Yesterday, on 22 October 2010, as 166 years passed since the adventist non-trinitarian god started the investigation of the lives of professed Christians in order to see if they had conquered sin enough to be received into heaven, the White Horse Inn blog republished an article about this event written in the context of Harold Camping’s prophecy about Jesus second coming happening in May 21, 2011.
The article can be find at this link..
Here are some quotes related to adventism:
Camping’s methods share some features with those of the Millerites, accounting for the shared fixation on the twenty-first day of the month. Also like the Millerites, public-relations innovators in the early 1840s, Camping’s followers are using the latest communications strategies to get the word out. Websites have sprung up to promote Camping’s predictions, offering streaming media content, a Twitter feed, and a downloadable browser toolbar which keeps the countdown to Christ’s return.
Based on what happened with the millerite movement that developed into the adventist church, the article makes the prediction that Harold Camping’s predictions will not die after being proved false:
Those unconvinced by Camping’s math must presume that, come next year, his predictions will share another feature with Miller’s: they will be proven wrong. However, having attracted even a small number of committed followers, Camping’s work is unlikely to be completely forgotten. While date-setting is obviously a high-risk enterprise, history shows that disappointment is rarely, if ever, absolute. Groups given a specific date on which to fixate have shown deep reluctance to let go of it even as it passes like any other day. A remnant of Miller’s followers coalesced into the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, developing an eschatology that maintains that momentous events began in heaven when Miller said they would, regardless of our ability to perceive them.
What is missing from the article is the willingness of those who believe that the day has significance to classify the unbelievers as Babylonian apostate Christians who have the only chance to escape the Armaggedon by converting to the sabbatarian views of adventists. Even after 166 passed and the investigation of the saint’s life seems to take much, much, much, much, muuuuuuuuuuuuuch longer than any reasonable adventist expected.
I saw that the time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished, and that time can last but a very little longer; and what leisure time we have should be spent in searching the Bible, which is to judge us in the last day.
January 31, 1849 To those who are receiving the seal of the living God.
also republished in A Sketch of the Christ Experience and Views of Ellen White, page 46
and Early Writings page 58.
From 1851 to 2010 there was much more than a “little longer”.
Relevant for those who are assessing the validity of the adventist’s view in regard with 22 October 1844 is what the article says about logic involved in the Harold Camping’s prophetic calculus:
Stephen O’Leary insists in his Arguing the Apocalypse that while the logic of apocalyptic rhetoric might be hard to follow, there is a logic to it. Camping’s method is no exception, on both counts. He cuts a caper across the bible and the human history of its interpretation, gleaning data points from archaeology and philology and inserting them into dizzying numerological and typological formulas. For instance, combining the year of Solomon’s death calculated by Old Testament scholar Edwin R. Thiele with his own reading of the generations of biblical kings and patriarchs, Camping dates the flood to 4,990 B.C., 7,000 years ago next year. Camping settles on 2011 as the end of time because in Gen 7:4, God warns Noah that the flood will begin in seven days, and he posits that this warning applies to the beginning of The End as well as to the beginning of the flood, and further that a day is a thousand years to God.
Harold’s Camping prophetic chart may seem arbitrary, still there is logic involved in it. And even if it is hard to follow, the logic of modern day prophetic calculation can be followed, through evidently some loopholes. Few people will be able to follow Camping’s schemes, still because some logical connections are present, trusting in his message appear as valid. In Adventism, few people will be able to connect Daniel 9 with Daniel 8, insert also the interpretation of other biblical data, in order to arrive at 22 October1844 and it’s current significance seen in the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. Still, because some logic is present, even hard to follow, embracing the prophetic chart seems validated by enough biblical data.
While the article doesn’t deal with the element of spiritual pride involved in following a leader who seems to have a unique grasp of the biblical prophecy, who seemed to be gifted above the average, nay, above any other theologian, in order to decipher the secrets buried in the Bible and available only for the elect, the pride of being in the group of the illuminati is playing an important role. What others had not seen until than, now through the agency of the illuminated leader it came to light. Without his above-anyone-else insights of the leader, the group will never have the insights that nobody was able to see in the Bible until Camping or Ellen White came on the scene.
Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder {Hiram} Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, “We can do nothing more,” the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me. {1SM 206.4}.
Notice the ideas affirmed here:
1. Adventist pioneers studied the Bible to arrive at an explanation for what happened at 22 October 1844
2. They were able to carry the exegetical work until a point where they stopped
3. When their abilities reached their end, God intervened directly by giving Ellen White a vision that completed the study and offered a clear explanation of the passages studied, finishing the project of arriving at truth
It becomes clear that without the supernatural revelation and insight of a living prophet the message of the Adventist church would never take form. It’s the encompassing message of Christ, priesthood, great controversy theme extending from 1844 to the second coming, that was given in vision.
