11. Salvation, Cont.; Conditional Immortality

12. The Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment

11. Salvation, Cont.; Conditional Immortality

#156, #157, & #158: "Salvation by grace through faith alone is the heart of the gospel. But the Adventist doctrine of the 1844 investigative judgment colors all their major doctrines. It was because of this false teaching also known as the pre-advent judgment, which amounts to nothing more than a judgment of works which determines salvation, that the unbiblical doctrine of soul sleep was introduced. Obviously, you couldn't have believers going to heaven when they died before their lives were supposedly judged. What if they hadn't been good enough? They'd have to leave heaven, right?"

#156: A pre-advent judgment of works is incompatible with the gospel of grace. This statement contradicts Holy Scripture.

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. (Rev. 14:6, 7)

The Greek is a little more emphatic. "Is come" is in the aorist tense, the equivalent of our past tense. Thus we have an angel who in his preaching of the gospel is declaring to all the world that, "The judgment has already begun."

The next event portrayed is the second coming:

And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. (Rev. 14:14-16)

Thus before the second coming we have as part of the gospel a message that the judgment has already commenced. If the gospel of grace cannot include such a pre-advent judgment, then Paul's gospel of grace is different than the gospel this angel is preaching. Yet that is impossible:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8, 9)

So the true gospel of grace must be compatible with a pre-advent judgment. But is that pre-advent judgment a judgment of works? As we saw under #62, it most definitely is.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Eccl. 12:14)

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Mat. 12:36, 37)

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. (1 Cor. 4:5)

So the pre-advent judgment doesn't stop at just works. Our words, yes, even the thoughts of our hearts will be considered. But will this judgment "determine salvation"? The answer depends on what you mean by salvation. Do you mean conversion, forgiveness, and justification? Or do you mean actually arriving in heaven (see #66 and #143)?

Adventists have taught for over a century that conversion and justification must take place before an individual is judged in the judgment announced in Revelation 14:

In the typical service only those who had come before God with confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, had a part in the service of the Day of Atonement. So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period. "Judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel?" 1 Peter 4:17.-Great Controversy, p. 480.

Therefore Adventists do not believe that the judgment determines salvation when the term is defined as conversion or justification. However, they do believe that the judgment determines who will arrive in heaven. This idea Jesus clearly taught in Matthew 12:36, 37.

Why does Jesus say that our words will "determine our salvation"? Mr. M___'s own statements under #153 and #155 reveal the answer: Our words and our actions show whether or not we love Jesus, and whether or not we have allowed the gospel of grace to take root in our lives. If there is no fruit, the root either never grew or must have died.

Our words and actions also reveal whether we have really accepted the terms of the New Covenant, whether we have allowed Jesus to write His law in our hearts and minds (Heb. 8:10). The pre-advent judgment merely reveals who is really a New Covenant, New Testament Christian, and who is not.

The documentation package lists in its index as "Point 72" the charge that Adventists believe that "Believers must keep the Law to be saved, and will be judged by their works." When one turns to "Point 72," one finds the ninth paragraph of an article in the August 28, 1894, issue of the Review and Herald. Of the 39 lines of this paragraph, 30 are direct quotes of Bible verses in quotation marks. That leaves only 9 lines actually written by Mrs. White, lines which to some degree are allusions to and paraphrases of both the Scriptures quoted and other Scriptures not quoted. Every Scripture quoted or alluded to is found in the New Testament! So this charge against Adventists must be really a charge against the teachings of the New Testament! The evidence is in the documentation package for all to see.

#157: Soul sleep was introduced because of the investigative judgment. This is simply untrue, as brought out under #59.

The teaching that only God is immortal (1 Tim. 6:15, 16), that the dead will receive their reward at the resurrection instead of before, and that the dead "know not anything" (Eccl. 9:5, 6) was introduced among Millerites before 1844. Mrs. White's family accepted it then, as the context for the statement under "Point 33" in the documentation package clearly shows.

The video makes a major point of the investigative judgment doctrine being developed after 1844. That makes the doctrine of "soul sleep" older than the doctrine of the investigative judgment, not vice versa.

