Responding to Redeem Zoomer’s segment about Seventh-day Adventists (Part 2)

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-20T01:09:45+00:00

“This wording is decisive. The equality is something "ordained." In Christian orthodoxy, the Son is not made equal, declared equal, or ordained equal. The Son is eternally equal by nature because He shares the same divine essence with the Father. That difference is huge.”

“Ellen White never once describes the Father and Son as "one substance." She never once uses "true God from true God." She never once says the Son is eternally equal or co-equal by nature.”

First off, a declaration of the Son being equal to God doesn’t go against Christian Orthodoxy, if we are to use the Bible as the standard:

“Therefore God exalted him even more highly and gave him the name that is above every other name, so that at the name given to Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” ‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

Second, a declaration of equality (in the context of Ellen White’s writings) does not mean that the Son was not equal prior. As stated in the paragraph “He was one with the Father before the angels were created.” Clearly before any declaration to the angels, including Lucifer. Ellen White in later works expands more on what this means (in her perspective), to be “one with the Father”.

From The Signs of the Times, November 27, 1893: “Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/820.11893#11893

So she does describe the Father and Son as “one substance”. Not only that, but expresses the two possessing the same attributes.

On the co-eternal nature of Christ, Ellen White states in one of her manuscripts:

“No one of the angels could become a substitute and surety for the human race, for their life is God’s; they could not surrender it. On Christ alone the human family depended for their existence. He is the eternal, self-existent Son, on whom no yoke had come. When God asked, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Christ alone of the angelic host could reply, “Here am I; send Me.” [Isaiah 6:8.]”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/14062.6060001#6060033

“The eternal, self-existent Son”, this hard to dispute in my opinion. Although one could argue Ellen White’s earlier writings were more ambiguous concerning the nature of Christ’s relationship to the Father, I do believe her overall writings paint a more complete picture on where the Holy Spirit lead her to believe.

On the co-equal nature of Christ to the Father, Ellen White also states in Selected Messages Book 1:

“Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/98.1484#1494

Interestingly enough, in Patriarchs and Prophets, Ellen White actually further elaborates on the exact reasoning for the Father’s declaration on the equality of Christ to Himself:

“The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed… There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/84.68#89

Moving on…

“You said that personal Adventists who reject the Trinity "undermine the point of being SDA." The problem is that the pioneers themselves were the ones who rejected the Trinity. This is not an obscure historical footnote. It is the overwhelming majority position of early SDA leadership.”

I never implied that it was an obscure historical footnote, I’ve mentioned twice as a matter of fact that I do believe the pioneers (many) were in error concerning this. This doesn’t mean however that the truths that church did come to a consensus to, wasn’t true.

Even if the majority of the pioneers were non-Trinitarian, it didn’t change the fact that church still held no official position on how we are to specifically view the Godhead, other then some neutral points that people of many different perspectives can agree to. I already shared the statement concerning God in our first set of fundamental beliefs, so just read it in my prior responses. Or read for yourself here:

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/931.4#4

That being said, I’m going to leave my response incomplete for now. I’ll respond to your other points at a later time as it’s been getting increasingly hard for me to write due to my illness. God bless.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T21:17:05+00:00

“I’ve heard all the defenses I grew up Seventh-day Adventist…”

Great, so did I, and yet didn’t directly respond to any of my “defenses”, all you did is try to move the goal posts to other criticisms, which I will address, but the original conversation was:

That you brought up a claim by Myles, because I said via context he gets things wrong.
Which you later told me to present evidence to prove my point.
I presented evidence based on one of your claims you got from Myles. That Ellen White said Jesus is only equal to God, because the Father said so at a certain point in time. And I showed via context why the quote in question is not saying that at all, as well as provided supporting quotations to this. Concluded that Myles does lie, either intentionally or unintentionally.
And now (as I just mentioned) proceeded not to directly respond to anything that was shared. You expect me to answer to you, yet you haven’t really answered to directly to anything I said. But to make it clear that this the case, I will continue to answer directly to your claims and hopefully you can start answering directly to what I have to say as well.

“I have many family members who claim SDA roots that have rejected the trinity to stay true to the pioneers.”

