By COGwriter
From time to time, I have been asked to explain how the Continuing Church of God (CCOG) is different from the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA). Although the differences are too numerable for a short article, I would like to focus on two prophetic ones--the identity of the two horned beast of Revelation and the number 666. (The article will also mention some similarities and other differences as well.)
It should be noted that when this article indicates that something is an SDA position, it is based on positions published by SDA supporters who appear to agree with Ellen G. White, who was (as far as I can tell) the most influential individual in the formation of doctrines somewhat unique to the SDA Church. I am aware that various SDA supporters may hold different positions. (Hereare links to two related sermons Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG? and CCOG and SDA differences and similarities).
The SDAs primarily base their position on the two-horned beast from interpretations of Ellen G. White whom they consider to have been a prophetess. Normally, in modern times, they sometimes refer to her as "Sister White" and frequently when quoting her writings sometimes say "Inspiration" explains or teaches something without mentioning her name (Plain View. Jan-Mar 2005).
The basic SDA position in every written document that I have seen is that the two horned beast in Revelation 13 is referring to the United States of America.
Here is what one SDA-affiliated publication wrote:
(Vance MP. The Future of Democracy. Plain View, Jan-Mar 2005, pp.5-6).Prophecy Speaks
_____And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him . . . He causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Verses 11, 12, 15-17).
++++It is well known, particularly in Adventists circles, that this two-horned non-royalist power represents our blessed country, the United States of America.2 No doubt you're also familiar with the reasons. Unlike the other beasts of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, this two-horned beast comes up out the earth, the new World3--the domain away from the "sea"--the old world.4 The two crownless horns show two non-royalist rulers, while their lamb-like appearance forecasts youthful innocency--Christian--in profession pure, gentle, and harmless, established upon the principles of peace and liberty, but later one speaks as a dragon. Then, the face that he has the power to dictate who should buy and who should not, shows that he represents a nation that leads in controlling the world's wealth and industry.
++++Having only two horns, not ten, the beast therefore depicts a local, not a universal government. Nevertheless, he will influence all Christendom to "make an image to the beast, while had the wound by a sword, and did live." That is, he will engineer a worldwide government set-up, re-enthroning the principles of the church-state rule of Ecclesiastical Rome; a system now characterized by Catholicism, apostate Protestantism, and Capitalism. "The prediction that it will speak 'as a dragon,'" wrote Inspiration, "and exercise 'all the power of the first beast,' plainly foretells the development of the spirit of intolerance and persecution that was manifested by the nations represented by the dragon and the leopard-like beast."5
++++Put still another way, it means that America will urge the world to reestablish an apostate religious-political system after the model of Western society, with principles, imagining those of the Dark Ages. (Verse 12). Note that it did not say that the Two-horned beast urged the world to worship the "head"--the Papacy, (more about this another time) but the "beast"--the system--Catholicism, apostate Protestantism, and Capitalism, topped off with Spiritualism! This is when, "Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government..."6...2. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 440-442
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p.451
The following is from one of Ellen White's most popular books (note the prophet she is referring to is the Apostle John):
Says, the prophet, "I beheld another beast coming out of the earth and he had two horns like a lamb." Revelation 13:11...One nation, and only one. meets the specifications of this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of America...
"And he had two horns like a lamb." The lamb-like horns indicate youth, innocence, and gentleness, fitly representing the character of the United States when presented to the prophet as "coming up" in 1798...But the beast with lamb-like horns "spake as a dragon..."...
But what is the "image to the beast"? and how is it to be formed? The image is made by the two-horned beast, and is an image to the first beast. It is also called the image of the beast. Then to learn what the image is like, and how it is to be formed, we must study the characteristics of the beast itself,--the papacy...
"The beast"...is the first...beast of Revelation 13,--the papacy (White E.G. Will America Survive? 1888; Reprint, 1988 by Inspiration Books East, Jemison (AL), pp. 420-423,425).
This view is not only held by Ellen G. White and the Plain View, SDA minister A. Jan Marcussen, in his book, National Sunday Law, also states the United States is the two-horned beast that comes from the earth (pp. 2-3) and cites Ellen G. White's Cosmic Conflict, p.388. But that Marcussen's book, National Sunday Law book also point to the USA as the Beast from the sea and ties it in with Babylon of Revelation 17:
When a beast comes up out of the "sea," it is represented in a prophecy as rising amid"many peoples and multitudes." (a highly populated area). Revelation 17:15. To come outof the "earth" is just the opposite. So here we have a nation that is springing up out of awilderness are. Instead of overthrowing other powers to establish itself, this nation wouldrise in territory previously unoccupied. It would be a country that's discovered, notconquered. Differing from the often blood soaked nations of Europe, it would spring upquietly, peacefully, "like a lamb."Can you guess what nation of the New World arose into power, giving promise of strengthand greatness, that would fit this description?
Sure!
The United States.
That is wrong (see also Europa and the Beast of Revelation).
I should add, however, that A. Jan Marcussen does consider that a Pope is the 666 of Revelation 13:18 (pp. 21-22, 27) and other SDAs may as well--and the context of Revelation 13 suggests that the two horned beast is involved with the one whose number is 666. But we in the Churches of God do not believe that the Bible teaches that the first beast represents the papacy (the first Beast, is the Beast of the Sea, a European power--for details, check out the article Europa, the Beast, and the Book of Revelation).
The position held by many in the Churches of God (COGs) differs completely that held by the Seventh Day Adventists and its leaders.
The last page of The Bible Advocate, February 23, 1869 promoted a book that claimed to prove that Ellen White's identifying the United States as the two-horned beast of Revelation 13:11 was wrong.
That seems to be a long held view from Church of God writers.
The following are taken from a booklet written in 1960 by Herbert W. Armstrong, titled Who is the Beast?:
The "Two-horned Beast"
Satan has his civil government on earth. He gave it “his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
_____He also has an ecclesiastical organization -- a CHURCH --as his instrumentality in deceiving the world. In 2 Corinthians11:14, we find Satan is transformed into an “ANGEL OF LIGHT.”According to Revelation 12:9 and 20:3, he has DECEIVED the whole world. How?
_____Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, Satan has HIS ministers who pretend to be the ministers of righteousness,but are actually false apostles, deceitful workers, calling themselves the ministers of Christ! Therefore they claim to be CHRISTIAN ministers. They are the MANY, not the few, because all prophecies say it is the MANY, not the few, who have been DECEIVED. Satan’s main labor for six thousand years has been the deceiving of the world. Now turn to the 13th chapter of Revelation, beginning with verse 11:
_____“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth;and he had two horns like a LAMB, and he spoke as a DRAGON."
_____ Who -- what -- is this “beast”?
_____ Some say it will be the United States aligned with the papacy. Some believe it is a federation of Protestant churches. Others declared it the Pan-American Union. MOST church organizations ignore this very vital subject completely, or say frankly, “WE DO NOT KNOW!”
_____ Why this ignorance, when the answer is so plain? Yes,why indeed?The Bible Interpretation
Remember, first, THE BIBLE INTERPRETS ITS OWN SYMBOLS! When men put their OWN interpretation on Bible symbols, their conclusions are always false!
_____Notice, after John saw one BEAST, which we have proved to be the ROMAN EMPIRE, he now sees ANOTHER -- a different -- beast rise up. We have learned that “BEAST” is a symbol for a kingdom, or government (Dan. 7:17, 23), and the term represents either the kingdom or its leader, as the case may be (Dan. 7:17, 23).
_____So this other beast with the two horns is the prophecy of another kingdom or government. In these prophecies, God pictures to us the earthly Gentile governments as the wild beasts whose characteristics describe them. This two-horned beast appeared as a Lamb. But actually it spoke as a DRAGON-- its true characteristic -- for “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34).
_____What does the word “Lamb” symbolize, in the Bible? The answer is, CHRIST (John 1:29; Rev. 17:14). And “DRAGON” is a symbol of the DEVIL (Rev. 12:9, 20:2).
_____So here is some kingdom or government masquerading as that of CHRIST, or the KINGDOM OF GOD, but actually being a government of SATAN!
_____Christ did not set up a government (kingdom), at His first appearing on earth. After His resurrection the disciples asked Him if He would at that time restore the KINGDOM (Acts1:6); but He did not. The Church is not the Kingdom. Because some thought it was, Jesus spoke the parable of Luke 19:11-27 to show that He first must ascend to His Father’s throne in heaven to receive the royal power to become King of kings, to set up the world-ruling Kingdom of God.
_____But Satan is a deceiver, and he has deceived the world into supposing his (Satan’s) CHURCH, and system of churches, is the Kingdom of God.
_____Now notice carefully (Revelation 13) verse12:
_____“And he exerciseth ALL the power of the first beast before him.”The first beast is the Roman Empire. Here is ANOTHER government, also controlled by Satan, pretending to be CHRIST’S government, the Kingdom of God, taking, exercising, using, employing, ALL the power of the first kingdom, the Roman Empire.
_____Now when? “He exerciseth ALL the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to WORSHIP the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed” (verse 12). So, it was AFTER the deadly wound (of A.D.476) was healed. It was healed when Justinian brought about the restoration of the Empire in the West in A.D. 554.Consequently this RELIGIOUS government took over, exercised,by ruling, all the power of the Roman Empire AFTER A.D. 554 when it was called the Holy Empire and, later, the Holy Roman Empire.Did a Church Government Rule Rome?
So here we have pictured a government -- a RELIGIOUS government -- appearing as CHRIST’S government, masquer-ading as the KINGDOM OF GOD, actually ruling the civil Roman Empire, AFTER A.D. 554. Was there such a government? Indeed there was! And only ONE!
_____Prior to 554, Justinian had written a letter to the pope, acknowledging his supremacy in the West. And when he restored the empire in the West in 554, the popes dominated the Western Empire from Rome. The Roman Empire, thus restored to continue until 1814 (1260 years), became known later as “The HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.” We read in history that the popes were accepted as the “Vicars of Christ,” which means “IN PLACE OF Christ.” The teaching was that the Second Coming of Christ had occurred -- Christ had returned to earth, as KING of kings and as LORD of lords, in the person of the popes. The millennium had begun.
_____For the entire 1260 years, the emperors accepted the popes as such, ruling the nations with a “rod of iron” as Christ is to do WHEN He really comes. Consequently they acknowl-edged the supreme religious power of the popes. The Church was organized as a GOVERNMENT -- as a dual, two-fold government (symbolized by its TWO horns or kingdoms -- for“horns” symbolize kingdoms also -- see Dan. 7:24). It embodied CHURCH government, and it also was a STATE, or civil government, always occupying a certain amount of territory over which it, alone, ruled as an independent sovereign state-- in addition to actually ruling over the vast civil kingdom called the Holy Roman Empire. Even today, it is a separate,independent, sovereign STATE. Most nations send ambassa-dors to the Vatican, just as they do to the United States, or to Italy, Britain or the USSR.