#158: The doctrine of soul sleep is unbiblical. During the Reformation, many individuals went back to the Scriptures as the only authority for faith and practice. Men like John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, M___ Luther, and a host of others, including many Anglicans and Anabaptists, while studying the Bible became convicted that the dead are asleep (see #92). If the doctrine of soul sleep, also known as condi­tional immortality, is so unbiblical, pray tell where did all these men of God come up with the idea from?

Actually, Mr. M___ is inadvertently making a powerful argument, drawn from the Holy Scriptures, for the doctrine of soul sleep. Jesus said, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22:12). He passes out His rewards at the second coming, not before.

And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. (Rev. 11:18)

Thus the judgment precedes the giving out of rewards at the second coming. What are the dead doing until then, and where?

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul calls into question certain key biblical teachings. To use Mr. M___'s illustration, if the dead already have their reward, why do we need a judgment?

"I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" (John 14:1-3). If the dead in Christ are already with Jesus, why does He need to return to get them? Why do we need a second coming?

There is but one text in the New Testament that says what to preach at funerals (1 Th. 4:18). In that passage Paul points the bereaved to the hope of the resurrection. That is when they will live again. But if our loved ones are already in heaven, why do we need a resurrection?

Under "Point 78" in the documentation package is a tract from MacGregor Ministries dealing with hell. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is cited (Luke 16:19-31), which is a popular text among those who believe that our souls are innately immortal.

Yet this parable, if it really does bolster the idea that our souls are immortal, would also teach us that our souls have eyes, tongues, chests, and fingers. If our soul is immortal, and if our soul has all the parts that our body does, why do we need a resurrection?

Now for the most serious question of all: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). If it is true that we cannot die and are already immortal, then why do we need to believe on Jesus in order to have eternal life? We already have it!

On the other hand, if we must accept Jesus as our Savior in order to have eternal life, we therefore are not naturally, innately immortal. So which is it? Must we accept Christ in order to have eternal life, or are our souls already immortal?

In conclusion, while "soul sleep" is far from being unbiblical, the doctrine of innate immortality calls into question the gospel, the resurrection, the second coming, and the judgment.

#159: "So the Adventists teach that when a person dies, he or she goes into the grave, into non­existence. But this teaching flies in the face of the Scriptures which clearly state that 'to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord.' 2 Corinthians 5:8. And when a believer dies he departs and is with Christ. Philippians 1:23."

#159: Conditional immortality flies in the face of two Scriptures. Actually, it doesn't, unless we want to say that the Bible contradicts itself.

While conditional immortality seems to fly in the face of two Scriptures, innate immortality, the idea that there is something in us that will not and cannot die, that not even God can kill, flies in the face of 265 verses found in 158 chapters taken from 35 books of the Bible (see "Immortality: Conditional or Innate?" at http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers

To illustrate the problem we are faced with, let us look at one concept that Mr. M___ is trying to drive home, one with which we agree, that we are saved by faith and not by works. Yet this, it would seem, "flies in the face" of a passage from James:

But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? ... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:20-26)

Yet Paul clearly says in Galatians 2:16 that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. Does the Bible contradict itself, or is there a way to harmonize the two passages? Every Bible-believing Christian should agree that there must be a way to harmonize James with Paul, and of course there is.

Mr. M___ has referred to two texts: 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23. These must be harmonized with the 265 verses that seem to say something different. Since it is easier to harmonize two verses with 265 rather than 265 with two, let us look at the two first.

The context of 2 Corinthians 5:8 gives us an idea of what Paul is talking about:

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. (2 Cor. 5:1-4)

Paul in these verses longs for the day when he will receive a glorified body, an event Christians typically identify with the resurrection at the second coming. He clearly does not want to be a disembodied spirit, for he does not want to be "naked." Rather, he wants to be clothed upon with the new body he calls a "house." Now for the next verses:

Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2 Cor. 5:5-9)

When the time comes for us to be absent from our present body and receive our new body, we will literally be present with the Lord. There is nothing necessarily incompatible here with the idea that the dead await the resurrection in their graves. Let us look now at the context of Philippians 1:23.

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. (Php. 1:21-24)

This passage does appear to put Paul with Christ at death. However, two points should be noted about both of these passages: 1) Neither passage says that those who have died are not really dead. 2) Neither passage says that the dead are conscious. Thus neither passage really contradicts the following crystal clear verses:

The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence. (Ps. 115:17)

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. (Ps. 146:3, 4)

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in any thing that is done under the sun....

