Subtitles prepared by human
Throughout history, God has communicated His will through select people known as prophets. These men and women were called at just the right time to give guidance to the people of God. One such person was called not long after the Great Disappointment in 1844, when many were disillusioned and needed reassurance. On one particular day, five women came together for prayer. As they were kneeling at the family altar, the power of God came upon a young, 17 year old woman, and she was taken off in vision. Her name was Ellen Harmon. After her marriage, she was known as Ellen White. In her vision, she was surrounded with light and then saw herself rising higher and higher from the earth. When she tried to look for the Advent people, she could not see them. It was at this point that she heard a voice that said to look a little higher.
At this, she raised her eyes and saw a straight and narrow path, high above the earth. Here she saw the Advent people traveling toward the Heavenly City. When she came out of vision, the believers in that area were greatly encouraged and strengthened. For the next 71 years Ellen White faithfully served God as His appointed messenger. For My People Ministry Presents Apostasy in Our Midst Episode 4 – New Theology – Part III Ok I'll see you later Isabel. OK. Ernie, thanks, we’ll see you. Bye bye. It was here at Elmshaven that Ellen White spent the last 15 years of her life. In 1915, she was laid to rest, but her words live on in the many books, articles and letters she wrote throughout the course of her ministry.
Like many of God's prophets, Ellen White experienced much opposition. One example of this comes from the case of Uriah Smith. In 1888, the Lord sent the precious message of righteousness by faith to His church through E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones. Ellen White bore testimony to the truthfulness of the message; however, leading men like Uriah Smith hardened their hearts and rejected the message and the testimony from Ellen White. He and others accused her of being influenced by Jones and Waggoner. "When I plainly stated my faith there were many who did not understand me and they reported that Sister White had changed; Sister White was influenced by her son W. C. White and by Elder A. T. Jones. Of course, such a statement coming from the lips of those who had known me for years, who had grown up with the third angel's message
and had been honored by the confidence and faith of our people, must have influence. I became the subject of remarks and criticism, but no one of our brethren came to me and made inquiries or sought any explanation from me." The grief Ellen White experienced through this trying time had more of an impact on her than even the death of her husband. "I have loved Brother Smith next to my own husband and children, because he has had a part in the work for so many years. I have highly esteemed Elder Butler. But these men have left me alone--these men, to whom the Lord has spoken several times that they should stand united with my husband and myself in closest union till the close of time. They have caused me such sadness and grief of spirit as I cannot describe. I felt my husband's death, oh, how keenly God alone knows, but I have felt the cruel course of these men
toward the work of God He has given me to do, more keenly than the death of my husband." Smith, Butler and others had reached the point where they were doing the work of Korah, Datham and Abiram. Their rebellion against the prophet of God led others to unbelief. "When you have stated that Sr. White was influenced by W. C. W., A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner, you have planted in hearts infidelity that has been nourished and has borne fruit. Decided opposition would have done me less harm. A lack of faith in the messages God has given me to bear of the order represented is decided unbelief to all intents and purposes." It is important to realize that these men did not reject all of Ellen White's writings. They still believed she had been led in the past. They simply rejected her endorsement of Jones and Waggoner's view of righteousness by faith and the law in Galatians.
In this she charged them with making of none effect the testimonies: "You have refused my testimonies given me for you from the Lord just as much have you labored to make them of none effect as did Korah, Dathan and Abiram. You have done this and thus it is charged against you in the books of heaven. I feel the tenderest compassion for you. I would give my life to the torture and death if it would save your soul. But you have the experience of others who have walked in the same pathway where you have set your feet. You have traced their history who have despised counsel and made of none effect the testimonies." In a similar situation, she wrote: "Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White's opinion and judgment.
This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine. If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White's human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human--Sister White's opinions. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition." How true is this? It is not uncommon for people to openly oppose Ellen White when their ideas are crossed. You hear such excuses as, she was not a theologian, the Bible is our only source of truth, or she was not infallible.