_____Notice, this second beast was to wield power over ALL THE EARTH, because it was to CAUSE the earth, and them that dwell therein, to WORSHIP this first beast “whose deadly wound was healed” after 554. In most any encyclopedia, under article “MILLENNIUM,”you will read the history of this very event -- of how the“Holy Roman Empire” was called the “Kingdom of God upon earth.” They claimed the MILLENNIUM had arrived!
_____Notice verse 14: “And DECEIVETH them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast.” Verse 13 says “he doeth great wonders.”
_____So notice these three points:
_____(1) This beast performs miracles.
_____(2) He performed them “in the sight of” the Holy Roman Empire, or the first beast.
_____(3) With them he DECEIVED all nations.All Nations Deceived
Where else, in the Bible prophecies, do we find these same identical facts?
_____First, note Rev. 17. Here is pictured a woman. In II Cor.11:2, Eph. 5:22-27, and elsewhere, we learn that “woman” is a symbol for CHURCH..._____Now notice the last battle of “the great day of God Almighty.” It is in Rev. 19:19-20. Here is pictured the beast --“and WITH him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, WITH WHICH HE DECEIVED them that had received the MARK of the beast, and them that had worshipped HIS IMAGE.
_____”Note it! Compare with the two-horned beast of Rev.13:11-17.
_____(1) BOTH perform miracles.
_____(2) BOTH perform them before, or in the sight of, the beast.
_____(3) WITH them, BOTH the false prophet and two-horned beast DECEIVE them that have the MARK of the beast -- cause them to receive that mark (Rev. 13:16).
_____Certainly, then, this two-horned beast, the false prophet, ...are all one and the same thing -- the {final revised} ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH with its pope, its other bishops, its priests and deacons, comprising the hierarchy of order!
_____Now did the two-horned beast deceive the very ones who have the MARK of the beast? He did! Continue in Rev. 13:
_____“And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth” -- HOW?“...saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an IMAGE to the beast, which had the wound by the sword and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and CAUSE as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. AND HE CAUSETH ALL, BOTH SMALL AND GREAT,RICH AND POOR, FREE AND BOND, to receive a MARK in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell [trade, earn a living, hold a job], save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” (verses 14-17).
_____So, notice: This two-horned beast not only CAUSED people to receive the MARK of the beast (compare Rev. 19:20), but also perpetrated the forming of an image that caused the martyrdom of saints. As many as would not worship this image were caused to he killed. This false church did not kill them -- she CAUSED them to he killed. History shows that the civil government of the Roman Empire martyred millions who were declared “anathema from Christ,” or “heretics” by the church.
____(Armstrong HW. Who is the Beast?)
Or to put it more succinctly, the COG teaches that the two-horned beast represents the false prophet who leads the final (and revised) large church claiming the papacy, while the other beast is the leader of the revived Roman Empire (which we normally believe is the one going to arise out of the current European Union).
Although I feel that Herbert W. Armstrong adequately explained the COG position as shown above, the reason that it is right is because the Bible itself is to be the source of doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16).
When I first read the first SDA article quoted (which was 1/29/05), I was wondering what part of the Bible they were quoting. And while I knew it had to be from the Book of Revelation, I was a little unsure of the chapter (the article stated neither). I thought that was peculiar, and then I considered it misleading.
Why?
Because in order to not expose the fallacy of the SDA position, I believe the author of that initial article (M.P. Vance) may have intentionally left out several verses (though to his credit, A. Jan Marcussen did mention them in his booklet).
Here is the entire passage that should have been quoted,
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six" (Revelation 13:11-18, KJV).
I intentionally left the verse numbers in there to demonstrate that the initial SDA article by M.P. Vance:
1) Left out 1/2 of verse 12, even though the article suggests they quoted it
2) Left out verse 15, even though the article suggests they quoted it
3) May have intentionally left out verses 13-15 as it would show some of the fallacy of the SDA position
4) May have intentionally left out verse 18 as it would show some of the fallacy of the author's position
5) Did not mention the book (Revelation) nor the chapter (13) that these verses were in, thus making it much more difficult for the casual reader to see if these things were so.
HWA explained adequately about verses 13-15, so I will not repeat that here.
And while the USA is mentioned in prophecies like Daniel 11:39 (cf. USA in Prophecy: The Strongest Fortresses), it is not the beast of Revelation 13:11 (see also Anglo - America in Prophecy & the Lost Tribes of Israel and USA in Prophecy: The Strongest Fortresses).
The Seventh-day Adventists support some of the goals of the ecumenical movement, but also see that it has dangers:
Ecumenical Movement
The General Conference Executive Committee has never voted an official statement regarding the Seventh-day Adventist relationship to the ecumenical movement as such. A book has been written dealing at length with the subject (B. B. Beach, Ecumenism-Boon or Bane? [Review and Herald, 1974]) and a number of articles have appeared over the years in Adventist publications, including the Adventist Review. Thus, while there is not exactly an official position, there are plenty of clear indications regarding the Seventh-day Adventist viewpoint.
Generally, it can be said that while the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not completely condemn the ecumenical movement and its main organizational manifestation, the World Council of Churches, she has been critical of various aspects and activities. Few would wish to deny that ecumenism has had laudable aims and some positive influences. Its great goal is visible Christian unity. No Adventist can be opposed to the unity Christ Himself prayed for. The ecumenical movement has promoted kinder interchurch relations with more dialogue and less diatribe and helped remove unfounded prejudices.
Through its various organizations and activities, the ecumenical movement has provided more accurate and updated information on churches, spoken for religious liberty and human rights, combated against the evils of racism, and drawn attention to socioeconomic implications of the gospel. In all this the intentions have been good and some of the fruit palatable. (Official Statement Documents. Seventh-day Advenist Church. http://www.adventist.org/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/ecumenical-movement/ accessed 10/13/15)
The type of unity that Jesus prayed for, will not occur until after Babylon falls (Zechariah 2:6-7) and Jesus returns (cf. Zechariah 2:10-11)--and that is something that the SDAs should teach. Historically, the SDAs were a bit more forceful in their resistance to the ecumenical movement than they currently seem to be.
Regarding crosses, Ellen White wrote:
Papists place crosses upon their churches, upon their altars, and upon their garments. Everywhere is seen the insignia of the cross. Everywhere it is outwardly honored and exalted. But the teachings of Christ are buried beneath a mass of senseless traditions, false interpretations, and rigorous exactions. … The worship of images and relics, the invocation of saints, and the exaltation of the pope, are devices of Satan to attract the minds of the people from God and from His Son. (White EG. The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan. Guttenberg Project edition, p. 590)
How was that interpreted?
Historically our Adventist church viewed the cross as a pagan symbol (Bacchiochi S. Is the Cross a Pagan Symbol? Endtime Issues Newsletter, 124, 2005, p. 17)
But that changed and since no later than 1997 a cross containing logo has been in use by the official SDA church.
Some have indicated part of the reason that church did that was to make the SDAs more acceptable to other Protestants and Rome (cf. Nyazika P. The Final Call. Lulu.com, pp. 131, 176).
Additionally, notice:
A historical "Ecumenical Charter" was signed by Seventh-day Adventists, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Evangelicals and Methodists on January 25th, in Bologna, Italy. The charter says that "the most important task of the Churches is to proclaim the Gospel together through word and action, for the salvation of all human beings. (Gendron M. Catholics Seek Unity with SDA's and Evangelicals. Proclaiming the Gospel newsletter, March 2020)
Yes, many within the Protestant world believe that they are basically unattached versions of the same church based in Rome. The ecumenical movement is pushing ahead. The SDA signer of the “Ecumenical Charter” was SDA Pastor Giovanni Caccamo, who was the former Secretary of the Italian Union of Seventh-day Adventist Churches:
The above newsletter also linked to the following article:
Seventh-day Adventists, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Sign a Historic ‘Ecumenical Charter’ that Affirms Faith in ‘One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church’
The document that was signed is a pledge of commitment to each other. Adventists pledged a commitment to Rome, and Rome reciprocated that commitment. Make no mistake. The churches that signed this document promised to uphold the principles of the Ecumenical Charter which includes affirming an allegiance to each other.
The Ecumenical Charter was signed on the final day of the 2020 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. A 17-minute sermon was given by Seventh-day Adventist Pastor Giovanni Caccamo to commemorate the ecumenical signing ceremony. Pastor Giovanni Caccamo is the former Secretary of the Italian Union of Seventh-day Adventist Churches. . .
There is a long history of ecumenism in Italy, and those responsible for this are at the highest levels of leadership in the church. . . .
Pastor Stefano Paris is the President of the Italian Union of Seventh-day Adventist Churches. He is the top Adventist leader in Italy. Not only does Pastor Stefano Paris oversee the churches throughout Italy, he is also a leading participant in the ecumenical movement.
Pastor Stefano Paris was featured in the 2019 Brochure advertising the 2019 United Nations Interfaith Harmony Week. When you look at the brochure you realize that the President of the Italian Union of SDA Churches is part of the “Interfaith Table of Rome!”. . .
The ecumenical crisis in Italy goes even higher than President Stefano Paris. Ted Wilson, President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, was in Rome with President Stefano Paris in 2018. Ted Wilson addressed specifically the ecumenical movement. . . .
In the above video Ted Wilson says we should not engage in the ecumenical movement or compromise our faith. But then he says that we must be in the “forefront” of making friends by being friendly with the leaders of other churches. These two statements are problematic when considering the current ecumenical crisis in Adventism.
Signing this Ecumenical Charter was not simply expressing friendship; it was entering into an ecumenical confederacy with the other churches. We have a major problem because we can’t seem to distinguish between being friendly and entering into ecumenical partnerships with Rome. Every time church leaders get admonished for engaging in ecumenism they respond with a reassuring smile and say, “No, that was not ecumenism, we were just being friendly.” 02/20/20 http://adventmessenger.org/seventh-day-adventists-roman-catholics-and-evangelicals-sign-a-historic-ecumenical-charter-that-affirms-faith-in-one-holy-catholic-apostolic-church/?fbclid=IwAR374C_ixIZwQaLFoCzA5-sLqPamu69pfUjJVctHWaoKK48y72DoRCO6Xlk
Now, it should be noted that that the Inter-European Division of the SDA church denounced the signing, essentially stating that it went too far towards unity (Statement on the position of the Inter-European Division on the involvement of an Italian Seventh-day Adventist Pastor in the signing of the Ecumenical Charter of the Council of the Christian Churches of Bologna. Press release EUD: "Charta Ecumenica di Bologna". February 24, 2020; see also Seventh-day Adventists’ ecumenical controversies).
Officially, “Seventh-day Adventists . . . stress the conviction that many Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ” (How Seventh-day Adventists View Roman Catholicism. This statement was recorded on April 15, 1997, by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee (ADCOM) and released by the Office of the President, Robert S. Folkenberg).
By calling "many Roman Catholics ... brothers and sisters in Christ," the SDA movement looks like it has moved away from its views on the papacy, like it has on crosses.
We in the CCOG have repeatedly warned of the dangers of the ecumenical movement (see, for example, Beware: Protestants Going Towards Ecumenical Destruction!) and the World Council of Churches (watch the video World Council of Churches Peace Plan), the SDAs have taken steps moving closer to looking to be part of it.