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. (Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10)

Thus the Bible teaches that the dead do not praise God, cannot think, and do not know anything. The fact is that neither 2 Corinthians 5:8 nor Philippians 1:23 contradicts these simple, plain, Bible truths.

Another basic problem with the doctrine of innate immortality is the way the Bible uses the Greek and Hebrew words for "soul" and "spirit." There are 157 verses using these words in ways that just don't fit (see "What Is the Soul and Spirit?" posted at http:/ /www.pickle-publishing.com/papers . For example, when the second plague is poured out, "every living soul died in the sea" (Rev. 16:3). If souls are immortal and can't die, why are these souls dying? And why is it said that whales and fish are "souls"?

265 verses and 157 verses. Some passages are used in both documents, but between the two, there are a total of 411 different verses cited.

The documentation package under "Point 77" merely gives photocopies of the two verses Mr. M___ cited. It makes no attempt at all to explain any of the 411 other Bible verses that indicate that man does not have innate immortality.

#160: "Another thing that people might not be aware of is that Seventh-day Adventists do not teach the biblical doctrine of hell."

#160: They don't teach the biblical doctrine of hell. Actually, they do, and always have.

Adventists, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, believe in taking the Bible literally when it says that hell will be a fire.

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither roott nor branch.... And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts. (Mal. 4:1-3)

They take this passage just as it reads. There will be a fire that burns up the wicked.

For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth ....

But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall con­sume; into smoke shall they consume away. (Ps. 37:9­11,20)

So while the redeemed will inherit the earth, the wicked will consume into smoke.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Those who believe in Christ have eternal life. Those who do not will perish in hell's fire.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Heb. 2:14)

And how will Jesus destroy the devil? Regarding the end of Satan, the "covering cherub" that had been in "Eden," Ezekiel says:

Therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.... thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. (Ezek. 28:18, 19)

Seventh-day Adventists do indeed believe these simple Bible verses. The question is, does Mr. M___?

When it's all over, "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 20:4).

If the wicked did have eternal life in hell fire, even though they never accepted Christ, and if they were never burned up, though the Bible says they will be, how could this verse be true? Sorrow, crying, and pain would continue forever instead of being "no more."

The verses just cited are but a small sampling. Of the 265 verses in the paper, "Immortality: Conditional or Innate?," 148 verses from 88 chapters from 27 biblical books deal with hell. Check it out for yourself at http: / /www.vickle-publishing.com/papers

Under "Point 78" and "Point 78a" in the documentation package is a tract by MacGregor Ministries on hell. In its first paragraphs it indicates that Adventists do not think that hell is hot. This of course is not true. Adventists believe that hell will be so hot, it will burn up the entire earth, just like the Bible says:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Pet. 3:10)

The MacGregor Ministries tract makes no attempt to deal with any of the 148 verses of Scripture that declare that "the wages of sin is death" rather than eternal life in hell. It does however make this statement: "When we really believe the word of God as it is written, and don't try to 'figuratize' or 'spiritualize' it away as the cults do ...." Thus, by MacGregor Ministries' own admission, Seventh-day Adventism is not a cult. Adventists do not spiritualize the Word of God away when it says that Satan and the wicked will be "consumed," "destroyed," "turned into ashes," "perish," and "never be any more."

On the other hand, since MacGregor Ministries does not take these simple Bible verses literally, is it calling itself a cult? If so, such a conclusion is unwarranted. Just because MacGregor Ministries spiritualizes away what the Bible says about hell, that in itself doesn't make it a cult.

Speaking of hell, what sin is the only one mentioned in all three of Revelation's lists describing those who will end up in the lake of fire?

But ... all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Rev. 21:7, 8)

And there shall in no wise enter into [the New Jerusalem] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Rev. 21:27)

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whore­mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Rev. 22:15)

Since lying is the only sin included in all three lists, it would be well for the contributors to the video to consider the following: It is indisputable that this video, whether intentionally or not, contains a number of false statements. In light of the fact that lying can exclude people from the blessings of eternal life and send them to hell, why not play it safe? The best course is to repent, confess, and make things right as far as possible. The Lord is merciful and He will pardon, for Jesus died and shed His blood for us. We have the sure promise of His Word that every sin repented of will be forgiven.