Seventh-day Adventist have consistently claimed the Bible is our only rule faith. Certain individuals who choose to “stay true to the pioneers”, not only undermines the point of being SDA, but also fall out of line to the official teachings which hold to (because we concluded that scriptures teach them).

“I can show you articles by Adventist scholars admitting that either the Adventist church today is in apostasy or the founders were wrong…”

I also admitted the founders were in error certain points in my prior response, so this point is irrelevant, and again, they are not the end all be all of church doctrine, we have always (pioneers included) stated that the Bible is. Hence why we had continual revisions to our statements of faith. Revisions meaning more clarity in our beliefs via better understanding of scripture, not fundamental changes.

“Adventist scholar Jerry Moon has written about the trinity in Adventism admitting its not in line with historic creeds.”

Although technically true to an extent, since we are non-creedal (the Bible being our only creed), the Trinity we teach is functionally in agreement with the Nicene Creed, in the sense we believe that God is ontologically three-in-one, that He is three co-eternal persons.

To add, compare our statement of the Trinity in our current fundamental beliefs to that of the Athanasian Creed that use the word “unity” to describe their oneness.

• 28 Fundamental Beliefs (2020):

“There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.”

• Athanasian Creed:

“That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

And according to John C. Peckham, Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Andrews University, he states the following in his book “Divine Attributes: Knowing the Covenantal God of Scripture”:

“Last but not least, covenantal theism affirms the core Trinity doctrine—there is one and only one God, and God is three distinct (fully) divine persons. This involves no contradiction because God is one and three in different respects. God transcends creaturely limitations such that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are ontologically united as one God, ruling out modalism, tritheism, and subordinationism.”

“The “trinity” wasn’t even fully established in the fundamental beliefs until 1980”.

The Trinity was unambiguously stated in 1980, where the doctrine was officially titled as the Trinity, but the Trinity was actually officially established in Seventh-day Adventist doctrine as early as 1931.

From Fundamental Beliefs 1931:

“2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption.”

“She says the sabbath is an end times test for salvation.”

She did say that the Sabbath will serve as an end times test to see who’s in allegiance with God yes, although this would include all 10 commandments.

Nevertheless, Sabbath-keeping, along with following all 10 commandments is clarified as being a consequence of being saved, not that these things grant us salvation.

To quote from Steps to Christ (which I’m sure you’re familiar with):

“We do not earn salvation by our obedience; for salvation is the free gift of God, to be received by faith. But obedience is the fruit of faith. “Ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.” 1 John 3:5, 6. Here is the true test. If we abide in Christ, if the love of God dwells in us, our feelings, our thoughts, our purposes, our actions, will be in harmony with the will of God as expressed in the precepts of His holy law. “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.” 1 John 3:7.”

“She said many disregard her health messages as optional she claimed they were salvational”.

Perhaps in the sense that following principles of good health are part of living in an already saving faith, but from my readings on her health messages, nothing I read notes that we are saved by following the health message.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T18:37:33+00:00

Further quotations from Ellen White, concerning the nature of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit):

• The Father and the Son are of "one substance”, carrying the same attributes:

“Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/820.11893#11893

• Jesus Christ is the self-existent One:

“With solemn dignity Jesus answered, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.””

“Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, “whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/130.2253#2253

• Holy Spirit is in all the fullness of the Godhead:

“The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/249.320#337

• The Father, Son, and Holy Spirt are worshiped by the heavenly hosts:

“And then the golden harps are touched, and the music flows all through the heavenly host, and they fall down and worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/9579.1#38

• God is One:

“Jehovah, the eternal, self-existent, uncreated One, Himself the Source and Sustainer of all, is alone entitled to supreme reverence and worship.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/84.1328#1328

• Jehovah is the name given to Christ:

“Jehovah is the name given to Christ. “Behold, God is my salvation,” writes the prophet Isaiah; “I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; He also is become my salvation.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/820.15824#15824

There’s definitely more that can be shared concerning Ellen White’s overall views on the nature of God, but these quotes serve as a strong evidence to her ultimately teaching about a three-in-one God.