My prayer is for all, including the SDAs, to seek the truth, change, and hold to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
Regarding 666, the Bible teaches the following, which I will repeat here:
18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666 (Revelation 13:18).
The first writing that has been found that suggests that a Roman, or Roman empire, is 666 was by Irenaeus. Irenaeus claimed to have listened to Polycarp when he (Irenaeus) was a young man. Irenaeus wrote:
Then also Lateinos (LATEINOS) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book V, Chapter 30, Verse 3. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).
The New Testament was written in Greek, and John penned the Book of Revelation on the Greek speaking island of Patmos (Revelation 1:9). They still speak Greek there. Anyway, adding up the values of the Greek letters for the word Lateinos brings you to 666:
L = 30 lambda A = 1 alpha T = 300 tau E = 5 epsilon I = 10 iota N = 50 nu O = 70 omicron S = 200 sigma -------- 666
This is consistent with what the old WCG taught:
In the 2nd century A.D., Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, the Apostle John’s disciple, explained that in Greek the word Lateinos -- meaning “Latin man” or Roman -- adds up to 666. (L = 30; A = 1; T = 300; E = 5; I = 10; N = 50; 0 = 70; S = 200) This, he stated, was the, intent of the scripture.
The number 666 is thus anciently branded on the old Roman Empire and its revivals. (Stump KW. Just What Do You Mean... ANTICHRIST? Plain Truth, September 1981)
Specifically 666 is the number of the first beast in Revelation 13 as distinguished from the Antichrist, who is the second, the two-horned beast, in the same chapter. And as Revelation 13 shows, the two-horned beast works with, and promotes, the seven-headed (and ten-horned) first beast in that chapter. While some have tried to state that the number is actually 616 and not 666:
the earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Revelation visually represented the number 666 either in longhand number- words (hexakosioi hexēkonta hex), or in alphabetic shorthand (χξϛ). (Winkl RE. Recalculating the Number of the Beast in Revelation 13:18. 2019 SBL INTERNATIONAL MEETING ABSTRACTS, July 2, 2019)
Yes, the number is 666. A number of imperfect humankind.
That said, please understand that the leader of the ten-horned Beast of Revelation 13:1-10 (see Europa, the Beast, and the Book of Revelation) and the one called 666 in Revelation 13:10 is also the one who is the final King of the North. He is also called the ‘man of sin’ in 2 Thessalonians 2 (see also Who is the Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians 2?).
The SDAs have a couple of different views of 666--but officially they do NOT teach that it is a Roman government or European leader. This was confirmed by the late SDA scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi:
First, the identification of 666 with the pope's title Vicarius Filii Dei, has never been an official teaching of the Adventist church. The truth is that our Adventist church has struggled over the years to understand the meaning of the number 666. Initially, some of our pioneers (including possibly Ellen White, as shown in the lecture) believed that the number 666 was made up of the number of Protestant sects influenced by Rome...
The conclusion of recent Adventist studies, including the Sabbath School Lesson of June 1-7, 2002, is that the traditional numerical interpretation of the number 666 as representing the numerical value of the letter Vicarius Filii Dei, cannot be legitimately defended exegetically and historically.
The key phrase "it is a human number -arithmos anthropou" (Rev 13:18), suggests that the meaning of the number is to be found, not in a name or title whose letters add up to the numerical value of 666, but in a human condition of rebellion against God. In the context of the false worship promoted by the Beast and its image, the triple six stands for the total false worship, enforced by the endtime Antichrist (Bacchiocchi S. Our Adventist Church Has Struggled to Define 666. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 144, March 15, 2006).
This SDA scholar also noted the following about Ellen White and 666:
Surprisingly, in all her voluminous writings, Ellen G. White makes only one brief statement on the number 666 of the Beast. The statement is found in her vision of 1847, which was printed on one sheet under the title "A Word to the Little Flock." The statement reads: "I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's, and not God's Sabbath." (Emphasis supplied. First printed by Joseph Bates on April 7, 1847).
We do not know for sure what Ellen White meant by the phrase "I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up." Some of the pioneers, including John N. Andrews initially believed that the number 666 was made up by the number of Protestant sects influenced by the Catholic Church (Bacchiocchi S. The Saga of the Adventist Papal Tiara: Part 2.ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 146, May 2, 2006).
In the previously cited HWA booklet, here is some of what he explained about the number 666 discussed in Revelation 13:18,
The expression “the name of the beast, or the number of his name” makes plain that the number 666 is the number of the NAME OF THE KINGDOM OR EMPIRE. 6. The expression “it is the number of a man” must also count this number in the name of the king, or ruler, over the kingdom identified as the “BEAST.”... The Bible describes the symbol “woman” to mean a CHURCH. See II Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7; Eph. 5:23-27. On the other hand, “beast” is a symbol of a KINGDOM, or EMPIRE. The woman of the 17th chapter is described beyond possibility of doubt as the church which did reign over the kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire. Let us be consistent. The beast of Revelation 13 is not the WOMAN who rode the beast -- the beast is the GOVERNMENT, and the woman is the CHURCH. The beast of Revelation 13 is THE ROMAN EMPIRE! ...
The founder and first king of Rome was ROMULUS. The Roman Empire was named after him. His name, the name of a MAN, also is the name of the KINGDOM. And every citizen in the kingdom bears the same name -- a ROMAN. When John wrote this Revelation, telling us to COUNT the number of the Beast, he wrote in the GREEK language. Consequently, we should look for this name, and the number 666, in this language recognized in the BIBLE, not in the Latin. We are all familiar with the Roman numerals, where letters are used for numbers. All understand that I is 1, V is 5,X is 10, etc. But many do not know that the Greek language,in which the book of Revelation was written, also uses letters for numbers. In the Greek, the language in which Revelation was written, this name is “LATEINOS.” It signifies “Latin man” or“the name of Latium,” from which region the Romans derived their origin and their language. This word, too, signifies“ROMAN.” In the Greek, L is 30, A is 1, T is 300, E is 5, I is 10, N is 50, O is 70, S is 200. Count these figures. They count to exactly 666! It is indeed no coincidence that the name of the KINGDOM, its founder and first KING, and of each man in the kingdom, counts to exactly 666! Certainly THE BEAST stands identified! (Armstrong HW. Who is the Beast? pp. 14-16)
It should be noted that this understanding was NOT unique to HWA as it has long been the COG position. The late COG evangelist John Ogwyn wrote this about its meaning and origins:
Scarcely any prophetic subject has elicited more conjecture and speculation than the "mark of the Beast." In addition to a "mark," Revelation 13 also mentions an "image" of the Beast as well as the mysterious "number of his name"--666...
Since the Roman Empire is the Beast described by John in Revelation 13 and Revelation 17, the "mark" is a brand or mark of the Roman Empire. The "image" of the Beast must be something modeled or patterned after the Roman Empire.
Before going further, notice that Revelation 13 mentions a second "beast" with an earthly, not heavenly, origin (v. 11). It outwardly masquerades as Christian, seeking to be identified with Christ, the Lamb of God (cf. John 1:29) but receives its power from the devil, that old dragon (Revelation 12:9). In prophecy, horns are used to represent rulership or authority, and this creature is pictured with two horns. Revelation 13:12 reveals that this second beast insists that all give their allegiance and loyalty to the Holy Roman Empire, the beast whose deadly wound was healed (v. 12). This second beast is described as performing great miracles, which will deceive humanity (vv. 13–14). In Matthew 24:24, Christ prophesied of "false Christs" who will deceive all but the very elect...
The earliest proposed solution to the meaning of 666 is a tradition attributed to Polycarp, the disciple of the same Apostle John who wrote Revelation. This tradition is preserved in the second century writings of Irenaeus. The number 666 is "…contained in the Greek letters of Lateinos (L=30; A=1; T=300; E,=5; I=10; N=50; O=70; S=200)" (Commentary on the Whole Bible, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown). Lateinos is a Greek term referring to the Romans. Interestingly, the Greek expression meaning "the Latin kingdom" (h Latine Basileia) also has a numeric value of 666. Greek writers commonly referred to the Roman Empire in this way. The book of Revelation was originally written in Greek, as it was written to Greek-speaking churches in ancient Asia Minor...
The founder of ancient Rome was Romulus, from whose name Rome and Roman are derived. The Latin name Romvlvs is written in Hebrew as Romiith. In the Hebrew language this also adds up to 666 (resh=200, vau=6, mem=40, yod=10, yod=10, tau=400). Thus, in both Greek and Hebrew, the two languages of the Bible, the number 666 is stamped upon the kingdom that derived from Rome (Ogwyn J. The Beast of Revelation: Myth, Metaphor or Soon-Coming Reality?).
Hence, the COG teaches that 666 represents a civil Roman/European/Germanic leader leading a kingdom (scripturally referred to as "the beast") who will maintain a religious alliance, while SDAs seem to teach that it represents all false worship (the SDA position seems similar to the one now held by the Jehovah's Witnesses). Personally, I consider that the idea of 666 simply representing all false worship leads to a discounting of the relevance of that which is revealed in the Book of Revelation.
And that is that 666 represents those that follow forms of false Christianity--but also symbolizes the beast--the final leader of the Holy Roman Empire who will be ultimately influenced by a changed one in the Vatican (by way of a demon-influenced individual who the Bible calls the false prophet, Revelation 16:13, and who is probably an "antipope" in the sense that even Roman Catholics would consider a demon-influenced pontiff an antipope).
Specifically 666 is the number of the first beast in Revelation 13 as distinguished from the Antichrist, who is the second, the two-horned beast, in the same chapter. And as Revelation 13 shows, the two-horned beast works with, and promotes, the seven-headed (and ten-horned) first beast in that chapter.
Please understand that the leader of the ten-horned Beast of Revelation 13:1-10 (see Europa, the Beast, and the Book of Revelation) and the one called 666 in Revelation 13:10 is also the one who is the final King of the North. (More information on who he may be can be found in the detailed article Might German Baron Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg become the King of the North?)
Perhaps I should add emphasize that the two-horned beast (also known as the false prophet or the final Antichrist) is mainly a religious, not a military leader. This differs from the ten-horned beast who the Bible confirms is mainly a military and political leader (even though he practices a false religion), hence the first beast is not the papacy (as Ellen White's writings state). Here is more of what the Bible teaches:
...they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"...It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation (Revelation 13:4,7).
And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army (Revelation 19:19).
Because the second beast in Revelation 13 is primarily a religious leader (even though he has political influence), it is he who is the final "Antichrist" as the all the specific warnings mentioning "antichrist" in the Bible are discussing religious leaders.
Originally Ellen White had positions on the Holy Spirit that were quite close to those held by Herbert W. Armstrong. Notice what Ellen White's statements about the Holy Spirit suggest (note one from an SDA background provided me the following statements including the source cited):
The Spirit is freely given us of God if we will appreciate and accept it. And what is it? The representative of Jesus Christ. It is to be our constant helper. It is through the Spirit that Christ fulfills the promise, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life". (The bell is sounding for morning worship, I must stop here)
(1888 Materials, pp. 1538, 1539, Letter to S. N. Haskell, May 30, 1896).