Yet these same people happily quote her when it suits their own opinions. Another similar deception is the idea that not everything Ellen White wrote is inspired. Many are willing to accept her published books, but think her letters and other writings were her own opinion. But notice the following: "When I went to Colorado, I was so burdened for you, that, in my weakness, I wrote many pages to be read at your camp-meeting. Weak and trembling, I arose at three o'clock in the morning, to write to you. God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas.
They are what God has opened before me in vision --the precious rays of light shining from the throne." Ellen White understood the responsibility of her calling. She says "I speak that which I have seen, and which I know to be true." When an issue had not been revealed to her, she would say, "I have no light on the subject." In a letter written to Uriah Smith, December 31, 1890, she predicted there would come a time when, under Satan's influence, a hatred would be kindled against her writings. "There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the spirit of God are heeded. What better course to please the enemy and
grieve the spirit of God could be pursued than that which has been pursued by you, my brother, a teacher in Israel." Ellen White's words must have had a deep impact on Smith, because eight days later on January 8, 1891, he confessed his error and purposed in his heart to never again doubt her calling. But the damage was already done. By accusing her of being influenced by Jones and Waggoner, and by choosing what he wanted to believe, he had led others to reject her writing and calling completely. Twenty eight years later, just four years after her death, Satan unleashed a twofold attack on her writings - both within and without the church - that would reach down to our time. In July, 1919., D. M. Canrights book, the “Life of Mrs. E.G. White” was published with the purpose of destroying faith in the Spirit of Prophecy
and the Seventh-day Adventist church. During the same month, the historic 1919 Bible Conference convened at Takoma Park, Washington. Satan used Canright's book as a direct, frontal attack on Ellen White, while at the same time he laid a foundation for undermining her calling directly at the heart of the work. The conference was attended by General Conference leaders, including General Conference president A. G. Daniells, W. W. Prescott and F. M. Wilcox, and the best scholars in the church at the time. At the end of the conference, on July 30, 1919, they began to discuss whether Ellen White's writings were verbally inspired. During the course of the discussion, A. C. Lacey made the following comment: "In our estimate of the spirit of prophecy, isn't its value to us more in the spiritual light it throws into our own hearts and lives
than in the intellectual accuracy in historical and theological matters. Ought we not to take those writings as the voice of the Spirit of our hearts, instead of as the voice of the teacher to our heads? And isn't the final proof of the spirit of prophecy its spiritual value rather than its historical accuracy?" Today we hear similar comments about the Spirit of Prophecy. New theology proponents claim to accept Ellen White, but only as good devotional material that speaks to our hearts. When it comes to theological matters, they are quick to say she was not a theologian. In response to a question relating to the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, this is how A. G. Daniells responded: "Well, now, as I understand it, Sister White never claimed to be an authority on history, and never claimed to be a dogmatic teacher on theology. She never outlined a course of theology, like Mrs. Eddy's book on teaching.
