In Defense of the Faith

Time Setters?

One of the charges urged by Mr. Canright against the Seventh-day Adventists is that they are “time setters.” He says of them: DOF 314.4

“They set the time for the end of the world in 1843, and failed. They set it again in 1844, and failed.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 79. DOF 314.5

We submit that this constitutes a gross misrepresentation. We have no disposition whatsoever to cover up the fact that some who later became Seventh-day Adventists were in the Miller movement and believed and preached that the end of the world would come in 1844, yet as Mr. Canright well knew, the Seventh-day Adventist movement, which arose subsequently to the 1844 disappointment, has held as one of its basic beliefs from the very outset an interpretation of prophecy that shut out the possibility of setting a time for our Lord’s return and the end of the world. We refer to the interpretation given by Seventh-day Adventists to the prophecy of the 2300 days of the eighth and ninth chapters of Daniel. DOF 315.1

Seventh-day Adventism as a distinctive movement., was not launched until after the disappointment of Miller and his followers in 1844, and therefore this church cannot rightly be charged with the 1844 mistake. DOF 315.2

We would remind the reader that Mr. Canright renounced “Seventh-day Adventism,” and not merely “Adventism” in general, which includes many sects and beliefs. Certain Adventist bodies have set times for the Lord to return, but the Seventh-day Adventists as a body have never done so. DOF 315.3

Mr. Canright knew that he was writing his book against a denomination which had its rise subsequent to the disappointment of 1844, and yet he boldly declares that “they set the time for the end of the world in 1843, and failed. They set it again in 1844, and failed.” DOF 315.4

He challenges Seventh-day Adventists on their denominational view of the heavenly sanctuary, which absolutely precludes time setting, and yet says that they are the time setters, and believe that the earth is the sanctuary. DOF 315.5

The very first statement in Mr. Canright’s book is, half truth and half error, and is therefore calculated to deceive. This appears on page 25, chapter 1, paragraph 1, and in it he says. DOF 316.1

“Seventh-day Adventism originated about fifty years ago in the work of Mr. Miller, who set the time for the end of the world in 1843-44.” DOF 316.2

This opening statement is intended, of course, to brand Seventh-day Adventists as fanatical “time setters,” and thus immediately to create prejudice against them and their teachings. Again on page 76 of his book we read: DOF 316.3

“Miller is responsible for all the time setting done by the Adventists since his time, because they are the legitimate outgrowth of his work. He began setting time. He did it the second time. He taught them how to do it. He fathered the idea. He inculcated it in all his followers. They then simply took up and carried on what he had begun.” DOF 316.4

This is a gross misrepresentation of the work and teachings of Seventh-day Adventists, as anyone who had preached for them for twenty-eight years, as had Mr. Canright, would well know. These statements would indicate that William Miller, who set the time for the return of our Lord in 1844, was the founder of the Seventh day Adventist Church; that Miller and the Seventh-day Adventists believed and taught the same thing; in fact, that it was all one movement, Millerism and Seventh-day Adventism being one and the same thing. No other impression could be received from these words of Mr. Canright, “They... took up and carried on what he had begun,” in the matter of time setting. DOF 316.5

Now let the reader note how quickly Mr. Canright’s fertile mind could change from one side of an argument to another when it served his purpose to do so. A little farther on in his book, where he tries to show how very unpopular Seventh-day Adventists were when their work first started, he speaks of the opposition they had from William Miller, this very man who, in his first chapter, he sets forth as the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. DOF 316.6

“He [Miller] especially points out the Seventh-day Adventist positions as utterly wrong. He knew all about their arguments on the three messages, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, etc., and yet he not only rejected them, but earnestly warned his people against them.... Not a leading man in Miller’s work ever embraced the views of the Seventh-day Adventists.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 78. DOF 317.1