Today a popular myth is that no doctrinal content had come through Ellen White, but all the doctrines of the SDA Church were established by study of the Bible, by following the accessible means everybody has to the Bible, through exegesis. While it is true that a big part in the process had been the work of exegesis, the finished product is the merit of Ellen’s role as a visionary, without which, there would be no final product.
While there is certainly logic involved in the adventist prophetic theology, this logic cannot be followed in a strict exegetical fashion without making some assumptions that didn’t arise from the Bible, their source being the extra-biblical revelations of Ellen White that filled the gaps in the exegesis and resolved the problems left open by the other leaders. In this way Adventists have no other options than to rely on Ellen White at least partially for their doctrines, in spite of claims to the contrary. The logic involved in the parts that seem to have biblical support lends credibility to those parts that rely exclusively on EGW.
Yesterday, on 22 October 2010, as 166 years passed since the adventist non-trinitarian god started the investigation of the lives of professed Christians
Yeah, this quote right here will encourage SDAs to dialogue, Gabriel. My God is your God thanks very much. Our interpretation may be different, but it is still the same God despite what you would like others to think. Promoting blather like this is simply inflaming ignorance.
The first Adventists were unapologetically anti-trinitarian. They were Arian, and taught that the Spirit was merely a life-force. So, when the IJ was first formulated after Hiram Edson had a vision in a cornfield, it was an explicitly anti-trinitarian doctrine. It wasn’t until the 1950’s that Adventists made statements positively about the Trinity, and even then there is strong evidence that they defined it differently than Christianity (for instance, they still rejected the creeds). That’s hardly attributable to ignorance on Gabriel’s part. Who’s doing the “inflaming”?
Thanks Nate, I had in mind the historical perspective. Apart from what anybody thinks in regard with the current Adventist beliefs, the early years when the Adventist 3 “pillars of faith” (sanctuary, sabbath, state of the dead) where established, the leadership body of the church was anti-trinitarian. This is a historical fact admitted even by the Adventists current leaders.
What we are told today is that the church embrace trinitarianism, which will by default imply that their current God is Trinitarian while the pioneers’ God was arian or semi-arian, another God. Still the current SDA Church refuses to make this distinction and classify his early leaders as heretics, rather they are willing to affirm through the voices of their theologians that the same objections the pioneers had against Trinity they have also. Instead of clearly affirming that they worship a different God than the God of pioneers, and label James White, Bates, Loughborough, Uriah Smith as heretics, the church basically affirms that they worshiped the same God.
Now, if the God of Uriah Smith is Arian (A) and the God of Christianity is Trinitarian (T), it results that A ≠ T
But according to the current Adventist claim, A = T, when T stands for current Adventist God assumed to be Trinitarian.
Simple logic tells people that either one of the above affirmations is false. Either A ≠ T and the pioneers worshiped another God or A = T. Since the first equation reflects the Christian view, it follows that the second is false, the only way in which it can be true is if the T in the A = T is not truly the T in the A ≠ T, not truly the Christian Trinity. It’s an either / or situation, sorry.
Thanks Nate, I had in mind the historical perspective. Apart from what anybody thinks in regard with the current Adventist beliefs, the early years when the Adventist 3 “pillars of faith” (sanctuary, sabbath, state of the dead) where established, the leadership body of the church was anti-trinitarian. This is a historical fact admitted even by the Adventists current leaders.
What we are told today is that the church embrace trinitarianism, which will by default imply that their current God is Trinitarian while the pioneers’ God was arian or semi-arian, another God. Still the current SDA Church refuses to make this distinction and classify his early leaders as heretics, rather they are willing to affirm through the voices of their theologians that the same objections the pioneers had against Trinity they have also. Instead of clearly affirming that they worship a different God than the God of pioneers, and label James White, Bates, Loughborough, Uriah Smith as heretics, the church basically affirms that they worshiped the same God.
Now, if the God of Uriah Smith is Arian (A) and the God of Christianity is Trinitarian (T), it results that A ≠ T
But according to the current Adventist claim, A = T, when T stands for current Adventist God assumed to be Trinitarian.
Simple logic tells people that either one of the above affirmations is false. Either A ≠ T and the pioneers worshiped another God or A = T. Since the first equation reflects the Christian view, it follows that the second is false, the only way in which it can be true is if the T in the A = T is not truly the T in the A ≠ T, not truly the Christian Trinity. It’s an either / or situation, sorry.