She just gave out fragmentary statements, but left the pastors and evangelists and preachers to work out all these problems of scripture and of theology and of history." If this argument is correct, one could easily argue that Ellen White was not a prophet because she never claimed to be one. The same argument could be applied to many of the Bible writers. How many of them were theologians? Moses never claimed to be a historian. Does this mean his account of history is not accurate and trustworthy? Daniells, Prescott and those attending that conference all claimed to believe in Ellen White's writings, but like Smith, they chose what they wanted to believe. In other words, they made the testimonies of none effect. The same issues surrounding the 1919 Bible Conference are still with us today. In an interview of Dr. Desmond Ford, titled "Reflections in Adventism", he claimed:
"My theology is not controversial for most SDA scholars, but it is such to dyed-in- the-wool traditionalists whose time for study and research is limited by inclination and skills. Since Glacier View, concession after concession has been made by Church spokesmen in the areas once regarded as heretical in 1980. For example, the Church now officially teaches the ‘sinlessness’ of Christ's human nature; the impossibility of perfection for sinners in this life; the fact that the Antichrist is central in the judgment prophecies of Daniel 7 and 8; that ‘cleansed’ is a mistranslation in Daniel 8:14; that the word ‘days’ is also not to be found in the Hebrew original of that same verse; that the atonement DID take place at the cross; that Christ DID enter the equivalent of ‘the most
holy place’ at His ascension and not in 1844; that the Lisbon earthquake, the Dark Day, and the falling of the stars in 1833 are not the fulfillment of Bible prophecy; that Ellen White was not a theologian, never claimed infallibility and relied on faulty sources for her doctrinal formulations; that Ellen White upheld the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice; that she refused to be an arbiter in the interpretation of prophecy, etc, etc." Just as Daniells and Lacey argued back in 1919 that Ellen White was not a theologian, so Ford claimed in 1999 that, most Seventh-day Adventist scholars hold the same idea. They believe that when it comes to understanding Scripture, Ellen White's writings cannot be used to support its interpretation. This is nothing new, for in 1903, Ellen White had written:
"One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's Spirit." Certainly Ford and anyone who has cast doubt on Ellen White, in order to uphold their erroneous views, have proven her to be a true prophet. In an episode of "Let’s Talk", the previous General Conference president, Jan Paulsen, was asked, "Is it right for some people to quote Ellen White instead of the Bible?" Notice his answer: "If we are attempting to present spiritual truth, or if we are discussing a disputed point regarding spiritual things, the Bible is our point of reference. We may bring in other writers if we wish (and anyone with the genuine prophetic gift ought to rank high among them). But we must understand that these are not the source of our beliefs. Ellen White’s own counsel would lead us to make the Bible our main study
and to appeal to it as our source of spiritual truth.” Paulsen's response was both right and wrong. And this is what makes his answer so deceptive. It is true that the Bible is the source of spiritual truth. And when presenting this truth to people outside the church, the Bible alone should be used. But he failed to mention that the writings of Ellen White were inspired by the same Author as the Bible, and when dealing with disputes over doctrines within the church, it clearly points out the truth contained in the Bible. When the Spirit of Prophecy is not consulted in situations like this, error is likely to be introduced into the church. In 1890, Ellen White wrote of a situation where someone had discovered so-called new light. When she explained to him that he was wrong, her counsel was rejected. "The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies,
and when these errors come in they claim to prove all the positions by the Bible, but they misinterpret the Scriptures. They make bold assertions, as did Elder Canright, and misapply the prophecies and the Scriptures to prove falsehood. And, after men have done their work in weakening the confidence of our churches in the Testimonies, they have torn away the barrier, that unbelief in the truth shall become widespread, and there is no voice to be lifted up to stay the force of error. This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life. They will claim Scripture as their evidence, and deceptions of Satan in every form will prevail." This is a very sobering warning of what we should expect
when the writings of Ellen White are ignored. Is it any wonder that so many have been deceived by the new theology? Satan is very cunning. He knows that by directly attacking the Spirit of Prophecy, most Seventh-day Adventists would not be deceived, so he achieves his purpose by getting us to think the Spirit of Prophecy cannot be used to identify truth. In 1890, Ellen White warned: "The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish’ (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony." So, how does Ellen White fare in today's world? Has her prediction come true? We have already seen how former General Conference president
Jan Paulsen relegated her to the status of "other" writers. But he is not the only one who views the Spirit of Prophecy in this light. We could look at example after example of how her writings have been made of none effect. But a few should be enough to point out how many in responsible positions are unsettling confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy. In 2001, a chapter from Keavin Hayden's book, "Life Styles of the Remnant" was published in the online edition of the Adventist Review. "What does the Bible say about the wearing of jewelry? The church has a long history of maintaining that the Word of God condemns jewelry, but is that really the case? Or are our anti-jewelry views derived more from concepts that have just become tradition in our church over time?" He then mentions that anyone who reads Ellen White's writings
will know the stand she took regarding jewellery and adornment. He then writes: "It is actually from her, and not Scripture, that the church has historically found its best defense for its strong position on the subject. This is why when those who oppose jewelry realize that many of the biblical arguments we use are weak, they immediately appeal to ‘Sister White says.’ But sooner or later every Seventh- day Adventist must ask themselves: ‘Do we use Ellen White to interpret the meaning of Scripture, or do we use the Scriptures to interpret Ellen White?’" Ellen White complements the Bible. Both are in harmony with each other, otherwise she would be a false prophet. "The Bible must be your counselor. Study it and the testimonies God has given; for they never contradict His Word." The issue isn't about who interprets who. Both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are in agreement.