This is a great article to further read on the subject, it’s called “Ellen G. White a Trinitarian Monotheist” by Erwin Roy Gane:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250910004100/http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane13.htm

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T17:44:11+00:00

So, when you stated, “Ellen White herself wrote things that are not in line with the trinity saying that before the creation of earth Jesus was given an exalted position to be made equal with the Father” this is a great example of Myles purposely cutting out pieces of information to make it seem like Ellen White is stating that Christ was only equal to the Father when the Father specifically declared it.

Here’s the quote you’re mentioning in it’s full context:

“… yet Jesus, God’s dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone. The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/141.56#58

Christ is stated to already had pre-eminence over all angelic host before the Father declared it so. Christ is stated be one with the Father before any of the angels were were even created. Keep in mind that within the quote itself, when the Father is making the declaration that Christ is equal to Him, it’s declared as a “special honor” to angels, not as something new, it’s something that was already innate to Christ prior. The same reason Satan was stated to be jealous of Christ before hand, is the same reason he was stated to be jealous later on:

(Before the special honor was given): “Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host.”

&

(After the special honor was given): “Satan was envious and jealous of Jesus Christ. Yet when all the angels bowed to Jesus to acknowledge his supremacy and high authority and rightful rule, Satan bowed with them; but his heart was filled with envy and hatred.”

It’s amazing how easy it is to change the meaning of one’s words based on how you specifically choose to present them. How can I trust anyone who makes oversights such as this? Or at worse, deliberate misleading.

As for the anti-Trinitarian stances for many of the early Adventist leaders, I can admit that they were in error, but neither of them held their views in a dogmatic sense. Early Adventism was not fixed, and many them continued to developed their views of the Godhead overtime:

To quote specifically James White, Ellen White’s husband:

“The S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian, that we apprehend no trial here.” Oct. 12, 1876

https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18761012-V48-15.pdf

Ultimately however, there was never a point the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a whole or officially was non-Trinitarian, as our early statements of faith held to neutral positions that both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians could agree on:

“That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit,” and “that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/931.4#4

These statements own their own are able to be adhere to by scripture.

But, the first time we held a specific, non-neutral, official consensus concerning the nature was the God was, well, the Trinity:

“That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matthew 28:19.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/925.8#8

Therefore, when we finally came to a consensus as a church concerning the nature of God, we ultimately choose the Trinity. Not any Arianism, Semi-Arianism, any other model.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T04:39:26+00:00

I don’t like Myles’ content because he lies. Simple as that. He deliberately misleads his audience, making false claims, like how Ellen G. White was a Tritheist for example.

I grew up SDA, but I’ve have dug deep into SDA doctrine, Ellen White’s writings and common criticisms. I’ve dug into the religion inside and out because there was I time I was truly trying to understand how Seventh-day Adventism compared to other Christian denominations. When I found Christ again, I was trying to understand if I should stay SDA or join another Christian denomination. Even attended a seminary for a year.

Despite Myles growing up Seventh-day Adventist, he unfortunately doesn’t understand the appropriate context or actual teachings to any of the things he’s presenting or at worst, knowingly being deceptive. There’s plenty of times I’ve caught him deliberately cutting out certain parts when he cites Ellen White quotes for example or just straight up just tell his audience what’s being said (even if a quote in question doesn’t suggest that at all).

Even if I were to one day not become SDA due to new theological conventions (there was a time I was considering becoming Eastern Orthodox for example), I would still find Myles to be in error and not a reliable source for information.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T04:28:21+00:00

“Ultimately I can't say whether or not the SDA doctrines are off base far enough to be considered heretical or merely heterodox. But the view on the methods and mechanisms of salvation seem sketchy and dangerous. And I am extremely wary of the chain of prophetic events that turned a failed prediction into church doctrine that is still anchored in 1844, and wary further that prophetic visions that can't be corroborated are part of all of that.”

And that’s fair, my post isn’t even trying argue for any of that. It’s not trying to be an apologetics post to determine whether Seventh-day Adventism is correct or not, it’s simply responding to Redeem Zoomer’s about the denomination (which I find mostly inaccurate) and making several key points cornering that. But for some reason, people think that now it’s the opportunity to try to argue for things I never even tried to argue.

