In Defense of the Faith

The Shut-Door Question

Mr. Canright launches a thrust against the Seventh day Adventists, and particularly against Mrs. E. G. White, because for some time after the disappointment of 1844 they believed in the “shut-door” theory, that is, that probation for sinners had closed. DOF 361.2

Everybody acknowledges that the followers of William Miller believed Jesus was coming in 1844. And believing that, how could they have thought otherwise than that probation for the whole world would close at that time? That Mrs. White and her associates at one time believed thus we do not deny. Indeed, she herself frankly admits that fact. DOF 361.3

Prof. M. L. Andreasen, general field secretary of the General Conference, contributes under date of January 17, 1933, this word confirming the statement made by B. J. Canright: DOF 361.4

“I was one of the guards of honor when the body of Mrs. E. G. White lay in state in the Tabernacle in Battle Creek, Michigan, and was on duty at the time Mr. Canright approached the casket. I heard the above words uttered by Mr. D. M. Canright, and testify to their correctness.” DOF 361.5

(Signed) “M. L. Andreasen.”

In the troubled period that immediately followed 1844, when they were endeavoring to understand the prophecies more fully in order to discover where their mistake was, various views were set forth by different leaders of the former Advent body. A full knowledge of God’s truth did not come in a day, nor even in a year. But gradually, as they continued to study the Bible, mistakes of interpretation were discovered. It was seen that while Christ’s coming is indeed near, “even at the doors,” the day and the hour of that coming are not revealed in the Scriptures, and that the task before them was a worldwide one of preaching that soon-coming Advent to “every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.” DOF 362.1

Their view concerning those who could still be saved was broadened as God’s plan for these last days became clear to their minds. God did not see fit to make them incapable of any error in their early endeavors to learn what the Bible taught regarding the Advent. God has never seen fit to do that. DOF 362.2

The disciples of Christ had to pass through a period of sadly mistaken ideas regarding Christ’s first advent and the number who were to be afforded opportunity for salvation. They thought that Christ would set up His kingdom on the earth at that time. They held this view even after the resurrection, so wrongly had they interpreted the prophecies regarding the Savior. And when they began to preach the gospel they so definitely held that it was only for Israel that they took Peter to task for preaching to the Gentiles. Peter himself had gone to preach to them only after the Lord had specifically instructed him to go. And when Peter related how the Holy Ghost had fallen upon the Gentiles, the apostles exclaimed with mingled surprise and joy, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Acts 11:18. According to the chronology in the margin of the Bible, this particular preaching by Peter occurred about eight years after the apostles began to proclaim the gospel message of a risen Christ! DOF 362.3

We may regret that they, the pioneers of the Christian religion, were so “slow of heart” to understand God’s purposes regarding the first advent of Christ and the founding of the Christian religion; we may even marvel that those men who had been tutored by Christ Himself for three years did not more quickly learn, yet we find in all this no reason for doubt as to the divine origin of Christianity or the divine guidance of the apostles. Then why should anyone attempt to frame a charge against the Second Advent Movement simply because the pioneers of that movement held at first a faulty and limited view of the Second Advent of Christ? DOF 363.1

“But,” someone will say, “we will grant that no charge should be brought against the Seventh-day Adventist denomination because the pioneers in general held, for a time, the belief that their message was only for a limited number, and that the probation of the world at large was closed. But Mr. Canright brings the more serious charge that Mrs. E. G. White, whom you declare had the prophetic gift, also believed and taught for a time those same faulty views regarding the close of probation. How do you answer this?” DOF 363.2

We would answer by dividing the inquiry into two parts: First, did Mrs. White believe, in common with other pioneers, the faulty view of the Second Advent doctrine regarding the close of probation and the salvation of sinners? We answer, Yes, even as the apostles, whom God used to write much of the New Testament, held, for a time, faulty ideas regarding the first advent and the salvation of sinners; second, did Mrs. White, in those writings that she declared were revelations from God given in vision, set forth a wrong view of the close of probation, or the “shut door,” as it was called? To this last question, which is the only one that has any proper bearing on the claim of divine leadership in the Seventh day Adventist movement, we answer emphatically, No. DOF 363.3

Away back in 1874 Mrs. White wrote in a letter an answer to the very charge we are examining. The portion of her letter dealing with this matter is here reproduced: DOF 364.1

“Battle Creek, Mich.,

Aug. 24,1874.