In another case where Ellen White's writings are attacked, Richard Coffen wrote in Ministry Magazine in February 2000: "A little over a decade ago Adventist scholars pointed out historical errors in the writings, particularly in The Great Controversy, despite the earlier revisions. In some instances we find chronological glitches in her accounts. Sometimes we may discover a problem in Mrs. White's interpretation of a bible passage. Readers sometimes find a few cases of scientific error in Mrs. White's books. There are also indications of theological lapses in her writing. We can detect certain cultural conditioning in some issues she addressed. Her suggestion that we should see in Revelation 13 aspects of the United States fulfilling a special role in an area that was uninhabited-a nation arising from the "land"
rather than from the "sea"-seems to echo the concept of Manifest Destiny held by many Americans of the time. The "standards" of Christian conduct no card playing, no dancing, no attending the theater paralleled that of the Methodism she left. Even though she indicated definite independence in her development of health reform, studies have shown that some of her ideas conformed nearly word-for-word with that written by others of her time." What Coffen was saying is that Ellen White's writings are not trustworthy on history, chronology, science, and theology. He states that she was influenced by her culture, her Methodist upbringing, and that she copied the ideas of others. At the time of writing, Coffen was Vice President of Editorial Services at the Review and Herald Publishing Association.
No wonder so many of our ministers have rejected her, or at least have grave reservations about her writings. Two and a half years later, another attack was made on the Spirit of Prophecy, this time by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a former professor of Theology at Andrews University. In his August 2002 Endtimes newsletter, he spent considerable time casting doubt on the Spirit of Prophecy, because it contradicted his new view of the 1260 day prophecy. Of course, he was quick to let his readers know he had a deep respect for Ellen White. But how far did his respect go? Like Daniels and Lacey at the 1919 Bible Conference, and like Desmond Ford, Bacchiocchi relegated her writings to devotional material. Notice the following: "Ellen White speaks to the spiritual needs of our souls
better than other contemporary writers. The important role that Ellen White plays in our devotional life should serve to dispel the allegation that I fail to respect Ellen White by submitting a tentative new interpretation for the 1260 days prophecy." After reassuring his readers he respected Ellen White because he read her devotional books, he immediately begins his attack. "The question is: Does respect for the authority of Ellen White preclude any fresh investigation of Biblical or historical subjects discussed in her writings? Did Ellen White see herself as the final and infallible authority on prophetic, exegetical, theological, and historical interpretations? Did she expect Adventists to accept whatever she wrote without questioning?" The same questions could be asked about the Bible writers. Did Moses expect future generations to believe everything he wrote,
including his account of this world's creation? Yes, of course he did. Did Paul expect people living in the 21st century to believe everything God revealed to him? Yes, he did. Why wouldn't Ellen White expect us to believe everything she wrote? According to her own testimony, she never entertained the thought that the light she was given should ever be questioned. Notice the following: "Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour." Again, she writes: “In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles.