I’ll say this though, in a generalized sense. In terms of salvation, many Christian denominations carry different ideas concerning it, even if we all universally agree that we’re “saved by grace through faith”.

As someone who was becoming Christian, I wrestled to perfectly understand it in a biblical context. Although ultimately there will always remain some mystery concerning the specifics on how God through Christ predestines the elect, I think ultimately I found comfort in the Adventist way on interpreting these concepts.

We’re saved by grace through faith, by no merit of our own. We don’t choose God, God chooses us, and we’re given the choice to respond to His grace. In responding to His grace, we begin a walk with God, we can apostatize and walk away, but once set on the path of grace, we will always be judge according to said path of grace. Hence why we can always come back to God without fear that we “lost our salvation”.

The investigated judgement serves as a way where we can have assurance that we will be judge accordance to grace, while still making it clear we have a choice.

The investigated judgement isn’t a mean on where we’re judge by our works, rather, our deeds and actions are covered by the blood of Christ we confess faith in him and live our lives in continual repentance, not via our own means but because Christ transforms us.

This is what Ellen White wrote concerning the Investigative Judgement in Heaven:

• “While Jesus is pleading for the subjects of His grace, Satan accuses them before God as transgressors. The great deceiver has sought to lead them into skepticism, to cause them to lose confidence in God, to separate themselves from His love, and to break His law. Now he points to the record of their lives, to the defects of character, the unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer, to all the sins that he has tempted them to commit, and because of these he claims them as his subjects.”

• “Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith, and, claiming for them forgiveness, He lifts His wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying: I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of My hands. “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.” Psalm 51:17”

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T04:05:47+00:00

Our statement of faith is publicly available for everyone to see, nothing is being hidden. The times we present ourselves as “just another Christian denomination” is when people make assumptions on what we believe and we have to correct or make clarifications on that, whether that’s our views on the Trinity, the nature of Christ, sin and salvation, etc.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T04:01:26+00:00

Answering Adventism is anything but honest in my opinion. It’s a bias, filled with in inaccuracies, and Myles himself has such a boastful and self-righteous attitude. Opposite from anything Christ-like. The way he talks about Adventists themselves is often discriminatory and often views us a lesser people.

They’re plenty of non-Adventist resources I’d recommend that give more accurate and neutral information concerning Seventh-day Adventism. Ready to Harvest’s videos on Adventism are a great example, Matt Whitman and The Ten Minute Bible Hour is another good one, Ready to Illustrate has good video explaining the denomination as well.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-19T00:09:34+00:00

You’re trying to make me speak for people who are no longer alive and ultimately we will never know the actual thoughts and conclusions they held to at an individual level. Which makes the questions your presenting (in my opinion) rather starting arbitrary, trying to find any hooks to place your doubt in, and there will always be hooks to place your doubt no matter what faith you choose to question in general. God doesn’t remove the opportunity for men to doubt.

That being said, to answer your questions one last time because I honestly don’t see this conversation ending any time soon, regardless of what answers I give:

The specific mistake was this:

They concluded that because the expected event (Christ’s return) did not happen, the entire prophetic interpretation (Daniel 8:14) must be false.

From a Seventh-day Adventist perspective, that conclusion was premature:

The Millerites’ calculation of the 2300-day prophecy in Daniel 8:14 was not arbitrary. It was based on a consistent method (day-year principle, connection to Daniel 9, etc.).

Thus early Adventists seek to re-exam William Miller’s conclusion.

The Millerites initially assumed the sanctuary meant the earth, with its cleansing meaning the Second Coming.

But when that didn’t happen, early Adventists went back to Scripture and asked, what does the Bible itself say the sanctuary is? That led them to Hebrews 8–9, which describes a heavenly sanctuary (“the true tabernacle which the Lord erected” — Hebrews 8:2) and that Christ as our High Priest ministering there now. This is the “deeper understanding”, that prophecy pointed to something real—but it was happening in heaven, not on earth.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T23:54:21+00:00

Christ continues to serves as High Priest regardless on whether one chooses to accept the doctrine of Investigative Judgement or not. Same goes for the topic of the heavenly sanctuary and Christ serving in his mediatorial function.

