GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | GCO PRESS PRICE LIST | GCO Ministry Officers 2010-03-16 01:32Z

The Loss of Transcendence, Pt. 4

Kevin D. Paulson reviews Graeme Bradford’s More Than A Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), and People Are Human (Look What They Did To Ellen White) (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 2006).

Presenter:   Kevin D. Paulson

Location:    Internet

Delivery:    2007-05-09 14:33Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-05-09 14:33Z

Type:        Book Review

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot4.php

Ellen White and Eschatology

Following the playbook of revisionist modern Adventism, Bradford strikes at the heart of the church’s classic faith with his assault on Ellen White’s understanding of last-day events. He assembles the pronouncements, research, and speculation of liberal Adventist scholars for nearly 30 years, trumpeting their long-held conclusion that many classic Adventist views of end-time expectation and prophetic fulfillment are meaningless, outdated, and simply irrelevant to our 21st century world (380).

We noted in the previous section the following statement by Bradford about the gap of time and culture between Ellen White’s day and ours, and its alleged impact on her instructive authority:

What about the fact that she lived in a world so different to us today? That was a world when Adventism was mainly in North America. She only lived fifteen years into the 20th century and never saw most of the big issues we have to face today (381).

Bradford’s problem, of course, is that like so many other attacks on Adventism and Ellen White, this one strikes at the Bible and Christianity as well. After all, Jesus and the apostles lived and taught in a world even more different from ours. Modern and postmodern humans tend to indulge a strange, myopic arrogance of uniqueness—the illusion that technology and cultural change have brought the human experience beyond and outside of what is addressed by the written counsel of God. (One thinks of a recent author who alleged the irrelevance of traditional hymns and the King James Version to “a mobile culture educated to consider the gospel ‘old news’” (382). How “mobility” manages to cast reasonable doubt on the gospel, he didn’t explain.) In reality, the course of history shows—despite changes in culture and technology—a remarkable homogeneity in the human story and struggle throughout the ages. Most importantly of all, one is hard pressed to demonstrate that the modern increase of knowledge has produced a similar increase in wisdom.

Bradford’s scholar-supporters seek to denigrate the 18th and 19th century signs in earth and heaven, recounted by Ellen White and long considered by Adventists as harbingers of the coming of Jesus (383). In the words of one scholar quoted by Bradford:

Early Adventist leaders were convinced that a great many of the end-time prophecies were being fulfilled very rapidly. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755, the Dark Day of 1780, the captivity of Pope Pius VI in 1798, and the falling of the stars in 1833 all had taken place within recent memory. Even more striking, however, was the fact that Turkey had lapsed into impotency in 1840, apparently on the exact day that Josiah Litch had predicted, according to his interpretation of Revelation 9.… prophecy seemed to be unerringly horning in on the world like successive cannon blasts, with the next shot due to explode at the climax of human history (384).

This scholar and others cited by Bradford claim the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 was really no big deal, especially compared to other earthquakes which caused greater damage and loss of life (385), that the Dark Day of 1780 was really caused by forest fires blended with a storm front (386), and that the falling of the stars in 1833 was in fact an event that occurs every 33 1/3 years, the 1966 shower presumably being 2 1/3 greater than the one in 1833 (387).

Bradford clearly seems to endorse these attacks on key features of Ellen White’s eschatology. After citing the doubts noted above, he writes:

Today you would be hard pressed to convince people that Jesus is coming soon on the basis of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, the 1780 dark day and the 1833 falling of the stars.… And there is no doubt that Ellen White endorsed the traditional view of the early Adventists in her book The Great Controversy (see pp. 305-308, 334). Today few if any Adventist scholars would support her on these points (388).

Bradford again quotes the scholar cited earlier, who declares of Ellen White regarding these events: “She did err in borrowing mistaken prophetic expositions” (389).

But again, Bradford and his scholar-friends have missed the mark through false assumptions and the ignoring of crucial evidence.

First of all, neither Scripture nor Ellen White teach that the eschatological signs in question—the Lisbon earthquake, the Dark Day, and the falling of the stars—were, or would be, strictly supernatural. Indeed, when Christ spoke of famines, pestilences, earthquakes (Matthew 24:7), “distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring” (Luke 21:25) as noteworthy events preceding His return, He did not say all of these would be caused by God (or Satan) acting alone. Many of the Bible’s miracles took place through God using available natural elements—Moses sprinkling ashes to bring boils on the Egyptians (Exodus 9:10), Elisha using salt to heal the waters of Jericho (2 Kings 2:20, 21), and Christ Himself using spittle to heal a blind man’s eyes (John 9:6, 7). With this in mind, there is no reason why God couldn’t use tectonic plate movements, forest fires, or a Leonid shower to signal the nearness of Jesus’ coming.

The attempt by the scholar cited by Bradford to discount the significance of the Lisbon earthquake by comparisons with similar disasters at different times (390), totally misses the point. The Lisbon earthquake was not significant because of the damage and death it caused, but because of its widespread nature and the impact it exerted on the minds of those who experienced it. I would encourage all readers of this review to do a Google search on the Lisbon earthquake and its consequences for the religious and philosophical thought of its day. More material will cross your screen than you will have time to read.

One editor of The New Republic magazine, reflecting on the impact of the recent tsunami in south Asia, spoke of the effect of the Lisbon disaster on the thinking of its time and possible parallels to similar calamities now:

On the morning of November 1, 1755, an earthquake destroyed Lisbon. It lasted ten minutes, and concluded with a tsunami at the mouth of the Tagus River. Tens of thousands of people perished, and the philosophical confidence of Europe was forever shaken. When I began to grasp the magnitude of what the Asian ocean wreaked last week, it was to the Lisbon literature that I turned for assistance.…

It was completely right that the horrors of Lisbon would throw Europe into a crisis of meaning, that Voltaire’s denunciation of the faith that tout est bien would send seismic waves across an entire culture (391).

It is fair to say no other earthquake, or perhaps any other natural disaster since the Flood, has caused such upheaval of thought in the world. How any scholar, especially an Adventist, could try to belittle the meaning of this event, its implications for subsequent history, or the interest it still holds for thoughtful people today, escapes me.

