This paper provides a critical theological and historical examination of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) movement, with particular focus on the prophetic claims of Ellen G. White and the denomination’s doctrinal distinctives. Beginning with the historical roots of the SDA church in the Millerite movement and the subsequent Great Disappointment of 1844, the study explores how Ellen White’s visions shaped the trajectory of the movement and established her as its prophetic authority. The analysis identifies parallels between SDA teachings and ancient heresies such as legalism, Gnosticism, and Arianism, assessing them against the standards of biblical orthodoxy and early church tradition.

Through scriptural exegesis and historical contextualization, the paper challenges core SDA doctrines including the Investigative Judgment, Sabbath legalism, the scapegoating of Satan as sin-bearer, and the human nature of Christ. It further addresses Ellen White’s controversial visionary experiences, doctrinal inconsistencies, and documented instances of plagiarism, evaluating their implications for her prophetic legitimacy. Drawing from psychological and sociological frameworks, the study also considers the cognitive and communal mechanisms that sustained belief in her authority. Ultimately, this paper contends that the SDA church perpetuates a system of belief that compromises the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the authority of Scripture, urging a return to gospel-centered orthodoxy.

INTRODUCTION

What I’m about to present may be hard for some to hear, especially if you know me in person.  What do I mean? Before I jump into this, I want to note that I grew up in the Seventh-Day Adventist church, but I don’t associate myself with that denomination any more.  I’ve wanted for some time now, to put this article out – but wanted to make sure it was just right.  And that takes time and prayer.  For anyone who wants to read the document I’ll be presenting in full, as it is written, I’ll have a link to it in the description below.  You can fact check me and everything I say on your own.  In fact, In encourage it.  So read through until the end and let me know if you feel I’ve made a mistake.

This article is for anyone wondering about the Seventh-Day Adventist church, and even more so to those who are IN the SDA church.  If that’s you, pay close attention.  This is a serious matter and one I don’t take lightly.  The words I’m about to say weigh heavily on my heart, both because I have many friends in the SDA church, and also because I know that there are those out there, even possibly family members, who will cut me off when they see this article.  My prayer for each of you is that these words find their way into your heart.   If you are not a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist church, but have friends who are – share this with them.  Be kind to those who are in the SDA church and understand that the Holy Spirit is working within everyone to bring the light to them, each as they need and each at the most appropriate time.  To each of us patience is required – Truth can feel brutal to some – yet welcoming to others.  If it feels harsh or pointed at you, then take that as a sign to re-evaluate your beliefs.  Please keep that in mind as we go through this session.

So let’s get started.

1. Importance of Understanding Historical Errors and Heresies

Understanding historical heresies is essential for maintaining doctrinal integrity within the Christian faith. Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 asserts that “there is nothing new under the sun,” reflecting a biblical recognition that human errors, including theological errors, repeat themselves throughout history. Similarly, philosopher George Santayana famously stated, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” underscoring the significance of historical awareness in preventing the recurrence of past mistakes (Santayana, 1905). This perspective highlights the importance of studying historical theological controversies to safeguard contemporary churches from reintroducing ancient doctrinal errors.

Throughout church history, heresies have often arisen in cyclical patterns, manifesting repeatedly in varying forms across different periods. For example, Arianism, an early heresy denying Christ’s full divinity, resurfaced prominently in the teachings of modern groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses (Kelly, 1978). Understanding these cyclical patterns allows the modern church to anticipate and counteract similar doctrinal deviations effectively, using historical precedents as valuable points of reference.

Moreover, ignorance of historical heresies has frequently led churches to unknowingly embrace flawed teachings, weakening doctrinal foundations and spiritual health. As Pelikan (1971) asserts, each generation faces the challenge of maintaining fidelity to orthodox teachings amidst cultural and ideological pressures. Therefore, a thorough knowledge of church history and past heresies equips believers with the discernment necessary to uphold doctrinal purity and resist theological errors effectively.

1. Importance of Church History in Understanding Heresies

Church history is instrumental in identifying recurring theological errors, equipping believers with a critical framework to discern and counter contemporary doctrinal deviations. Heresies throughout history have often reemerged under new guises, revealing persistent vulnerabilities within Christian communities. Recognizing these patterns through a thorough historical examination helps contemporary Christians defend orthodox doctrine proactively (Pelikan, 1971). For instance, the Apostle Paul cautioned against repeated doctrinal errors, emphasizing that false teachings continuously threaten the church (Galatians 1:6-9).

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

Historically, five dominant categories of heresies have emerged, repeatedly confronting orthodox Christianity: Legalism (Judaizing heresies), Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism, and Socinianism. Each of these has profoundly impacted Christian doctrine, prompting formal theological clarifications and creedal affirmations in response (Kelly, 1978). The early church councils, such as Nicaea (325 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD), directly addressed heresies like Arianism and clarified essential Christian doctrines such as the divinity and humanity of Christ.

Legalism, notably Judaizing heresies, emerged prominently in the early church, advocating that Gentile believers needed to adhere strictly to Mosaic Law, including circumcision and dietary restrictions, as prerequisites for salvation. This heresy fundamentally challenged the doctrine of justification by faith alone, prompting a robust response from the Apostle Paul, particularly in his epistles to the Galatians and Romans (Galatians 2:16).  “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

Gnosticism arose as a complex and diverse movement characterized by its assertion that salvation requires special hidden knowledge (gnosis), accessible only to a select enlightened few. This belief system typically involved a dualistic view of the material and spiritual worlds, often devaluing physical creation and claiming a higher spiritual revelation beyond Scripture, thus undermining the authority and sufficiency of biblical texts.

Arianism, named after its proponent Arius, argued that Jesus Christ was a created being, not co-eternal or consubstantial with the Father, thus directly challenging the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s divinity. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) decisively refuted this heresy by affirming Christ’s full deity and equality with the Father.

Socinianism, originating with Faustus Socinus, placed human reason above scriptural authority, rejecting key orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, and substitutionary atonement. Socinians believed that the Bible should be interpreted strictly through rationalistic and naturalistic frameworks, significantly undermining traditional Christian teachings and the supernatural aspects of the faith.

Contemporary religious movements frequently reflect these ancient heresies. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, revive Arianism by denying Christ’s full deity, presenting Him instead as a created being (Rhodes, 2001). Mormonism and Christian Science perpetuate Gnostic elements, emphasizing hidden knowledge or additional revelations necessary for understanding salvation. Charles Finney and subsequent theological movements, such as certain streams within modern Pentecostalism, echo Pelagianism by minimizing original sin and overemphasizing human free will in salvation. Lastly, liberal theology and Unitarianism exemplify Socinianism by placing human reason above scriptural authority, thereby undermining fundamental biblical doctrines (Olson, 1999).

1. Contemporary Church Vulnerability

The contemporary evangelical church faces a growing vulnerability due to a prevalent disregard for doctrinal purity. This shift away from doctrinal precision is partly attributed to the influences of postmodern thought, which emphasizes subjective interpretations of truth and relativizes historical theological commitments (Grenz, 1996). The abandonment of fundamentalism, with its staunch defense of essential doctrines, coupled with disillusionment toward modernism, which prioritized human reason and empirical evidence, has left many evangelical communities without firm doctrinal anchors (Carson, 2005).

In contemporary evangelical circles, there is a notable prioritization of orthopraxy (right practice) over orthodoxy (right belief), a stance suggesting that how one acts or feels spiritually holds greater importance than what one doctrinally affirms. This attitude aligns with the postmodern emphasis on personal experience and pragmatic spirituality, often at the expense of established doctrinal truths. The Apostle Paul explicitly warned against such tendencies, emphasizing the crucial nature of sound doctrine for spiritual health and church stability (2 Timothy 4:3-4).  “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”

The prioritization of practice over doctrine renders evangelical communities especially susceptible to historical heresies. Without clear doctrinal boundaries and historical awareness, modern churches risk reintroducing ancient theological errors inadvertently. Horton (2008) notes that contemporary evangelicalism’s doctrinal ambivalence has resulted in repeated patterns of adopting theological innovations without discernment, reflecting historical cycles of doctrinal corruption. Similarly, Mohler (2004) argues that evangelicalism’s increasing doctrinal laxity and accommodation of cultural trends significantly compromise the church’s theological integrity, leaving it vulnerable to longstanding errors.

1. Two Prominent Heresies Affecting Seventh-day Adventism

Legalism (Judaizers)

The Judaizers were an influential group in the early Christian community who insisted that Gentile believers adhere strictly to the ceremonial Mosaic Law, including circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance, as prerequisites for salvation. Their teaching directly opposed the doctrine of justification by faith alone, suggesting that faith in Christ was insufficient without the addition of ceremonial law adherence (Longenecker, 1990). This legalistic approach challenged the fundamental nature of the gospel, proposing a works-based righteousness contrary to the message of grace.

The Apostle Paul confronted this legalism robustly, particularly in his letters to the Galatians and Romans. In Galatians, Paul explicitly warns against the dangers of legalism, asserting that justification comes exclusively through faith in Jesus Christ, not through adherence to the law (Galatians 2:16). Paul’s confrontation with Peter over this issue, detailed in Galatians 2:11-14, underscores the serious threat legalism posed to the unity and doctrinal purity of the early church.

Galatians 2:11-14 – “But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.  And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.  But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Legalism’s doctrinal significance lies in its undermining of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. By insisting on the necessity of law observance for salvation, Judaizers effectively nullified the grace of God and implied that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient (Galatians 2:21). This shift from grace-based to works-based righteousness drastically alters the gospel message, leading believers away from true spiritual freedom into bondage.

Galatians 2:21 – “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”

The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 decisively addressed the Judaizer controversy. Convened to resolve the dispute regarding Gentile believers and the Mosaic Law, the Council ruled that Gentiles were not obligated to follow the ceremonial law to attain salvation, affirming salvation by grace alone through faith alone (Acts 15:10-11). This council set a significant precedent, establishing doctrinal clarity and safeguarding the purity of the gospel message within the early church.

Acts 15:10-11 – “Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?  But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Despite the clear condemnation of legalism by early church leadership, legalistic tendencies have persisted throughout church history. Groups like Seventh-day Adventists continue to emphasize adherence to specific Mosaic laws, notably Sabbath observance, as essential aspects of Christian identity and practice, echoing the historical Judaizer controversy (Knight, 2000). This persistence reveals the ongoing allure of legalistic frameworks in providing tangible measures of religious observance and spiritual identity.

Mysticism (Gnosticism)

Gnosticism emerged prominently in the early centuries of Christianity, characterized by its complex blend of Christian terminology with esoteric and philosophical teachings. The fundamental premise of Gnosticism involved a dualistic view of reality, positing a sharp distinction between the spiritual (good) and the material (evil). This dualism often led to a devaluation of the physical world and an emphasis on the necessity of acquiring hidden, mystical knowledge (gnosis) for salvation (Pagels, 1979).

At its core, Gnosticism relied heavily on the belief that true spiritual enlightenment and salvation came through secret, mystical knowledge accessible only to select individuals. This secret knowledge typically claimed to unlock deeper spiritual truths beyond what Scripture explicitly revealed, thus undermining biblical authority and sufficiency. Early Christian leaders, notably Irenaeus in “Against Heresies,” actively refuted Gnostic teachings, emphasizing the public and apostolic nature of true Christian doctrine (Irenaeus, c. 180 AD).

Modern equivalents of Gnosticism include groups such as Mormonism, Christian Science, and various New Age movements. These contemporary movements similarly stress the need for special revelations or insights that supposedly transcend or reinterpret Scripture, aligning with Gnostic ideals. Mormonism’s emphasis on additional scriptures and prophetic revelations, and Christian Science’s focus on metaphysical interpretations of biblical texts, exemplify modern adaptations of ancient Gnostic thought patterns.

Within Seventh-day Adventism, elements of Gnosticism are evident, particularly in the prophetic claims and writings of Ellen G. White. White’s visions and revelations are viewed within Adventism as divinely inspired insights necessary for fully understanding biblical truths. These teachings often suggest that traditional Christian interpretations are insufficient without the added guidance provided by her prophetic revelations, reflecting a distinctly Gnostic approach to religious knowledge (Numbers, 2008).  Further exploration of White will be provided later in this text.

The identification of Gnostic elements in Seventh-day Adventism underscores a critical vulnerability in the movement’s doctrinal foundations. By relying on extra-biblical revelations and elevating Ellen G. White’s writings as authoritative, Seventh-day Adventism inadvertently parallels historical Gnostic practices, potentially undermining the centrality and sufficiency of biblical revelation alone for doctrinal clarity and spiritual guidance.

• Historical Overview of Seventh-day Adventism

William Miller’s Adventism and Failed Prophecies

William Miller was born in 1782 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and raised in a Baptist household. After a period of skepticism and embracing deism, Miller underwent a dramatic religious conversion during the War of 1812. A near-death experience led him back to the study of Scripture, motivating him to undertake a thorough verse-by-verse study of the Bible. Miller, largely self-taught and without formal theological training, became convinced through his studies that the Bible provided a precise timeline for Christ’s second coming (Knight, 1993).

Miller’s specific prophetic interpretation centered around Daniel 8:13-14, which speaks of 2,300 days until the sanctuary would be cleansed. Interpreting these days as symbolic years, Miller calculated that the period began in 457 B.C. and concluded around 1843 or 1844. Miller’s interpretation led him to predict Christ’s return within this timeframe, specifically pinpointing first March 21, 1843, and subsequently October 22, 1844, as definitive dates (Dick, 1994).

The widespread anticipation of Christ’s return during this period had significant societal and religious implications. Miller’s message resonated broadly in a time marked by social and political unrest, attracting thousands of followers. Millerites, as his adherents became known, actively disseminated his message through printed materials and revival meetings, fostering a climate of fervent expectation and widespread societal awareness (Knight, 1993).

However, the anticipated event did not occur, leading to what history records as “The Great Disappointment.” The psychological and spiritual impact was profound, as believers had invested considerable resources and hope in Miller’s predictions. The disappointment resulted in widespread disillusionment, ridicule, and spiritual crises, severely fracturing the Millerite movement (Numbers & Butler, 1993).

Aftermath of the Great Disappointment

The Great Disappointment significantly impacted the Millerite followers, causing many to abandon the movement entirely. Numerous adherents migrated to other religious groups, including the Shakers and various spiritualist and utopian communities. Others returned to their original denominations, disillusioned by the failure of Miller’s prophecies (Knight, 1993).

A small, fanatical remnant, however, persisted, continuing to believe that Miller’s predictions were fundamentally correct but misinterpreted. This group sought alternative explanations for the failed prophecy, eventually embracing the idea that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” mentioned in Daniel referred to a heavenly event rather than Christ’s physical return to earth (Numbers & Butler, 1993).

Following the disappointment, William Miller retreated significantly from public life. He refrained from further prophetic predictions and distanced himself from the emerging reinterpretations of his earlier teachings. Miller passed away in relative obscurity in 1849, deeply affected by the consequences of his failed prophecies and the fragmentation of his movement (Dick, 1994).

Rise of Ellen G. White

Ellen Gould Harmon, later known as Ellen G. White, emerged prominently among the remnants of Miller’s followers. Born in 1827 in Maine, Ellen experienced a severe head injury in her youth, significantly impacting her health and possibly influencing her later visionary experiences. Shortly after the Great Disappointment, Ellen claimed to have received visions from God, providing encouragement and new interpretations to the disillusioned remnant (Numbers, 2008).

Ellen White played a pivotal role in reshaping the Millerite remnant into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her visions, which were considered authoritative and divinely inspired by her followers, significantly guided doctrinal development and organizational structure within the fledgling group. White’s prolific writings and prophetic claims offered fresh interpretations, particularly regarding the sanctuary doctrine, Sabbath observance, and the concept of investigative judgment (Numbers, 2008).

Contrasts between Miller’s and White’s Approaches

Significant contrasts existed between Miller’s and White’s leadership approaches. Miller primarily relied on biblical exposition and was willing to acknowledge his mistakes publicly. His teachings, although erroneous, were grounded in his interpretations of Scripture rather than personal revelation. In contrast, Ellen White’s leadership heavily depended on her visions and mystical experiences, asserting divine authority beyond the biblical text. White consistently refused to admit errors publicly, even when confronted with contradictory evidence, which solidified her prophetic authority but also introduced elements of Gnostic mysticism into the movement (Knight, 1993; Numbers, 2008).

• Ellen G White

Early Life and Marriage

Ellen Harmon was born on November 26, 1827, in Gorham, Maine, into a devout Methodist family. At the age of 12, Ellen and her family were introduced to the preaching of William Miller, a Baptist lay preacher whose apocalyptic interpretations of Daniel 8:14 led to the belief that Christ would return in 1843 or 1844. This experience proved formative for young Ellen, who was already emotionally sensitive due to a childhood accident that left her physically and psychologically fragile (Numbers, 2008). The Harmons’ adoption of Millerism deeply impacted Ellen’s worldview and laid the groundwork for her eventual role in the Adventist movement. The socioreligious climate of early 19th-century America—particularly the fervor of the Second Great Awakening—created fertile soil for millennialist expectations and charismatic religious experiences, especially among those like Ellen who sought personal assurance of salvation in tumultuous times.

At the age of 19, Ellen Harmon married James Springer White, a fellow Millerite and emerging leader among the disillusioned Adventists who remained after the failed prophecy of 1844. From that point on, she became publicly known as Ellen G. White. Her marriage to James provided both structural support and a platform for her growing prophetic influence. James became her staunchest advocate and helped publish and promote her visions and writings, forming the backbone of what would become the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church (Knight, 2000). It is important to note that this partnership was not merely domestic but organizational; together, the Whites functioned as the primary architects of a new religious identity forged from the remnants of the Millerite disappointment.

The Great Disappointment (1844)

The pivotal moment that catalyzed Ellen White’s emergence as a spiritual authority occurred during what became known as The Great Disappointment on October 22, 1844. William Miller’s widely publicized prediction that Christ would return on that date was based on his interpretation of the 2,300-day prophecy in Daniel 8:13–14. When Christ did not appear, the movement splintered into disillusionment, confusion, and doctrinal chaos. Ellen, just 17 years old at the time, was deeply affected by the failed prophecy. It was in the aftermath of this crisis that she began experiencing what she described as supernatural visions, the first of which occurred later that year in December 1844. These visions became the spiritual glue that held together a small remnant of Adventist believers who sought to reinterpret Miller’s failure rather than abandon the cause altogether.

What distinguished Ellen White’s claims from those of other disappointed Millerites was the dramatic and public nature of her visions. Often falling to the floor, ceasing to breathe, and speaking in an entranced state, Ellen’s visionary episodes were physically intense and theatrical. Her son, William C. White, recounted witnessing these events as a child, describing how she would fall backward while praying, her face radiating with what seemed to be ecstasy or terror depending on the vision’s content. He noted that her speech would shift to a deep, musical tone as she commented on what she was supposedly witnessing in the spiritual realm. According to William, “She stood up in an attitude of one seeing wonderful things in the distance. Her face illuminated… [she would] speak with that musical voice, making short comments upon what she was seeing” (White, quoted in Nichol, 1951, p. 114).

These vision experiences quickly became central to her authority. Ellen claimed to be guided through these experiences by a supernatural being who appeared as a young man—referred to by her as her “accompanying angel.” This identification raises significant theological concerns, as Scripture warns that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). The nature of these visions, along with their questionable theological content and their role in sustaining a failed eschatological system, have led many scholars and theologians to question whether her experiences were psychological, fabricated, Satanic, or demonic in origin (Johnson, 2015). The timing of her first vision—occurring within weeks of the Great Disappointment—suggests a psychological need to recover from religious disillusionment and preserve communal cohesion, rather than a divinely initiated prophetic ministry.

2Corinthians 11:14-15 – “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

Psychological Underpinnings of Ellen White’s First Vision After the Great Disappointment

The emergence of Ellen White’s first vision in December 1844—just weeks after the Great Disappointment—can be meaningfully interpreted through psychological frameworks as a coping mechanism in the face of profound cognitive and social crisis. From a psychological standpoint, this timing is likely not coincidental, but rather reveals a complex interplay of emotional trauma, neurological trauma experienced during her youth, group dynamics, and identity preservation mechanisms common in apocalyptic and high-demand religious movements.

1. Cognitive Dissonance and Doomsday Psychology

Leon Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance provides a compelling lens. The failure of William Miller’s prophecy created severe dissonance among believers, who had committed their lives, reputations, and hopes to the belief that Christ would return on October 22, 1844. According to Festinger’s later study When Prophecy Fails (1956), when apocalyptic predictions collapse, disillusioned believers tend to respond in one of three ways: complete rejection of the prophecy, denial of the failure through reinterpretation, or increased proselytizing to reduce internal dissonance. Ellen White’s vision functioned as a reinterpretation mechanism: a reframing that spiritualized the failed event and redirected eschatological focus from the earth to heaven (i.e., Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary).

Her visionary claim reframed disappointment into divine mystery. Psychologically, this not only reduced her own cognitive dissonance but also provided a socially acceptable narrative for others to continue believing without admitting error—a process Festinger identifies as “cognitive realignment.”

2. Trauma and Dissociation

Ellen’s reported symptoms during her visions—fainting, dissociation from surroundings, changes in voice and expression—are consistent with what contemporary psychology might classify as conversion disorder or dissociative episodes, particularly in the context of stress and unresolved trauma. Prior to the Great Disappointment, Ellen had already suffered significant emotional hardship: she was gravely injured in childhood by a rock thrown at her head, leading to long-term physical and psychological issues including anxiety, depression, and social isolation (Numbers, 2008). The post-disappointment religious crisis could have served as a trauma trigger, activating dissociative mechanisms that expressed themselves through ecstatic religious experiences.

Dissociation is commonly observed in highly suggestible individuals facing overwhelming stress, especially in religious or highly charged emotional contexts. The function of these episodes often includes restoring a sense of control, meaning, or purpose—all of which Ellen lacked in the wake of prophetic failure. Her visionary episodes may have allowed her not only to psychologically escape the collapse of her worldview but also to assume a new, empowered identity within the fragmented Millerite community.

3. Social Identity Theory and Group Cohesion

Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory (1979) posits that individuals derive part of their self-concept from group membership. When a group suffers a collective trauma—such as a failed prophecy—the threat to group identity becomes a threat to individual identity as well. Ellen’s vision presented an opportunity to redefine what it meant to be an “Adventist” post-failure. By claiming divine revelation, she established herself as a symbolic authority figure who could stabilize group identity in a time of extreme confusion and instability.

Her first vision reframed the narrative: though Christ did not return visibly, a heavenly event had occurred. This new theological construct allowed the group to maintain its distinctiveness without disbanding entirely. It restored hope, rekindled shared purpose, and minimized the shame of public embarrassment. In this way, Ellen’s psychological need for meaning aligned with the social need for cohesion.

4. Charismatic Authority and the Need for Certainty

Max Weber’s concept of charismatic authority helps explain Ellen White’s rapid ascent as a leader. In periods of social disruption or anxiety, people are psychologically drawn to figures who claim special insight or divine communication—especially when institutional authority has failed them. Ellen’s ecstatic displays, confidence, and prophetic pronouncements offered certainty in a moment of epistemological and emotional chaos.

Research in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) also supports this: when people feel abandoned, betrayed, or anxious, they often seek attachment figures who promise safety and control. Ellen, through her visions, became a kind of spiritual surrogate providing answers and hope to a traumatized religious community. Her legitimacy was reinforced not through doctrinal consistency, but through emotional resonance and perceived spiritual authority.

• Nature and Claims of Her (E.G. White) Visions

Descriptions and Behavior

Ellen G. White claimed to have received nearly 2,000 dreams and visions over the course of her prophetic ministry, though the number of full visionary trances is generally placed closer to 200 (White, 1882/2002). These visions often took place in public settings—camp meetings, church services, or private gatherings—where she would fall to the floor, reportedly stop breathing, and yet continue to speak. Her son, William C. White, provided a detailed firsthand account, stating, “She would fall helpless to the floor, stop breathing, and yet her heart beat and she would speak” (White quoted in Nichol, 1951, p. 114). These experiences were marked by melodrama: her face would become illuminated, her voice would change in pitch and tone, and she would gesture or speak as if witnessing events in a distant realm. These somatic expressions heightened the impact of her visions and contributed to her growing reputation as a prophetess, particularly among followers eager for divine guidance after the Millerite failure.

What further distinguished White’s visionary episodes was her claim of guidance by a specific spirit-being, a supernatural entity she referred to as her “accompanying angel.” This figure was described as a young man who would appear in her visions and lead her through scenes of judgment, heaven, the sanctuary, or the fate of sinners. The language used to describe this angel is remarkably personal and consistent, lending a kind of narrative continuity to her visionary accounts. However, such a claim must be weighed against biblical precedent. Scripture warns explicitly, “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), and the use of a singular spirit guide—especially one that consistently appears in extra-biblical revelations—is reminiscent of what the Bible describes as a “familiar spirit” (Leviticus 20:6). The term in the Hebrew context refers to a spirit that mediates between the living and the unseen realm, typically condemned as demonic or deceptive in origin.

White’s visions were not spontaneous utterances like the biblical prophets’ oracles; they were often lengthy, thematic narratives involving complex eschatological and doctrinal revelations. These were not brief interruptions of divine inspiration but staged events whose physical manifestations—lack of breath, stiffened posture, glassy eyes—were used to authenticate their supernatural origin. Interestingly, early Adventist literature placed heavy emphasis on these physical traits as evidence of divine control. However, modern scholars like Ronald Numbers (2008) have raised the possibility that these episodes were either psychogenic seizures or fabricated performances designed to simulate inspiration in a charismatic context. The psychological and physiological characteristics of her episodes resemble what contemporary medicine might classify as dissociative or conversion disorders—conditions historically misunderstood but often appearing in deeply religious individuals during moments of heightened stress or emotional fervor.  In spite of a modern take on these events, I don’t want to remove the possibility that these events WERE supernatural in nature, but of course, demonic.

Questions of Authenticity

Despite the theatrical and seemingly supernatural nature of Ellen White’s visions, their authenticity as divine revelations is highly contested, particularly when evaluated against biblical standards for prophetic authority. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken.” By this standard alone, many of Ellen White’s early declarations, especially surrounding the “shut door” doctrine and the imminent return of Christ within her own lifetime, qualify as false prophecies. Additionally, her visions often lacked the doctrinal clarity, theological precision, and moral authority that characterize biblical prophecy. Instead of direct, Spirit-breathed proclamations centered on God’s covenant or Christ’s redemptive work, her visions often centered on lifestyle regulations (diet, dress, health), the investigative judgment, or the Sabbath—all themes not directly supported in their specific interpretations by Scripture alone.

Many evangelical scholars and Christian apologists have suggested that White’s visionary authority was either fraudulent or demonic in origin. From a fraud perspective, it is clear that White had strong personal motives to protect and expand the movement following the Millerite collapse. Her early “visions” conveniently provided theological justification for the continued existence of a remnant, even while excluding critics and defectors. From a spiritual warfare perspective, the idea of a spirit consistently guiding a prophet and revealing a “new gospel” with exclusive doctrines contradicts the teaching of Paul in Galatians 1:8: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” The gospel of works-based salvation, Sabbath legalism, and the denial of eternal punishment all point to a source that cannot be reconciled with the Spirit of God as revealed in Scripture. As Johnson (2015) argues, “The visionary output of White was often little more than a sanctified reworking of millenarian anxiety, personal trauma, and spiritual pride—traits not unknown to pseudo-prophetic movements across history.”

In sum, Ellen White’s visionary claims—though passionately defended within Seventh-day Adventism—fall short of the biblical criteria for divine revelation. The physical theatrics surrounding her trances may have convinced 19th-century followers of their authenticity, but they do not confirm divine origin. The content of her revelations, often doctrinally aberrant and biblically inconsistent, raises serious questions about the source of her inspiration. Whether viewed as the product of emotional manipulation, psychological disturbance, or spiritual deception, her visions should be evaluated not by their emotional power, but by their fidelity to the Word of God—a test they consistently fail.

• Formation of Seventh-day Adventism

Early Schism and Consolidation

In the immediate aftermath of the Great Disappointment of 1844, the Millerite movement fractured into numerous splinter groups, each struggling to reinterpret the failed prophecy in a way that would preserve the spiritual fervor of its adherents. Among these fragments, a small remnant coalesced around the visions and prophetic authority of Ellen G. White. Her early visions served as both theological reassurance and psychological balm, providing explanations for the disappointment that reframed it not as a failure, but as a misunderstood fulfillment of prophecy. In her first recorded vision, delivered in December 1844, Ellen claimed that God had shown her a “straight and narrow path” leading toward heaven, and that those who remained faithful despite the disappointment were still in God’s favor (White, 1882/2002). This vision helped consolidate a new identity for Millerite believers who were reluctant to abandon their apocalyptic hope.

One of the most controversial elements of White’s early prophecies was her declaration that the “door of salvation” had been closed to all those who had rejected the Millerite message. According to her vision, only those who accepted the 1844 movement and continued to walk in the light of it were still eligible for salvation, while the rest were irredeemably lost. She wrote, “It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city as all the wicked world which God had rejected” (White, 1882/2002, p. 14). This early form of exclusivism functioned as a boundary marker that defined who was part of the remnant and who was not. However, this doctrine posed a significant problem for growth and evangelism.

As time passed and the need for evangelistic outreach and organizational expansion grew, Ellen White and her supporters began to quietly walk back the “shut door” doctrine. By the early 1850s, she claimed that new light had been given to her that revealed the way of salvation remained open, contradicting her earlier claims. In an 1883 article, she confessed, “I did hold in common with the Advent body that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This position was taken before my first vision was given me. It was light that was given me of God that corrected our error” (White, 1883). While this retraction was presented as progressive revelation, critics have pointed out the pragmatic nature of the shift—it enabled recruitment of new converts and deflected accusations of heresy. Scholars like Ronald L. Numbers (2008) and George Knight (2000) have noted that this doctrinal pivot was necessary for the long-term viability of the movement.

The transition from failed prophecy to a reconstructed theological framework was not merely theological but strategic. White’s reinterpretation provided spiritual continuity for believers, while gradually creating a doctrinal structure capable of withstanding external criticism. This process of reinterpretation and consolidation, centered around White’s visionary authority, laid the foundation for the development of a distinct religious identity and ultimately the formation of a new denomination.

Rise of Sabbatarianism

In the late 1840s, a new theological emphasis emerged among the group surrounding Ellen and James White: the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath. This emphasis was influenced in part by contact with Seventh-day Baptists, a small group that maintained Saturday as the biblical Sabbath. In 1846, Joseph Bates, a former sea captain and influential Adventist leader, published a tract titled The Seventh Day Sabbath a Perpetual Sign, arguing that the seventh day (Saturday) remained a binding commandment under the moral law of God (Bates, 1846). Bates’ writings had a profound impact on Ellen and James White, who began to integrate this teaching into their theological system.

Shortly after their exposure to Bates’ views, Ellen White reported a vision in which she saw the heavenly sanctuary and a special light surrounding the fourth commandment: “The Sabbath commandment was surrounded by a soft halo of light and gave off a sense of importance above all the others” (White, 1851/2002). This vision confirmed for many early Adventists what they already suspected—that Sabbath observance was not only biblically mandated but divinely endorsed. This fusion of biblical literalism and visionary confirmation gave the Sabbath doctrine a unique authority within the group and became a defining theological hallmark of Seventh-day Adventism.

The Sabbath soon replaced Miller’s failed date-setting as the focal point of Adventist identity. It functioned both as a theological distinctive and as a test of obedience and faithfulness. According to Ellen White, Sabbath observance would be the “dividing wall” between the true people of God and the world, especially in the last days (White, 1882/2002). This eschatological emphasis on the Sabbath as a future point of conflict between the faithful remnant and apostate Christendom echoed the earlier Millerite urgency, but now grounded in a perpetual commandment rather than a one-time event. The shift allowed Adventism to maintain its apocalyptic urgency while redirecting it toward an ongoing lifestyle of obedience, particularly centered around the fourth commandment.

This emphasis on the Sabbath was further reinforced by a developing theology of the “Great Controversy”—a cosmic struggle between Christ and Satan in which the Sabbath would serve as the final test of loyalty. This idea would later be formalized in Ellen White’s most famous work, The Great Controversy, and helped to define the Adventist worldview. Thus, Sabbatarianism was not just a recovered biblical truth, but a theological pivot that anchored the new movement’s eschatology, ecclesiology, and moral code.

Institutional Development

By 1847, the Whites and other leaders had fully embraced Saturday Sabbath observance and were actively organizing believers who shared their convictions. Although initially informal and loosely structured, this growing network of “Sabbatarian Adventists” began to coalesce into a more formal religious body. The development of periodicals like The Present Truth and later The Review and Herald allowed for the spread of doctrine, communication between scattered believers, and reinforcement of Ellen White’s growing prophetic authority.

In 1860, after years of informal organization and doctrinal consolidation, the group officially adopted the name “Seventh-day Adventists.” The name reflected both the eschatological heritage of Millerism (“Adventists”) and the theological emphasis on Sabbath observance (“Seventh-day”). This dual identity—rooted in both prophetic urgency and legalistic obedience—would continue to define the denomination’s internal culture and external reputation. The formal naming also marked a turning point in the group’s evolution from a sectarian remnant into an emerging denomination with distinct boundaries and global ambitions.

Three years later, in 1863, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was formally incorporated with a membership of 3,500 and 125 congregations across the United States. The newly formed denomination adopted a representative organizational structure, which allowed for centralized decision-making, coordinated evangelism, and doctrinal standardization. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was established as the highest administrative body, and Ellen White’s writings continued to exert a growing influence on doctrine and practice. This formal incorporation marked the transformation of what had begun as a disillusioned remnant into a robust, missionary-minded religious body.

Ellen White’s centrality in this development cannot be overstated. While she did not hold formal office in the church’s governance, her visions and writings were treated as authoritative and often decisive in resolving theological disputes. She functioned as a charismatic legitimizer of doctrinal development, a role that allowed her teachings to evolve over time without ever being subject to formal ecclesiastical correction. George Knight (2000) describes this dynamic as “prophetic pragmatism,” in which White’s guidance filled the theological and administrative gaps that arose in the formative years of the church.

The formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was thus not merely a sociological inevitability, but a carefully choreographed effort to institutionalize a religious identity built on reinterpretation, visionary authority, and distinctive doctrines. The result was a denomination that maintained both the apocalyptic fervor of its Millerite roots and the legalistic rigor of its Sabbatarian convictions—fueled by Ellen White’s visions and sustained by her claims of divine endorsement.

1. Doctrinal Authority and Prophetic Status

Claim to Divine Revelation

Ellen G. White’s claim to divine inspiration was both emphatic and expansive. She consistently taught that her visions, dreams, and written testimonies were not merely personal reflections, but authoritative revelations directly from God. In an 1882 article titled The Testimonies Slighted, she wrote, “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 ideas. These are what God has opened before me in vision, the precious rays of light shining from the throne” (White, 1882/2002, p. 63). Such a statement leaves little room for interpreting her writings as merely devotional or pastoral; instead, she placed them on par with biblical prophecy.

This self-designation as a divinely commissioned prophetess was further institutionalized through church publications such as The Review and Herald, where her writings were routinely published and circulated among believers. The consistency of this practice created a functional canon within the denomination—one that operated alongside and often above Scripture in practice. As historian Ronald Numbers (2008) points out, “While Seventh-day Adventists formally claimed to adhere to sola scriptura, in reality, White’s visions often became the final word in both doctrinal formation and ecclesiastical decisions” (p. 45). Thus, her prophetic authority was not merely symbolic; it actively shaped the theology and governance of the church in ways that rivaled, and at times eclipsed, the Bible itself.

Contradictions and Revisions

Despite her claim to divine inspiration and infallibility, Ellen White’s prophetic record is riddled with contradictions, most notably surrounding the so-called “shut door” doctrine. In her earliest visions following the Great Disappointment of 1844, White asserted that the door of salvation had been permanently closed to all who had rejected William Miller’s message. She wrote, “It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city as all the wicked world which God had rejected” (White, 1882/2002, p. 14). This statement echoed the sentiments of early Adventist exclusivism and reflected a rigid interpretation of divine judgment.

However, within a few years, Ellen White quietly walked back this claim. By 1883, she acknowledged in writing that she had once held the shut door view, but that subsequent visions had corrected this error. “I did hold in common with the Advent body that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world… but it has now been revealed to me that the way of salvation is still open” (White, 1883). This reversal raises troubling questions: if her original claim was made under divine inspiration, how could it later be reversed without indicting the reliability of the source? If one grants that her earlier prophecy was false, it undermines the integrity of the entire body of her work. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, “If the thing does not come to pass or come true, that is a word the Lord has not spoken.”

More broadly, White frequently revised, recontextualized, or recast her earlier statements under the guise of “progressive revelation.” This elasticity gave her considerable flexibility to respond to theological and social challenges but also significantly damaged her credibility. Scholars such as George Knight (2000) and Walter Rea (1982) have documented numerous instances in which White’s writings were edited, reworded, or completely rewritten in later editions—often without acknowledgment—to bring them into alignment with current Adventist theology or to soften embarrassing predictions. This pattern of revision calls into question the consistency one would expect from someone who claimed direct and unmediated communication with God.

Hypocrisy and Credibility Issues

Perhaps most damaging to Ellen White’s prophetic status were the repeated allegations—and documented instances—of personal hypocrisy and misconduct. While she strongly promoted strict lifestyle rules for her followers, including abstention from meat, butter, spices, shellfish, and even mustard, her private behavior often contradicted her public teachings. In one of her many health reform statements, she declared, “No butter or flesh meats of any kind come on my table. Cake is seldom found there” (White, quoted in Numbers, 2008, p. 173). Yet, multiple firsthand testimonies reveal that she continued to eat meat—including venison and oysters—well after making these declarations.

One particularly revealing account comes from her personal secretary, Fanny Bolton, who described finding Ellen White in a restaurant “very gratified by eating big white raw oysters with vinegar, pepper, and salt” (Coon, 1982, p. 5). Her son, W. C. White, was similarly implicated, reportedly carrying a bloody steak through a train car for her attendants to cook. These reports were not circulated by hostile outsiders, but by close assistants and family members, many of whom were devoted to her ministry but became disillusioned by her double standards.

In addition to dietary hypocrisy, White was often accused of being narcissistic and self-important. Near the end of her life, she wrote, “There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written” (White, 1906). Such an absolute and self-assured declaration—especially in light of demonstrable errors and reversals—suggests a grandiose self-perception incompatible with the biblical model of a humble, teachable servant of God. The Apostle Paul, in contrast, referred to himself as the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15) and subjected even his own preaching to the scrutiny of Scripture (Acts 17:11). White’s unwillingness to admit error or submit her teachings to external correction presents a stark divergence from this apostolic humility.

1 Timothy 1:15 – “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”

Acts 17:11 – “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”

Ultimately, the pattern of contradictions between her public teachings and private behavior severely undermines Ellen White’s credibility as a prophetic authority. The prophetic office in Scripture is inseparable from moral integrity and doctrinal consistency. As Jesus warned, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). When tested against this standard, the fruits of Ellen White’s ministry—though mixed with sincere followers and moral teachings—reveal a troubling pattern of deceit, manipulation, and self-exaltation that is difficult to reconcile with biblical prophecy.

• Plagiarism and Literary Borrowing

Ellen G. White often downplayed her educational abilities and literary competence, claiming divine assistance in producing her extensive body of written work. She frequently referenced her limited formal schooling—reportedly equivalent to a third-grade education—and even claimed she was barely literate. In doing so, she implied that the coherence, depth, and volume of her output were evidence of supernatural inspiration. For example, she stated, “I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision” (White, 1882/2002, p. 76). However, later research—including the work of Ronald Numbers (2008) and Walter Rea (1982)—demonstrated conclusively that White was capable of reading at a high level and had access to a vast library of theological and historical works. She made deliberate and repeated use of these sources in ways that go far beyond incidental or unconscious borrowing.

Large portions of Ellen White’s most famous writings—including The Desire of Ages, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets—have been shown to include entire paragraphs and concepts lifted directly from earlier authors without proper attribution. Researchers have documented her uncredited use of material from authors such as William Hanna, John Harris, Alfred Edersheim, and even secular historians. Walter Rea’s landmark study, The White Lie (1982), presented side-by-side comparisons of her texts and those of prior authors, revealing striking similarities in phrasing, structure, and even interpretive emphasis. While borrowing ideas is not inherently unethical when properly cited, the absence of attribution in White’s case undermines both her claims of originality and her prophetic status. According to biblical standards, prophetic words are to come directly from the Lord, not assembled from other theologians: “Thus says the Lord: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you… They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:16).

In response to these findings, Adventist apologists have often referred to her plagiarism as “literary borrowing,” framing it as a common 19th-century practice and defending it on the grounds that she acknowledged in general terms that she used the ideas of others. In the introduction to The Great Controversy, for instance, she wrote that she used “historical statements from other authors” and incorporated them “where a historian has presented facts in a concise and appropriate manner.” However, critics argue that these vague acknowledgments fall far short of ethical standards—both modern and biblical—for attributing intellectual property. As Numbers (2008) rightly observes, “The extent of her dependence on literary sources was consistently minimized by her defenders, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” (p. 267). Furthermore, the magnitude and frequency of her unattributed borrowing raise serious concerns about integrity, especially for someone claiming divine revelation. If her words were, as she claimed, “precious rays of light shining from the throne” (White, 1882/2002, p. 63), then the use of other human authors without proper acknowledgment cannot be justified merely as editorial convenience—it strikes at the core of her prophetic legitimacy.

• Theological Errors and Heresies

Investigative Judgment

One of the most unique—and deeply problematic—doctrines introduced by Ellen G. White is the teaching of Investigative Judgment. In response to the failure of William Miller’s prophecy regarding Christ’s return in 1844, White claimed that instead of returning to earth, Jesus had entered a new phase of His atoning work in the heavenly sanctuary. According to her, this phase involved Christ examining the lives of professed believers—both dead and living—to determine their worthiness for salvation. This doctrine is formally taught in The Great Controversy (White, 1888/2002), where she states, “At the time appointed for the judgment—the close of the 2300 days, in 1844—began the work of investigation and blotting out of sins” (p. 421).

This concept fundamentally blurs the biblical distinction between justification (a true declaration of righteousness through faith) and sanctification (the progressive growth in holiness). The Apostle Paul declares in Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” and in Hebrews 10:14, “For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” The Investigative Judgment, by contrast, suggests that one’s justification is incomplete and conditional—dependent on the final review of one’s performance. This undermines the finished work of Christ and replaces assurance with anxiety, making the believer’s final standing contingent on a yet-to-be-determined verdict. Scholars like Woodrow Whidden (2000) have attempted to soften the implications of the doctrine, but even sympathetic interpretations acknowledge the theological tension it creates.

The psychological and spiritual implications of this doctrine are severe. Because no believer can know when their life is being investigated, the doctrine fosters insecurity and perfectionism. Ellen White reinforced this when she wrote, “Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease… must be without a mediator” (White, 1888/2002, p. 425). Such a statement stands in stark contrast to the biblical teaching that Christ “always lives to make intercession” (Hebrews 7:25) for believers. The effect is to place the burden of salvation partially back on the believer’s ability to maintain purity, thus reintroducing a form of legalism that Paul specifically condemned in his letter to the Galatians.

Hebrews 7:25 – “Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

Satan as Sin-Bearer

Among the most blasphemous aspects of Ellen White’s theology is her teaching that Satan, not Christ, ultimately bears the punishment for the sins of the redeemed. In The Great Controversy, she writes, “As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan… so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit, will at last suffer the full penalty of sin” (White, 1888/2002, p. 485). This is a direct reference to the Old Testament Day of Atonement ceremony (Leviticus 16), but White’s interpretation diverges drastically from both Jewish and Christian understanding.

The Bible makes it unequivocally clear that Christ alone is the sin-bearer. Isaiah 53:5 says, “He was pierced for our transgressions… and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (v. 6). The New Testament echoes this in 1 Peter 2:24: “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.” To suggest that Satan participates in bearing guilt or punishment not only distorts substitutionary atonement but also grants Satan a sacrificial role in the plan of redemption—a role he neither deserves nor occupies. Theologically, it is tantamount to diminishing the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, which Scripture insists was “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

This teaching also warps the character of God and the moral structure of the gospel. In Christian theology, justice is satisfied by the innocent suffering in place of the guilty—Christ as the spotless Lamb of God. To place guilt on Satan is to suggest that salvation is a joint work between Christ’s intercession and Satan’s punishment. As evangelical theologian Anthony Hoekema (1963) observed, “This teaching is not only without biblical warrant; it is sacrilegious, for it attributes redemptive significance to the devil” (p. 126). It ultimately dismantles the message of the cross and recasts the gospel in terms that are more akin to cosmic bookkeeping than divine mercy.

Human Nature of Christ

Ellen White also introduced a theologically dangerous doctrine regarding the human nature of Christ, claiming that Jesus assumed a fallen, sinful nature identical to that of post-Fall humanity. In The Desire of Ages, she writes, “He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature” (White, 1898/2002, p. 112). In other writings, she asserts that Christ had “all the passions of humanity” and bore the “infirmities and degeneracies of the human race” (White, 1894). This view was adopted to support her perfectionist theology—that Christ’s sinless life in fallen flesh proves believers can attain perfection before His return.

This doctrine, however, is both biblically and historically erroneous. Scripture clearly affirms that Jesus was tempted in every way, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). While Christ assumed full humanity, He did not inherit a corrupt or sinful nature. The virgin birth is not incidental to this doctrine—it is essential, preserving His divine nature from the transmission of original sin, Luke 1:35:  “And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”

The angel Gabriel makes it clear that Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit ensures His holiness from conception—He did not inherit Adam’s guilt or sinful nature, as all others do ( Romans 5:12). This directly contradicts the Adventist notion that Christ assumed fallen flesh.

Romans 5:12 – “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”

The church has historically affirmed that Christ’s humanity was like ours in every respect except sin, a point emphasized in the early ecumenical creeds and councils. To claim otherwise not only endangers Christ’s moral perfection, but also invalidates His role as the spotless substitute for sinners.  1 John 3:5 “You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.”  John links the purpose of Christ’s incarnation (“to take away sins”) with His nature (“in him there is no sin”). If Christ had a fallen nature, His qualification to be the Lamb of God would be nullified (cf. John 1:29).

Hebrews 4:15 – “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

Moreover, this error contributes to a legalistic soteriology by setting Christ primarily as a moral example rather than a penal substitute. If Christ, with a sinful nature, can live perfectly, then we should be able to do the same—thus reinforcing the Adventist notion that one must become sinless to stand “without a mediator” before God. This is a direct assault on the sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness, which the Apostle Paul so clearly states in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” The Adventist reinterpretation makes Christ’s role exemplary rather than substitutionary, thus eroding the foundation of the gospel.

If Christ had a sinful nature—even if He never acted sinfully—He would be disqualified as the spotless sacrificial Lamb. The Levitical sacrificial system demanded an unblemished animal, foreshadowing Christ’s perfect nature (Leviticus 1:3; 1 Peter 1:19). His substitutionary atonement depends on His being both fully human and entirely sinless—an untainted representative.

Leviticus 1:3 – “If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD.”

1 Peter 1:9 – “but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”

Moreover, Paul argues in Romans 5 that Christ functions as a new Adam—a head of a new redeemed humanity. Just as sin entered the world through one man, so righteousness is imputed through One who is sinless (Romans 5:18–19). Christ’s obedience is meritorious precisely because it was performed without any internal corruption.

Romans 5:18–19 – “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.  For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

“The results of Adam’s disobedience are clearly seen in his descendants. They share his fallen nature and its consequences. But Scripture does not teach that we are punished for Adam’s sin. We are not held guilty for his transgression.”
(Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, p. 19)

In these verses, Paul teaches a foundational truth: the entire human race is represented by two federal heads—Adam and Christ. Just as Adam’s sin was imputed to his descendants (bringing condemnation), Christ’s righteousness is imputed to His people (bringing justification). This is federal headship, a cornerstone of historic Christian theology.

• “One trespass led to condemnation for all men” = universal guilt through Adam’s sin.
• “The many were made sinners” = we are constituted as sinners, not merely imitators.
• “So, by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” = justification is a legal declaration, not merely a moral transformation.

Paul presents sin and righteousness as forensic realities: legal standings before God based on the actions of another.

It’s so important to understand this, I’m going to share the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, p. 19 again:

 “The results of Adam’s disobedience are clearly seen in his descendants. They share his fallen nature and its consequences. But Scripture does not teach that we are punished for Adam’s sin. We are not held guilty for his transgression.”
(Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, p. 19)

This statement directly rejects the core message of Romans 5. The SDA Church affirms that we inherit a fallen nature—but explicitly denies inherited guilt. In doing so, it:

• Reinterprets Paul’s use of “condemnation” to mean something other than guilt.
• Rejects the legal solidarity between Adam and his descendants taught in Scripture.
• Undermines the parallelism Paul sets up between imputed sin and imputed righteousness.

According to this view, we are only condemned for our own sins, not Adam’s. But this contradicts Paul’s use of the term “condemnation for all men” as a consequence of one man’s trespass.

Paul’s teaching in Romans 5 is not an isolated metaphor—it’s the theological explanation of why we need a Savior and how Christ saves us:

• Psalm 51:5 – “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
• Ephesians 2:3 – “We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”
• 1 Corinthians 15:22 – “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

These passages reinforce the idea that we are born under condemnation because we are “in Adam.” The SDA Church, however, redefines this to mean we are born merely with a tendency toward sin, not under guilt—thereby emptying justification of its forensic necessity.

If you deny imputed guilt through Adam, you must also deny imputed righteousness through Christ—because Paul uses the same structure, the same logic, and the same language to describe both. Rejecting the former severs the foundation of the gospel itself.

By denying inherited guilt, the SDA Church logically implies that justification must be based on our personal merit or moral performance, rather than on the finished work of Christ applied to the guilty sinner. This opens the door to legalism, perfectionism, and the loss of assurance—all of which are present in various SDA teachings.

In summary, Ellen White’s theological innovations—though wrapped in biblical language—subvert essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Her teaching on Investigative Judgment redefines justification and nullifies assurance. Her view of Satan as a sin-bearer is a denial of Christ’s exclusive redemptive work. And her distorted Christology redefines both the nature and the mission of Jesus. Each of these heresies, in isolation, would be grave; taken together, they form a gospel of fear, works, and uncertainty rather than grace, faith, and the finished work of Christ. As Paul wrote, “If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Galatians 2:21).

• The Sabbath

Now, you might be wondering why I haven’t discussed the Sabbath yet. I considered putting this under the previous section, Theological Errors and Heresies, but it is such a big topic that I believe it needs a section all to itself.

Introduction and Framing the Debate

One of the most recognizable differences between mainstream historic Christianity and Seventh-day Adventism is the question of the Sabbath versus the Lord’s Day. The central question is straightforward: What is the biblical difference between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day? Is there a theological, historical, or biblical justification for the early Christian church shifting its primary day of worship from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday)? While not the most theologically foundational doctrine in the broader scope of Christian orthodoxy, the Sabbath question is often a watershed issue in discussions with Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs). It functions as both a visible distinction and a theological flashpoint, with implications for how the Old Covenant is understood in light of the New Covenant.

The topic, though not central to the gospel itself, is magnified in importance by the SDA claim that the Saturday Sabbath remains a moral obligation for all Christians and that Sunday observance is a corruption introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. This assertion forms a critical part of Adventist theology, where Sabbath observance is often treated as a sign of fidelity to God and a distinguishing mark of the “remnant church.” Ellen G. White wrote: “The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Roman church” (The Great Controversy, 1950, p. 447). According to White and official SDA teaching, Sunday worship is evidence of a great apostasy, supposedly brought about by Constantine in 321 AD or by papal decree thereafter. However, this claim is historically and biblically problematic.

The decree of Emperor Constantine in 321 AD indeed mandated rest on “the venerable day of the sun” (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3), and this has been cited by SDA sources as the origin point for Sunday observance. However, Christian Sunday worship long predates Constantine’s decree. The Didache (which is a late first- or early second-century Christian manual) and early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr provide clear evidence that Christians were already assembling on Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection, for communal worship and Eucharistic celebration (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 67). Constantine’s law did not establish Sunday worship but merely recognized and codified an existing practice among Christians in the Roman Empire. As noted church historian Justo González explains, “Constantine’s decree did not institute the observance of Sunday, but rather gave legal sanction to a practice that was already widespread among Christians” (González, 2010, p. 130). Theologically, the Lord’s Day is connected to the resurrection of Jesus (Mark 16:9) and is explicitly referenced in Revelation 1:10, where John writes, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” This reference, widely understood in early Christianity to signify Sunday, demonstrates that Christian worship had already begun to orbit around the first day of the week, well before any imperial decree.

Mark 16:9 – “Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.”

Revelation 1:10 – “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet”

• Historical Context of Sunday Observance

Constantine’s Decree (321 AD)

In 321 AD, the Roman Emperor Constantine issued a civil decree declaring Sunday as a day of rest across the Roman Empire. The law reads: “On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed” (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3). Seventh-day Adventists often claim that this edict marked the beginning of Sunday worship in Christianity and associate it with a shift from biblical Sabbath observance to a pagan-influenced compromise, due to Constantine’s reference to “the venerable day of the sun.” They argue this points to sun worship, a common feature in Roman religious life (White, 1950, p. 53).

However, the historical context and linguistic analysis undermine this claim. The Latin term “venerabili die Solis” can be translated either as “venerable day of the sun” or more idiomatically as “the holy day of Sunday,” reflecting not necessarily a nod to paganism, but the terminology commonly used to refer to Sunday in Greco-Roman culture. More importantly, Constantine’s edict did not create Sunday worship; rather, it recognized and institutionalized a practice already common among Christians. As historian Samuele Bacchiocchi—himself a Seventh-day Adventist scholar—acknowledges, “Sunday observance was already a widespread Christian custom before Constantine’s decree” (Bacchiocchi, 1977, p. 111). The imperial law simply reflected a convergence of civil and ecclesiastical practices at a time when Christianity was gaining legal status and imperial favor.

The interpretation of Constantine’s Sunday law as honoring pagan sun worship is also historically misleading. By 321 AD, Constantine had shown favor to Christianity through the Edict of Milan (313 AD), and his Sunday legislation was more likely an act of deference to the Christian community rather than to paganism. As Justo González notes, “The decree was not the imposition of a new practice, but the recognition of an already existing one” (González, 2010, p. 130). The distinction is critical: Constantine did not create Sunday worship, nor did he attempt to overwrite the biblical Sabbath with a pagan festival; rather, he legally endorsed a Christian custom.

Early Christian Practice (Biblical Evidence)

The biblical basis for Sunday observance can be traced back to the New Testament, long before Constantine. Acts 20:7 records, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them…” This reference is not to a casual meal but to the Lord’s Supper, a central act of worship in the early church (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). The gathering on the first day was deliberate and had become customary among believers, suggesting a pattern of Sunday worship already in place by the mid-first century.

1 Corinthians 11:23–26 – For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 16:1–2 shows Paul instructing the church: “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper…” This instruction presumes a regular Sunday gathering of believers, but also a regularly gathering of offering – done during the service. Paul did not pick an arbitrary day but one already set aside for Christian fellowship and worship. The offering itself, a sacrificial and worshipful act, is framed within the rhythm of weekly Sunday meetings.

Additionally, Revelation 1:10 provides a theological basis for the term “the Lord’s Day”: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day…” Early Christian literature and tradition consistently interpret this as Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection. According to Samuele Bacchiocchi, even though he is an Adventist scholar, he concedes: “The expression ‘Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10 was understood in the early church as a reference to Sunday” (Bacchiocchi, 1977, p. 122). This demonstrates that the terminology and tradition were not later inventions but traceable to apostolic times.

Finally, the link between Sunday and major redemptive events is established in Leviticus 23, which lays out the Feast of Firstfruits and Pentecost. Jesus rose on the day following the Sabbath during Passover week—what Leviticus 23:11 refers to as “the day after the Sabbath”. This “first day” becomes the symbolic start of the new creation in Christ. Pentecost also occurred on the first day of the week (Leviticus 23:15–16), the 50th day after the Feast of Firstfruits, again anchoring the significant acts of God’s redemptive plan to Sunday.

Extra-Biblical Early Church Evidence

Support for Sunday observance is not only biblical but richly supported by the writings of the early church fathers. One of the earliest post-apostolic documents is the Epistle of Barnabas, written between 70 and 140 AD. In chapter 15, verse 9, we read: “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” The “eighth day” here refers to the day following the Sabbath—Sunday—symbolizing new creation and resurrection life. This phrase, “eighth day,” became a well-established synonym for the Lord’s Day in early Christian liturgy and theology.

Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110 AD in his Epistle to the Magnesians, offers explicit contrast between Sabbath observance and Christian practice. He writes: “Let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days.” He adds, “We have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day…” (Magnesians 9:1). This distinction clearly places Sunday worship not as a continuation of the Sabbath but as a new covenant practice grounded in resurrection theology.

Justin Martyr, writing around 150 AD, gives the most detailed early description of Christian worship. In his First Apology, chapter 67, he explains that Christians gather “on the day called Sunday” to read Scripture, pray, partake of the Eucharist, and give offerings. He explains the rationale: “Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly because it is the first day on which God… created the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead on the same day.” This direct appeal to both creation and resurrection underscores that Sunday worship was rooted not in Roman culture, but in biblical typology and redemptive history.

These early witnesses are unanimous in their affirmation that Sunday was the normative day for Christian worship by the second century. Importantly, their testimony predates Constantine by more than a century, dismantling the claim that Sunday worship was a post-apostolic innovation. As church historian Everett Ferguson notes, “The consistent pattern in the post-apostolic church was to meet on Sunday, the Lord’s Day. There is no evidence of Saturday worship as the Christian norm” (Ferguson, 1996, p. 81).

Furthermore, the absence of controversy over Sunday worship in these early writings implies that it was an unchallenged tradition, likely rooted in apostolic instruction. Had the day of worship been changed arbitrarily by imperial or ecclesiastical decree, it would have undoubtedly provoked significant dissent or theological debate—yet no such resistance is found in the surviving literature of the early church.

• Scriptural and Theological Discussion of the Sabbath

Exodus 20:8–11 and the Fourth Commandment

The Fourth Commandment, recorded in Exodus 20:8–11, reads: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This passage is unmistakably clear in identifying the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week, grounded in the pattern of creation itself. The command does not merely institute a pattern of rest but explicitly ties it to God’s rest in Genesis 2:2–3, where it states, “And on the seventh day God finished his work… so God blessed the seventh day and made it holy.” This Sabbath ordinance was to serve as a sign of covenantal identity for Israel, a weekly reminder of both creation and God’s authority over time.

While the Sabbath is set within the Decalogue—a summary of God’s moral expectations—it also functions uniquely among the Ten Commandments due to its ceremonial character. It required strict observance, including cessation from labor for all in the household and among livestock and foreigners. The emphasis on the seventh day is specific and repeated, suggesting divine intentionality in its appointment for national Israel. However, the absence of any reference to Sabbath observance by patriarchs before Sinai (cf. Genesis–Exodus 15) has led many theologians to conclude that the command was inaugurated formally with Moses and not imposed universally on humanity from creation (Calvin, 1559/2008; Bunyan, 1671/1992). As John Bunyan observed, “In all the scriptures we do not read that the breach of a weekly Sabbath was charged on any man from Adam to Moses” (Bunyan, 1992, p. 293).

Interpretive Traditions Regarding the Fourth Commandment

Interpretations of the Fourth Commandment have diverged significantly throughout church history, particularly between the Puritan Christian Sabbatarian tradition and the Continental Reformed tradition. Puritan theologians, such as those who authored the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), asserted that the Sabbath commandment was morally perpetual and had been transferred from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday) following Christ’s resurrection. They argued that “from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath” (WCF 21.7). These theologians often emphasized Sunday as a replacement Sabbath, retaining many of the Old Testament prohibitions on labor, leisure, and travel, and applied them to Sunday observance.

This interpretation, while historically influential, has been critiqued for its conflation of ceremonial and moral law, and for lacking explicit biblical support for such a transfer of Sabbath sanctity. Reformed theologian Francis Turretin conceded that the Sabbath law was “mixed,” meaning that it included both moral principles (e.g., the necessity of regular worship and rest) and ceremonial features tied to the Mosaic covenant (Turretin, 1992, p. 72). Critics of Christian Sabbatarianism, including many early Continental Reformers, resisted the notion that the Sabbath was simply relocated to Sunday. They argued instead that the moral intent of the Sabbath remained, but its ritual and calendrical observance had been fulfilled in Christ, who is himself the believer’s rest as is read in Hebrews 4:9–10 – So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

John Calvin represents this Continental Reformed View, distinguishing between the eternal moral content of the Fourth Commandment and its ceremonial expression. Calvin writes, “The Sabbath is a type of the spiritual rest, in which the faithful ought to cease from their own works to allow God to work in them” (Institutes, 2.8.28). According to Calvin, the Sabbath prefigured salvation by grace through faith and was fulfilled by the redemptive work of Christ. Once the “substance” of Christ had come, the “shadow” of the Sabbath was no longer necessary (cf. Colossians 2:16–17). Calvin thus opposed those who sought to impose Old Testament Sabbath restrictions upon the Lord’s Day, emphasizing instead the spiritual rest and weekly worship required by the moral heart of the commandment.

Colossians 2:16-17 – Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.  These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

In sum, the biblical Sabbath—instituted at Sinai and patterned after God’s rest in creation—was designated as the seventh day and bound the nation of Israel to specific ceremonial observances. While some Christian traditions have attempted to transplant that command onto Sunday with its original form intact, the broader consensus of classical Reformed theology affirms that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial dimension of the Sabbath, inaugurating instead a new rhythm of worship centered around his resurrection. The Lord’s Day becomes, then, not a legalistic replication of the Sabbath, but a celebration of the rest Christ has secured, consistent with the moral principles of regular worship, rest, and devotion to God.

Colossians 2 and the Abolishment of Ceremonial Sabbaths

In Colossians 2:13–17, the Apostle Paul presents a powerful theological argument for the abolition of ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, including the Sabbath. He writes: “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross…” (vv. 13–14, ESV). The “record of debt” refers to the Mosaic ordinances, which had accusatory power because of human sin. Christ’s atonement canceled these legal demands by fulfilling them in His own body on the cross. Paul’s argument climaxes in verse 16: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” The force of this statement lies in the theological conclusion—Christ’s redemptive work has ALREADY rendered these ceremonial observances non-obligatory for the believer.

The triad “festival, new moon, or Sabbath” is a formulaic expression used repeatedly in the Old Testament to describe the full range of ceremonial observances under the Mosaic covenant (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; Hosea 2:11). It moves in descending chronological order: annual feasts (festivals), monthly new moon observances, and weekly Sabbaths. The structure of Paul’s phrasing is deliberate and exhaustive. As Reformed theologian Richard Gaffin notes, “Paul is not referring merely to ceremonial Sabbaths but to the weekly Sabbath itself. His choice of words mirrors Old Testament terminology for all sacred days” (Gaffin, 2003, p. 83). This interpretation is strengthened by the immediate context of verse 17, where Paul adds, “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” The term “shadow” (Greek: skia) implies typology—temporary symbols pointing to a greater reality. Thus, Sabbath observance, like dietary laws and temple rituals, functioned as a foreshadowing of Christ’s redemptive rest.

Some Sabbatarian interpreters, including Seventh-day Adventists, contend that Paul is only referring to ceremonial Sabbaths, such as those associated with annual feast days (e.g., Leviticus 23). However, this position is problematic both grammatically and contextually. The plural form “Sabbaths” (sabbaton) in Greek is inclusive and, when paired with “festival” and “new moon,” clearly aligns with the Jewish tripartite division of sacred times. New Testament scholar Douglas Moo affirms, “There is no convincing reason to exclude the weekly Sabbath from Paul’s reference” (Moo, 2008, p. 217). Furthermore, to argue that Paul had only ceremonial Sabbaths in mind undermines his broader point in Colossians 2: the entire ceremonial system—with its dietary laws, calendar regulations, and ritualistic observances—has been fulfilled in Christ and is no longer binding upon Christians.

In light of this, Colossians 2 offers a profound Christocentric lens for understanding the Sabbath. The “substance” (Greek: sōma) is Christ, and once the reality has come, the shadows no longer retain their function. The moral and theological implication is that Christ is the true Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9–10), and believers now enter God’s rest not through calendar observance but through faith in the finished work of the Savior. As D. A. Carson concludes, “The New Testament is clear: no Christian is bound to observe the Sabbath. That it is theologically fulfilled in Christ and practically replaced by the Lord’s Day is evident” (Carson, 1999, p. 364).

Hebrews 4:9–10 – So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

Five Theological Principles of the Sabbath

1. The Sabbath Looked Back to Creation

The Sabbath is first rooted in the divine pattern of creation. Genesis 2:2–3 states: “And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day… So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy.” This rest does not indicate fatigue on God’s part, but completion—a deliberate cessation from creative activity. The seventh day was sanctified not because of human observance, but because it commemorated God’s completed work. Importantly, the word “Sabbath” is not used in Genesis. The first explicit mention of the term appears in Exodus 16, in the context of gathering manna prior to Sinai. This supports the argument that while the seventh-day rest existed in the creation narrative, Sabbath observance was not commanded until the Mosaic era. As John Gill noted, “None but the Jews were ever charged with the breach of the weekly Sabbath” (Gill, as cited in Bunyan, 1992, p. 294). Thus, the Sabbath retrospectively honors creation but was not universally mandated until given to Israel.

• The Sabbath Looked Forward to Redemption

The Sabbath was not merely a backward-looking ordinance but also a typological picture of redemptive rest. This concept is most clearly articulated in Hebrews 4:4–10, which builds on the creation motif and connects it to salvation: “For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all his works’… For whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” The author of Hebrews uses the Sabbath to illustrate spiritual rest—a state of trusting in the completed work of Christ. Salvation is not attained through human effort but by entering God’s rest through faith. Richard Gaffin rightly summarizes: “The Sabbath is ultimately fulfilled in the eschatological rest secured by Christ. To return to the old forms is to neglect the substance” (Gaffin, 2003, p. 91). Therefore, the Sabbath also functions as a forward-pointing promise, a signpost to the eternal rest found in Christ.

• The Sabbath Was About God’s Rest

Understanding the nature of God’s rest is essential to grasping the theology of the Sabbath. Unlike humans who rest out of necessity, God rested to signify completion and satisfaction in His work. His rest is not that of exhaustion but of fulfillment. In Exodus 20:11, the command to rest is grounded in this divine pattern: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This divine rest becomes a model and metaphor for believers. As D. A. Carson explains, “God’s rest is not a cessation of all activity but a sovereign enjoyment of completed purpose, and it anticipates the believer’s rest in Christ” (Carson, 1999, p. 73). The Sabbath thus teaches not merely the value of rest, but the importance of resting in God, entering a state of spiritual peace that mirrors God’s own rest in creation and in redemptive fulfillment.

• The Sabbath Had Unique Significance for Israel

The Sabbath also carried a covenantal identity specific to national Israel. According to Exodus 31:16–17, “The people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath… It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel…” This language parallels the signs of other covenants: the rainbow with Noah (Genesis 9:13), and circumcision with Abraham (Genesis 17:11). The Sabbath functioned as a sign of the Mosaic covenant, emphasizing Israel’s set-apart status and calling to holiness. Theologian Michael Horton states, “The Sabbath was to Israel what circumcision was to Abraham’s descendants: a sign of covenantal identity and obligation” (Horton, 2011, p. 449). This is further confirmed by the exclusivity of the command; no Gentile nation was ever judged for failing to keep the Sabbath, nor were Gentile believers in the New Testament ever commanded to adopt Sabbath observance. The command is repeated in the Old Testament in distinctly Jewish contexts, reinforcing its covenantal—not universal—character.

• The Fourth Commandment Has Moral Significance

Though the ceremonial observance of the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, the Fourth Commandment retains enduring moral value. It is the only commandment in the Decalogue that combines ceremonial and moral elements. The ceremonial element—a specific day tied to rituals and covenantal signs—has been fulfilled and set aside (cf. Colossians 2:16–17). However, the moral aspect remains: the importance of regular, rhythmic worship; of providing rest for oneself and others; and of recognizing human dependence on God for rest and restoration. Francis Turretin called it a “mixed commandment,” writing, “It has moral principles as its substance, but ceremonial principles as part of its circumstance” (Turretin, 1992, Vol. 2, p. 17). The one-in-seven rhythm appears to be built into creation itself and still serves a moral and spiritual function. Setting aside a day for worship and rest honors the moral foundation of the commandment, even if the day and ritual restrictions are no longer binding under the New Covenant. It reminds believers to worship regularly, rest justly, and reorient themselves around God, rather than productivity or pleasure.

Colossians 2 and the Abolishment of Ceremonial Sabbaths

In Colossians 2:13–14, the Apostle Paul presents a sweeping declaration of the believer’s liberation through Christ’s atoning work: “And you, who were dead in your trespasses… God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Paul is emphasizing that the legal demands of the Mosaic Law, which once condemned sinners by highlighting their guilt, have been fulfilled and canceled by the cross. “The “record of debt” (cheirographon) likely refers to the written code of ordinances—ritual obligations, ceremonial laws, and calendar observances—which are no longer binding in light of Christ’s completed work” (Moo, 2008, p. 217).

Following this assertion, Paul adds in Colossians 2:16–17: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” The phrasing here follows a pattern found throughout the Old Testament (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; Hosea 2:11), reflecting a descending scale of sacred time: annual festivals, monthly new moons, and weekly Sabbaths. This linguistic formula demonstrates that Paul is not merely referencing special sabbatical feast days, but the entire Old Covenant calendar system, including the weekly Sabbath. These observances, he says, were shadows—symbolic types that pointed forward to Christ, the true substance. Once the reality (Christ) has come, the symbolic shadow (ceremonial Sabbaths) is no longer needed.

This passage undercuts the argument made by some Sabbatarians, including Seventh-day Adventists, who claim that Paul was only referring to ceremonial or annual Sabbaths, not the weekly Sabbath. However, the grammatical structure and theological intent of the passage refute this. To repeat a previously made point, as scholar Douglas Moo explains, “There is no convincing reason to think Paul excluded the weekly Sabbath. The trio—festival, new moon, and Sabbath—is comprehensive, reflecting all types of sacred days under the Law” (Moo, 2008, p. 218). Paul’s message is clear: no one is to be judged for not adhering to these Old Covenant observances. The believer’s identity is now found in union with Christ, not in external rituals. The Sabbath—as a typological sign—has found its fulfillment in the rest that Christ offers, and believers are now called to rest in Him by faith (cf. Hebrews 4:9–10).

The Obsolescence of the Old Covenant and the Sabbath as Its Sign

Hebrews 8:13 powerfully summarizes the theological transition from the Old Covenant to the New in Christ: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” This verse comes directly after the writer of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah 31:31–34, a prophetic promise that God would establish a new covenant unlike the one made with Israel at Sinai—a covenant that would be written on the heart, not merely on stone. This is critical in understanding the role of the Ten Commandments—including the Sabbath—as part of a larger covenantal system that has now been fulfilled and superseded by Christ’s redemptive work.

The Decalogue (Ten Commandments), given in Exodus 20, formed the core of the Mosaic Covenant. Deuteronomy 4:13 is explicit: “And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.” These commandments were not merely general moral laws—they were covenantal terms, bound up in the legal framework God made with the nation of Israel. The Fourth Commandment, in particular, had unique covenantal significance. Exodus 31:16–17 says, “Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath… It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel…” Just as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:11), the Sabbath functioned as the external sign of the Mosaic covenant, as I noted earlier in this text.

Therefore, when the author of Hebrews says that the first covenant is “obsolete,” he is not merely dismissing select ceremonial aspects of Jewish life—he is declaring that the entire covenantal structure, including the Ten Commandments as a unit, has passed away in its legal, covenantal form. As theologian Thomas Schreiner points out, “The Decalogue is a summary of the Mosaic covenant, and the Mosaic covenant is now obsolete. Therefore, the Decalogue in its covenantal form is also obsolete” (Schreiner, 2010, p. 116). This does not mean that the moral principles underlying some of the commandments are no longer valid. Rather, they are now reconstituted under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), not under the old covenantal administration.

The Sabbath, being the covenant sign of the Mosaic system, is particularly impacted by this transition. The ceremonial command to rest on the seventh day functioned within a specific covenant framework that is no longer operative. Hebrews makes clear that the types and shadows of the old system—including the priesthood, temple, sacrifices, and Sabbath observance—have been fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 4:9–10; 10:1). To insist on continuing Sabbath observance as a covenantal obligation is to misunderstand its typological function and to fail to recognize that Christ is the reality to which the Sabbath pointed. As Hebrews 8:6 affirms, Jesus is now the mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises, rendering the old covenant—including its signs—both fulfilled and obsolete.

• Legalism and Old Covenant Entanglements

Sabbath as the Sign of True Believers

One of the defining characteristics of Seventh-day Adventism is its elevation of Sabbath observance—specifically the seventh day (Saturday)—as the distinguishing mark of God’s true remnant people. Ellen G. White claimed that the Sabbath would be the final test of loyalty in the last days, writing, “The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted” (The Great Controversy, 1888/2002, p. 605). In her writings, Sabbath-keeping is portrayed not simply as obedience to a commandment but as the dividing line between the saved and the lost, with Sunday worshipers often associated with the “mark of the beast.” This emphasis directly undermines the apostolic teaching that no day is binding as a salvific requirement (Romans 14:5–6; Colossians 2:16). Paul explicitly warns believers not to allow anyone to judge them “with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath,” because these are shadows—the substance belongs to Christ (Colossians 2:17). The SDA reintroduction of Sabbath as a salvific sign places believers back under a shadow covenant from which Christ has already delivered them.

As we draw this discussion on Sabbath observance to a close, a striking inconsistency within Seventh-day Adventist teaching deserves attention. Ellen G. White, the church’s prophetic authority, has made unequivocal claims linking Sunday observance to the reception of the Mark of the Beast, a central component of Adventist eschatology. In The Great Controversy, she writes: “The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Roman church… When Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God… will thereby accept the sign of allegiance to Rome” (White, 1950, pp. 447–448). In this framework, Sunday worship is framed as not merely a theological error, but a final test of faith with eternal consequences.

Yet, in stark contrast to this absolutist tone, White offered a remarkably different counsel when faced with a real-world scenario. In 1902, during a time of tension over Sunday laws in Australia, a struggling Seventh-day Adventist church reached out to her for direction. Her response, recorded in Testimonies for the Church, Volume 9, is revealing: “Dear Brother: I will try to answer your question as to what you should do in the case of Sunday laws being enforced. The light given to me by the Lord at a time when we were expecting just a crisis… was that when the people were moved by a power from beneath to enforce Sunday observance, Seventh-day Adventists were to show their wisdom by refraining from their ordinary work on that day, devoting it to missionary effort… Give them no occasion to call you lawbreakers” (White, 1909, p. 232). Rather than resisting Sunday laws, White advocated compliance—at least externally—while redirecting the day’s use toward missionary work.  

This guidance undermines the sharp apocalyptic framework she elsewhere articulates. If Sunday observance under compulsion represents a spiritual crisis tantamount to receiving the Mark of the Beast, one would expect consistent instruction to resist it at all costs, especially when the tribulation was not upon the church. Instead, White here advises appeasement and prudence. As such, this apparent contradiction reveals the tension between theoretical prophecy and practical reality, and further complicates the Adventist claim that Sabbath observance is the final dividing line of eschatological faithfulness. When pastoral pragmatism clashes with prophetic absolutism, the theological coherence of such claims comes into question.

Dietary and Lifestyle Legalism

In addition to the Sabbath, Ellen White promoted an extensive set of dietary and lifestyle rules, claiming that these were revealed to her by God as conditions for physical and spiritual purity. She declared that consuming meat, butter, spices, mustard, and even pickles could impair one’s ability to hear God’s voice. In Counsels on Diet and Foods, she wrote, “A diet of flesh meat tends to develop animalism. A development of animalism lessens spirituality, rendering the mind incapable of understanding truth” (White, 1938/2004, p. 384). Adventist health reform, though often defended as prudential or holistic, is framed in ways that tie dietary observance to sanctification, creating an implicit hierarchy of spirituality based on food laws reminiscent of the Old Testament. As Numbers (2008) documents, this was not merely health advice but a system of rules with moral and spiritual consequences. While self-discipline and stewardship are biblical principles, elevating food and external behavior to spiritual criteria is condemned in Scripture: “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:8).

A Modern Galatian Heresy

The cumulative effect of this system—Sabbath as a test, food laws as spiritual mandates, and perfection as a requirement for salvation—amounts to a revival of the Galatian heresy, which Paul vigorously opposed. In Galatians, Jewish Christians insisted that Gentile believers must adopt elements of the Mosaic law (circumcision, feast days, etc.) in order to be fully justified. Paul’s response was fierce: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). He declared that anyone relying on works of the law is under a curse (Galatians 3:10) and that to add law to grace is to fall from grace itself (Galatians 5:4). By reintroducing elements of the Old Covenant and making them central to identity, obedience, and final salvation, Adventism repeats this error. While professing salvation by grace through faith, the movement burdens believers with a complex yoke of law-keeping, thereby eclipsing the finished work of Christ. As evangelical scholar Anthony Hoekema rightly observed, “Though the Adventist church officially teaches justification by faith, in practice its system fosters legalism” (The Four Major Cults, 1963, p. 113). What emerges is not liberty in Christ, but bondage to a revised legal code rooted in selective Old Covenant continuity.

• Gospel Contrast and Final Appeal

Gospel Clarity – Justification by Faith Alone

At the heart of the biblical gospel is the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide)—a truth recovered during the Protestant Reformation and rooted in the direct teaching of Scripture. Paul writes in Romans 3:28, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” This declaration is not merely theological shorthand; it is the very foundation of the Christian’s assurance, standing, and hope before a holy God. The work of Christ is not ongoing in the heavenly sanctuary as Seventh-day Adventism teaches—it is finished (John 19:30). The author of Hebrews affirms, “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12), signifying the completion of His redemptive work. Any system that introduces a process of judgment to determine justification—or a need for believers to become sinless to be finally accepted—undermines this finished work.

The Adventist doctrine of Investigative Judgment, as articulated by Ellen White and codified in Fundamental Belief #24, blurs the line between justification and sanctification, making assurance of salvation contingent upon personal performance. This teaching contradicts the apostolic gospel that declares the believer righteous on the basis of Christ’s obedience (Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). As R. C. Sproul rightly emphasized, “The doctrine of justification by faith alone is not a mere academic exercise in theology—it is the very essence of the gospel” (Sproul, 1997, p. 61). Without this truth, Christianity devolves into a religion of human striving rather than divine grace.

Gospel Clarity – Christ’s Finished Work and Present Intercession  1H 41M 10S

The New Testament insists that Christ’s redemptive work is complete and that He is now seated in glory at the right hand of God, not laboring to finish atonement. Hebrews 1:3 declares, “After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” The imagery of being “seated” underscores a completed mission—a royal priest who no longer offers sacrifices because none are needed. This stands in stark contrast to Ellen White’s claim that in 1844 Christ began a new phase of atonement in heaven, a claim with no scriptural support. Rather than a Savior actively judging His people’s fitness, Scripture presents Jesus as “able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). His intercession is one of advocacy and assurance—not condemnation or scrutiny.

Furthermore, the notion that believers must stand without a mediator before the Second Coming, as Ellen White taught (White, 1888/2002, p. 425), is deeply unbiblical. Paul reassures the believer, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). The gospel offers a present and eternal righteousness, freely given should we accept it, not a conditional hope based on ongoing performance.  Its basis is on belief in Jesus only. This is the liberty found in Christ and the basis for true spiritual rest (Matthew 11:28–30; Hebrews 4:9–10).

Warning Against Adventism

Because the gospel is a matter of eternal consequence, any distortion of it must be met with decisive warning. Paul wrote with divine urgency in Galatians 1:8–9: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” The system of Adventism, with its legalistic framework, conditional salvation, Investigative Judgment, and distorted Christology, constitutes a different gospel—one that cannot save. It is not merely a denomination with quirks, but a fundamentally flawed theological structure rooted in false prophecy and doctrinal corruption.

Leaving such a system is not optional; it is a biblical mandate. In Revelation 18:4, God calls His people to “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues.” While this applies directly to eschatological Babylon, the principle holds: when a religious system undermines the gospel and elevates human effort, it becomes a spiritual prison. Adventism, by virtue of its extra-biblical revelations and its gospel-subverting doctrines, should be classified as such. Anthony Hoekema rightly cautions, “Adventism’s insistence on making obedience the basis of justification reveals a system incompatible with the doctrine of grace” (The Four Major Cults, 1963, p. 130).

Adventism as a False System Undermining the Gospel

In light of all that has been examined, it is clear that the system of Seventh-day Adventism—though sincere in many respects—undermines the gospel at every critical point. It diminishes justification by faith by introducing human effort. It denies the finality of Christ’s atonement by teaching an ongoing judgment. It obscures the sufficiency of Scripture by exalting the writings of a false prophet. And it replaces liberty with legalism, leading many into spiritual exhaustion and fear. This is not a secondary issue; it is a matter of salvation itself.

As Martin Luther said, “Doctrine is heaven; life is earth. When doctrine is kept pure, then life is pure.” The impurity of doctrine at the core of Adventism contaminates the Christian life, clouding assurance and elevating man’s effort over God’s grace. The gospel of Jesus Christ stands in glorious contrast: “It is finished” (John 19:30). Those words are not just the end of Christ’s earthly suffering—they are the final word on the believer’s justification.

Encouragement to Seek Gospel-Centered Fellowship

For those who have found themselves trapped in the Adventist system—especially those who now recognize its errors—the path forward is not despair, but freedom. True Christian fellowship is found in the company of believers who gather around the Word of God alone, who exalt Christ alone, and who rest in grace alone through faith alone. Hebrews 10:22 encourages us, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.” That assurance is possible only when Christ’s finished work is rightly understood and trusted.

Former Adventists are urged not to drift into skepticism or secularism—as so often happens when legalism collapses—but to plant themselves in local, gospel-preaching churches that affirm the authority of Scripture, the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, and the joy of salvation apart from works. The gospel is not about performance; it is about trust in the One who performed perfectly on our behalf.

References

Bacchiocchi, S. (1977). From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Pontifical Gregorian University Press.

Bates, J. (1846). The Seventh Day Sabbath a Perpetual Sign. Press of Benjamin Lindsey.

Blocher, H. (1997). Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle. InterVarsity Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Bunyan, J. (1992). The Works of John Bunyan: Volume 2. (O. Sadd, Ed.). Banner of Truth. (Original work published 1671)

Calvin, J. (2008). Institutes of the Christian Religion (H. Beveridge, Trans.). Hendrickson Publishers. (Original work published 1559)

Carson, D. A. (2005). Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. Zondervan.

Carson, D. A. (Ed.). (1999). From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Wipf & Stock.

Codex Justinianus 3.12.3 (Constantine’s Sunday Law), translated in: Schaff, P. (Ed.). (1885). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 14. Christian Literature Publishing Co.

Codex Justinianus 3.12.3. (321 AD). In Schaff, P. (Ed.). (1885). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 14. Christian Literature Publishing Co.

Coon, R. W. (1982). Ellen G. White and Inspiration: The Integrity of Her Literary Dependency. White Estate Research Center.

Dick, E. S. (1994). William Miller and the Advent Crisis: A Documentary History. Andrews University Press.

Ferguson, E. (1996). Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries (3rd ed.). ACU Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. Harper-Torchbooks.

Gaffin, R. B. (2003). Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. P&R Publishing.

Gill, J. (2006). An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (Vol. 1). Grace Works. (Original work published 1810)

González, J. L. (2010). The Story of Christianity: Volume 1 – The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (2nd ed.). HarperOne.

Grenz, S. J. (1996). A Primer on Postmodernism. Eerdmans.

Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan.

Hoekema, A. A. (1963). The Four Major Cults. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Horton, M. (2008). Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church. Baker Books.

Horton, M. (2011). The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Zondervan.

Irenaeus. (c. 180 AD). Against Heresies. In A. Roberts & J. Donaldson (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Vol. 1). Christian Literature Publishing Co.

Johnson, D. (2015). The Cultic Mind: Prophecy, Authority, and Error in American Religious Movements. InterVarsity Press.

Justin Martyr. (1885). First Apology. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, eds. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson. Christian Literature Publishing Co.

Justin Martyr. (n.d.). First Apology. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, translated by Roberts, A., & Donaldson, J. (1885). Christian Literature Publishing Co.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1978). Early Christian Doctrines (5th ed.). HarperOne.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1978). Early Christian Doctrines (Revised ed.). HarperOne.

Keresztes, P. (1965). Constantine’s Edict of Toleration and the Christians. Theological Studies, 26(1), 89–109.

Knight, G. R. (1993). Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism. Pacific Press Publishing Association.

Knight, G. R. (2000). A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Knight, G. R. (2000). A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Longenecker, R. N. (1990). Galatians (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 41). Thomas Nelson.

MacArthur, J. (1994). The Gospel According to Jesus (Revised ed.). Zondervan.

MacLeod, D. J. (1998). The Impeccability of Jesus. Bibliotheca Sacra, 155(618), 158–180.

Mohler, R. A. (2004). The Disappearance of God: Dangerous Beliefs in the New Spiritual Openness. Multnomah Books.

Moo, D. J. (2008). The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Eerdmans.

Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1951). The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Numbers, R. L. (2008). Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (3rd ed.). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Numbers, R. L., & Butler, J. M. (Eds.). (1993). The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century. Indiana University Press.

Olson, R. E. (1999). The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. InterVarsity Press.

Pagels, E. (1979). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books.

Pelikan, J. (1971). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). University of Chicago Press.

Rea, W. (1982). The White Lie. M&R Publications.

Rhodes, R. (2001). Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Harvest House Publishers.

Santayana, G. (1905). The Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Schaff, P. (Ed.). (1997). The Creeds of Christendom (Vol. 2). Baker Books. (Original work published 1877)

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2016). Crossway.

Turretin, F. (1992). Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, J. T. Dennison Jr., Ed.; G. M. Giger, Trans.). P&R Publishing.

Vos, G. (1980). Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Banner of Truth.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press.

Westminster Confession of Faith. (1647/2007). The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Free Presbyterian Publications.

White, E. G. (1851/2002). Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen G. White. Pacific Press Publishing Association.

White, E. G. (1882/2002). Early Writings. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

White, E. G. (1883). Selected Messages, Book 1. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

White, E. G. (1888/2002). The Great Controversy. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

White, E. G. (1898/2002). The Desire of Ages. Pacific Press Publishing Association.

White, E. G. (1906). Manuscript Releases, Vol. 1. Ellen G. White Estate.

White, E. G. (1938/2004). Counsels on Diet and Foods. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

White, E. G. (1950). The Great Controversy. Pacific Press Publishing Association.