This is an important topic, because if October 22 1844 was a meaningless date in the biblical calendar, then it ruins the whole Adventist theological system.  They got it wrong the first time round, predicting the return of Christ, but they never gave up on the date.  They should.


One of the major reasons why they cannot discard this date is that a prophet of their church has stated that this was the date.  Either they have to acknowledge her error, or they have to stick to their non-date.  To do so, they pretended that the Karaite Jews used this date.

Karaite statements from Truth or Fables:


Documentary evidence from the time confirms this.

For more info, see Day of Atonement of the Karaite Jews in 1844 and When Was the Day of Atonement in 1844? on the Truth or Fables website.

A second century icon of Ellen White was recently discovered in an ancient Adventist church.  The mosaic icon has been very well preserved.  The writing in the halo says Ellen White in Greek, and the number in Roman numerals is 1844.

I've always been told by Adventists that the early Christians were truly Adventist.  Even Enoch was an Adventist.

"Enoch was an Adventist." - Signs of the Times, Oct. 12, 1904

"In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit" [i.e. the writings of Ellen White] (Testimonies, Vol. 4, p. 148; Vol. 5., p. 661)

If you want to know how many days it has been since the return of Christ on October 22, 1844, click here.  This blog makes it easy for us keeps track of that important event.

Fascinating.  Ellen White writes about her alcohol addiction on her blog.

Adventism's prophetess, Ellen White, has her very own blog, called Ask Ellen.

On it she clarifies important issues, providing wisdom from her writings that applies to questions asked of her.

Should we kneel when we pray?  Did the Ark of the Covenant contain almonds and pomegranates?  Whatever question you have, Ellen White's writings, also known as the Pen of Inspiration, or the Spirit of Prophecy, will have the answers.

Why not ask her yourself?  Her blog is now there so that all mankind may learn at her feet.

Off Gilbert's blog, a quote from Ellen White.

He took humanity upon Him, but He did not leave His divinity; He clothed His divinity with humanity. He took humanity upon Himself in order to carry humanity through that commandment-keeping people to give the testimony to the whole universe of heaven. He stood in humanity to bear all the battles and conflicts as our Head, thus elevating with God every human being on the face of the earth. Now, Christ took humanity that humanity might take His divinity. He took our nature that He might give to human nature His nature. He has passed over the place where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam’s fall. Every reasoning power, every particle of discernment, discrimination, every action of the mind that God has given man, exercise it and not be like a leaf that can be blown by every wind hither and thither. {2SAT 126.2}

Interestingly, that sounds similar to the doctrine of Theosis, taught by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Western Catholicism doesn't give it much attention as far as the use of the term divinisation goes, and the Eastern part carries it over from their Orthodox heritage.  If you see a difference between divinisation and deification, Theosis refers to the former ... some people see a difference, some people consider them perfect synonyms.  See below - probably equivalent to the Protestant concept of sanctification.

The Christianity Today magazine, more than 10 years ago (I was in school), analysed the Theosis belief, and considered it to be acceptable in terms of Evangelical Protestantism.  It compared it to the Mormon concepts of man becoming gods, and the Armstrongite concept of "we will become God as God is God" and called both of those heretical.

A few quotes from Wikipedia -

St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." His statement indicates the concept beautifully. What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God.

... For many fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in his person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Orthodox theologians [and Catholic theologians: SK] go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

... It is, therefore, misleading to attribute to Eastern Orthodoxy a special insight into the possibility of union with God: from a western point of view, the theological difference between east and west is somewhat rhetorical. But there is also a slight difference in that what theosis actually means. In West there is a tendence to see theosis as mere union (purgation, illumination and union as model for deification), which is a half truth.

... Most Protestants do not believe in Christian perfection as Wesley described it and most Protestants also do not use the term theosis at all, though they may perhaps refer to a similar concept by the term sanctification.

The Wild Things of God is a nice site as well.  It has several links to Protestant and Catholic equivalent teachings ... although the Wikipedia article mentions that Catholicism rejected Wesley's idea of Christian Perfection, but didn't reject Theosis.  If you try to get to the Methodist link, it won't work, but it's archived here.

Probably the best page is on the My Coptic Church site - there are several pages on Theosis.  Perhaps the most relevant is "What Theosis is not"

Unfortunately their links are a bit wonky, and you need to convert it manually it - stick "/read.asp?f=spiritual/" between "articles" and the html page name.  (The proper links are found on the page http://mycopticchurch.com/articles/ if you don't want to manually convert them.)