Gabriel
Oi vey...Or, and I could simply just be rambling crazily here, they simply had a different, incorrect view on God but still worshiped the same God and grew into a proper understanding of Him. Hmmmm...Sounds crazy I know....
.I highly doubt that when EGW helped the church to a more trinitarian position, they all of a sudden decided to ‘change gods’, like the wayward Israelites of old who turned from worshipping Baal to Yahweh.
Just to clarify, and this is not meant as a slight against you Guibox, do you believe that to worship an Arian god (i.e. a god who doesn’t exist) is the same as to worship the Trinity (i.e. the God who does exist)? That seems strange to me. It’s not as if they didn’t know the orthodox understanding of God the Trinity. The churches they came from confessed the orthodox creeds.
It seems like reality is being based on the subjective, not the objective. Let me explain.
1. If one worships a god who does not exist, one worships a false god.
2. Only one God exists in reality (the God who revealed Himself in the Scriptures, as understood by the church in its creeds, i.e. the Trinity).
3. The Arian conception of a god is not the Trinity.
4. Therefore, the Arian conception of a god does not exist in reality.
5. Therefore, to worship the Arian god (who does not exist) is akin (i.e. the same kind of error) to worshipping Baal (who also does not exist).
It seems to me that to claim that the early Adventists still worshipped the true God, despite the above evidence, is to claim to know a priori that they couldn’t possibly have worshipped a false god. That is, the reasoning seems to be that because they were who they were, they couldn’t possibly have been wrong. Please correct me if I’m missing something.
Also, I’m wondering about the statement that EGW tried to move Adventism toward Trinitarianism? From everything I’ve read, the first Adventists to even take steps in this direction were the writers of QOD. This isn’t a challenge, just wanting to learn something if I’ve missed it.
I’m wondering about the historical connection between New Haven theology and early 19th century Baptist and Methodist theology? Any insights there?
1. The so-called First Great Awakening mostly added members to Baptist and Methodist churches.
2. The link between Jonathan Edwards and New Haven theology is arguably demonstrable, but not undisputed.
The question then becomes: did the New Haven theology also influence the major players in the Second Great Awakening, and if so, is there any connection there to early Adventism?
I think that the link between the 2GA (and revivalism in general) and early Adventism is possibly demonstrable via the burned-over district, etc.
Thoughts? Any rabbit trails you could point me on?
Also, I’m wondering about the statement that EGW tried to move Adventism toward Trinitarianism? From everything I’ve read, the first Adventists to even take steps in this direction were the writers of QOD. This isn’t a challenge, just wanting to learn something if I’ve missed it.
Regards,
Nate
Jerry Moon in particular and others have written about EGW and the Trinity. And though you feel that your idea and the SDA idea of what the Godhead is may be different, it is clear that EGW was instrumental in moving the pioneers’ view from their semi-Arianism to a proper view of the Godhead.
Perhaps this might shed some light on the subject for you. It also gives many sources of those SDA scholars who have researched this extensively.
I’m wondering about the historical connection between New Haven theology and early 19th century Baptist and Methodist theology? Any insights there?
1. The so-called First Great Awakening mostly added members to Baptist and Methodist churches.
2. The link between Jonathon Edwards and New Haven theology is arguably demonstrable, but not undisputed.
The question then becomes: did the New Haven theology also influence the major players in the Second Great Awakening, and if so, is there any connection there to early Adventism?
I think that the link between the 2GA (and revivalism in general) and early Adventism is possibly demonstrable via the burned-over district, etc.
Thoughts? Any rabbit trails you could point me on?
I admit that a lot of what I know about the Millerite movement in relation with the 2GA comes from George Knight’s “Millenial Fever”. I regard Knight being more reliable as a historian than the majority of the other adventists works on adventists historians, consequently I’ll offer a tentative answer based on his research.
Knight sees a contrast between Miller et co as revivalists and the revivalists involved in the 2GA and perhaps 1GA. This contrast is seen in the personality of Miller who didn’t match at all the personality of a 2GA revivalist. It was far from Charles Finney’s “exuberant” style. While Joshua Himes who came later transformed the Millerite revival in a large measure, using all the media available at that time to spread the revival, the initial success and the strength of the movement didn’t rest in charismatic personalities and technical tricks to induce “excitements”, as Finney put it. It was basically a one-man movement that had its success not in using the 2GA’s specific methods of success, but in a message. It’s not hard to understand why Adventists like George Knight will attribute the success of the Millerite revival to God because evidently the messenger seemed unfitted for such a success.