In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit. There was never a time when God instructed His people more earnestly than He instructs them now concerning His will, and the course that He would have them pursue." There is no difference between the way God spoke to the prophets in Bible times to the way He spoke to Ellen White. Bacchiocchi next continues his attack on the Spirit of Prophecy by raising the same issues Coffen did two years earlier in Ministry magazine. After referring to the revision and supposed errors in the book The Great Controversy, he says: "If Ellen White was alive today, would she welcome the service of competent scholars willing to correct the remaining inaccuracies found in The Great Controversy and other publications? There is no reason to think otherwise, because she was a woman who recognized her limitations,
and was committed to the search for truth. On my part I would be glad to offer my services to her, because I can never stop thanking God for the inestimable contributions she has made to my spiritual life and to the message and mission of our Adventist church." Of course, incompetent scholars like himself, Ford and other new theology teachers would love to correct what they think are inaccuracies in her writings. But we can thank God that His word will endure to the end. All these attacks on Ellen White had an effect on Seventh-day Adventist ministers and leaders. In 2004, a summit was held at Avondale College, Australia. More than 100 ministers, church educators and administrators attended to supposedly gain a better understanding of the role and ministry of Ellen White. One would think that by now,
church leaders would have a clear understanding of her prophetic role and ministry. The South Pacific Division's weekly paper, known as RECORD, published a 4-part series on the summit. In the February 21, 2004 edition, an article titled "Church leaders reassess Ellen White," mentioned that "The purpose of this summitis to inform people of the challenges we have with Ellen White and the development we have in scholarship in Ellen White over the past few decades." The article continued: "Reflecting on criticism of mistakes in her writing, Dr Graeme Bradford, senior lecturer in the theology faculty at Avondale College, suggests a different approach: ‘Maybe we need to change the focus and ask, how could a woman write so much on so many subjects and get so little wrong?’"
Can we apply the same reasoning to the writings of Moses or Paul? What would be the result? In the same edition, in the article "Ellen White for today - 3" doubt was cast upon historical statements in the book The Great Controversy. Dr. Arthur Patrick notes that Ellen White "was not writing history; she was interpreting it." This clearly conflicts Ellen White's own testimony. She wrote: "In the vision at Lovett's Grove, most of the matter of ‘The Great Controversy,’ which I had seen ten years before, was repeated, and it was shown that I must write it out. It was shown, too, that I should have to contend with the powers of darkness, for Satan would make strong efforts to hinder me; but that I must put my trust in God, and angels would not leave me in the conflict." Again, she wrote: “The book The Great Controversy, I appreciate above silver or gold,
and I greatly desire that it shall come before the people. While writing the manuscript of The Great Controversy, I was often conscious of the presence of the angels of God. And many times the scenes about which I was writing were presented to me anew in visions of the night, so that they were fresh and vivid in my mind.” The interviewer then asked Arthur Patrick if any mistakes had been found in Ellen White's writings. Patrick responded: "Many. But they are in the details, and do not destroy the big picture, the all-important interpretation. Let me again reflect the essence of what a careful researcher wrote in his doctoral study early in the 1970s: Ellen White learned history by ordinary means; the activity of God in history was disclosed to her. The church can, now it has far better access
to primary sources and many well-trained historians, correct the detail— even while we learn to better appreciate the God-given pattern." In other words, scholars believe they know more than the prophet and that it's time they started correcting her! Patrick's next comments come back to the classical argument that all we need is the Bible. "This circumstance has made us more aware of the essence of her writings. To quote her grandson Arthur White (as he looked back on the struggle to found Loma Linda): ‘The spirit of prophecy counsels were never given to take the place of initiative, study, faith, or hard work. Rather, the Lord through His servant set before us guiding principles and sounded needed cautions --all of which served to guide and guard the church in its many activities.’ This balanced perception helps us sense our need
to go to the Bible as our ‘rule of faith and practice,’ the very thing that Ellen White so often urged us to do." What Patrick was saying is that we don't want Ellen White holding us back from reinterpreting Scriptures, such as the investigative judgment. Her role was only in providing guiding principles. But notice what her own testimony was: "We must follow the directions given through the Spirit of prophecy. We must love and obey the truth for this time. This will save us from accepting strong delusions. God has spoken to us through His Word. He has spoken to us through the Testimonies to the church, and through the books that have helped to make plain our present duty and the position that we should now occupy." In recounting how our fundamental doctrines were established, Ellen White wrote: "At that time [after the 1844 disappointment]
one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays."
