11 ESV)

The book of Hebrews tells us that the Levitical priesthood established in the Jewish economy was inadequate for salvation, because perfection was not attainable through it.  “Another priest” was therefore necessary to make the attainment of perfection possible, a priest of the order of Melchizedek named Jesus Christ.

The writer of Hebrews identifies Jesus as the priest not because he was granted legal authority as in the case of the Levites, but because he had an indestructible life.

“This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.” (Hebrews 7:15 ESV)

So Jesus is the last priest of mankind, and as such, he is the mediator of a “better covenant” (Hebrews 7:22) than the one made between God and the Israelites on Sinai.  In this covenant, sins are not forgiven one day per year on the day of atonement, but are forgiven “once and for all” through the death of Jesus on the cross.  As it is written, “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” (Hebrews 7:26-28 ESV)

But the writer of Hebrews doesn’t stop there.  The first two verses of chapter 8 even give the location of Jesus upon his ascension to heaven:

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent the Lord set up, not man.” (Hebrews 8:1-2 ESV)

Is the “right hand of the throne of Majesty” in the Holy or Most Holy Place?  Clearly it is the latter, as the Most Holy Place by definition is the very presence of God.  One cannot be “at the right hand” of God and not be in the Most Holy Place!  Furthermore, no “work” of investigative judgment remained for Jesus to accomplish, so he sat down.  Notice the past tense of these texts.  Jesus did not ascend to heaven for a work that remained to be accomplished until the stroke of midnight on October 22, 1844.  No, he approached the right hand of the throne of Majesty and sat down, his work on the cross completed.  This is the only way he could have said “It is finished!” as he gave up his spirit on Calvary (John 19:30).

After a discussion of the earthly sanctuary in Hebrews 9:1-10, we are given yet more evidence of Jesus’ finished work:

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:11-12 ESV)

Again, we see that Jesus entered “once and for all” into the holy places.  If the two apartment ministry model is correct, the writer of Hebrews could not have made this statement when the book was written in the first century, 1800 years before 1844, since Jesus would not have entered “once for all” into the Most Holy Place at that time!  Furthermore, Jesus secured eternal redemption, and did not need to continually plead his blood for the forgiveness of sins.  It was indeed finished.  If this is not yet clear, just keep reading on to chapter 9:

“For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:24-26 ESV)

If we are still not convinced, the writer of Hebrews repeats himself yet again in chapter 10:

“And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV)

After reviewing these texts from inspired Scripture, I humbly submit to you that Jesus’ work is indeed finished.  We serve a risen Savior whose work on Calvary is sufficient to save all who lay hold of it by faith.  His perfect sacrifice put away sin for all time and he now sits at the right hand of the Father, where he has remained since he rose to heaven (not requiring an eighteen century pause in the Holy Place), his work of redemption complete.

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ who has covered our sins—past, present and future—allowing us to boldly enter “through the curtain” into the Most Holy Place and into a new and living way by his work and not our own, giving us full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:19-22).

Related article: The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment - Introduction