“Dear Bro. Loughborough:

“I hereby testify in the fear of God that the charges of Miles Grant, of Mrs. Burdick, and others published in the Crisis is not true. The statements in reference to my course in forty-four [1844] is false. DOF 364.2

“With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four I did believe no more sinners would be converted.—But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and free to state no one has ever heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them in the charges they have made against me upon this point. DOF 364.3

“It was on my first journey east to relate my visions that the precious light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary was opened before me and I was shown the open and shut door. We believed that the Lord was soon to come in the clouds of heaven. I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it. Our brethren could not understand this with our faith in the immediate appearing of Christ. Some accused me of saying my Lord delays His coming, especially the fanatical ones. I saw that in ‘44 God had opened a door and no man could shut it and shut a door and no man could open it. Those who rejected the light which was brought to the world by the message of the second angel went into darkness, and how great was that darkness. DOF 364.4

“I never have stated or written that the world was doomed or damned. I never have under any circumstances used this language to any one, however sinful. I have ever had messages of reproof for those who used these harsh expressions.” DOF 365.1

Turning to a more detailed statement concerning Mrs. White’s teachings in the early days of the movement, we find these facts, as set forth by A. G. Daniells, who has made an exhaustive study of her writings: DOF 365.2

“So far as I can learn from the documents in our possession, I have given the correct citation to everything that came from the pen of Mrs. White from 1844 to the dose of 1851, and I have given every line of her statements regarding the shut door and the close of probation questions. Here is what we find: DOF 365.3

“1. That during that period of six years there were printed in various forms twenty-five separate messages, articles, and letters from the pen of Mrs. E. G. White. DOF 365.4

“2. That in only five articles or letters of this number is there any reference made to the shut door and the close of probation. DOF 365.5

“3. That in not one of the five references to the shut door does Mrs. White state that the door of the second apartment of the sanctuary in which Christ ministers as High Priest or Mediator for a lost world, was closed in 1844. Nor does she once state that there was no salvation for any sinners after 1844. DOF 365.6

“4. That in all that was printed from the pen of Mrs. White during the eight years-1844 to 1851 we find three statements so worded that two different and conflicting interpretations can be placed upon them. But this is not to be counted as strange, for we find the same perplexity in certain passages of Scripture. The views here maintained make the statements harmonious with the general tenor of the messages of which they are parts, and with all the rest of her printed messages. DOF 365.7

“The writer believes that any one who will study this subject impartially, with only the desire to arrive at the truth, must come to the conclusion that while the early Adventists-i.e., those who were disappointed in 1844 believed for a time that probation closed on the tenth day of the seventh month, and even if Mrs. E. G. White for a time shared personally this view in common with those with whom she associated, there is no evidence to show that she ever put it forth as revealed to her from the Lord. The statements relied upon by spine to show this, do not prove it. And it is certain that other things she wrote between 1844 and 1851 are entirely inconsistent with such a view.” DOF 366.1

We would call the reader’s particular attention to the last sentence of this quotation. During the very years that she wrote certain statements which opponents have insisted must be understood as teaching a false view of probation, she also wrote certain other statements that are entirely inconsistent with this false view. But to her opponents this can mean simply that her writings contain not only errors but contradictions. Yet those very opponents, in meeting the Bible skeptic’s charge of errors and contradictions, would contend that if the skeptic was only willing to place another interpretation on certain Bible statements, the supposed errors would vanish and also the contradictions. And their contention would be just. On this very principle that a writer’s statements should, if possible, be interpreted so as to be harmonious one with the other, we remove the. majority of the so-called contradictions and difficulties of the Bible. And this principle is a sound one to employ, not simply on the Bible, but on any literary work. Is there any just reason why we should not invoke it in examining the writings of Mrs. White? When we do, the charges against her collapse. DOF 366.2