The church members need to know from experience what the Holy Spirit will do for them. It will bless the receiver, and make him a blessing. It is sad that every soul is not praying for the vital breath of the Spirit, for we are ready to die if it breath not on us.
We are to pray for the impartation of the Spirit as the remedy for sin-sick souls. The church needs to be converted, and why should we not prostrate ourselves at the throne of grace, as representatives of the church, and from a broken heart and contrite spirit make earnest supplication that the Holy Spirit shall be poured out upon us from on high? Let us pray that when it shall be graciously bestowed, our cold hearts may be revived, and we may have discernment to understand that it is from God, and receive it with joy. Some have treated the Spirit as an unwelcome guest, refusing to receive the rich gift, refusing to acknowledge it, turning from it, and condemning it as fanaticism. When the Holy Spirit works the human agent, it does not ask us in what way it shall operate. Often it moves in unexpected ways. Christ did not come as the Jews expected. He did not come in a manner to glorify them as a nation. His forerunner came to prepare the way for him by calling upon the people to repent of their sins and be converted, and be baptized. Christ's message was, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent ye and believe the gospel." The Jews refused to receive Christ, because he did not come in accordance with their expectations (Ibid., p. 1540).
And Jesus said He would give us the Comforter. What is the Comforter? It is the Holy Spirit of God. What is the Holy Spirit? It is the representative of Jesus Christ, it is our Advocate that stands by our side and places our petitions before the Father all fragrant with His merits (Reflecting Christ, p. 285).It is the Spirit of Truth…It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought by the world’s Redeemer…The Holy Spirit is the breath of the spiritual life of the soul...It imbues the receiver with the attributes of Christ. (White EH. The Desire of the Ages. Originally published in 1898. Nabu Press, 2012 paperback edition, pp. 419,501)
The Lord would have every one of His children rich in faith, and this faith is the fruit of the working of the Holy Spirit upon the mind. It dwells with each soul who will receive it, speaking to the impenitent in words of warning, and pointing them to Jesus, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. It causes light to shine into the minds of those who are seeking to co-operate with God, giving them efficiency and wisdom to do His work (Signs of the Times, September 27, 1899).
Like, Herbert W. Armstrong, Mrs. White realized that the Holy Spirit was not a person. They both referred to the Holy Spirit as "it."
However, Ellen White changed her position in later years as is shown in the section below. But before getting to that, let me show that the last statement from Mrs. White was edited by someone and reprinted as follows (according to my same source):
The Lord would have every one of His children rich in faith, and this faith is the fruit of the working of the Holy Spirit upon the mind. He dwells with each soul who will receive Him, speaking to the impenitent in words of warning, and pointing them to Jesus, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. He causes light to shine into the minds of those who are seeking to cooperate with God, giving them efficiency and wisdom to do His work (Ye Shall Receive Power, p. 59, 1995).
Hence, those who believe that they are relying on her original writings need to be very careful.
Since many reading this article are interested in doctrinal differences between the COGs and the SDAs, there is one major difference that should be highlighted here. And that difference has to do with the position on the Theodosius trinity, which some believe is one of the doctrines of Antichrist.
Although it somewhat came about via the Millerite movement (and William Miller was a trinitarian), at the time of its re-formation the SDA Church held some of the same doctrines as did the Church of God (more on that subject can be found in the article The Sardis Church Era).
The SDA movement was originally anti-Trinitarian, but was essentially made trinitarian by Ellen White according various SDA scholars (some SDA-related groups disagree that Ellen White ever endorsed the trinity).
Notice the following by SDA scholar Gerhard Pfandl:
A number of Adventist authors today who are opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity are trying to resurrect the views of our early pioneers on these issues. They are urging the church to forsake the “Roman doctrine” of the Trinity and to accept again the semi-Arian position of our pioneers...
J. N. Loughborough, in response to the question “What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?” wrote, “There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous.” (Pfandl G. The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Seventh-day Adventists. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 160–179)
Thus, a founder of the SDAs claimed that the trinity was pagan.
Notice what James White (the husband of Ellen White) wrote:
The Father is the greatest…The Son is next in authority…The inexplicable Trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough...(Quoted in Wiebe E. Who Is the Adventist Jesus? Published by Xulon Press, 2005, p. 167).
…the Trinity does away with the personality of God…(ibid, p. 88).
The greatest fault we can find in the Reformers is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of the Papacy behind such as the natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sundaykeeping, the church would now be free her unscriptural errors (Ibid, p. 89).
So James White considered the trinity to be in the same category as Sundaykeeping--do SDAs realize this?
Here are some admissions concerning Ellen White and the trinity from The Ellen White Estate, Inc. official website:
Ellen White never used the term "trinity"…at times she used the pronoun "it" when referring to the Holy Spirit (The Ellen G. White Estate. Questions and Answers About Ellen G. White: The Godhead. http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-egw.html#faq-section-c2 viewed 7/30/08).
In a book co-written with James White, SDA pioneer Joseph Bates wrote:
Respecting the trinity, I concluded that is was an impossibility for me to believe...(Bates J, White J. The Early Life and Later Experience and Labors of Elder Joseph Bates. Published by Steam Press of the Seventh-day adventist publishing association, 1878. Original from the New York Public Library. Digitized Jun 13, 2007, p. 210).
SDA pioneer J. Waggoner wrote:
The inconsistencies of Trinitarians, which must be pointed out to free the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement from reproaches under which it has too long lain, are the necessary outgrowth of their system of theology. No matter how able are the writers to whom we shall refer, they could never free themselves from inconsistencies without correcting their theology...“To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption. (J. H. Waggoner, ‘The Atonement in Light of Nature and Revelation’, 1884 Edition, chapter ‘Doctrine of a Trinity Subversive of the Atonement’)
SDA scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi wrote:
The truth is that our Adventist church would not be here today, had it not been for the prophetic guidance of Ellen White. She played a leading role in shaping our message and mission. For example, we noted in the newsletter no. 150 the role of Ellen White in leading our church to accept the Doctrine of the Trinity (ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 153."The Pre-Advent Judgment - Part I").
He also wrote:
The doctrine of the Trinity has been under the crossfire of controversy during much of Christian history. Our Adventist Church has not been exempted from the controversy. In the newly released book The Trinity: Its Implications for Life and Thought (Review and Herald, 2002), Prof. Jerry Moon, one of the three authors, offers a most informative historical survey of the gradual evolution of Adventist pioneers from anti-Trinitarian to Trinitarian beliefs...
It is unfortunate that those apologetic endeavors often resulted in heretical anti-trinitarian teachings that have plagued Christianity until our time. In fact, most of today's anti-trinitarian heresies found in such religious movements as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Unitarians, and liberal theologians, trace their roots to the early church (Bacchiocchi S. The Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER NO. 147. 5/11/06).
The above is probably not a good poor use of the term "liberal theologians." The normal definition (as Dr. Bacchiocchi must have known) is that liberal theologians are normally those that discount original teachings--that is what the SDAs themselves have sadly done. The truth is that the SDAs were once anti-Trinitarian. This is a significant difference between the COGs and the SDAs as the Church of God has always been non-Trinitarian (please see the article Binitarian View). (For quotes from SDA scholars on what the SDAs once believed and now believe on the Godhead, please see Appendix A at the end of the article titled Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?).
The SDA Church was not just anti-Trinitarian, it was also binitarian. Another SDA scholar, G. Pfandl, wrote this about the Semi-Arians (a title that somewhat applies to those in the COGs):
While the Seventh day Adventist Church today espouses the doctrine of the Trinity, this has not always been so. The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates that from the earliest years of our church to the 1890's a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi Arian position...
Semi Arianism...They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father." Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar ( homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate" (Pfandl, Gerhard. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AMONG ADVENTISTS. Biblical Research Institute Silver Spring, MD June 1999, http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/trinity.html, 5/12/06).
A number of Adventist authors today who are opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity are trying to resurrect the views of our early pioneers on these issues. They are urging the church to forsake the “Roman doctrine” of the Trinity and to accept again the semi-Arian position of our pioneers...
J. N. Loughborough, in response to the question “What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?” wrote, “There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous.”
And R. F. Cottrell, in an article on the Trinity, stated:
To hold the doctrine of the trinity is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say much in its favor…
The rise of the Trinity doctrine in our church was the outworking of a slow process that occurred over many years. It was not imposed on the church arbitrarily; it evolved slowly from within. The first positive reference to the Trinity in Adventist literature appeared in the Bible Students’ Library series in 1892…
Most early Adventist pioneers were anti-Trinitarians… In 1931 the Adventist Yearbook contained a statement of twenty-two fundamental beliefs, one of which was the Trinity (Pfandl G. The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Seventh-day Adventists. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 160–179).
What the above quotes leave out is that the anti-Trinitarian writers lost out because Ellen White allegedly published a pamphlet in 1897 declaring the Holy Spirit "the third person of the Godhead" (the SDAs were "Semi-Arians" before this--though they did not tend to use that term). The truth about the Holy Spirit can be found in the article Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?
Furthermore, SDA scholar Dr. Jerry Moon reported:
In 1846 James White dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity as “the old unscriptural trinitarian creed”… That most of the early leaders among Seventh-day Adventists held an antitrinitarian theology, and that a major shift has since occured, has become standard Adventist history in the 43 years since E. R. Gane wrote an M.A. thesis on the topic…
At the core of the debate is the question whether Ellen White's position on the Trinity ever changed. Some assume that she never changed, that either she always believed in the Trinity or never believed in the Trinity. There is ample evidence, however, that Ellen White's beliefs did change...
She did not initially recognize His trinitarian nature… About 1850 she reported, “I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, ‘I am in the express image of My Father’s person.’” Thus she gained visionary confirmation of what her husband had written in the Day-Star in 1846, that the Father and the Son are “two distinct, literal, tangible persons”…
Brick by conceptual brick, (perhaps without even being aware of it herself) she was slowly but surely dismantling the substructure of the antitrinitarian view, and building a trinitarian view. In another clear break with the prevailing semi-Arian consensus, she declared in 1878 that Christ was the “eternal Son”…
In 1890, she followed up her 1888 affirmation of Christ's unity with the Father (in nature, character, and purpose) with perhaps her last major statement that can still be read ambiguously. "The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both."46 Retrospectively, this phrase harmonizes perfectly with her later statements (especially Desire of Ages, 530) that Christ is "self-existent" and that His Deity is not "derived" from the Father. It is also possible, however, to read the sentence from a binitarian (two-person Godhead) or even semi-Arian (Christ inferior to the Father) perspective...
As the conflict dragged on into 1905, Ellen White wrote … There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ… Her latest affirmations of one God in three persons are fully in harmony with the first explicitly trinitarian belief statement among Seventh-day Adventists, published in 1913, during her lifetime, by F. M. Wilcox, editor of the Review and Herald...