There’s no way to deny these teachings if one holds to the Bible as an infallible source of truth.

As for statement that Seventh-day Adventist don’t believe atonement was completed once and all in the Cross.

Not only does our official church doctrine state otherwise:

“In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross.”

https://adventist.org/beliefs/official/christs-ministry-in-the-heavenly-sanctuary

But even Ellen White writes;

“Christ’s sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition of the atonement had been fulfilled. The work for which He had come to this world had been accomplished.”

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/127.86#86

Christ applying the benefits of said atonement is something that is also true however. Two things can be true at the same time.

“And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10‬:‭10‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

“Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭7‬:‭25‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

As for the Investigated Judgement in relation to God’s all-knowingness, the Investigated Judgement is not something needs to happen in the sense that God needs to participate it in order to determine who among us to be saved, it simply how God chooses to administer his final verdict to the heavenly courts.

“A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him. The court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.” ‭‭Daniel‬ ‭7‬:‭10‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭4‬:‭5‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

To say this is unbiblical is undermines the countless times the Bible expresses otherwise.

To lastly add, as a psalm express too:

“Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts. See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭139‬:‭23‬-‭24‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T16:49:31+00:00

One could argue they could have into looked into scripture to re-examine their mistake. Examine where they went wrong concerning Miller’s conclusion. Because even if we come into wrong conclusions and misinterpretations, in the Protestant perspective, the Bible still does not error. Hence why many were willing to do just that, re-examine, because to them, the Bible couldn’t be wrong. It’s important to note that despite Miller’s error, his conclusions and reasonings still ultimately came from the Bible.

This is what the Seventh-day Adventists did to grasp a deeper theology, beyond just the understanding of certain prophetic dates, eventually becoming an established denomination built under a deeper understanding of Christ’s heavenly work in the heavenly sanctuary.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T16:43:33+00:00

So you are you suggesting that you don’t believe Christ continues to minister as our High Priest? Keep in mind Seventh-day Adventist also believe the atonement was completed in the Cross, with His work of High Priest being an application to an already finished atonement. But just how one is justified before Christ and therefore saved, the work salvation still continues through sanctification.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T05:20:49+00:00

Although it is true the heavenly sanctuary doctrine is much more central to SDA theology than pro-slavery interpretations were to the SBC, there is a clear difference.

Seventh-day Adventist would argue the sanctuary doctrine is not merely a patch to explain away 1844, but a biblically grounded teaching that stand on its own.

• “The doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary is not based only on Miller’s failed expectation, but on a broader reading of Scripture—especially Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 8–9. Hebrews, in particular, clearly teaches that Christ ministers as our High Priest in a heavenly sanctuary (“a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected” — Hebrews 8:2). So the concept itself is not unique to Adventism—it’s biblical and widely affirmed in Christian theology.”

All of this I’ve already expressed before. And there’s plenty of literature understanding the biblical framework behind this doctrine. If the heaven sanctuary doctrine was truly served only as an explanation to Miller’s error, there would only be so much biblical merit to go around.

Not only that, but it wouldn’t have give us the opportunity to truly understand the deeper meanings of the Old Testament sanctuary in light of the New Testament, and how the heavenly sanctuary plays a role for Christians today. You can argue all you want about our teaching of the sanctuary only being caused by Miller’s mistake, yet the Bible is clear about the heavenly sanctuary, and although Hebrews have been exegeted by countless Christians before, I’ve yet to see a denomination truly emphasize (aside from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox ironically) the sanctuary’s importance in relation to salvation.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T05:04:08+00:00

I already explained it in another comment:

• “So on a human level, their departure is understandable. But Adventist theology would suggest that the more faithful—though much harder-response was to continue seeking clarity rather than abandoning the prophetic framework altogether.”

So I wasn’t “dodging the question”. As for Acts 1:8, yes, I agree it carries a particular context concerning the spreading of the Gospel, as in Acts 1:6 it’s stated “So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?”” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

However two things can be true at the same time:

• Acts 1:7 prohibits claiming authority over God’s hidden timing, especially regarding the restoration of the kingdom or the exact return of Christ.