Now, it would be utterly impossible to harmonize these two statements of Mr. Canright’s regarding Miller and his relation to the Seventh-day Adventist movement. In the one Miller is made responsible for what Seventh day Adventists have done, and in the second he as plainly declares that Miller rejected the teaching of Seventh-day Adventists and warned his people against them, and that not a leading man in Miller’s work ever embraced the views of the Seventh-day Adventists. Could two statements possibly be more conflicting? DOF 317.2

The Miller movement, as such, ended with the passing of the time, October 22, 1844, before the Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded. It is true, also, as stated by Mr. Canright, that Mr. Miller, who was still living at the time the work of Seventh-day Adventists began, refused to accept their teachings, and continued on as a member of the Baptist Church till his death. DOF 317.3

Except the doctrine of the imminence of the personal and literal Advent of our Lord, there was practically nothing held in common by the Adventists of Miller’s movement and the Seventh-day Adventists, who, as such, came upon the stage of action after the disappointment. The Seventh-day Adventists believe that the dates worked out. by Miller for the cleansing of the sanctuary in 1844 were correct, but they recognize that he was mistaken as to the event which was to take place on that date. Mr. Miller believed that the sanctuary was the earth; Seventh day Adventists believe it is the place where Christ ministers as High Priest in heaven. DOF 317.4

In common with most other Baptists, Mr. Miller observed Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Sabbath; the Seventh-day Adventists hold that the seventh day should be kept according to the fourth command of the Ten Commandments. DOF 318.1

We understand that Mr. Miller believed in the natural immortality of the soul, and that people go to their reward at death; Seventh-day Adventists believe that man is mortal, that the dead are asleep, unconscious, and that they will not receive their rewards until after the judgment and the resurrection of the dead. DOF 318.2

As already pointed out, a number of those who were associated with Mr. Miller in his work were among those who later became Seventh-day Adventists. But that fact does not make the Seventh-day Adventist Church responsible for Mr. Miller’s unscriptural views. DOF 318.3

If, therefore, Mr. Miller and his followers were not Seventh day Adventists, but were Baptists, Methodists, etc., who believed in the Second Advent, how can it be truthfully said that Seventh-day Adventists are time setters simply because Mr. Miller set the time for the Lord to come? Why not say that the Baptists are time setters, seeing that Mr. Miller was a Baptist and not a Seventh day Adventist? Why should Mr. Canright, a Baptist preacher, try to confuse the issue by shifting the responsibility of time setting from members of his church to the Seventh-day Adventist Church? There could be only one reason-to create prejudice against that church. DOF 318.4

Seventh-day Adventists do believe that our Lord will return in person to this earth, in harmony with His definite promise recorded in John 14:1-3 and Acts 1:9-11. They also believe that the prophetic portions of the Scriptures clearly point to the fact that His coming is near, “even at the doors.” Matthew 24:33. They are attempting, by the grace of God, to prepare their hearts and lives for that great day, and believe they should embrace every opportunity to encourage others to do likewise; but never has the Seventh-day Adventist denomination fixed a date for our Lord’s return. DOF 319.1

Mr. Canright says on page 75 of his work that Elder James White, who became a strong leader in the Seventh day Adventist Church, was associated with Mr. Miller, and engaged in preaching a definite time for the Lord to come. Of course this is true. Elder James White was in the Miller movement, and ardently believed in Miller’s teachings. But it should be understood that Elder White was then a member of the Christian Church. He had not yet become a Seventh-day Adventist. DOF 319.2

That some lone individual or minister who became a Seventh day Adventist should have clung for a little period to the idea of time setting would be expected in the very nature of the case. And the citing of some such individual is no valid indictment of the denomination. DOF 319.3

But there is no need that we make further answer to this time setting charge, for Mr. Canright himself, in his book The Lords Day, which he wrote subsequently to his Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, makes this sweeping admission: DOF 320.1

“To their credit it should be said that Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in setting time definitely since 1844.”—The Lords Day, p. 38. DOF 320.2

Now, since there were no Seventh-day Adventists before the end of 1844, and since, as Mr. Canright admits, they “do not believe in setting time definitely since 1844.” We submit that they are not time setters at all. DOF 320.3