As the conflict dragged on into 1905, Ellen White wrote … There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ… Her latest affirmations of one God in three persons are fully in harmony with the first explicitly trinitarian belief statement among Seventh-day Adventists, published in 1913, during her lifetime, by F. M. Wilcox, editor of the Review and Herald ...
... the 1946 General Conference session voted the first officially Adventist endorsement of belief in the Trinity, just 100 years after James White's strong rejection of that idea in the 1846 Day-Star. This change was not a simple reversal. The evidence is that Ellen White agreed with the essential positive point of James's belief, namely that "the Father and the Son" are "two distinct, literal, tangible persons." Subsequent evidence shows that she also agreed with James's negative point: that the traditional, philosophical concepts held by many trinitarians did "spiritualize away" the personal reality of the Father and the Son.82 Soon after this she added the conviction, based on visions, that both Christ and the Father have tangible forms. She progressively affirmed the eternal equality of Christ and the Father, that Christ was not created, and by 1888, that an adequate concept of the atonement demands the full and eternal Deity of Christ. Only in the 1890s did she become aware of the full individuality and personhood of the Holy Spirit...at Avondale in 1899 she declared, "the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, unseen by human eyes; . . . He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind."83 This confirms the fourfold hypothesis with which this article opened. First, E. R. Gane's characterization of Ellen White as a "trinitarian monotheist" is accurate regarding her mature concept of God, from 1898 onward. (Moon J. "Ellen White and the Trinity"1. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 150. June 27, 2006).
It is important to note that SDA scholars admit that the Semi-Arian position was the prevailing view as late as 1878--thus this is something that the SDAs have changed (again, others have claimed that some changed Ellen White's writings and that she never endorsed the trinity).
SDA Glibert Valentine, vice-president for academic administration, Mission College, MuakLek, Thailand wrote:
Many early Adventist pioneers such as James White, Joseph Bates, J. H. Waggoner, and R. F. Cottrell were, in fact, strongly anti-Trinitarian… semi-Arian concepts of Christology were fairly deeply imbedded in early Adventist beliefs and literature (Valentine G. How clear views of Jesus developed in the Adventist Church. At Issue, December 2006).
Unlike the SDAs, the Church of God (while believing in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) has been essentially anti-Trinitarian and has never accepted the Roman, Eastern Orthodox, nor Protestant views of the Trinity (as adopted in 381). But, the SDAs have.
(Another difference between the two groups that is documented at the COGwriter site has to do with military service. Many SDAs now condone it, while the faithful in the COGs still opposes it. This is documented in the article Military Service and the COGs. A quite noticeable difference between the COG and the SDAs relates to the biblical holy days--the SDAs normally do not observe them, though a few do. A possible article of interest may be Is There "An Annual Worship Calendar" In the Bible?).
Although the SDA's have mainly became trinitarian, notice something that a former SDA sent me regarding some of Ellen White's writings related to Jesus supposedly being Michael:
Ellen White's writings are full of extra biblical stuff--some of which is blasphemous.
Patriarchs and Prophets page 761--Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the Archangel.
Prophets and Kings page 572--For three weeks Gabriel wrestled with the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus; and before the contest closed, Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid. "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days," Gabriel declares; "but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." Daniel 10:13.
Early Writings page 164--Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee.”
The Story of Redemption page 206--Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee.”
19 Manuscript release 106.2--Jude presents the example of Christ. He says, “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil He disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (As cited in an Email to COGwriter@aol.com 11/06/16)
Jesus was not the angel Michael. The Jehovah's Witnesses also hold to that wrong teaching. See Did the Archangel Michael become Jesus?
Here are other SDA statements:
“Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the Archangel.” (White EG. The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan as Illustrated in the Lives of Patriarchs and Prophets. 1890, page 760)
“Michael [another name for Jesus] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan], and the dragon and his angels fought back” (Revelation 12:7). ( Signs of the Times magazine, May, 2010. Also at www.adventist.org 05/01/20 as: A Lesson from History; July 2, 2013)
Someone told me that a Seventh-Day Adventist pointed to Genesis 31:11-13 as proof Jesus was Michael.
This is how it is translated in the NKJV:
11 Then the Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, 'Jacob.' And I said, 'Here I am.' 12 And He said, 'Lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. 13 I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family.'" (Genesis 31:11-13)
However, if you look up the Hebrew word mal'ak (Strong's word 4397) which is improperly translated as "angel" above, you find that "angel" is not the only way it could be translated, nor should it be in many places:
OT:4397 ... mal'ak (mal-awk'); from an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher):
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
For more on this, check out the article: Did the Archangel Michael become Jesus? and/or the video: Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?
As far history of the SDAs go, Ellen Gould Harmon was a Methodist whose family got involved with the Millerite movement in 1840 when she was 12. In 1846 she married James White.
James White, Joseph Bates and Uriah Smith had Milleriate connections, but they originally belonged to something called the Christian Connection. It was anti-trinitarian, and though not COG, shared some COG doctrines.
The late evangelist Dean Blackwell, who stated that the SDAs were never part of the COG, wrote:
Adventist Movement
William Miller, an earnest prophetical student and minister was the main leader in the movement of 1835, in which the time of the second coming of the Lord was set. His great enthusiasm for Christ's return and a partial knowledge of prophecy led him to believe that the Lord would come back in 1844. ... The year 1844, year of the disappointment, James White began publishing "The Messenger" at Rochester, New York. The name of the paper was later changed to "The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald." ... But that wasn't the location of the true church at all. (Blackwell D. A HANDBOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY. A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology, April 1973, p. 210)
When the dates did not happen, Ellen White claimed visions that explained why William Miller understood what was to happen. Basically, she claimed that Jesus did return, but only to change sanctuaries, etc.
In time, some affiliated with the Millerite movement, like James and Ellen White got exposed to the Sabbath and adopted it.
While the SDAs were originally anti-trinitarian, they changed. While they originally seemed to oppose much of Protestantism, in time they agreed with Protestants on so many points, that they are mainly Sabbath-keeping Protestants who accept Ellen White as a prophet, who do not eat unclean meat, but otherwise hold to many Protestant traditions.
The Denver-based Church of God (Seventh Day) (CG7-D) teaches this about some of the similarities and differences between them and the SDAs:
Most differences between the groups involve the role and writings of Ellen G. White. Mrs. White was a founder of the SDA Church and is regarded by it as a true prophetess. The Church of God (Seventh Day) considers Mrs. White as it would any other writer since the completion of the biblical canon: Her “truth” is mixed with error. It regards neither Mrs. White nor her writings to be an expression of the "Spirit of Prophecy." This is the fundamental difference between the two churches.
Beyond this basic difference, here are some teachings of the Church of God (Seventh Day)-D that are not endorsed by Seventh-day Adventists:
Those of us in the Continuing Church of God (CCOG), would agree with the above points on where we agree and disagree with the Seventh-day Adventists.
Perhaps I should also mention that the main reasons for the Church of God/SDA split for those who had cooperated were:
1) The COG did not accept Ellen White's messages as on par with the Bible
2) The COG would not accept the name "Seventh-day Adventist"
3) The COG taught that the millennium is to occur on the earth (SDA's officially teach heaven as the location; see Seventh-day Adventist Official Position on the Millennium Differs From Beliefs of Early Christians)
4) The COG taught that there is an opportunity for salvation in the age to come
As far as the age to come goes, here is something from an SDA writer:
Some of the warnings of Isaiah points out tothe ultimate redemption and restoration of the saints through the proclamation ofrepentance. But the book of Isaiah received some controversy regarding translation, particularly to the phrase “for the child shall die a hundred years old.” This became very controversial because it seems to have a contradiction to the assertion of some Biblewriters concerning the new heavens and the new earth. We, as Seventh- day Adventists, believe that there will be no more death, sorrow nor pain in that place, which the LordGod will create- this is one of our doctrines that is written in our 28 Fundamental Beliefsspecifically Fundamental Belief # 28. 1 It is an eschatological event that will took placeafter the 1, 000 years of vacation of saints in Heaven. Both prophetic books, Isaiah andRevelation, that deals about this particular theme speaks about the beauty and tidings of 2 the new earth. ...
Though the “new heavens and new earth of Isaiah 65:17, at first glance, sound very much like Revelation 21:1, in which God destroys the earth before creating it anew, the peaceful conditions outlined in Isaiah 65 are more in harmony with life on this earth than with the eternal state of immortality. Death is still present (v. 20) in this “new” world.88 The whole content of Isaiah 65:20 points to the restoration of Judah in Palestine, following the Exile, rather than the renewal of the whole earth. ...
Moreover, the context of Isaiah 65:20 is a foretaste of what will happen in thefuture, where God will restore all things as stated in Revelation 21. ...
Those who will reach the age of 100 years in the time of Isaiah would beconsiderably blessed because they surpassed the age that the average man hoped to reach,thus, Isaiah employ that kind of description in the phrase "for the Child shall die anhundred years old." If we use logic or literality in this statement, does a child or a youth be considered youth when he reached 100 years then die? No, of course. That is why, itdoes not literally mean that youth in new heaven and new earth will experience death,instead, prophet Isaiah meant that when a person reach the age of 100, he will still beconsidered as a youth because as we all know, we will live eternally in the presence ofGod ’s love in the new earth, and that is beyond millions and billions of years; that is why,having an age of 100 in the new earth is just having an age of 10 which is equivalent toan age of a child. The phrase is an irony-contrast poetry which Isaiah used to describe theeradication of sin, its heaviness, and power. 74 The phrase “for the child shall die ahundred years old” contrast the first phrase “There shall be no more thence an infant of d ays nor an old man that hath not filled his days.” Furthermore, Isaiah made “for the child shall die” an irony statement for it is in contradiction with the first statement, thus, it should not be interpreted literally. ...
Isaiah 65:20 belongs to the imagery and poetry division of chap. 65 of Isaiah. Thesecond statement of the passage being studied is a prophecy. (Ronquillo EA. BACHELOR OF THEOLOGY THESIS: An Interpretation of the phrase: "For the Child shall die a hundred years old" in Isaiah 65:20. c. 2011)
The SDA writer is correct that the context of Isaiah 65:20 has to do with death and being on the earth. Yet, he is in error that the death part should not be taken literally. He is attempting, it seems, to justify an SDA tradition over scripture. That is his error. SDAs misunderstand about the age to come that Jesus spoke of (Mark 10:28-31; Luke 18:29-30). More on that is in our free online book: Universal OFFER of Salvation, Apokatastasis: Can God save the lost in an age to come? Hundreds of scriptures reveal God’s plan of salvation.
That said, the SDAs have reported the following about the "CGA group" in Marion in the 1860s that had affiliation with its Gilbert Cranmer (CG7's currently essentially officially claimed founder):
The Marion party adopted the name Church of God (Adventist) ... While retaining Sabbath observance, they differed in their understanding of the Millennium, favoring an earthly millennium at which time, with Christ’s presence upon the earth, all mankind will be converted. They promoted the keeping of Old Testament Feast days and advanced the unscriptural notion that Christ died on Wednesday and arose Saturday afternoon, having spent seventy-two hours, three whole days and nights, in Joseph’s tomb.