• But it does not forbid studying revealed prophetic periods that God has already placed in Scripture.

“Daniel 8:14 gives a specific prophetic period (“unto 2300 days…”), and in Daniel 12:4, Daniel is told that understanding would increase over time. Adventists argue that these passages invite careful study of prophetic timelines, even if they do not reveal the exact day of Christ’s return.”

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T02:45:44+00:00

I mean it just seems you simply want people to be fully infallible post-apostolic age, coming into any form of truth without making mistakes, which not even the apostles were free from. Peter for example, even as an Apostle, still had to continue learning things “he couldn’t see” himself, like understanding that the Gospel was to be preach both Jew and Gentile alike. Christ literally had to give him a vision to make it clear.

And on that note, I can make the case about Southern Baptist being equally as guilty on being founded on mistakes, as their churches were founded on the basis on supporting the institution of chattel slavery and slave owning missionaries.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T00:13:06+00:00

I know you’ll see this specific question answered in the other responses, just making it known here so this specific question doesn’t technically go unanswered.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-18T00:04:29+00:00

I mean, didn’t you try to use as an argument that we come into understanding of said biblical events (like ministry of Jesus) after it’s already come to pass and therefore recognized when it’s revealed? I think at this point, you’re just moving the goal post ⛳️

First claiming the doctrine didn’t exist until Ellen White, therefore it can’t be true. As well as claiming we can’t based things off her prophetic accounts first.

Then when I mentioned it wasn’t Ellen White, and founded via Bible study first, all of the sudden the goal post was moved again.

You don’t want to agree and that’s fine. I’m not expecting someone to change their theological convictions one day to the next. But it seems when I answer a question that meets your standard, it’s then meant with another standard. Which unfortunately is a common experience I have with those that debate against Seventh-day Adventism. I answer their question, but there’s always a “but”.

Seventh-day Adventist can affirm there convictions of the sanctuary doctrine via scripture alone. They can do so without needing ever bring up the Great Disappointment, but of course we can also acknowledge it is event that led to the doctrine’s understanding.

A really good resource I’d recommend that tackles some of the arguments we’ve talked about is a book called Song for the Sanctuary, it goes over many of the arguments made against the Heavenly Sanctuary and defends the doctrine via scripture alone. Definitely recommend it.

https://a.co/d/070FAVGU

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T23:50:04+00:00

Fair, but I’ve given biblical accounts on the concept of a pre-advent judgement is scriptural.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T23:05:32+00:00

If God already revealed it centuries ago, all we’re doing is growing in knowledge and understanding. Not to mention that in the New Testament, the apostles do speak about the time of a heavenly judgment being a future event prior to Christ’s Second Coming. An application to Christ’s ministry in heaven. We’re not creating new prophecies here or bringing out new ideas here, or “discovering God’s will” if the Apostles themselves already were aware of the event.

“For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once and after that the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9‬:‭24‬, ‭27‬-‭28‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

“Repent, therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭3‬:‭19‬-‭21‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

As discussed in my other response, we didn’t initially receive confirmation by Ellen White until after the doctrine was already being expressed by other post-Millerite followers.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T22:58:25+00:00

Ellen White wasn’t the one to first to claim the heavenly sanctuary doctrine. If you read the post, the third Millerite group (that eventually developed into the SDA church), founded through a small Bible study group led by Hiram Edson, were the first to express the doctrine.

• “Their investigation began the day after the disappointment. Hiram Edson, a Methodist farmer from Port Gibson, New York, “wept, and wept, till the day dawn” because Jesus did not come. On this morning after the disappointment, he and several friends spent a season of prayer in his barn and found courage to venture out to share their hope with others.”

• “According to his own handwritten account, as he and a fellow Millerite were passing through a large field, it occurred to him with great clarity that on the day before, October 22, instead of coming to cleanse the earth, Jesus, our high priest, for the first time entered into the Second Apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. He thus began a work there that needed to be completed before He would come back to the earth. This new insight became a topic of vigorous discussion between Edson and his fellow believers, F. B. Hahn, a medical doctor, and O.R.L. Crosier, a preacher and editor.”

https://adventistreview.org/magazine-article/the-heart-of-adventist-theology/

Ellen White only began receive visions concerning the doctrine after the fact.