12. The Sabbath and the Fourth Commandment

#161: "One of the primary distinctives of Seventh-day Adventism is the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath. To keep the seventh day is seen as a mark of true loyalty to God."

#161: It's seen as a mark of true loyalty to God. The narrator goes so far as to call this view "severe" under #179. Yet according to Mr. M___'s earlier statements, it has to be true.

"Christians are to grow in grace and keep God's commandments out of a love for Him. .." (#153). "In contrast, being under grace leads to holiness" (#155). By Mr. M___'s own reasoning, if a person adamantly refuses to keep one of God's commandments, he doesn't really love God and is therefore not being loyal to Him. Such a one is also rejecting the holiness that results from being under grace. And this is all the more true since the Sabbath is the Bible sign of holiness (see #155).

The fourth commandment differs from the others in a very important way, and this makes it especially a mark of loyalty.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. (Rom. 2:14, 15)

Everyone has a conscience that tells him what is right and wrong, whether he follows it or not. Jew and Gentile, Christian and heathen, all have a sense that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong. The awareness that such things are evil seems built into man's very nature. For this reason, in some theological circles, precepts like the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments are called "natural law."

Commandments that are not built into the conscience, those that you have to be told about, are called "positive law." This is why the Sabbath commandment has been called by Catholic writers a "most positive command." While an awareness of the need for periodic rest is built into us, an awareness of which day to rest upon is not. Thus it is something we have to be told, not something we naturally know.

So which would be a greater mark of loyalty and love to God? Obeying a precept you naturally know is right, like honoring your parents? Or obeying a precept you don't naturally know is right, something you only know about because the God of heaven requested it, like keeping His Sabbath holy?

It's kind of strange. You can talk about most any of the commandments, and people will not argue with you. They will heartily agree, and rant and rave about the decay of morals in today's society. But once you mention the fourth commandment, they will start talking about how the law was nailed to the cross, how we are now under grace, and how we must not be legalists. Inconsistent, isn't it?

#162 & #163: "The idea of the seventh-day Sabbath was not original to Ellen White though. It was in fact initiated by a Seventh Day Baptist contact and Joseph Bates who subsequently talked James and Ellen White into the idea in 1846. Ellen obliged by conveniently having a vision and this introduced the teaching to her followers. 'I saw that the Holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers.' Early Writings p. 85."

#162: She obliged by conveniently having a vision. The viewer is left with the impression that somehow Mrs. White pretended to have a vision. However, as indicated under #44 and #112, her visions had a definitely supernatural element. They could not be faked. There was no way that Mrs. White could just decide that she was not going to breathe for an extended period.

 #163: Her vision introduced the Sabbath to her followers. The vision referred to did not occur until April 3, 1847 (Life Sketches, pp. 100, 101). It did not introduce the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was already well introduced by that date.

The "Seventh Day Baptist contact," Rachel Oakes Preston, shared the Sabbath truth with Methodist minister Frederick Wheeler in 1844. He and many of his congregation in Washington, New Hampshire, began keeping the Sabbath by the end of that year.

T. M. Preble had been a Freewill Baptist preacher in Nashua, New Hampshire. In February 1845 he wrote an article endorsing the Sabbath, which was read by Joseph Bates. Bates then accepted the Sabbath truth and wrote his own tract about it in 1846.

"In the autumn of 1846," James and Ellen White "began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 75). This was roughly six months before the vision that "introduced the teaching to her followers."

The vision did not result in the Sabbath being significantly more accepted among Millerites. To the contrary, Mrs. White's acceptance of the Sabbath in 1846 resulted in her being rejected by many of her Millerite friends. She had fewer "followers" afterwards than before:

The light upon the fourth commandment, which was new and unpopular and generally rejected by our Adventist brethren and sisters, we had accepted.... opposition unexpectedly came upon us from those with whom we had been united in the faith and glorious hope of the second advent of our Saviour.... there were those with whom we had taken sweet counsel together who denounced the third angel's message as heresy.-Manuscript Releases, vol. 4, p. 402.

Imagine treating the "absolute authority figure" (see #21) like this!

"Point 80 & 80a" are described in the documentation package's index as "Saturday Sabbath teaching originated with a 7th day Baptist and Joseph Bates in 1846." Yet when one turns to this section, Rachel Oakes, Joseph Bates, and 1846 aren't even mentioned. Instead, events of 1848 and 1849 are described.

