Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Early Thinking of Sabbathkeeping Adventists

The thinking of our pioneers on the shut door immediately following 1844 may be summarized in a series of questions: EGWC 179.2

Was not the whole world lying in sin? Had not even the Protestant churches become Babylon by willfully rejecting the message of the personal coming of Christ? Had not the great Adventist company come out from the fallen churches in 1844 in response to the Bible command, “Come out of her, my people”? Were not all these believers in the Advent, who had not only come out from the fallen churches but had sacrificed and labored for the cause under bitter ridicule, God’s special people? Had not the cleansing of the sanctuary begun, the final work of our great High Priest in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary? And did He not go into that apartment, in fulfillment of the ancient types, carrying on His breastplate the names of only the twelve tribes of Israel? And were not the Advent believers the spiritual Israel of God in the last days? EGWC 179.3

Furthermore, they were sure the door of the parable was shut. And had they not been taught in the Millerite movement that the closing of the door meant the end of probation? EGWC 179.4

Any hesitancy they might have in believing that the world, by rejecting the doctrine of Christ’s personal coming, had sinned away their day of grace, seemed to be overcome as they thought of the scoffing, jeering fashion in which the public had treated the Advent message. As already stated, in the days preceding October, 1844, many church members, as well as non-Christians, made open mockery of the whole idea of a personal coming of Christ. And immediately after October 22 the ribald abandon of many of these scoffers seemed to prove that they had done despite to the Spirit of God, and thus sinned away their day of grace. William Miller, writing to a friend shortly after the great disappointment, thus describes what happened immediately after October 22 had passed: EGWC 180.1

“It passed. And the next day it seemed as though all the demons from the bottomless pit were let loose upon us. The same ones and many more who were crying for mercy two days before, were now mixed with the rabble and mocking, scoffing, and threatening in a most blasphemous manner.”—Manuscript letter to I. O. Orr, M.D., Dec. 13, 1844. EGWC 180.2

On November 29, 1844, Miller wrote a letter to a fellow Millerite leader, I. E. Jones, in which he discusses the mood of the public, and offers his conviction concerning their having sinned against the Holy Ghost. He speaks of “the most violent mobs” that had attacked the Millerite meetings. These mobs, in some instances, at least, must have been constituted of churchgoers, for Miller remarks: “Yet in no case have the nominal churches dealt with their brethren for such an offence.” Then he adds, regarding the mockers: EGWC 180.3

“For some time in October they crowded our house night and day; but now ‘there is room enough.’ The trap is laid for them, they appear to know that Christ will never come. They that were crying for mercy a few days since, are now scoffing and mocking us, and ridiculing each others fears. Even some old professors are worse than the world. Have not such individuals sinned against the Holy Ghost?”—Advent Herald, Dec. 25, 1844, p. 154. EGWC 180.4

We give these two statements by Miller to show that it was not simply the little Sabbathkeeping segment of Adventists who felt that the ungodly and blasphemous actions of many persons indicated that they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, and thus had moved beyond the pale of salvation. Whether Miller and the large group of Adventists that he represented opened the door of mercy again to such outright blasphemers is not clear from the record, and is not relevant to this sketch. What is relevant is the fact of the blasphemous speech and actions of a certain segment of the population, and the further fact that, for a little while, the Sabbathkeeping Adventists considered this blasphemous conduct as typical of the mood of the world and, therefore, weighty evidence that probation had closed for the world. In the virtual absence of documentary evidence in the earliest years after 1844, we can hardly dogmatize on the relative force that they attached to their different reasons for thinking that probation had closed. It is not hard to conclude, however, that this very commonly displayed blasphemous conduct was one of the most weighty of the reasons that controlled their thinking. EGWC 180.5