Whether forest fires in neighboring regions offer a credible explanation for the Dark Day of New England on May 19, 1780 (392), might perhaps be arguable from either side. As was noted earlier, a supernatural explanation is not required, either by the biblical predictions (Joel 2:31; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24; Luke 21:25; Revelation 6:12) or the recounting of these events by Ellen White (393). It is the fact of the darkness that is foretold, not its cause (394). Indeed, one referenced source in Ellen White’s telling of the Dark Day story described the occurrence with the phrase: “mysterious and as yet unexplained phenomenon” (395). Across the page she quotes another referenced source who recalls a sermon at the time by a pastor, one Nathaniel Whittaker, who “maintained that the darkness was supernatural” (396). Interestingly, Ellen White never herself states whether in fact the darkness was supernatural or caused by some other means.

Having carefully read the three articles in the Review and Herald which marked the 200th anniversary of the Dark Day (397)—and which promoted the “forest fire” explanation—I found myself still asking one fundamental question: If forest fires and a storm front were the cause of the darkness, why wasn’t this recognized immediately and generally at the time? These were not ignorant, primitive people. They were well acquainted with forest fires; indeed, one eyewitness historian quoted in the Review articles stated: “It is the American custom to make large fires in the woods, for the purpose of clearing the lands in the new settlements” (398). And the northeastern United States is intimately, repeatedly familiar with severe weather. One must also wonder how such heavy smoke, dark and thick enough to turn day into night, could have engulfed the region without causing widespread asphyxiation. Indeed, choking and eye irritation are common occurrences today when smoke from wildfires spreads over an area. Yet no reports on the Dark Day seen by the present writer speak of such effects, even to a limited degree.

The articles in question claim that certain eyewitness accounts of the darkness have been taken out of context by those holding to a supernatural explanation. Following are the accounts as the Review articles cite them, including the portion the articles’ author uses as proof that the witnesses discounted any other-than-natural interpretation of this event:

The appearance was indeed uncommon, and the cause unknown. Yet, there is no reason to consider it supernatural or ominous (399).

No satisfactory solution has appeared. But it does not hence follow that none can be given. That it was supernatural, was never supposed but by the ignorant and superstitious: it must then admit of a rational and philosophical explanation (400).

Noah Webster is also quoted by these articles as saying, “No satisfactory cause has yet been assigned” (401). The author, however, discounts the validity of this statement as evidence for supernatural causes, since he claims Webster “actually supported a fanciful, volcanic, natural-cause theory of his own” (402). Strangely enough, no reference is given by the author for such a view on Webster’s part.

One is truly puzzled by the above claim that the supernatural explanation “was never supposed but by the ignorant and superstitious,” especially in view of Yale College President Timothy Dwight’s observation that “a very general opinion prevailed that the day of judgment was at hand” (403). But aside from this, what matters most about the above statements is not that they discounted a supernatural cause for the darkness, but that according to their own testimony, no satisfactory cause had been found. If the cause were a forest fire or a storm, it is difficult to imagine they wouldn’t have quickly discovered this as an explanation. Forest fires and storms were very familiar to these people, and thus it is dubious at best to compare the supernatural explanation ascribed by many to this phenomenon—as one of Bradford’s sources claims—to ancient superstitions about solar eclipses (404), or perhaps to the fears of Mexico’s Aztecs when confronting for the first time the guns and horses of the Spaniards.

For the present writer, the most significant aspect of the Dark Day is that to my knowledge, no other day like it has ever occurred in recorded history, before or since. Whatever the true cause of the darkness, this fact is hard to deny.

Efforts by Bradford and others to discount the 1833 falling of the stars evoke similar responses from the careful student of history and prophecy. As with the other signs here noted, Ellen White does not ascribe a supernatural cause to the Leonid shower of November 13, 1833. Indeed, Ellen White refers to this event as “the great meteoric shower of November 13, 1833” (405). One is truly dumbfounded by the claim of the scholar cited by Bradford that the 1966 Leonid shower was “2 1/2 times greater than the shower of 1833” (406). Whether the volume of meteors descending in the shower of 1966 was greater than 1833 or not, is again beside the point. No meteor shower in history has been as visibly awesome, spectacular, or widely reported as the one in 1833. Consider the words of Professor Denison Olmsted, professor of astronomy at Yale, who wrote the following year:

The morning of November 13, 1833, was rendered memorable by an exhibition of the phenomenon called shooting stars, which was probably more extensive and magnificent that any one hitherto recorded.… Probably no celestial phenomenon has ever occurred in this country, since its first settlement, which was viewed with so much admiration and delight by one class of spectators, or with so much astonishment and fear by another class (407).

Another writer speaks of “the whole firmament, over all the United States, being then, for hours, in fiery commotion.… From two o’clock until broad daylight, the sky being perfectly serene and cloudless, an incessant play of dazzlingly brilliant luminosities was kept up in the whole heavens” (408). Another, writing of this experience, observed, “For nearly four hours the sky was literally ablaze” (409).

Had the Leonid shower in 1966 been anywhere near as visibly glorious, one can be sure it would have received stunning and vivid media coverage, especially in the age of television. In all likelihood, such a spectacular event would have warranted a special, collector’s edition of The National Geographic.

Bradford and one of the scholars he quotes criticize Adventism and Ellen White for their focus on events and issues in North America relative to the signs and nearness of Jesus’ coming. The attempt to downplay the 18th and 19th century signs in the earth and heaven, noted above, seems strongly affected by the resentment of Bradford and those of like mind at Adventist eschatology’s apparent Euro-American venue. One scholar cited by Bradford observes, commenting on The Great Controversy:

The reader notices how the scene for the cosmic struggle gradually moves west in Great Controversy, from the Orient to the Continent and England, to end up in North America. The focus on the United States is so characteristic that the description is difficult to comprehend for readers lacking adequate knowledge of American history. It is evident that E.G. White wrote primarily for Americans in her own time, with a provincial perspective, or emphasis on domestic problems, which meant ‘the world’ to many readers in America (410).

Bradford writes:

In Ellen White’s day Adventism was confined almost entirely to North America. It would be natural for Adventists to think in terms of Bible prophecy being fulfilled largely in their country (411).

It is important that Adventism take its message to the present world in relevant terms; or else it will finish up becoming a 19th century North American relic (412).

But like other Adventist revisionists, Bradford fails to consider that the sweep of cosmic history outlined in The Great Controversy, and in classic Adventist end-time expectation, moves in concert with the sweep of world history itself. The quest for a spiritual haven in America by God’s people coincided with the decline of both papal and European prestige, with the United States gradually moving to global power in the century or more following the papal eclipse in 1798. And in case Bradford and his fellow revisionists haven’t noticed, America is now the only world superpower. It is American policy that decides global peace and global war, American decision-making that determines the general course of human events. It can hardly, therefore, be at the risk of irrelevance for Adventists to continue preaching an eschatology with America on center stage.