…an offshoot of this church formed adopting the named Church of God (Seventh Day ) (Standish RR, Standish C. The General Conference Confronts Apostasy. Hartland Publications, 2006, p. 84).
Of course, Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday (for details, please see What Happened in the Crucifixion Week?). Additionally, it is not the CCOG position that all win be converted, it is the proper COG position that nearly everyone will be converted (please see Universal OFFER of Salvation, Apokatastasis: Can God save the lost in an age to come? Hundreds of scriptures reveal God’s plan of salvation and Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differs from Protestantism).
Officially CG7 was not called Church of God Adventist (one state organization was for a short time and that caused an uproar) and the name officially adopted in 1884 was General Conference of the Church of God Seventh Day.
In 1923, it officially became Church of God (Seventh day). Although CG7-D no longer emphasizes that last point, here is some information about what the belief differences were in the mid-1800s.
On matters of history, perhaps it should be mentioned that we in the Continuing Church of God do believe that we have direct ties to the original apostles and can trace our history from the time of Peter, Paul, and John through the faithful in Asia Minor through Europe and to the Americas (for some details, please see The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3). For specific information on history and other matters between the COGs and SDAs in the 1800s, please see the article The Sardis Church Era.
Although I have found that nearly all the SDA members I have come in contact to be sincere individuals, I believe that to a great degree that the SDA movement is based upon a non-biblical message. Which message?
The non-biblical message is the inaccurate sanctuary interpretation of 1844 by Ellen White that she taught essentially explained "a complete system of truth." Notice what she wrote:
THE SUBJECT OF THE sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonius, showing that God's hand directed the great advent movement, and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people (White E.G. Will America Survive? 1888; Reprint, 1988 by Inspiration Books East, Jemison (AL), p. 405).
Now while I do believe that Ellen White was correct that prophecy is important, I do not believe that the message of the Bible is that the Advent movement is correct because of her sanctuary interpretation. It is the Bible, and not Ellen White's interpretations, that unlock the mysteries of God and which is the complete system of truth. Ellen White's sanctuary explanation was an attempt to say that a false prophecy about Jesus' return was not false. Jesus did not return in 1844 and the 'explanation' was not true, but a message from the devil.
Ellen G. White pushed the wrong date for the Day of Atonement:.
Ellen G. White: "The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord's coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn ... the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stand without impeachment." -- The Great Controversy, pp. 400, 457.
Her timing of this event and claiming it was related to the Day of Atonement was an error as the Day of Atonment was not the day she claimed in 1844.
Some have improperly claimed that October 22, 1844, was the Day of Atonement according to the Karite Calendar. The actual date of the Day of Atonement was Monday, September 23, 1844. As it turned out the Day of Atonement in 1844 was on the same date on both the Rabbinical Perpetual Calendar and the Karite Calender.
Edward S. Ballenger (1864-1955), a former Adventist and for a time pastor of the Seventh-day Baptist Church in Los Angeles, came to undertstand this fact through a response from the Karaite Rabbi Youseff Ibrahim Marzork.
The defenders of the creed declare that while the orthodox Jews may have celebrated the Day of Atonement on Sept. 23, the Karaite Jews observed it on Oct 22. We have made careful investigation, and we find that this is a false claim. The leading Karaite rabbi of Cairo, Egypt, Youseff Ibrahim Marzork, in reply to an inquiry as to the day on which they celebrated the atonement in 1844, wrote: As to the dates of the Passover and Yom Kippur they are the following:— "According to the Karaite Jews in the year 1843 the Yom Kippur is on Wednesday the 4th October, and just the same date according to the Rabinnical." "In the year 1844 it is on Monday 23rd September for the Karaite and Rabinnical.” (Ballenger ES. The Gathering Call, May-June 1941, pp. 14-15, 1941, pp. 14-15).
For those who want to see something more recent, notice the following which I found online :
Official Karaite documentation
Subject: Yom Kippur 1844
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 18:07:55 +0200
From: The Karaite Korner karaite@netvision.net.ilDear Sir,
In the past you have asked regarding the Karaite date of Yom Kippur 1844. I have recently received further inquiries in this matter and have done some investigation of this subject. Here are my preliminary results:
In the Middle Ages the Karaites ardently maintained that the Biblical year begins with the ripeness of the Barley crop in Israel (called in the Bible "Abib"). The Rabbinic calendar had originally followed this practice but around the 9th century CE they adopted a 19 year cycle of intercalation (leap years) which approximates the Abib but which is far from accurate. This often caused a difference of a month between the Karaite and Rabbanite calendars. The Seventh Day Adventist tradition seems to have heard of this Karaite practice or perhaps they assumed it was the Karaite practice based on their (correct) assumption that the Karaites strictly follow the Bible. The Abib was a central issue to the Karaites and to this day the Karaite marriage contract includes a vow that the marrying couple will celebrate the holidays "according to the visibility of the moon and the appearance of the Abib in the land of Israel." However, already in the Middle Ages there were Karaite communities who slowly adopted the Rabbinic 19 year cycle. At first it was only Karaites in the distant lands of the Dispersion who followed the Rabbinic 19 year cycle. They claimed that it was difficult to receive reports of the state of the Barley crop in Israel from so far away. As late as the 15th century though the Karaites of the Holy Land continued to follow the Abib even though their compatriots in the Dispersion accepted the 19 year Rabbinic cycle. The 15th century Karaite Hacham Elijah Baschyatchi writes:
"Having explained that the beginning of the year according to the law of our Torah is according to the Abib which is found is the Land of Israel in the conditions which we have mentioned, because of our great sins we have been distanced from the Holy Land and we do not have the capability of finding the Abib, we have been forced to follow the Calculation of Intercalation like that done by our brothers the Rabbanites..."
"And the Hacham R' Aharon [ben Elijah] author of the book 'Etz Haim' also said** that in the 269th cycle we heard that in the 4th year of the cycle [i.e. 1354/1355 C.E.] what was for us the month of Elul was for the people of the Land of Israel the month of Tishrei...' ... And this has also happened in our [Baschyatchi's] times in the year 5240 [i.e. 1479/1480 C.E.], the 15th year of the cycle, people went from our community in the Holy City [i.e. Jerusalem] and said that the 14th year of the 276 cycle, which we are in, which was for us an intercalated year [i.e. 13 months] was for them a regular year [i.e. 12 months]. And our faith should not be weakened by this because they [in Israel] go after the observable and we [in the Diaspora] go after approximation... The end of the matter is, all maintain the legal decision that the inhabitants of the Land of Israel should go according to the Abib in the Land of Israel and those far away should go after the calculation of intercalation of leap years and simple years." (From Aderet Eliyahu by Elijah Baschyatchi, Israel 1966, p.39a (written in the 15th century) [translation from the Hebrew by Nehemia Gordon, square brackets added by translator for clarity])
As can be seen, in Baschyatchi's's own time the Karaites of the Dispersion followed the Rabbinic 19 year cycle while those of Israel followed the actual appearance of the Abib and at times this caused a difference of one month in the calendar.
Nevertheless, by the 19th century the Karaites universally followed the 19 year Rabbinic cycle both in the Diaspora and in Israel. The 19th century Karaite Hacham Shlomoh ben Afedah Hacohen wrote an abridged paraphrase of Elijah Baschyatchi's Aderet Eliyahu. In his abridgement, Shlomoh Afedah paraphrases the above quoted passage but adds the following words:
"And for some time now the quest for the Abib has been abandoned even in the Land of Israel and they [the inhabitants of Israel] intercalate years using the above mentioned system [i.e. the 19 year Rabbinic cycle] like we do outside of Israel, [this is] against the legal decision of the Rav [i.e. Baschyatchi] and the Hachamim [mentioned in the above quoted passage of Aderet Eliyahu] perhaps in order to unite with all the communities and so that we will not have a disagreement between them and us in fixing the year."—From "Gefen Ha'Aderet", Shlomoh ben Afedah Hacohen, Israel 1987, pp.22-23 (written in 1860) [translation from the Hebrew by Nehemia Gordon, square brackets added by translator for clarity.]
Clearly in the time of Shlomoh ben Efedah Hacohen (c. 1860) all Karaites everywhere had for many years been using the 19 year Rabbinic cycle. Therefore, Yom Kippur must have been celebrated by the Karaites in late September 1844 in accordance with the 19 year Rabbinic cycle and not in late October 1844. While late September may or may not have been the correct month in which to celebrate Yom Kippur (only a crop report from that year would decide that issue) it was undoubtedly the month actually observed by Karaites everywhere.
That Yom Kippur 1844 was celebrated by the Karaites in September and not October is confirmed by a Karaite Tomb Stone inscription cited by Abraham Firkowitz in his book Avnei Zicharon (lit. Stones of Remembrance, published Vilna 1872). It should be noted that while claims have been made that Firkowitz altered some of the inscriptions cited in his book, all of these dubious accusations are in regards to Tomb Stones from the early centuries of the Common Era and there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of the later Tomb Stones, especially those from the 19th century. On p.242 Firkowitz quotes from a Karaite Tomb Stone from the "New Cemetary" in Gozlow which reads:
"And Yosef Shlomoh died at seventy five years of age. And all Israel mourned him and cried for him 'Woe master and woe his glory'. And they buried him in great honor on the 12th day of the month Tevet in the year 605 of the sixth millenium since creation according to our counting, and according to the counting of Rome, the tenth of the month December in their year 1844 here in Gozlow, or Yeupetoria, on the Crimean Peninsula in the reign of the master the great and mighty Czar, King of Russia and the other lands, that is, the Emporer his majesty Nicolai the first Pavelovitz in the twentieth year of his reign, and in the sixty-first year of this Crimean Peninsula being under the rule of the Kings of Russia since the days of the Czarina Catherine the Second who conquered it from the hand of the Tartaric king and Shekhan Gari Khan who was king of Crimea at that time." [Translation from the Hebrew by Nehemia Gordon]
As can be seen the Karaite date 12 Tevet corresponds to December 10, 1844. Bearing in mind that the Russian Empire used the Julian calendar, December 10 of the Julian year must be understood to refer to December 22 in the Gregorian year (i.e. the system used universally today). If 12 Tevet was equivalent to December 22, 1844 (Gregorian) then Tevet would have begun on December 10 (Gregorian). Bearing in mind that Tevet is the tenth Hebrew month and Tishrei (in which Yom Kippur falls out) is the seventh Hebrew month it becomes clear that Yom Kippur 1844 must have been celebrated in late September and not late October. This is illustrated in the following correlation of months for months in late 1844:
- September 14/15* = Tishrei 1 (Yom Kippur = September 23)
- October 13/14* = Heshvan 1
- November ? = Kislev 1
- December 10 = Tevet 1
*The correct date for the beginning of these months, based on the predicted visibility of the New Moon, would have been September 15 and October 14 (both beginning the prior evening). However, it is possible that with some of the inaccurate calculation system used by the Karaites in the 19th century some Karaites may have observed the beginning of these months one day earlier. It would seem that according to the system of Isaac ben Solomon, which was wide-spread in the 19th century, some Karaites would have celebrated September 14th as the beginning of the month and not September 15th [this last fact has been relayed to me by Magdi Shamuel, an expert on the Karaite calendar and lunar crescent visibility]. October 13th would not have been celebrated as the beginning of the month even according to Isaac ben Solomon's system. However, further investigation is required to rule out the possibility that some Karaites would have celebrated the beginning of the month on October 13th instead of October 14th.