I agree with George Knight when he asserts that the compelling power was in the message not in the methods used by the messenger, as it was typically in the 2GA. Nevertheless when you compare Miller’s message with Jonathan Edward’s sermons in which he was very descriptive about hell, these message have a lot in common.
First, both Miller and Ewards believed in eternal hell.
The common content: hell is imminent.
Edwards’ success was in making his listeners aware that hell is imminent, that only God’s providence prevents their plunge into hell, that God mercifully spares their life in spite of their rebellion, but at any moment of time, they may die and fall into hell. Hell was inevitable and imminent, it can occur sooner than they ever think. Edwards established an earlier time-frame for hell that made people aware of the imminent danger in which they were. That awakened them. Of course, this was the 1GA.
Miller’s message established in fact a date for hell which will apply to everybody! While subjects of fire-and-brimstone 1GA and 2GA preachers may hope for a delay in their death, in Miller’s version, hell had a date established for all, a one year time-frame to occur. What people usually expected to be a problem only when they died, which they hoped will be at an old age, now Miller brought earlier, much earlier and dangerously close to their current life: years 1843-1844. This type of hell-preaching, while not being fire-and-brimstone, was effectual because it confronted people with the perspective of hell materializing right over the corner in a few years or days.
That’s my way of connecting Miller with the 1GA rather than with 2GA, in the sense that the force of Miller’s preaching was in message, like in Edwards’ case, especially since Edwards was not Whitefield! Edwards was far from what today people will classify as a fire-and-brimstone preacher, it was dull, the content of his sermons rather than the style persuaded people.
I suppose there are connections with 2GA, still I’m not inclined to see these connections in regard with the style. Anyway, both 1GA and 2GA had success in churches where the reformed piety of word and sacrament was not present, baptist churches, and other restorationist churches. Following in the steps of anabaptists, instead of reforming the church, these groups tried to re-institute the church, tracing their lineage directly to the apostolic era. Adventism is the current survival of restorationist movement, still the baptists retain part of the restorationist mentality, opposed to the “reform” mentality.
Thanks for interacting with this. I agree, the immanence of hell is an important common thread, especially from the famous Edwards sermon. It seems to me there might be some more parallels in practice (probably more with Whitefield and the Wesleys than Edwards) with the Millerites. Here are a couple I’ve thought of:
1. Itinerancy and media, or the “democratization” of American religion as Nathan Hatch has put it.
2. The “come out of Babylon” refrain, i.e. come out of those churches where everyone is unregenerate.
There could be more. It seems that the 2GA is a bit more intriguing than I first thought. I’ll explain.
It seems that the emphasis of the 1GA on a certain type of conversion experience (see Edwards, The Religious Affections) led quite naturally into the emphasis in the 2GA on creating the right atmosphere for people to have such experiences. Once the criteria for considering someone a true believer was the quality of their religious conversion, and the criteria for a true religious conversion was based upon philosophical speculation (again, Edwards, Religious Affections), then a logical next step is to take the rationalist approach of Finney, i.e. these things aren’t miracles at all, just get people excited enough and they seem to have these perfect, pristine religious experiences. But really, it seems all it really ended up being was a “high,” kind of like cocaine. Hence the “burned-over district,” a sort of 19th century Haight-Ashbury. Doesn’t it seem to you that once people came down off one high, they basically moved on to the next, i.e. Miller, or Joseph Smith, or Mary Baker Eddy, etc. Miller was still about “getting people excited,” but the drug was different. Smith (and Mormonism after him) was all about the “burning in the bosom.” Miller, it seems to me, just got people high on a different drug, i.e. the second advent, while he also gave them a possible “out,” that they could escape the world and not have to deal with the burn-out from the 2GA, as well as all the economic problems after the Jackson administration.
Here are a couple books that look interesting for future study:
Perhaps this might shed some light on the subject for you. It also gives many sources of those SDA scholars who have researched this extensively.
Thanks for the link Guibox. I’ve seen those arguments before. It seems that he can’t really help substantiating many of the claims. For a quick example, the anthropomorphite heresy casts a different understanding on everything else she says. He also doesn’t deal substantively with the argument, namely her definition of exactly how Christ is “one” with the Father, etc. The fact remains that she was not working from her creedal Trinitarian background. Based on this, it really won’t do to just keep trading EGW quotes, like two trains passing on parallel tracks. There is going to have to be more substantive analysis of her overall thought from a sympathetic (yet non-Adventist) source, which I really think is impossible. There are so many competing (even mutually exclusive) sources in her writing that I think it is impossible to reconcile it all. This is one of the reasons I’m asking Gabriel questions about Edwards and New Haven, trying to get to the bottom of some of the sources, if that’s possible. Anyway, just my two cents.