If this video is ever redone, it would be best to involve someone who knows a bit more about Adventism's history and doctrines.

#164: "In the early years when the Sabbath observance was kept, it always began at 6 pm Fridays. It was before sunset in the summer and after sunset in the winter. This went on for over nine years. Since the Bible says that the Sabbath was to be kept from sunset to sunset, a division arose. The matter was studied and presented to the Adventist conference in 1855. Finally they voted to keep the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday."

#164: The Bible says the Sabbath is to be kept from sunset to sunset. Mr. M___ thus suggests that the early Seventh-day Adventists were ignoring what is plainly stated in the Bible. It isn't that simple, for the Bible doesn't say to keep the Sabbath from sunset to sunset.

So what does the Bible say? "From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath" (Lev. 23:32). Okay, so when is evening? "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?" (John 11:9).

Based on this last text, and his experience in astronomy and as a sea captain, Joseph Bates was certain that evening began at 6 pro. It was only after careful Bible study, initially done by John N. Andrews at the request of James White, that it was seen that evening really begins at sunset.

Jesus on a particular Sabbath was preaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. He cast a devil out of a man in the congregation, and then went home to Peter's house and healed Peter's mother-in-law. There were a lot of sick folk in town, but no one came by to be healed until after sunset: "And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils" (Mark 1:32).

The Jewish leaders of that time felt that it was wrong to be healed on the Sabbath. The people therefore waited until after the Sabbath was over before bringing their sick to Jesus. They waited until evening, "when the sun did set."

Thus while no single Bible verse teaches that the Sabbath begins and ends at sunset, by putting a few verses together we can see what is the truth of the matter. We can also see that there really is no reason to criticize anyone over the issue.

#165, #166, & #167: "There was still dissent however among Adventist followers. Mrs. White decided to have another vision to settle the matter. A delegate to the conference reported that 'After the conference, November 20th, the vision was given, establishing those undecided on the sunset time.' "

#165: She decided to have another vision. As shown under #44 and #112, for Mrs. White to decide to have another vision was an absolute impossibility.

 #166: There still being dissent, her vision was intended to settle the matter. Actually, according to one account, the dissent came from only two people, Joseph Bates and Mrs. White:

Now with the position of sunset time so amply supported by Scripture evidence, all the congregation, which included the church's leaders, readily accepted the light and were prepared to shift their practice. All, that is, but two--Joseph Bates and Mrs. White. -Arthur White, vol. 1, p. 323.

Perhaps there were a few others, but the implication of the accusation is clear: Mrs. White "decided" to have a vision to "settle the matter" among the undecided: herself! Does not this seem a bit odd?

We'll comment a little further about the source of the narrator's quotation under #167. For now, consider the fact that other portions of this very same source declare that the vision of November 20, 1855, never mentioned "sunset" at all:

"3. We were present at the Conference referred to above, and also when the vision was given after the close of that Conference, and heard Sr. W. soon after coming out of vision, relate what she had seen. We are therefore prepared to testify that sunset-time was not once mentioned in the vision; but the words given to her in the previous vision were repeated, namely, 'From even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath;' and these words were now added: 'Take the word of God, read it, understand, and ye cannot err.

Read carefully, and ye shall there find what even is and when it is.' In the first vision we were directed to the word of God by the words 'From even to even' but on astronomical grounds, it was then decided that even was six o'clock. In the second, exactly the same words were used, and we were more especially directed to the word of God, which when examined conclusively establishes sunset time. This settled the matter with Bro. B. and a few others, and general harmony has since prevailed on the question."-Uriah Smith, Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, p. 91.

If Mrs. White "decided" to have a vision to convince dissenters to begin the Sabbath at sunset, why didn't the vision she "decided" to have say to begin the Sabbath at sunset?

 #167: This is what a delegate reported. This quotation from Uriah Smith is taken from his book The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, which was written and published in 1866 and 1868. The 1866 edition was a reply to 39 quibbles, and the 1868 edition replied to another 13. In the 1868 edition, the five-page section dealing with when to keep the Sabbath was entitled, "Objection 32. - Time to Commence the Sabbath."