The intro of "What Theosis is not" says:

The Church Fathers distinguish between the nature or essence of God and His energies. The nature of God is both participable and unparticipable. It is participable in the uncreated energies but not in its essence. Thus, theosis is not participation in the divine essence. For if we could unite with God's essence, as Vladimir Lossky states, we would cease to be creatures and God would be not a Trinity of Persons, but would have as many hypostases as there are persons participating in His essence. Thus, unity with God in theosis is not pantheism, which believes that everything is God.

St. Gregory Palamas delineates as follows between the essence of God and His energies: "God in His completeness deifies those who are worthy of this, by uniting Himself with them, not hypostatically - that belonged to Christ alone - not essentially, but through a small part of the uncreated energies ... while yet being entirely present in each."

What Ellen White meant, I don't know.  She may have meant something along the lines of Theosis ... she may have meant something along the lines of us becoming God "as God is God" which was later explicitly taught by Herbert Armstrong, whose church derives its roots from Adventism's sister church, Church of God Seventh Day (or something like that - there are were Church of God, Seventh Day, Church of God, 7th Day, 7th Day Church of God, Seventh Day Church of God, and all were different denominations, 3 derived from Armstrong, and one a pre-Armstrong Millerite sibling of Adventism.)  If such a concept were already present, even implicitly, in Millerism, it may have been the source that Herbert Armstrong got it from.

Adventism must decide if it's going to take the side of 7th-day Sabbatarians or Catholics on this one.

Gilbert Jorgensen has a truly amazing blog that deals primarily with Ellen White and her writings and teachings.

The main blog page is here.  It's fairly new.

There are several important issues that have already been addressed - most notably a 20 part series on the 1844 issue.  It should be read by all enquiring Adventists.

The Key to Understanding 1844 (only part 1 is linked.)

Also of note is that Ellen White supported the Millerite teaching regarding the return of Christ in 1843 AD.  In fact, God confirmed this to her.  The fact that 1843 came and went (and they moved the date to 1844, which came and went) shows that what she claimed was from God, was not from God.

Likewise with many of her teachings, visions, prophecies, etc.

More absurdities from Adventist prophetess Ellen White:

In her book, An Appeal to Mothers, p. 27, she gives this information concerning masturbation:

Females possess less vital force than the other sex, and are deprived very
much of the bracing, invigorating air, by their in-doors life. The results
of self-abuse in them is seen in various diseases, such as catarrh, dropsy,
headache, loss of memory and sight, great weakness in the back and loins,
affections of the spine, the head often decays inwardly. Cancerous humor,
which would lay dormant in the system their life-time, is inflamed, and
commences its eating, destructive work. The mind is often utterly ruined,
and insanity takes place.

Note that she is inspired, with no difference in quality or degree of
inspiration to that of the Bible:

We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her
writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative,
especially to Seventh-day Adventists. ... We do not believe that the quality
or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from
that of Scripture.

Join the discussion at alt.religion.christian.adventist.

Please pray for the failure of a legal harrassment programme against The Ellen White Research Project, a website that is a huge source of information on the Adventist prophetess Ellen White.

I recommend you visit The Ellen White Research Project and see the vast amount of info there is.  Run by Dirk Anderson, I think it's the best online resource for information on her erroneous teachings.

I received this information via Robert Sanders' website, Truth or Fables, another excellent resource on Adventism and their prophetess.

The following is what was sent out by e-mail - posted with Dirk's permission:

Supporters of ellenwhite.org:

I want to give you a quick update of the latest news. The White Estate has
stepped up their campaign of legal harrassment in an attempt to interfere
with our work and syphon away our resources from our mission to reveal the
truth about Ellen White. They have fired the first salvo in what appears to
be the beginning of a legal battle over our right to use the name "Ellen
White" in our domain. Their attorneys have filed a complaint with our domain
name registration service claiming that they have a right to our domain
name.

It is interesting to note that the Estate has taken no action against the
other "Ellen White" web sites out there that have a pro-Ellen White slant.
Their assault is clearly directed against us because of our message.

I have two things to ask of you. First and foremost, pray for our victory.
When you consider the SDA church is a multi-billion dollar organization with
deep pockets and plenty of high-paid lawyers, this is truly a case of David
against Goliath. So we need your sincere prayers for victory.

Second, because of the legal attack we have had to retain an attorney who
specializes in internet law. As you know, we have not asked for nor received
any money for the operation of this web site in the 9+ years of its
existence. However, if you feel led to help us out in building up a legal
defense fund, we need your help now. We need to raise $1000 to cover
attorney fees for the short term.