Here is a recent post from the Heidelblog concerning the false prophet Harold Camping. This is also relevant to the continuing trend of American Christianity to follow after charismatic leaders who convince people that they are the first ones in history to understand Scripture.
Harold Camping May Never Learn But Will We?
Harold Camping has shown himself to be a false prophet. He promised that our Lord would return in 1994. Jesus didn’t return. Camping erred but he remains impenitent and unashamed. Indeed, he’s now promising that Jesus will return in 2011 (HT: Austin Britton), and this despite Jesus’ clear, unequivocal teaching that no one, not even Harold Camping, knows when Jesus will return:
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matt 25:36–37)
The question isn’t whether anyone can convince Harold Camping of his manifest errors. It’s been tried and better men than I (including my friend and colleague Mike Horton) have tried and failed. The real question is whether orthodox, confessional Reformed folk will learn from Camping’s errors.
First, why can’t anyone convince Camping and his band of followers of the truth of the orthodox Christian approach to Jesus’ parousia? The answer is that Camping and co cannot be convinced of their errors because they are on a QIRC: Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty, or the desire to know what cannot be known. The followers of Camping know what Scripture has to mean. It’s a classic case of rationalism. In this case rationalism means knowing what God knows the way he knows it. It’s a denial of the categorical (Creator/creature) distinction. See RRC on this. The Campingite movement also shows classic symptoms of the sectarian spirit. They have a leader who has a special, new message. He has “insights” into God’s Word, which no one else has. Americans particularly love to be a part of apocalyptic (revelatory), eschatological (end times) movements. There are two essays on this phenomenon in Always Reformed. The embarrassment of the failed 1994 prophecy is far enough away that unhistorical American Christians can ignore it. That was then, this is now.
Second, Camping is an individualistic biblicist. He is master of the Bible. If the Anabaptists had swallowed the Spirit feathers and all (Luther), Camping, as it were, swallowed the Word. It doesn’t control him, he controls it. Camping’s errors are not the result of sola Scriptura but of solo Haroldo, if you will. Harold’s theology and hermeneutics come right out the Anabaptist movement of the 16th century. The only thing missing from the picture is a mighty beard and some spittle.
Harold’s view actually denies sola Scriptura by denying the perspicuity (i.e., the essential, intrinsic clarity) of Scripture. The grammar, context, and clear intent of our Lord’s teaching is to prevent exactly what Camping is doing. By claiming to have secret insights into the Scripture, by claiming that those who have the Holy Spirit (i.e., those who’ve followed Camping and left the visible church for his increasingly wacky radio church) his methods and conclusions deny the perspicuity of Scripture. We cannot see the teaching of Scripture without Camping’s magisterium. In this he’s like the Anabaptists (who appealed to the Spirit over the dead letter) and Rome (who has a magisterial teaching authority that norms Scripture).
There’s a suggestion in the news coverage that there might even be a bit of cynicism at work. The Family Radio people have signed contracts for advertising that go beyond the predicted date of Jesus’ return. If that’s so, then there’s a spiritual issue. Whatever the case with the contracts there is a spiritual issue when someone will listen to no one, when he alone understands Scripture.
The very existence of Camping should serve as a warning to Reformed churches. He did not emerge into the public eye as the leader of a sect. 30 years ago Camping was an elder in a Christian Reformed Church. Today he a leader of his own movement. The leader of The Way International, Victor Paul Wierwille was educated at the same seminary that produced German Reformed pastors (Mission House) and at Princeton. He was ordained by the Evangelical and Reformed Churches (a forerunner to the United Churches of Christ). Sectarian, QIRC-y, movements can and do arise in our churches. I’ve warned about this before. To the degree that Reformed churches are producing these movements, to the same degree they are infected with unbiblical, contra-confessional attitudes.
This is a sad business. Many people have been helped by Family Radio. More than a few people can trace their discovery of the Reformed faith to Family Radio (pre-1992). Unfortunately, apart from an extraordinary providence, there’s no reason to expect that Harold Camping will suddenly realize that he alone is not the only one to understand the Bible. Those churches who confess the Reformed faith have to address the Harold Campings in our midst. Was Harold Camping disciplined? Are the Harold Campings in our churches facing discipline for their errors? Are Reformed churches teaching their members how to read Scripture, how to detect and avoid the mistakes that Camping and his followers have made? Camping isn’t likely to learn, but are we?