Why would the narrator ever want to quote from Smith's book, given the fact that it disproves every one of these accusations? Since the sentence the narrator quoted is the third-to-last sentence of the section, certainly some of the contributors to the video must have read Smith's explanations. They must therefore also know that these charges are entirely bogus (see #166, #168, #169, #174).

#168 & #169: "Far from the convenient vision establishing the matter, the Adventists continued to ask questions. Why could they not believe Mrs. White's original visions concerning the 6 pm Sabbath?"

#168: Adventists continued to ask questions. Yet the book that the narrator just quoted from plainly says that those asking such questions were enemies of Seventh-day Adventism, not friends:

"But there are persons who seek to injure us as a people--and this class we hope to help by this article --who report and publish to the world that Mrs. White did profess to be shown that the time to commence the Sabbath was six o'clock, and that at a later period she was shown that sunset was the true time."-Smith, p. 89.

And who might these critics have been? Such persons and the publications they produced fell into two different groups. The publishers of Messenger of Truth, Hope of Israel, and The Advent and Sabbath Advocate were individuals who left the Seventh-day Adventist movement, while the publishers of Voice of the West and the World's Crisis were never Seventh-day Adventists. Both groups grasped at anything they could find, whether factual or not, to criticize Seventh-day Adventists about.

One short-time writer for the Messenger was E. R. Seaman. This is what he had to say less than one year after the vision of November 20; 1855:

In the aggregate, I consider all my writing for the late "Messenger" to have been actuated by a false and wrong spirit, notwithstanding some truths might have been stated. My first retrograde from the true remnant was caused by taking the simple truth concerning the commencement of the Sabbath at sunset, which I was informed (erroneously) was established by a vision to be at 6 o'clock, independent of sun time. This error caused me to write what I did; having also, imbibed some of the war spirit. I am satisfied that this has done much injury. I am fully persuaded also that I have sympathized with those that were crooked and wrong at heart, to my hurt, and I cannot conceive why I have been permitted to go thus far, unless it be peradventure to fully open my eyes, and I hope, the eyes of others also that have likewise been deceived.

There are those spoken of in the Scriptures of truth, that walk disorderly, self-willed, having not the Spirit, who despise government: with such I desire not to walk.

As some exceptions have been taken to my last letter [in the Review of July 24, 1856], I would say I did not then fully regard the counsel and the testimony of the one the Lord has seen fit to reveal himself to, as I do now; and I can say for the help of any, that as far as myself and family are concerned, nothing has been given us but good, sound and kind instruction. I think I never said to the contrary. But I supposed one permanent discrepancy enough to cause doubts of the whole. But it is human to err, and better to exchange error for truth, let it be never so late.-Review and Herald, Oct. 30, 1856, p. 207.

 #169: Mrs. White's original visions said to keep the Sabbath from 6 pm to 6 pm. They never did. In fact, none of the visions under discussion ever said when to keep the Sabbath, other than from "even to even." As the book from which the narrator quoted says:

Here the objector finds another contradiction in the visions, by asserting that they once taught that the Sabbath should commence at six o'clock p.m.; and that the time was subsequently changed by vision to sunset. This we meet with an unqualified denial. The visions never taught that the Sabbath should com­mence at six o'clock ....

"1. Mrs. White has in two visions been shown something in regard to the time of the commence­ment of the Sabbath. The first was as early as 1847, at Topsham, Me. In the vision she was shown that to commence the Sabbath at sunrise was wrong. She then heard an angel repeat these words, 'From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths.' Bro [Bates] was present and succeeded in satisfying all present that 'even' was six o'clock. Mark this: The vision at Topsham did not teach the six o'clock time. It only corrected sunrise time. I never received the idea that the six o'clock time was sustained by the visions ....

"Some have the impression that six o'clock time has been taught among us by the direct manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This is a mistake; 'From even unto even' was the teaching from which six o'clock time has been inferred."-Smith, pp. 88-90.

The documentation package gives no evidence to prove that any of Mrs. White's visions taught to keep the Sabbath from 6 pm to 6 pm. It does, however, make reference to an incident involving speaking in tongues and a clock face that made many believe that the Sabbath should be kept from 6 pm to 6 pro ("Point 82" and "Point 82a"). Smith's book dealt with this too:

"It is also stated that in vision she saw the dial plate of a clock with one hand pointing to the 6, and other to 12, showing that six o'clock was the commencement and close of the Sabbath....