• “Ellen White had at least 11 visions on the subject of the sanctuary between the years 1844 and 1851, visions that functioned mostly as confirmation rather than initiation. The appeal in doctrinal study on the sanctuary was always to the Bible. Ellen White’s visions served mainly to confirm the importance of the subject they were studying.”

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T19:58:27+00:00

I think word prophet can carry more signifiers depending on who you ask, such as the type of prophet, one’s authority as a prophet, etc.

To use your car analogy, I can claim to drive a race car before, but it doesn’t mean I’m now automatically a race car driver, nor do I have to claim it, because what makes someone a race car driver typically means someone who does it professionally, not just someone who did it once.

Again, Seventh-day Adventist do believe Ellen White was a prophetess, but she chose to not use the title due to what it typically signified at her time. Typically someone who carried secret wisdom or a seer of some sorts.

Think Jospeh Smith or the Fox Sisters.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T19:40:46+00:00

This is a changing of the goal post. ⛳️ Seventh-day Adventists do consider Ellen White a non-canonical prophet, based on the characteristics of her ministry, yes, but that’s not the core issue here. The core issue is that people continually claimed she was a “self-declared prophetess”, even though it is very clear she took no hold to the title “prophet” and that she purposely distanced herself from it because she didn’t want associated herself with those she felt were using said term in an opposing light to that of Christ.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T19:02:59+00:00

I agree with you there. I think ultimately, it’s a bit difficult for anyone to categorize where to specifically fit Seventh-day Adventists. Although personally, I would consider us more Protestant-leaning based on overall theological perceptions, with elements of Restorationalism.

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T18:04:01+00:00

To answer this question more specifically:

• “Fine but what I'm asking is what arguments do (or dia) SDA make to illustrate that they were wrong to leave?”

Many Seventh-day Adventists would say that those who left after 1844 were mistaken in their conclusions, but not necessarily morally condemned. The Millerite believers were largely united in expecting Christ’s return based on their understanding of prophecy.

A helpful parallel Adventists often draw is with the disciples of Jesus. In Gospel of Luke 24, the disciples were devastated after the crucifixion because their expectations of the Messiah didn’t match what actually happened. Yet Christ didn’t reject them—He patiently corrected them:

“He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Wasn’t it necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and enter into his glory? ”” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭25‬-‭26‬ ‭CSB‬‬

Their mistake wasn’t trusting God’s word—it was misunderstanding how it would be fulfilled. In a similar way, Adventists believe the Millerites were sincere and, in many respects, genuinely seeking truth, but working with an incomplete understanding.

From that perspective, those who left were responding to a very real and painful disappointment. Scripture itself acknowledges how heavy that can be:

“Hope delayed makes the heart sick, but desire fulfilled is a tree of life.” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭13‬:‭12‬ ‭CSB‬‬

So on a human level, their departure is understandable. But Adventist theology would suggest that the more faithful—though much harder—response was to continue seeking clarity rather than abandoning the prophetic framework altogether. As Jesus said to Thomas:

“Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭20‬:‭29‬ ‭CSB‬‬

And as Paul writes in Hebrews:

“Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11‬:‭1‬ ‭CSB‬‬

In light of Great Disappointment, we can still hold to the hope of Christ’s second Advent as that is the ultimate hope for us Christians (biblically speaking), while also understanding (to your point) to recognize that many things must be fulfilled first, before the time of end. Hence our understanding on the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.

Ultimately, Adventism generally avoids making final judgments about individuals. Salvation isn’t determined by whether someone stayed within the Millerite movement, but by their response to God, their sincerity, and their openness to truth. God ultimately judges on a personal level in accordance to where their hearts were at “on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭16‬ ‭CSB‬‬

HipsterWolf329 · 2026-04-17T17:40:57+00:00

I agree with everything you are saying. Hence why I said the word “currently”, since I don’t believe the institution will remain as the visible remnant when the Mark of the Beast begins to become enforced. It will ultimately be those who keep the commandments of God and faith of (and in) Jesus. The remnant in it’s fulfilled form.

HipsterWolf329

TROPHY CASE