Finally, just five years before she died, she wrote: "I have much written in the diary I have kept in all my journeys that should come before the people if essential, even if I did not write another line. I want that which is deemed worthy to appear, for the Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors and to specify what is truth. The Lord has revealed many things pointing out the truth, thus saying, 'This is the way, walk ye in it.'" If Ellen White received so much light on matters of history, chronology, health, science, and theology, how is it possible to lay that aside?
What was the purpose of God in giving that light? The interviewer in the RECORD then asked Patrick, "So you're suggesting that Ellen White's writings have a higher purpose, a more demanding role, than being an encyclopedia on diet, disease and details of healthful living." You can guess what the answer would be. But let me read it: "Far more demanding, far more significant. Ellen White offers meaning — the reason why God would have us live healthfully. Once we establish the guiding principles, science can help us with the details of how to be balanced vegetarians, the amount of sleep we need under precise circumstances in view of our age and related factors, or to figure out the answers to a host of other issues." Notice how dangerous this line of reasoning is. If we applied the same to the Genesis account for example, the scientific community would be quick to say
Moses did not intend for us to take him literally. He was only giving us guiding principles in how to understand the creation of the world. Modern science should never be placed above God's word. Today, there are conflicting opinions in the health industry that make it almost impossible to know who’s right. Wouldn't it be better to listen to what God has revealed? Only when He hasn't spoken concerning a particular issue should we seek counsel from the world. The main question we must ask ourselves is whether Ellen White was a true prophet of God or not. In her own words she wrote: "God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work for the past thirty years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy.
There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil." She further wrote: "If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united." Ellen White was not afraid to confront her critics. She knew that God was the Author of her writings. "The Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy." It is with great sadness that we see so many in the Seventh-day Adventist church no longer believe this. But what should we expect? The church is in the Laodicean state and she does not like to be told her true condition. She is rich and increased with goods. Hi Ernie how did it go? Well Isabel, it's bad, very bad. The new theology is rampant through Adventism. They have changed the meaning of sin,
which has led to a change in Christ's human nature. This has changed our understanding of salvation, including righteousness by faith. And worst of all, the investigative judgment, the central doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist church, has been radically changed. Oh my, but it’s not surprising, since many of our leaders and teachers no longer trust the Spirit of Prophecy. Yes, you know Ellen White warned that once the Spirit of Prophecy is doubted, a tide of error would come into the church. That's right. In my research, I found that there's been a relentless attack on Ellen White. The first major one happened just four years after her death, and it took place from within and without the church at the same time. That's very true. Yes, it is. And can you guess which of her books is at the center of most of their attacks? Well, there is only one book I know of that Satan tried his best to stop being written, and that was The Great Controversy. You're right. And I don't think it's a coincidence
that this book is still at the center of Satan's attacks. Well, Isabel, I'm so glad God warned us about what was to come. Surely, we are in the time of the omega of heresies. Well I think we might as well head off. What do you think? Sounds good to me. Thanks. In our next episode. As it turns out, the original committee that worked on formulating this belief had in fact drafted it saying "six literal consecutive days." So what happened? How and why was it changed? Scholars like Fritz Guy were given the green light to indoctrinate the church with erroneous views of creation and the age of the earth. His answer reveals his true position. He may claim to be a Seventh-day Adventist, but his beliefs do not harmonize with Adventism. Under the direction of Clifford Goldstein, the Sabbath School lesson editor, and L. James Gibson, the principal contributor, the Sabbath School quarterly led possibly millions of unsuspecting Seventh-day Adventists to accept this view of creation.
Notice that this is God's own testimony on the issue. He tells us He created the heaven, the earth, the sea and everything in it in six literal days.