**The original report of Aharon ben Elijah regarding the difference of one month between the Karaite calendar in Israel and the Diaspora in 1354/1355 C.E. can be found in his book Gan Eden, Israel 1972 (written in the 14th century), p.22a
Thank you,
Nehemia Gordon
Jerusalem, IsraelVisit the KARAITE KORNER
So, Ellen White's explanation must be considered false as October 22nd was not the Day of Atonement in 1844.
The plain truth is that the Church of God people had a lot of biblical doctrines in the 1800s. The Whites came in contact with some of them (and others) and accepted many of their doctrines, and hence did teach many biblical truths. However, their excessive fixation on Ellen White's prophetic interpretations, combined with the fact that she (and ultimately nearly all other SDAs), began to lose many biblical doctrines shows that the SDAs are simply not part of the true Church of God (though some who believe that they are in that movement possibly may be).
If you are an Adventist, should your "system of truth" be the Bible or traditions outside of it? Please pray about that.
Another non-biblical change that the SDAs seem to be moving towards is the ordination of women as ministers( see Seventh-day Adventists moving towards ordaining more women ministers). There are other non-biblical doctrines that have been adopted or are under at least some considerations.
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches that many of his practices are simply based upon tradition:
Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture …
The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. (Bainvel J. Transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Tradition and Living Magisterium. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Notice that the Roman Catholics admit that the Sabbath is biblical--in other publications they admit that the SDAs are right that Saturday is the biblical Sabbath (see, for example, their articles on The Christian Sabbath).
But, notice that the Catholics of Rome say that groups who claim to believe the Bible are inconsistent, including the Sabbatarians. In the above list, the SDAs are inconsistent because they permit taking oaths.
Jesus forbade the same in Matthew 5:33-37.
SDAs accept swearing via oaths because Ellen White said that was acceptable (see White E. Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, chapter 3).
Oaths are one reason that the Roman Catholics do not believe that SDAs are truly believers in sola Scriptura.
According to a paper from Andrews University (an SDA university), Greco-Roman Catholic apologists sometimes asked this question:
"Where was your church before the Reformation? Show us a people who before Calvin and Luther had the same beliefs as you. . . . Let us see the uninterrupted link which binds you to the Church of the first centuries and through her to the apostles and to Jesus Christ. This conjunction should exist. But it is impossible for you to point to such a link. You are introducing a new movement; you have a beginning. It is possible to assign to your movement a precise date; and this simple fact condemns you." (Dumoulin, op. cit., I, 28, 29; Rébelliau, op. cit., p. 345; Jean- Baptiste Dantecourt, Remarques sur le livre d'un potestant, intitulé Considerations sur les lettres circulaires de l'assemblke du clergk de France, de l'annke 1682 . . . Paris, 1683: as cited in Walther D. WERE THE ALBIGENSES AND WALDENSES FORERUNNERS OF THE REFORMATION? Andrews University Seminary Studies. 1986 (2), 5, p. 199)
It is true that the Protestant movement and the SDA church both had a post-New Testament date. Plus, they also cannot find their beliefs in the first couple of centuries of the Christian church era.
More on that can be found in the free online book Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differs from Protestantism .
But what about the Continuing Church of God?
We do not consider Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin to be Christians, but SDAs do.
While some point to a declaration date in the 21st century to try to callously dismiss our continuity in the CCOG consider:
For more on history, check out the free online book: Continuing History of the Church of God.
Unlike the Continuing Church of God, the Seventh-day Adventist Church considers itself Protestant:
We consider our movement to be the result of the Protestant conviction Sola Scriptura ... (Official Seventh-day Adventist Church website. https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/ accessed 12/29/19)
Before becoming Seventh-day Adventists, the founders of the denomination were sitting in the pews of other protestant churches in the early-to-mid 1800s. ... Several separate groups of these devout Christians were dispersed ... and what began as the “Advent Movement” is now a worldwide Christian protestant denomination (Official Seventh-day Adventist Church website. https://www.adventist.org/church/what-do-seventh-day-adventists-believe/history-of-seventh-day-adventists/ accessed 12/29/19)
G. Alexander Bryant, the executive secretary for Seventh-day Adventists of North America ... The current Seventh-day Adventist Church considers itself to be Protestant. "If you know our faith, you can't say we don't have the same beliefs as other Protestants," Bryant says. (Taylor J. All Your Questions About Seventh-Day Adventism And Ben Carson Answered NPR, October 27, 2015)
As far as Protestantism goes, check out the free online book: Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differs from Protestantism.
Regarding history, Perhaps this would be a good place to include a quote from Jacob Brinkerhoff who was editor of the Bible Advocate, a Church of God publication, in its November 23, 1909 issue:
Some people have a mistaken idea of the members of the Church of God, or most of them, having previously being connected to the Seventh-day Adventists, when the fact is that not many of them ever were. (As cited in Briggs, Lawson. What Became of the Church Jesus Built? Thesis for Ambassador College, April 1972, p. 273)
The COG was not an off-shoot of the SDAs as the SDAs tend to teach. We also trace our history from Acts 2 to present and preceded the Protestant Reformation by about 15 centuries (see Continuing History of the Church of God). Whereas the SDAs tend to trace most of theirs from the 1800s, and before then, the Protestant Reformation.
As mentioned, we in the Continuing Church of God are NOT Protestant (see Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differs from Protestantism). Unlike the SDAs, we keep the same biblical holy days that the original Christians kept (see Should You Observe God's Holy Days or Demonic Holidays?).
Ted N.C. Wilson, as President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, stated the following.
We are to be a peculiar people, God’s remnant people, to lift up Christ, His righteousness, His three angels’ messages of Revelation 14 and His soon coming . . . As God’s remnant people identified in Revelation 12:17 as those “who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” we have a unique message of hope and a mandate to proclaim God’s grace to the world . . . Now, getting back to Revelation 12:17 and another great distinguishing mark of God’s remnant people. We read that they will “have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” . . .As God’s faithful remnant, may we never make of none effect the precious light given us in the writings of Ellen G. White . . .
When we use that term, remnant church or remnant people, we must never use it in a self-centered, exclusive manner . . .He wants to use His remnant church in a most powerful way . . .
And then, God proclaimed to the Children of Israel through Moses the same command He gives His last- day remnant church today. Verse 15 declares, (NEXT SLIDE) “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Why do you cry to Me? Tell the children of Israel to GO FORWARD.” When God says, Go Forward, we must Go Forward.(Wilson TNC. “GO FORWARD” General Conference Sabbath Sermon -- July 3, 2010)
This idea of being the remnant church has often been mentioned throughout SDA circles. However, Adventists would be wise to look at the entirety of the scripture that actually mentions that “remnant” term:
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:14-17, KJV)
The term “remnant” is translated as “rest of” in the NKJV, so I quoted the KJV above as that is where the SDA’s have gotten this concept.
But a careful read of the above passages show that there are two churches being mentioned. One that goes to a place of protection in the wilderness and the other “the remnant” that gets persecuted because they do not get protected. The SDAs apparently believe that they are that remnant. And while we in the Continuing Church of God believe we are the leading woman of the Revelation 12:14-16, we do not consider that the SDAs are part of the COG (though some of their members might possibly be).
If the SDAs really did understand prophecy better, they would realize that the Bible praises the group (which are identified as the the Philadelphians in Revelation 3) that gets protected, but that Jesus condemns the two other Christian groups of Revelation 3 (which are mainly the Laodiceans and the remnant of Sardis)who do not get protected. Revelation 12:17 is primarily a reference to the Laodicean Church Era. Those not protected, those that SDAs are hoping to be the remnant of, are part of churches that Jesus condemns in Revelation 3.
Here are some doctrinal similarities of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) and the Continuing Church of God:
There are however, more differences, than similarities.
SDA logo contains a cross:
The CCOG logo, as shown below, does not:
The CCOG is a little flock, The SDA logo includes a cross.
A member of the SDA church asked me to summarize the differences between his church and the Continuing Church of God (CCOG). Here is a list of some of them:
There are other differences, but hopefully this will assist those interested in knowing that.
But, basically, the SDAs are Protestants who differ because of Ellen White, Saturday, and unclean meats. See also Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differs from Protestantism.
The two-horned beast of Revelation 13:11 is NOT the USA (for more on the USA check out the article Anglo - America in Prophecy & the Lost Tribes of Israel), but is the final Antichrist (for more on the Antichrist, check out the article Some Doctrines of Antichrist).
A major difference between the COGs and SDAs is how they view their respective, deceased, major leaders, Herbert W. Armstrong and Ellen White.
Those faithful of us in CCOG do NOT refer to HWA's writings as "Inspiration," yet many of the SDAs refer to Ellen White's writings as "Inspiration." By "Inspiration" SDAs seem to teach that Ellen White's writings should be equal to or even preferred above scripture. That is not a valid position (please see the article Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings).
While there are some in the SDA movement who do not do so, the major position among SDAs seems to be the Ellen White was God's prophetess.
While, we in the Continuing Church of God do acknowledge that some fringe individuals/groups do have a biblically excessive view of Herbert Armstrong--that view is simply that--a fringe view not held by most in the various Church of God groups (more information on Herbert Armstrong can be found in the article Who Was Herbert W. Armstrong? How is He Viewed Today?).
Notice what Herbert W. Armstrong wrote about himself:
Emphatically I am NOT a prophet, in the sense of one to whom God speaks directly, revealing personally a future event to happen or new truth, or new or special instruction from God--separate from, and apart from what is contained in the Bible. And I never have claimed to be (Armstrong Herbert W. Tomorrow's World, June 1972).
Additionally, HWA taught was "Don't believe me. Believe what you see in your own Bible!" And even the Bible says that the Bible is where we are to get doctrine (see II Timothy 3:16). We in CCOG do not accept HWA's writings were they are in conflict with truth.
That is why the CCOG position is correct. Those truly in the genuine Church of God get their beliefs from the Bible, while many of the SDAs seem to prefer the "inspirations" or later understandings of Ellen G. White (more on Mrs. White is shown as Appendix A below on this page).
To learn more about the actual identity of the United States from scripture, you may wish to read the booklet The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy.
For quotes from SDA scholars on what the SDAs once believed and now believe on the Godhead, please see Appendix A at the end of the article titled Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? (it also includes comments from an SDA-related group that has a different view).
For some information discussing SDA/Church of God history and the related split, please see the article The Sardis Church Era (predominant circa 1585 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D.).
Appendix A in this paper discusses some additional concerns about Ellen White's writings, while Appendix B discussed Christmas within the SDA community.