We can see how it makes perfect sense for the last-day signs in question to take place first in Europe, where papal power was fast receding under pressure from the Enlightenment (culminating in the French Revolution and the pope’s captivity at Napoleon’s hands), then in America and particularly New England, where the great Advent movement was destined to rise. The trajectory of global history from the demise of papal supremacy to the emergence of America was a development perfectly suited to attend the rise of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. God brought about the birth of Seventh-day Adventism in the United States for a reason. It was here that world power would eventually be concentrated, thus giving impetus and influence to the final gospel summons to mankind.

Bradford’s statement, noted earlier, that people today aren’t likely to be convinced by 18th and 19th century events that Jesus is coming soon (413), fails to consider not only the dramatic multiplication of other signs since then, but also the fact—as Robert Olson has noted—that “in terms of the total history of the earth,” these signs are quite recent events and strong evidence of our Lord’s soon coming (414). Combine with this the moving focus of world history from Europe to America during this time, the papal recession followed by the rise of atheism, then the resurgence of papal power following the collapse of Communism, together with America’s emergence as the supreme world power, and the relevance of classic Adventist eschatology to the contemporary world becomes more than moderately credible.

Another scholar quoted by Bradford claims, regarding the signs of Jesus’ coming listed in Matthew 24: “The pattern of Matthew 24 appears to be that the real signs are not signs of nearness but signs of coming” (415). Citing modern Bible translations, Bradford insists that anyone reading one of these “will find the Greek text clearly translated in such a way as to forbid the interpretation that the cosmic events could be anything other than what occurs at the actual coming of Jesus” (416). The New International Version, for example, is quoted by Bradford as saying: “At that time the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky” (Matthew 24:30) (417).

But the NIV, as it often does, plays too loosely with the wording of this text as found in the original language. The Greek of this verse literally reads, almost identically to the King James Version: “And then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven” (418). “Then” implies a subsequent event, not at all disallowing a lapse of some time. The Bible often describes events in a single phrase or sentence which in fact are separated by significant periods of time. Paul, for example, writes in Philippians 1:23 of his desire to “depart, and be with Christ,” which many Christians have mistakenly assumed to mean he would go straight to heaven at death. But on the basis of what Scripture teaches elsewhere regarding the unconscious state of the dead (Job 14:10-12; Psalm 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 5:28, 29; Acts 2:29, 34), we know that when Paul says, “to depart, and be with Christ” (Philippians 1:23), he is speaking of two different events separated by many years.

Daniel’s description of the end-time resurrection is much the same:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).

From this verse it sounds like the resurrection takes place all at one time, which we might conclude were it not for other, clarifying passages in God’s Word. Elsewhere we find, of course, that the resurrections of the just and the unjust take place a thousand years apart (Revelation 20:5, 6). The same is true in Peter’s description of the “day of the Lord,” in which “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10). Again, by itself this would make it seem that the destruction of the earth by fire takes place all at once, at the second coming of Christ. But when we compare this verse to others in the Bible, it becomes clear that the earth’s fiery destruction is not completed till the close of the millennium (Revelation 20:9).

Regarding the eschatological signs in Matthew 24 being evidence of nearness, Bradford and his scholar-friends should simply read the chapter again. Immediately after the description of Christ coming “with power and great glory” (verse 30), we read the following:

Now learn a parable of the fig tree: When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors (verses 32, 33).

Luke’s recounting of our Lord’s words is even clearer on the nearness issue:

And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh (Luke 21:28).

We will later address the issue of the circumstances which hasten or delay our Lord’s return. For now it should be clear that the statement by the scholar quoted by Bradford, who depicts the end-time portents as “not signs of nearness but signs of coming” (419), is mistaken.

Bradford’s reference to the recent book by Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom, charting the growth of Christianity in the Third World and its parallel decline in the developed world (420), is more an argument against Bradford’s revisionism than one in its favor. Far from being evidence for conservative Adventism’s irrelevance, Jenkins’ book describes how Third World Christians are pulling their respective denominations toward a strong conservative orthodoxy (421), away from the open-ended ambiguity Bradford thinks his own church needs so much. Bradford’s reference in this context to such issues as women in ministry, and the acceptance or rejection of homosexuality—issues which, he claims, represent “new challenges” for which “traditional Adventism” is presumably unprepared (422)—make one wonder how much attention Bradford pays to developments in both global Adventism and other denominations. Both in the Adventist Church and other churches, it has been Third World members who have insisted on strict biblical faithfulness regarding such issues as the above, resisting the efforts of largely First World members to promote change of a more permissive nature. Recent votes by the worldwide Adventist body on the subject of women’s ordination, as well as the recent divide in the Episcopal Church over homosexual practice (423), give little credence to the theory that Third World growth in the church is likely to bring accommodation of non-conservative trends.

One of the scholars cited by Bradford tries to debunk the prediction of Josiah Litch on the breaking of Turkish power in August of 1840 (424). Because Ellen White recounts favorably the Litch prediction and its impact on the Millerite movement (425), Bradford and those of like mind see this as further evidence of Ellen White’s occasional unreliability. The scholar Bradford quotes claims Litch’s prediction and its fulfillment really didn’t mean much, since “Turkey still exists as a modern state, having never lost its independence” (426).

But Litch never predicted that Turkey would lose its independence. What according to Ellen White fulfilled the Litch prediction was how, “at the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations” (427). Ottoman Turkey had been in decline even before this event, but the event foretold by Litch resulted in a significant hastening of this process. Describing the course of Turkish history during this time, one recent historian speaks of how “the power of the Grand Turk dwindled into dotage” (428). Turkey has never been a major world power since that time.

Bradford lists a number of factors peculiar to the 19th century which he claims influenced the prophetic and end-time expectations of Ellen White and Adventism in general. Issues such as slavery and the Civil War (429), Catholic immigration and its impact on Sunday observance and the temperance issue (430), the rise of trade unions (431), and the memory of the French Revolution and its bloody assault on religion and established order (432). These factors, Bradford implies, give evidence of the 19th century, North American focus of classic Adventism, which presumably has little or no meaning for either our contemporary age or those living in other parts of the world (433).

Regarding the slavery issue, Bradford writes:

In Early Writings she (Ellen White) pictures slaves and their masters. This description is not matched in The Great Controversy. Slaves are no longer mentioned because the Civil War has been fought and slavery in North America has ended by the time The Great Controversy was written (434).

Bradford needs to go back and re-read both Early Writings and The Great Controversy. Ellen White’s statement in Early Writings about slaves at the Second Coming of Christ reads as follows:

I saw the pious slave rise in victory and triumph, and shake off the chains that bound him, while his wicked master was in confusion and knew not what to do; for the wicked could not understand the words of the voice of God (435).

Contrary to Bradford’s statement, Ellen White does mention slavery in The Great Controversy as existing in the last days, when she writes:

As the defenders of truth refuse to honor the Sunday-sabbath, some of them will be thrust into prison, some will be exiled, some will be treated as slaves (436).

Bradford might protest that this doesn’t match the description noted earlier from Early Writings of slaves and their masters. But if in fact some of the saints will be treated as slaves in the last days, obviously they will have wicked masters who will tremble at God’s wrath as their pious subjects are freed. There is no reason at all to assume that the Early Writings statement about slaves throwing off their chains isn’t clearly anticipated, even if not mentioned outright, by the circumstances described in The Great Controversy. Moreover, the Early Writings statement says nothing specific about African-American slaves, Southern masters, plantations, or any other details which would confine her comments on this subject to a particular time or place.

Ellen White’s other reference in Early Writings to slaves and their masters simply declares how the latter will have to suffer, in the final punishment of the wicked, for the sins committed by their slaves because of the repression and subjugation of the latter’s consciences (437). But this being a reference to the final judgment, it rightly applies to slaves and masters in all ages, not just in antebellum America. Moreover, one is astonished how Bradford seems unaware of the widespread existence of slavery even in today’s world. Some years ago, Newsweek magazine ran a story on sweatshops and slavery in the urban United States (438). A recent article in a New York City newspaper reported how that city has become “one of the biggest entry points for women slaves” into the United States (439). A recent CNN special report, titled, “Invisible Chains,” documented the existence of slavery throughout the world, including America (440). Most recently of all, an article in Christianity Today speaks of how at least 27 million slaves are estimated throughout the world today (441).

It would seem Ellen White’s Early Writings statement about slaves throwing off their chains is as relevant now as when first written. Moreover, Bradford forgets that Early Writings was first published in 1882—nearly two decades after the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in the United States. If Ellen White’s statements about slavery at Jesus’ coming reflected an era—and an issue—that no longer existed, why did she not remove these statements before the book was published? Far from being evidence of confinement to a North American worldview, the Early Writings statement describes a condition presently existing in many countries of the world—one not likely to disappear any time soon.

Bradford’s assumptions border on insolence when he alleges that widespread Protestant fear of Catholic immigration to America was significantly responsible both for Adventist beliefs concerning Sunday laws and the curtailment of alcohol use (442). Painting with an even broader brush, Bradford implies that the Adventist insistence on temperate living and the eschewing of practices destructive both spiritually and physically (443), grew out of a larger fundamentalist fear that “the USA was losing its Protestant identity” under the pressure of Roman Catholic and Jewish immigration to the United States (444). Seeking again to relegate classic Adventism to the backwaters of a bygone era, Bradford assures us, “Today the challenge is not Catholic immigration,” but rather Eastern mysticism, fundamentalist Islam, terrorism, environmental pollution, and similar problems which—in Bradford’s view—neither Ellen White nor our pioneers in general could possibly have anticipated (445).

But the writings of Ellen White say absolutely nothing about immigration, Catholic or otherwise, or the perceived threat of such to America or its Protestant principles. Neither the counsels nor theology of Ellen White contain the slightest germ of anti-Catholic (to say nothing of anti-immigrant) prejudice! Her emphasis on the papacy’s role in prophecy and last-day events was based on sound biblical teaching, enunciated before her by the Protestant Reformers (446). Nativist and “Know-Nothing” paranoia had absolutely nothing to do with it! (What other Adventists, at one point or another, may or may not have believed on this subject, is not the focus of this review.) The following statement by Bradford strains credulity when compared with Ellen White’s actual teachings on the coming Sunday-law crisis:

Sunday laws were aimed at the Catholics because of their relaxed attitude toward the observance of Sunday. This was seen as a threat against the Protestant way of life in North America. Adventists were caught up in a cross-fire primarily aimed at the Catholics (447).

But according to Ellen White’s prediction of the final crisis, Sunday legislation would result not from Protestants reacting against Catholic disregard of Sunday sacredness, but from a development utterly unheard-of in her day—Catholic-Protestant unity:

The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience (448).

Our land is in jeopardy. The time is drawing on when its legislators shall so abjure the principles of Protestantism as to give countenance to Romish apostasy (449).

When our nation shall so abjure the principles of its government as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery (450).

Far from being irrelevant to contemporary cross-currents and issues in America, the above statements carry profound significance in a time that has seen unprecedented Catholic-Protestant cooperation in the political arena (451).

Regarding the rise of trade unions and their alleged influence on Ellen White’s and Adventism’s perspective, Bradford again misses the point. He writes, concerning this issue: “The influence of the hard-drinking Catholic laborers was an unsettling influence in city life” (452). Perhaps, but Ellen White’s warnings about labor unions and confederacies were much broader than many suppose, and cannot fairly be ascribed either to fear of Catholic laborers or to a lopsided concern about labor organizations as distinct from combined forces in the business world (453). The following statement demonstrates the balance of Ellen White’s warning as regards both business and labor alliances, and rings with obvious relevance in a world where business mergers and consolidations are the order of the day:

The work of the people of God is to prepare for the events of the future, which will soon come upon them with blinding force. In the world gigantic monopolies will be formed. Men will bind themselves together in unions that will wrap them in the folds of the enemy. A few men will combine to grasp all the means to be obtained in certain lines of business. Trades unions will be formed, and those who refuse to join these unions will be marked men (454).

In the previous section we addressed Bradford’s dispute with Ellen White over whether the Bible was banned for 3 1/2 years during the French Revolution (455). In addition to this alleged problem with Ellen White’s recounting of this historical period, Bradford again claims irrelevance as a problem with the classic Adventist understanding of Revelation 11. In his words: “The French Revolution has no longer the same impact upon we who live 200 years after the event as it did our forefathers” (456).

Again one marvels at the shallowness of such comments, especially in view of how much of the global upheaval during the past century resulted from the impact of Marxist-Leninist movements, whose ideology traces in large measure back to the French Revolution (457). One recent historian notes the pivotal role of the French Revolution in modern history when he describes the First World War as “the largest human event since the French Revolution” (458). One need not accept the convictions or premises of classic Adventism to acknowledge the decisive, worldwide influence of the French Revolution on the course of mankind since.

At another point Bradford quotes a liberal Adventist scholar who claims that “since the Second Vatican Council (1963 - 1965), everything previously written about the character of Roman Catholicism has to be re-examined” (459). Since Bradford later affirms his belief in the papacy being the Antichrist of Bible prophecy (460), one wonders what he thinks such “re-examination” is likely to prove. To all who might wonder if the classic Adventist denunciation of papal teachings is still justified, a paper by the present writer—written after the recent papal election—is recommended (461). This paper includes meticulous documentation, from very recent sources, of continued papal adherence to the teachings against which Adventism and historic Protestantism have borne witness.

We can thus clearly see how misguided is Bradford’s use of the above issues in seeking to demonstrate “how different our world today is to that of Ellen White’s” (462). Whatever differences may indeed exist between our world and hers, the aforementioned issues are no evidence for them.

For some time now, liberal Adventists have urged a radical “re-interpretation” of Ellen White’s eschatology, especially with regard to an end-time Sunday law in America and subsequent global persecution of God’s people (463). Despite his apparent belief, noted above, that the papacy is indeed the end-time Antichrist (464), Bradford clearly seems to share the passion of his fellow revisionists for major changes in classic Adventist eschatology. One of his scholar-supporters is quoted as saying:

A direct corollary exists between the concept of delay and that of re-application. With increasing delay, the need for re-application of the imagery becomes more pressing as a means of maintaining a sense of imminence. As culture changes, the symbols must be reapplied.

In North American Adventism, however, an Essene-style approach to Adventist mission tends to postpone the felt need for reinterpretation. Adventists who know only Adventists and who live in their own American sub-culture do not concern themselves with relevance and adaptation. They are convinced that their interpretation of Adventist eschatology has been God’s plan from the foundation of the earth.… the delay of the Advent means reinterpretation with a vengeance (465).

For all their vaunted attunement to the “real” world, one repeatedly senses that so-called “progressive” Adventists have crafted their own form of Essene-style isolation—with the exception that the ancient Essenes’ recluseness was one of self-abnegation. Even a quick perusal of television and Internet news, at any given moment, unveils the portrait of a world crumbling in much the way Ellen White predicted. The return of the papacy to world prominence, the power of the Religious Right in American politics, the fear of global terror and its impact on personal liberty, multiplying natural disasters and widespread moral decay—all invade on a daily, even hourly basis the consciousness of 21st-century minds. Even if one wishes to talk of “felt needs”—that contemporary, pseudo-spiritual rationale for the sacrifice of principle on culture’s altar—it is hard to imagine what need could be felt more deeply than the desire to understand the world’s chaos and see its divine anticipation through the prophetic Word. The constant, repetitive evidence from the outside world giving credence to Adventist eschatology constrains many to ask whether it is more important for liberal Adventists to vent revulsion at the imperatives of their erstwhile faith than to objectively consider reams of data which might—just might—convince them Ellen White and classic Adventism are right after all.

At one point Bradford quotes Ellen White’s statement: “It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional” (466). By using this statement in the context of discussing reapplication of Ellen White’s end-time prophecies on account of circumstantial and cultural change, Bradford seriously perverts this principle of prophetic understanding.

According to the Bible record, prophecy is not conditional based on any changes except the spiritual response of those to whom the prophecy is delivered. Jonah’s prediction, for example, that Nineveh would be overthrown in forty days (Jonah 3:4) had nothing to do with whether a political or military power nearby was capable of doing the job. That prophecy was conditional only on whether the Ninevites would or would not turn from their evil ways, which they did (Jonah 3:5-10). Ellen White says that if those who heard Noah’s message had likewise repented, “the Lord would have turned aside His wrath, as He afterward did from Nineveh” (467). But as with Jonah’s prophecy, that of Noah was not conditional on whether the forecast of destruction was or was not physically or scientifically possible. The antediluvians made the fatal mistake of holding to this view (468).

One liberal Adventist quoted by Bradford states that, due to the pluralism and diversity of modern American society, a national Sunday law is about as likely in our contemporary culture as, in his words, “the return of national prohibition” (469). This alleged “reality,” in his view, necessitates a reinterpretation of Adventist end-time prophecy (470). But even if the myriad contrary evidences in today’s world did not exist, we would not be justified in altering the sacred Word without a spiritual change on the part of the public to whom the message is borne. (If, for example, mainstream Christendom were to accept the true Sabbath and the eschatological judgment message, renouncing its false doctrines and embracing God’s Word, the fall of Babylon could in fact be reversed and a new understanding considered regarding end-time expectations and predictions.) In the absence of such a change, however, no volume of seeming impossibilities or issues presumably unanticipated can alter the church’s proclamation of divinely-foretold events.

Bradford’s claim that a host of contemporary issues—from Islamic terrorism and New Age thinking to environmental destruction, racial violence, and sexual immorality—supposedly elicit no answers from Ellen White and classic Adventism (471), is yet another charge without proof. In what way is classic Adventism in general, or Ellen White in particular, incapable of speaking to these issues? The rise of global terror—Islamic or otherwise—has merely served to demonstrate how quickly freedom can be jeopardized if people get scared enough (472), offering further evidence that in such a crisis (especially one involving weapons of mass destruction) the final scenario predicted by Ellen White could easily come to pass. Adventists understand the answer to New Age mysticism better than most other Christians because of our belief in conditional immortality, our health message, and our holistic view of man. The destruction of God’s natural kingdom is foretold in Scripture (Hebrews 1:10, 11), and those who facilitate this destruction are listed as suffering God’s final wrath (Revelation 11:18). And Ellen White’s stand for racial justice (473), while not always practiced by Seventh-day Adventists, gives evidence that the world’s social conscience has only recently been catching up with the prophetic voice bequeathed long ago to God’s end-time church.

And sexual immorality (474)? The breakdown of the family (475)? Why does the church need a new paradigm here? It’s not as if the Bible or Ellen White leave these issues alone. And what Ellen White didn’t explicitly address, such as homosexuality, she didn’t need to. The Bible is clear enough (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Timothy 1:10). It is sadly typical of the so-called “progressive” mindset to offer a long, wearying list of contemporary issues and trends, making it appear—by implication if in no other way—that the church is at the mercy of its environment whether it wishes so or not, and had best “adapt or die.” (A recent statement by a youthful church editor from Bradford’s native land actually suggests that Adventists take a more tolerant line within the church toward couples living together out of wedlock (476).)

And of course, no “progressive” litany of denominational shortcomings fails to mention the “challenge” posed by women in ministry (477). Never mind, of course, that the presence of women in ministry has never been an issue in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Headship and ordination, which the church has in fact addressed in recent times, is a separate issue. There is a difference between the church confronting a particular challenge, and confronting it in a way that accommodates a certain definition of progress. If the church’s goal is faithfulness to God’s Word, rather than misbegotten notions of “adaptation” or “relevance,” its success in addressing modern issues will be defined by how—through divine grace—it achieves and sustains such faithfulness.

One participant in the fictional dialogue of People Are Human mentions “the morality of cloning and genetic engineering,” claiming that “it doesn’t seem to me that Ellen White has much to say about these important issues” (478). Interestingly, Ellen White’s statements about amalgamation before and after the Flood (479)—which, to his credit, Bradford does not dismiss (480)—may have something to tell us here. Jesus, after all, did compare the wickedness in Noah’s day to what will exist in the world just before His second coming (Luke 17:26).

Bradford quotes another scholar who seeks to spiritualize the biblical time prophecies, making it so the numbers and time frames listed are not exact, but are instead spiritual illustrations from which one should no more expect precise accuracy than from the lyrics of a poem. The scholar in question writes as follows:

More broadly, our hope sees with increasing clarity that the Book of Revelation is largely a right-brain, holistic composition to which many people have insisted on giving a left-brain, reductionistic interpretation.… The Book of Revelation is not a piece of encryption to be decoded, but a song of hope by which to be captivated, an epic poem by which to be inspired and energized.…

With this insight into the nature of biblical apocalyptic, our hope can sit more lightly on interpretations and applications of specific periods of time, whether half an hour (Rev. 8:1) or forty-two months (11:12; 13:5) or a thousand years (20:2, 3)… but the Advent hope is not gnostic, claiming secret, inside knowledge about the future. Prophecy is not ‘history written in advance’ (a misconception that goes back more than three centuries). People of hope know that the future belongs to God; but about exactly what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, or next century, they know no more than anyone else.… Our Advent hope does not predict the future, but looks forward to it eagerly (which is spiritually more important); for it knows that the future is, in the most profound sense, God’s future, that what is coming is the activity and presence of God, and that in everything God will be working for good (Romans 8:28) (481).

Again we call to mind Episcopal Bishop John Spong, who uses exactly the same argument regarding the resurrection of Jesus:

We could not talk of resurrection as if it were physical resuscitation, as some parts of the resurrection narrative suggest. We would not turn the proclamation ‘death cannot contain him’ into empty-tomb stories of Easter, complete with angels, earthquakes, soldiers falling over like dead men, and temple veils that kept human beings separated from the holy of holies being ripped open.…

We would never in our day of space travel and knowledge of the vastness of the universe try to assert that the God experienced in Jesus has been reunited with the God who was presumed to dwell just beyond the sky by telling the story of the cosmic ascension.… Our task is neither to dismiss these narratives as pre-scientific, and therefore to be without truth, nor to seek to wrap our twentieth-century brains around a first-century cosmology. Rather, we probe the story, go beneath the words, and seek to enter the experience that produced the words (482).

And again we confront the dark reality that to spiritualize the truth about God results in the loss of God Himself.

Adventists have confronted before this effort to spiritualize the time prophecies. Robert Brinsmead, in his infamous Judged by the Gospel, used this same approach to diminish the precision with which Adventists have calculated the prophetic periods:

To try to read the mysterious apocalyptic numbers as if they were mathematical predictions to be fitted into an exact timetable is to miss the artistic spirit of the literature. It is as clumsy and unimaginative as a literal interpretation of a love poem.…

By such ingenious imagery and apocalyptic manipulation of numbers (forty-two months, 1,260 days), John beautifully shows that the situation of the church is like that of both Israel and Elijah in the desert. Let sanctified imagination grasp these two analogies from the Old Testament, and we will have a rich source of understanding on the present life of faith. Used in this way, apocalyptic does not tickle idle curiosity, but it builds character—faith, hope, and patient endurance. Instead of using our calculators when we encounter these mysterious numbers, we should rather read our sacred history to determine which event the author is alluding to (483).

More recently, another Adventist scholar has employed this reasoning in proposing a reinterpretation of the 1,260-day prophecy (484).

The foolishness of this argument is apparent to anyone who closely examines it, especially when one notices how Brinsmead tries to compare the “forty-two months” of Revelation to Israel’s 40-year wilderness wandering (485). Not only does he not explain where he gets the extra two years, but he offers no explanations as to why 42 months have suddenly become a symbol for 40 years! How, in his reckoning, do months suddenly become symbols of years? Moreover, if the Bible didn’t intend these periods to be understood with exactness, why are they stated so exactly in the passages where we find them? Not only is this true for the “thousand two hundred and threescore days” (Revelation 11:3; 12:6), but also for the “thousand two hundred and ninety days” (Daniel 12:11), and the “thousand three hundred and five and thirty days” (verse 12). The seventy-week prophecy of Daniel 9 likewise speaks of “seven weeks, and threescore, and two weeks” (verse 25), how the covenant will be confirmed “for one week,” and how “in the midst of the week He (the Messiah) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” (verse 27). The mathematics of these prophecies are inescapable, neither general nor vague. If the Bible didn’t mean for us to understand them with precise accuracy, why are they stated so precisely?

One is astounded by the comment of the scholar quoted earlier by Bradford, who claims the Advent hope does not claim “secret, inside knowledge about the future” (486). Bible verses press to mind which offer a very different perspective. The psalmist declared, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him” (Psalm 25:14). God’s angel declared to Daniel at the close of his prophecy:

Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand: but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10).

Is it mere coincidence that immediately following this assurance that “the wise shall understand,” that the more-than-slightly precise time periods of 1,290 and 1,335 days are given, with a blessing conferred on those who witness their fulfillment (verses 11-13)?

The statement by that same scholar, that God’s people “know no more than anyone else” about events to come, that “our Advent hope does not predict the future” (487), cannot but be seen in stark contrast with the following statement from Ellen White:

He (the Christian) has a chart pointing out every waymark on the heavenward journey, and he ought not to guess at anything (488).

Once more we see evidence that the “real” Ellen White Bradford talks about is a theological and historical fantasy, in contrast with the Ellen White of her own writings—for whom objective, transcendent truth (including the precise foretelling of events both human and divine) was the unshakable cornerstone of faith.

Bradford appears to endorse a fundamental departure from Adventist belief when he quotes favorably from a scholar who writes:

Our hope recognizes, for example, that the Greek words ton loipon (Rev. 12:17), translated ‘the remnant’ in the King James Version, mean simply, the others,’ or, collectively, ‘the rest’—of the offspring of the woman symbolizing the Christian community of faith. The words carry no necessary implication of chronological posterity or even numerical minority (489).

This is what happens when the Bible isn’t allowed to interpret itself (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14). The book of Revelation contains more Old Testament references, symbols, and allusions than any other New Testament book. The reference in Revelation 12:17 to the commandment-keeping “remnant” hearkens back to the Old Testament, where repeatedly a few faithful who survive God’s punishment for apostasy are depicted as keeping alive the hope and promise of the covenant community (2 Kings 19:30; Isaiah 37:31; 46:3; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezekiel 14:22; Joel 2:32; Micah 2:12; 5:7, 8; Zephaniah 3:13; Zechariah 8:6, 12).

Despite the scholar’s opinion noted above, God’s faithful have been a minority in every age. Only eight boarded Noah’s ark (Genesis 7:7; 1 Peter 3:20), only one tribe out of Israel’s twelve proved loyal in the golden calf crisis (Exodus 32:26), a scant seven thousand in northern Israel’s ten tribes refused to worship Baal (1 Kings 19:18), a mere three stood unbending before the golden image at Dura (Daniel 3:12). And our Lord Himself declared of the path to salvation, “Narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14).

One notes with sadness that in the final chapter of More Than a Prophet, where Bradford explains—after eviscerating the prophetic gift—why he is still a Seventh-day Adventist (490), no mention is found of the Seventh-day Adventist Church being the remnant church of Bible prophecy. The respondent to Ministry magazine quoted earlier, who insists that “Bradford’s books stay within the boundaries of the [church’s] fundamental beliefs” (491), again gives evidence of being factually challenged.

Bradford may be correct when he writes: “A study of the history of the Christian Church over two millenniums indicates that each generation was able to look at current events and see in them fulfillment of prophecy” (492). But this doesn’t mean every Christian generation has looked for the return of Christ in their lifetime. The apostle Paul himself declared that the coming of Jesus would not occur until the Antichrist would arise from within the church (2 Thessalonians 2:3-8). Martin Luther held that the final judgment would take place three hundred years from his time (493)—not far off the mark, as it turned out!

But Bradford is fundamentally wrong when he writes:

By insisting on events that impressed our forefathers many generations ago as being the fulfillment of prophecy may indeed have a counter effect and serve to deaden the Advent hope rather than nourish it (494).

In fact, just the opposite is true. If the church allows the pressures and circumstances of the moment to affect its proclamation of the prophetic Word, the world will rightly see the church’s testimony as the creature of history rather than the measure thereof. The church can expect to face numerous challenges of philosophy, lifestyle, and social agendas which run counter to the Word of God. But none of this necessitates tampering with the prophecies in order to give power to the church’s message. For a good share of the 20th century, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians depicted Communism as the focus of satanic deception as well as the Bible’s Antichrist predictions (495). Ignoring their Protestant heritage and its focus on the papacy, they allowed the issues of a given time and place to trump the clarity of God’s Word. (As if one needed to adjust prophetic interpretation in order to build a biblical case against Communism!) Today the Berlin Wall is a million souvenirs, while the Roman papacy continues to bestride the world with increasing power and prominence.

Our prophetic scenario need not—indeed, cannot—be altered to address contemporary issues and perplexities. The divine Lordship of history is the overriding principle in Bible prophecy, which is why Adventist leaders at Glacier View rejected Desmond Ford’s use of the so-called “apotelesmatic principle”—the belief that prophecy can have multiple and unspecified fulfillments—because this principle “lacks eternal control” (496). Amid the chaos, confusion, and consternation of our contemporary world, Seventh-day Adventism still offers hope through “the more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). GCO

Endnotes

380. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 137-150.
381. Ibid., p. 127.
382. Ed Dickerson, “Dead Languages,” Adventist Review, March 2004, p. 28.
383. Donald Casebolt, “Is Ellen White’s Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy Final?” Spectrum, June 1982, pp. 2-9; Hans LaRondelle, Ministry, September 1998, p. 25, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 137, 138.
384. Casebolt, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 137.
385. LaRondelle, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 128.
386. Casebolt, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 137.
387. Ibid., pp. 137, 138.
388. Ibid., p. 139.
389. Ibid.
390. Ibid., pp. 137-139.
391. Leon Wieseltier, “The Wake,” The New Republic, Jan. 17, 2005, p. 34.
392. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 137.
393. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 396-408.
394. See Kenneth H. Wood, “The Dark Day,” Adventist Review, May 22, 1980, p. 13.
395. Ibid., p. 306.
396. Ibid., p. 307.
397. Merton E. Sprengel, “The Dark Day Plus 200 Years,” Adventist Review, May 22, 1980, pp. 5-8; “Seventh-day Adventists on the Dark Day,” Adventist Review, May 29, 1980, pp. 9-12; “1780 Accounts of the Dark Day,” Adventist Review, June 5, 1980, pp. 11-14.
398. ________, “1780 Accounts of the Dark Day,” Adventist Review, June 5, 1980, p. 11.
399. Connecticut Journal, May 25, 1780, quoted by Sprengel, “Seventh-day Adventists on the Dark Day,” Adventist Review, May 29, 1980, p. 11.
400. Samuel Tenney, quoted by Sprengel, “Seventh-day Adventists on the Dark Day,” Adventist Review, May 29, 1980, p. 12.
401. Ibid., p. 11.
402. Ibid.
403. Timothy Dwight, quoted by John Warner Barber, Connecticut Historical Collections (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck & J.W. Barber, 1836), p. 403.
404. Casebolt, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 128.
405. White, The Great Controversy, p. 333.
406. Casebolt, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 137.
407. Denison Olmsted, The American Journal of Science, vol. XXV, 1834, pp. 363, 364.
408. R.M. Devens, American Progress, or, The Great Events of the Greatest Century (Chicago: H. Heron, 1882), chapter 28, paragraphs 1-5.
409. Peter A. Millman, “The Falling of the Stars,” The Telescope 7 (May-June 1940), p. 57.
410. Ingemar Linden, The Last Trump: An historical-exegetical study of some important chapters in the making and development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishers), quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 147.
411. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 144.
412. Ibid., p. 147.
413. Ibid., p. 139.
414. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 62.
415. George Knight, Hans LaRondelle, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 138.
416. Ibid.
417. Ibid.
418. The Greek-English New Testament (Washington, D.C: Christianity Today, 1975), p. 81.
419. Knight, LaRondelle, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 138.
420. Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 146, 147.
421. Jenkins, The Next Christendom, pp. 7, 8.
422. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 150.
423. Claudia Wallis, “A House Divided,” Time, Aug. 18, 2003, pp. 50, 51; David Van Biema, “Blunt Bishop,” Time, Feb. 19, 2007, pp. 52-55.
424. Casebolt, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 137.
425. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 334, 335.
426. Casebolt, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 137.
427. White, The Great Controversy, p. 335.
428. Barbara W. Tuchmann, The March of Folly From Troy to Vietnam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), p. 385.
429. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 144.
430. Ibid.
431. Ibid.
432. Ibid.
433. Ibid., pp. 144, 145; People Are Human, pp. 159-161.
434. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 143.
435. White, Early Writings, p. 286.
436. ________, The Great Controversy, p. 608.
437. ________, Early Writings, p. 276.
438. S. Begley and P. Annin, “The new sweatshops,” Newsweek, Sept. 10, 1990, p. 50.
439. Justin Rocket Silverman, “‘I tried to run away,’” AM New York, Jan. 5-7, 2007, p. 6.
440. “Invisible Chains,” a CNN report on Anderson Cooper’s “360” documenting slavery throughout the world, Jan. 24, 2007.
441. Deann Alford, “Free at Last,” Christianity Today, March 2007, pp. 30-37; see also Gary Haugen, “On a Justice Mission,” Christianity Today, March 2007, pp. 40-43.
442. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 144.
443. ________, People Are Human, p. 46.
444. Ibid., pp. 43-48.
445. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 150.
446. See Leroy E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1948), pp. 266-263, 598-669.
447. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 144.
448. White, The Great Controversy, p. 588.
449. ________, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 410.
450. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 712.
451. See “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” First Things, May 1994, pp. 15-22
     www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html;
     David Briggs, “Catholics, evangelicals join hands,” San Bernardino Sun, March 20, 1994, p. A2.
452. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 144.
453. See Counsels from the Spirit of Prophecy on Labor Unions and Confederacies (published by the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists).
454. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 142.
455. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 139.
456. Ibid.
457. See Will and Ariel Durant, Rousseau and Revolution (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967), pp. 80-84, 937, 938.
458. William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, 1874-1932 (New York: Dell Publishing, 1983), p. 475.
459. Guy, “How We Are Advent-ist As We enter the Twenty-First Century (Or What Would I Say to Uriah Smith On the Way to the Airport?)” Adventist Society for Religious Studies, annual meeting papers, Nov. 18-20, 1999, pp. 101-105, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 148.
460. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 233.
461. Paulson, “The Charmer and the Enforcer: John Paul 2, Benedict XVI, and the Challenge to Seventh-day Adventists”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-benedictxvi.php.
462. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 159; see also More Than a Prophet, p. 145.
463. See Jonathan Butler, “The World of E.G. White and the End of the World,” Spectrum, August 1979, pp. 2-13, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 197, 198, 279. See also Frank A. Knittel, “The Great Billboard Controversy,” Spectrum, May 1993, p. 56.
464. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 233.
465. Alden Thompson, “Old Testament Apocalyptic and Adventist Eschatology,” an address given at the West Coast Bible Teacher’s Conference, May 1, 1982, p. 7, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 141.
466. White, Manuscript 4, 1883 (Evangelism, p. 695), quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 140.
467. ________, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 97.
468. Ibid., pp. 96, 97.
469. Butler, “The World of E.G. White and the End of the World,” Spectrum, August 1979, pp. 2, 3.
470. Ibid., p. 12.
471. Bradford, People Are Human, pp. 158-161.
472. See Warren Richey, “Supreme Court OK’s Holding of Secret Trials,” Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 24, 2004; Evan Thomas and Michael Hirsh, “The Debate Over Torture,” Newsweek, Nov. 21, 2005, pp. 26-33; Mark Hosenball and Evan Thomas, “Hold the Phone: Big Brother knows whom you call. Is that legal and will it help catch the bad guys?” Newsweek, May 22, 2006, pp. 22-32.
473. See White, Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 253-260, 264-268, 355-368, 533, 534.
474. Bradford, People Are Human, pp. 160, 161.
475. Ibid.
476. See Nathan Brown, “Ceremony or Commitment?”
     www.spectrummagazine.typepad.com/
     the_spectrum_blog/2007//02/ceremony_or_com.html.
477. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 160.
478. Ibid., p. 161.
479. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.
480. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 65; More Than a Prophet, pp. 133, 134.
481. Guy, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 149.
482. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, pp. 235, 236.
483. Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 102.
484. Samuele Bacchiocchi, “Islam and the Papacy in Prophecy,” Endtime Issues, no. 86, July 6, 2002. For a reply to this reinterpretation see Paulson, “Stampeded Interpretation,”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-stampeded.php.
485. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, p. 102.
486. Guy, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 149.
487. Ibid.
488. White, The Great Controversy, p. 598.
489. Guy, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 149.
490. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 227-235.
491. Hook, letter to Ministry, April 2007, p. 27.
492. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 140.
493. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 303, 356.
494. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 140.
495. See Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), pp. 59-71; Marla J. Selvidge, ed. Fundamentalism Today: What Makes It So Attractive? (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 1984), p. 14; Marlin Maddoux, America Betrayed (Huntington Books, Inc, 1984), pp. 30-49; Franky Schaeffer, Bad News for Modern Man: An Agenda for Christian Activism (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), pp. 14-26, 145-153; Douglas Frank, Less Than Conquerors: How Evangelicals Entered the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1986), p. 277.
496. “Statement on Desmond Ford Document,” Adventist Review, Sept. 4, 1980, p. 10.

© 2007 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. Kevin has also since 2002 served as the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.