Life Assurance Ministries will be managing our legal defense fund, and here
is the contact information:

Life Assurance Ministries
PO Box 11587
Glendale, AZ 85318

email: dale@ratzlaf.com
Phone: 623-572-9549

Thanks so much for your support! I've poured my whole life into this project
and it means a lot to me to have others stand with me at a time like this.

God bless,
Dirk Anderson
http://www.ellenwhite.org

A clarifying quote from the News section on Dale Ratzlaf's site:

For people who wish to send a check for the Legal Defense Fund for ellenwhite.org, you may send it to LAM Publications, LLC P.O. Box 11587, Glendale AZ 85318. Please note that this donation may NOT be tax deductible at this time. However, if the board of LAM, Inc. accepts this project, then all donations for this project will be tax deductible.

A further shocking statement from the same page:

We understand that the White Estate (or General Conference) has secured the services of a Catholic attorney to do this. Please pray that God's will be done. This site has some 800 pages of FACTUAL material on Ellen White that has helped many thousands of Adventists find the truth about the "White lie".

Somewhat hypocritical of the White Estate, I'd say.  Adventism is notoriously anti-Catholic, and promotes huge volumes of dishonest anti-Catholic propaganda.  The White Estate and the writings of Ellen White are especially so, being on the right wing of Adventism.  Now they are getting a Catholic to do their dirty work.  This is a shame.  He has the right to choose what work he takes and what work he does not take.  Maybe he just doesn't know what the White Estate is promoting, and that he has taken up a religious cause contrary to his Catholic and Christian faith.

"As God has shown me in holy vision ... we heard the voice of God like many
waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus' coming" (Ellen White, Early Writings, pp. 15, 34, 285).

(Mat 24:36 KJV)  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

(Mat 25:13 KJV)  Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Michael Scheifler has a “rebuttalâ€? on his website to something I wrote.  He claims that the pope who changed the Sabbath to Sunday was Pope Sylvester I.

In light of the teachings of Ellen White, and in light of history – as taught by real historians – this cannot be seen as more than a failed attempt to make the argument seem viable.  But it is not.

From Ellen White:

"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798." (Great Controversy, p266, 1888 edition.)

"This period, as stated in the preceding chapters, began with the establishment of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time, when the papacy was abolished and the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, 'He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity." (Great Controversy, p439, 1888 edition)

If the papacy was established in 538 AD (EGWs words were changed in later editions to cover up that mistake) then Sylvester could not have been a pope.

Samuele Bacchiocchi writes on the origin of Sunday and Ellen White:

What is problematic is the impression many people get from EGW's statements that the Sabbath was observed "by all Christians . . . in the first centuries" until "the early part of the fourth century [when] the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public holiday." (pp. 52-53) ... The earliest documents mentioning Sunday worship go back to Barnabas in 135 and Justin Martyr in 150. Thus, it is evident that Sunday worship was already established by the middle of the second century. This means that to be historically accurate the term "centuries" should be changed to the singular "century." - End Time Issues, #87

More from Ellen White:

"It was on behalf of Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims; and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" (Great Controversy, p447)

"Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival [day of the Sun] attained its position of honor in the Christian world." (Great Controversy, p574)

And Dr Bacchiocchi's rebuttal:

Both statements just cited are inaccurate, because the secular power of the state did not influence or compel Christians to adopt Sunday during the second and third centuries. At that time the Roman emperors were rather hostile toward Christianity. They were more interested to suppress Christianity than to support church leaders in their promotion of Sunday worship. The bishop of Rome could not have resorted to "the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" Eventually, beginning with the fourth century, some Roman emperors actively supported the agenda of the church, but this was long after the establishment of Sunday observance. - End Time Issues, #87

Bacchiocchi is presenting a more realistic view of the history of Sunday observance than Ellen White did.  No educated historian takes the claim that the pope change the Sabbath seriously.  The fact is that Sunday was kept by Christians long before Sylvester, long before Constantine.

Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD: let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week.
- Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.

The Epistle of Barnabas, 70-120 AD: Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven.
- The Epistle of Barnabas, section 15, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147

Justin Martyr, 150 AD: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead.
- First apology of Justin, Ch 68

This Pope Sylvester thing is a rather desperate attempt to salvage a claim which should have been abandoned long ago.  All it does today is make people laugh at those who suggest it, and when those who believe it realise they have been duped, they will realise that the whole system is based on such misinformation.  I didn't think that this is what Adventism wants ... but for some, their traditions seem more important than admitting the facts and moving on to a more productive Christianity.