B. Thiel, Ph.D. SDA/COG Differences: Two Horned Beast of Revelation and 666. www.cogwriter.com/ 2024 0603
The following is from a book titled "More than a Prophet" by SDA scholar Graeme Bradford. Note: This scholar is supportive of Ellen G. White and the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The point of showing this information is to point out the fact that SDA leaders have long known about problems with Mrs. White's life and writings.
Anyway, here is some of what SDA scholars acknowledge about Mrs. White:
They still believed in Ellen White, even though they were also aware of weaknesses in her life. And they could have listed them as well:
1. She did have some problems in her marriage. There were times when she and her husband worked apart.116
2. She had problems with her children. She tended to favour Willie as the "good boy." James Edson, the only other of her four sons who survived to adulthood, turned away from the faith, but she won him back and he became a missionary to former slaves in the south of the United States.
3. She often became despondent over the criticism she faced. She could even doubt her own experience in Christ.117
4. She could be forgetful.118
5. She may not have always been as open about her use of other sources as she could have been.119
6. She struggled to give up eating flesh foods and live up to the health counsel she had given to others.120...It can be unsettling for some to come to grips with the fact that there are historical inaccuracies in her writings...In other words, she is not a historian. Rather, she is giving a meaning to history. She is interpreting history for Christians. Today these historical inaccuracies are acknowledged by the White Estate; but this should not a problem for those who have a correct view of her work.158...
This point is made even stronger when we read a letter written to W. W. Prescott from her secretary Clarence E Crisler. In this letter he appeals to Prescott to come to give some help in the work of Ezra (which must have been for writing the book Prophets and Kings). In this letter he makes a list of the problem areas they need help and then says at the end, "I am sure that Sister White would be specially pleased and cheered, if she could know that you were coming soon to help us over hard places."163...
Even in her day, not everyone had this idea clearly in mind and they gave her writings an authority beyond what was appropriate. This could account for the protest that Prescott made to Willie in the year that Ellen White died. "It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use them as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things we know to be untrue. . . .
"The way your mother's writings have been handled and the false impression concerning them which is still fostered among the people have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books, and that no serious effort has been made to disabuse the minds of the people of what was known to be their wrong view concerning her writings. But it is no use to go into these matters. I have talked to you for years about them, but it brings no change. I think however that we are drifting toward a crisis which will come sooner or later and perhaps sooner. A very strong reaction has already set in."164
Adventists Should be Better Informed About Ellen White's Writings
Prescott's letter is indeed a serious one. It seems Willie White and Prescott held to the same ideas regarding how Ellen White's work was produced, their difference lay in the fact that Prescott felt Adventists should be better informed.165 What he says is hinted at in the conversation of the 1919 Bible Conference after-meeting. It seems many Adventists held to a view of verbal inspiration regarding her writings.166 J. N. Anderson asks the question, "Is it well to let our people in general to go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies? When we do that, aren't we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day?"167
Some say that when she states "I saw," her words have special authority. However, we know there were times when she used these words and then quoted from the works of others. It could be that the words "I saw" or "I was shown" mean "she saw" or "was shown" through the study of books. There are even times when she uses the words of authors when describing words she had heard spoken in vision. Ron Graybill, an Associate Secretary of the White Estate, made the following comments in a series of General Conference Worships in 1981.
"Did Mrs White ever borrow when she was reporting a vision? Did she ever say 'I was shown' and then proceed to borrow? The answer to that is 'yes,' although examples of it are not very plentiful. They are quite rare. I know of only three clear and unequivocal examples." 172
(Bradford, Graeme. Excerpt from More than a Prophet. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 151, July 11, 2006).
In other words, some of her inaccuracies and blatant hypocrisy have long been apparent to many Adventist leaders. Also, the fact that all know that she CHANGED the view of the Godhead is clear proof that the SDAs do not hold "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
Perhaps I should add that the late Richard Nickels reported the falseness of at least one of Ellen G. White's "visions":
1856 Vision Proven False
Ellen G. White wrote in her Testimonies for the Church that "At the General Conference at Battle Creek, May 27, 1856, I was shown in vision some things which concern the church generally; . . . I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus'."12
All of the people alive at that conference have died, presenting a serious question as to the authenticity of Mrs. White's visions. (Nickels R. History of the Seventh Day Church of God, Volume I. Chapter IV)
The seven last plagues still have not began, Jesus has still not returned, and all that attended that Conference are dead. This vision was false.
Notice something else that Ellen White taught:
...the Day of Atonement occured on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month (Leviticus 16:29-34)...So it was believed that Christ, out great High Priest, would appear to purify the earth by the destruction of sin and sinners, and to bless His waiting people with immortality. The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the twenty-second of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord’s coming…
“There shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he comes out.” Leviticus 16:17. So when Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, He ceased His ministration in the first apartment. But when the ministration in the first apartment ended, the ministration of the second apartment began. When in the typical service the high priest left the holy on the Day of Atonement, he in before God to present the blood of the sin offering on behalf of all Israel who truly repented of their sins. So Christ has completed only one part of His work as our intercessor, to enter upon another portion of the work, and He still pleaded His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners. (White EGH. The great controversy between Christ and Satan: the conflict of the ages in the Christian dispensation. Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1911, pp. 400, 428-429)
Notice how she is tying her interpretation in with the biblical Day of Atonement. R. Nickels, discussing Ellen White's position, pointed out:
It is a well-documented fact that the Day of Atonement in 1844 fell on September 23, and Atonement can NEVER fall as late as October 22 (Nickels, We Are Sabbath-Keepers, Not Seventh-Day Adventists, p. 8).
In 1844, the Day of Atonement began at sunset September 22 and ran through sunset September 23rd (see http://www.hebcal.com/hebcal/?year=1844&v=1&month=x&yt=G&nh=on&nx=on&o=on&s=on&vis=on&a=on&D=on&d=on&set=on&heb=on&c=off&zip=&m=72).
Thus, Ellen White’s interpretation does not square with what one would expect with the biblical/Hebrerw calendar. But this was her first big “prophetic” insight--and biblically in error.
Also notice this warning from Ellen White:
It is not really wise to have children now. Time is short, the perils of the last days are upon us, and the little children will largely be swept off before this. –Letter 48, 1876 (White E. Last Day Events: Facing Earth's Final Crisis. As printed by Pacific Press Publishing, 2002, p. 36)
As far as I have been able to see, the Adventist children were not “swept off” then as it was not time for “the perils of the last days” that Ellen White discussed in 1876.
Here is another prediction from Ellen White:
Testimonies Volume 1…“January 4, 1862, I was shown some things in regard to our nation…it is all a bitter denunciation of Lincoln’s administration and management of the war. Every move had been wrong and only defeat was prophesied..." (Cornelius J. The Commandments of Men. Xulon Press, 2008, p. 286)
But Lincoln’s side did win that war (granted at a major cost). Thus saying she “was shown” that Lincoln’s side would be defeated is proof that she was not shown by God.
A former SDA sent the following:
I thought you would be interested in the following prophecies from Ellen White that did not come true. They were not conditional. Notice she says she saw and said the angel. That means in a vision. According to Deuteronomy you only need one prophecy to fail to discredit the prophet. I don't know how adventists still believe in her. When referring to her they use the term the spirit of prophecy.
“I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up ...” Early Writings p75
“But now time is almost finished, and what we have been years learning they will have to learn in a few months ...” A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White p55
“... the graves opened ... and in the same moment we were changed and caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air.” The Day Star January 4 1846
“At the conference a very solemn vision was given to me. I saw that some of those present would be food for worms, some subjects for the seven last plagues, and some would be translated to heaven at the second coming of Christ, without seeing death ...” Spiritual Gifts Vol 2 p208
“Said the angel ... when England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion ... this nation will yet be humbled in the dust ...” Testimonies for the Church Vol 1 p259
Note: this nation is referring to the United States. (Email to COGwriter 11/08/16)
But, of course, old Jerusalem has been built up, the time was not almost finished in the 1800s, the SDAs of the 1800s are all dead, and when England declared war (WWI and WWII) the USA was not humbled in the dust, as the allies' side won.
Thus, while Ellen G. White may have correctly stated some events before they occurred, the falseness of many of her "predictions" indicates that she was not truly God's prophetess.
Yet Ellen White claimed:
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 views. They are what God has opened to me in vision-- the precious rays of light shining from the throne (White EGH. Testimonies for the church, Issue 31. Pacific Press, 1882. Original from Columbia University. Digitized Aug 19, 2009, p. 63).
Greco-Roman Catholic "prophets" have also gotten some events correct, but as they have gotten others wrong and contradict the Bible (Do Certain Greco-Roman Catholic Prophecies About Antichrist Warn Against Jesus?), just because a prophet sometimes is correct, does NOT make him or her God's messenger. And since according to Ellen White her "testimonies" were always from God, since they were not always correct, she truly did not represent the true God.
Furthermore, how she sometimes got her visions is an issue. Notice this account of one of her visions by supporter J.N. Loughborough:
While she was in the vision, Elder White and myself were sitting by one side of the bed, and Elder Andrews on the other side. Her hands were alternately clasped over her breast or moved with her arms in her usual graceful manner toward the different scenes she was viewing. The upper portion of her body was raised from the bed so that there was a space of some eight or nine inches between her shoulders and the pillow. In other words, the body from the hips upward was flexed at an angle of about thirty degrees. And in that position she remained during the continuance of the vision, which was thirty minutes. No one could naturally assume that posture, unsupported by hands and arms, much less hold himself there for that length of time. Here again was proof that some power over which she had no control was connected with the vision (Loughborough JN. Rise and progress of the Seventh-day Adventists: with tokens of God's hand in the movement and a brief sketch of the Advent cause from 1831 to 1844. General Conference Association of the Seventh-day Adventists, 1892. Original from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Digitized May 15, 2009, p. 219).
Here is one analysis of this by the late R. Nickels (bolding in source):
The Bible, however, shows that God’s true prophets are never possessed with such a spirit. “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets” (I Corinthians 14:32, NIV). Verse 14 of Romans 8 shows that God’s Spirit leads and does not take over and control us apart from our own will. From her childhood, when she was struck in the head by a rock and was in a coma for days, until later in life, Mrs. White suffered nervous and physical disorders (Nickels R. What Seventh-Day Adventists Should Know About Other Sabbath-keepers, p. 15).
It should be noted that the same cautions hold true for various Greco-Roman Catholic and other mystics. The way many of them claimed to receive their “prophecies” was not biblical.
While the none of the faithful in the COGs celebrate Christmas, many Adventists now do.
We in the genuine Church of God have long cited Jeremiah 10 as proof that Christmas trees are not appropriate for Christians, in the late 1800s Ellen White had a different view:
God would be well pleased if on Christmas, each church would have a Christmas tree on which shall be hung offerings, great and small, for these houses of worship (Ellen White, Review and Herald, Dec. 11, 1879 per http://www.ellenwhite.org/criticg.htm 1/11/07).
Do Adventists know that Christmas is of non-Christian origin? Well certainly many of their leaders do.
For example, SDA Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi wrote:
