Now, as to how this ties in, what do Adventists say is the fulfillment of the feast of trumpets?

The disappointment also, though the result of their own misapprehension of the message which they gave, was to be overruled for good. It would test the hearts of those who had professed to receive the warning. In the face of their disappointment would they rashly give up their experience and cast away their confidence in God's word? or would they, in

354

prayer and humility, seek to discern where they had failed to comprehend the significance of the prophecy? How many had moved from fear, or from impulse and excitement? How many were halfhearted and unbelieving? Multitudes professed to love the appearing of the Lord. When called to endure the scoffs and reproach of the world, and the test of delay and disappointment, would they renounce the faith? Because they did not immediately understand the dealings of God with them, would they cast aside truths sustained by the clearest testimony of His word?

This test would reveal the strength of those who with real faith had obeyed what they believed to be the teaching of the word and the Spirit of God.

Some of those who obeyed what they believed to be the teaching of the word had already objected to Miller's message based on the prediction of the time of the coming of Christ.

I think what William Miller taught in 1843 was that "some time between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844, the Lord will come."

The question of whether one would be right in rejecting this message would involve, at least, the Holy Spirit's leading, and the reasons one had for rejecting what Miller was presenting.

Then why did you quote both Early Writings and Testimonies to establish your point, which have completely different contexts?



I don’t like long posts, and the whole chapter is the answer to your objections. Anyway, I’ll try to summarize the content of the chapter using, as much as possible, Ellen White's own words.

Christ Himself sent the disciples forth with the message: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.’ Mark 1:15. That message was based on the prophecy of Daniel 9. They preached the message which Christ had committed to them, though they themselves misapprehended its meaning. Their announcement was in every particular correct, and the ‘kingdom of God’ which they had declared to be at hand was established by the death of Christ. But this kingdom was not, as they had been taught to believe, an earthly empire.

Though the disciples had mistaken the meaning of their message, and had failed to realize their expectations, yet they had preached the warning given them of God, and the Lord would reward their faith and honor their obedience.

The experience of the disciples who preached the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ at the first advent of Christ, had its counterpart in the experience of those who proclaimed the message of His second advent. As the disciples went out preaching, ‘The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand,’ so Miller and his associates proclaimed that the longest and last prophetic period brought to view in the Bible was about to expire, that the judgment was at hand, and the everlasting kingdom was to be ushered in.

When, however, Miller found that the close of the 2300 days was definitely foretold, he concluded that this revealed the time of the second advent. His error resulted from accepting the popular view as to what constitutes the sanctuary.

As the disciples were mistaken in regard to the kingdom to be set up at the end of the seventy weeks, so Adventists were mistaken in regard to the event to take place at the expiration of the 2300 days. Both classes fulfilled the will of God in delivering the message which He desired to be given, and both, through their own misapprehension of their message, suffered disappointment.

Yet God accomplished His own beneficent purpose in permitting the warning of the judgment to be given just as it was. The great day was at hand, and in His providence the people were brought to the test of a definite time, in order to reveal to them what was in their hearts.


Ellen White can be quoted, but I’m failing to see what a supposed “contradiction” of Ellen White about time-setting has to do with the point under discussion. If the argument for not accepting 1844 as a correct date is the fact that Ellen White supposedly contradicted herself about the subject of time-setting, this is a very poor argument, in my opinion.


In the day-year principle a day is understood to represent a solar year. But in the particular case of this prophecy we have to deal with more than just solar years, since we are dealing with the Day of Atonement, which is a date established by a luni-solar calendar. Although our scholars have been failing to establish this point, if we as a church set a specific date for the end of the prophecy (Tishri 10, 1844 A.D.), this means the prophecy must have a specific date to begin (Tishri 10, 457 B.C.). So, we are not dealing just with solar years, but with luni-solar years. The first “coincidence” is that the cycle of 2300 years permits us to have lunar dates at both endings of the period and still have an exact number of solar years between them.

So your saying, Rosangla, regarding the date for the DOA and the lunar/solar calendar, that if it been some other number of years than 1844, the date would not have been the same as the starting date (Oct. 22, in our case), but some other date (like Dec. 25), which would not have corresponded to the original date, which was also Oct. 22 (in our calendar).

If this isn't right, could you give some examples with dates (including how the dates would look like in our calendar) to make clear what you're saying?

Thanks.

Truth is relative, eh?

Whenever human beings are concerned, there are issues involved such as what paradigm one is working from, what is general knowledge for the time, and so forth. For God, the truth is not relative, but for the rest of us there is a lot of filtering that goes into things. Even in a study as disciplined as Mathematics there are breakthroughs which allow for things to be perceived differently than they had been before the breakthrough.

A good example of how God takes into account His hearers is when Jesus told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Jesus knew that his hearers believed that at death one went immediately to one's reward, so Jesus told a parable which had that bit of error as a part of the story. Jesus was interested in communicating another truth, so He let that other untruth slide for the time being.

I think something similar was happening in William Miller's movement. It took him some time to get the date right, and he never did get the right event, but God was guiding the Adventists and giving them a foundation which was capable of preparing for the coming of Christ in a very short amount of time. Indeed, as early as the late 1850's, Ellen White was already writing that "Christ could already have come."

Without a foundation in place, including a proper framework for Daniel and Revelation, that wouldn't have been possible.

Actually only the EW passage is necessary to prove the point. But the other adds some perspective--she knew the results of time-setting but would never apply the advice to Miller.




a. If they preached only what Christ told them then would they have given a true message? Yes.

b. Was the message that Miller preached correct? no.

c. Do you think Miller got his message from heaven as Ellen said?



question:

did their message turn people away due to its unbiblical content? no.

Did Miller's? Yes. Miller preached definite time. Ellen herself admits that this was over and over again the reason cited for rejecting the message. Yet Ellen says that the problem was just with the people, and God was in the time.

Jesus' message was not unbiblical at all. Miller's was.



And don't forget, he also preached definite time which cause rejection by many--who Ellen then says God was angry with.



And his error caused rejection of the message due to its unbiblical nature.

Now, you say it was just his error. But Ellen said it was a heavenly message, and that it was just as God intended. So which is it?



Are you saying that God wanted to give a false date-setting message that caused ridicule and rejection?



Problem. Ellen says they were tested on whether they really loved Jesus and His coming. But they all testified that they objected to the definite time.

The definite time was unbiblical and deserved to be rejected. Yet Ellen says that God REQUIRED these people to forget the biblical warning of not knowing the day or hour and just accept the big lie--otherwise you don't love Jesus.

The message Jesus gave His disciples was NOTHING like that.



It has everything to do with it. It was because Ellen believed that God was in the mistakes, covering the errors, intentionally testing the people, that she could still give validity to the Millerite movement as the beginning of the first two angels' messages, and as the fulfillment of the warning message.

Without it there is no sanctuary message, no three angles, no identity of the remnant, no Adventist church.

It is completely on point.

Not only that but some Adventists point to Miller's message as the fulfillment of the feast of trumpets. Therefore it also relates to the discussion of the types.

I cannot at all believe that the feast of trumpets was really a false time-setting message.



Why?

The reason cited by the people, even according to Ellen, was the definite time. It was unbiblical. And they quoted the text that said it.

On the other hand Ellen just said they didn't love Jesus near.

But she essentially said that anyone who did not accept the date setting message which contradicted the Bible didn't really love Jesus.

I would have no problem if all Ellen said was "we were wrong on the event and the date, but now we got it right. "

But that is not what she said. She said that God was in the wrong message and tested people by the wrong message, therefore trying to preserve an important role for Miller's movement eschatalogically speaking, rather than just admitting he was wrong.

And to justify Miller being right--even though he clearly was not--she condemns those who objected to his argument based on a clear biblical argument--no one knows the day or the hour.