"2. In regard to the clock-face, twenty competent witnesses are ready to testify that neither Mrs. W. nor her visions had anything to do with it whatever." -Ibid., pp. 89-91.

The documentation package provides copies of two paragraphs from pages 199 and 200 of Ellen G. White: The Early Years. If one gets this book and reads the three short paragraphs between these two, one finds that it was E. L. H. Chamberlain, not Mrs. White, who spoke in tongues and drew the clock face on the floor with the chalk.

How did the compiler of the documentation package miss seeing this discrepancy?

#170, #171, #172, #173, & #174: "Why the change now nine years later? Had they not been in fact Sabbath breakers and not Sabbath keepers for the first nine years of the practice? It required another vision by Ellen White in which she promised to question the angel and get an explanation to cause the controversy to die down. 'I inquired why it had been thus, that at this late day we must change the time of commencing the Sabbath. Said the angel, "Ye shall understand, but not yet, not yet..." ' Spiritual Gifts vol. 4[b] p. 3-4. Mrs. White died without ever giving the promised explanation from God."

#170: It required another vision. If it required another vision, why does Mr. M___ then proceed to quote from the same vision of November 20, 1855?

Mr. M___ quotes here from pages 3 and 4. The immediately preceding page, page 2, says: "Novem­ber 20, 1855, while in prayer, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly and powerfully came upon me, and I was taken off in vision." That makes this vision the same as the one referred to by the narrator under #165­#167, meaning that there was no other vision.

 #171: She promised in her vision to question the angel and get an explanation. Will the reader please notice what Mr. M___ quoted? She made no such promise in the vision. Rather, the angel promised that an explanation would come later.

 #172: The angel said, "Not yet, not yet." Let's quote just a little more of this very passage. The second sentence after where Mr. M___ stopped says: "I saw that it was in the minds of some that the Lord had shown that the Sabbath commenced at six o'clock, when I had only seen that it commenced at even; and it was inferred that even was at six."

If Mr. M___ had only read two more sentences, his questions would have been totally answered.

This quotation from Spiritual Gifts appears under "Point 85" in the documentation package. The last five lines of the paragraph are strangely missing. The last words before the cut-off lines are, "I saw that it was in the," the first seven words from the above sentence.

You might think this is evidence of dishonesty, and it does look quite incriminating. It appears that the compiler was trying to hide the truth from the reader. But actually, it could be just simple human error.

The documentation package provides 77 different extracts from the CD-ROM of Mrs. White's writings, 55 of which contain material that she really wrote. The compiler was using the Windows version of the software which provides two ways of printing out a desired selection. One can either print out the whole paragraph, or the current window being viewed, a default of 27 lines.

16 extracts went beyond a single window, and were included in their entirety in the documentation package. 4 others, including the one under discussion, were cut off at the end of the first window, omitting between 2 and 7 lines of material. Of these 4, only this one's missing lines represent context vital to the discussion.

So it is possible that the compiler neglected to read the last five lines and had the "window" "print range" setting checked. Yet even if this was a simple oversight, it really is inexcusable. Whenever one attacks something as sacred as someone's religious faith, it is wise to be certain of the facts first. And when ascertaining facts means reading only two more sentences or five more lines, finishing the paragraph becomes a Christian duty.

 #173: She died without ever giving the promised explanation. The careful reader will note that the angel never said who would give the promised explanation. Mr. M___ thinks it had to be Mrs. White, but that's not what the passage said.

 #174: The promised explanation was never given. Actually, the promised explanation appeared in Smith's book which the narrator quoted from (see #167):

"2. Elder J.B., who was the first to teach the Sabbath in its importance, and faithfully labor to bring out a people from among the Adventists to observe it, was very decided upon the question, and respect for his years, and his godly life, might have been among the reasons why this point was not sooner investigated as thoroughly as some other points."-p. 89.

Seventh-day Adventists had relied on someone's opinion instead of searching out what the Bible actually taught on the matter. For this reason, they had to make a change after not quite keeping the Sabbath correctly for nine years.

This explanation was given publicly in the Review and Herald in 1868 (vol. 31 no. 11), and then reprinted in Smith's book of that year. This was a total of 47 years before Mrs. White's death.