Adventism is defined as that belief or doctrine that the expected Second Coming of Christ is near at hand. When the designation “Seventh Day” is added to the term “Adventism,” that definition then is expanded to include the theological theory that the seventh day or the Sabbath as set forth in the Ten Commandments must be kept until that Advent occurs. It is this theology that we wish to examine in this study.

Our examination is not one that will focus upon present personalities. Neither is it our intent to deal derogatorily, disparagingly, or in a belittling way about the folks that make up the membership of this organization. Though we intend to forcefully and clearly show that their doctrines have run afoul of the all-sufficient Scriptures, we believe them to be, for the most part, a people of high moral standing and integrity and worthy of our respect in that regard.

Our lone intent in this presentation will be to equitably, fairly, and honestly examine some of their major tenets by searching the Scriptures whether these things be so (Acts 17:11).

The roots of the present-day Seventh Day Adventist church can rightly be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century to a self-proclaimed prophet by the name of William Miller. This gentleman founded a group known as the Second Adventists whose total focus was on the Second Coming of Christ. Neither he nor his group believed in, practiced, or taught the errant doctrine of Sabbath-keeping, even though he and his followers claimed him to be a spokesman and prophet of God. The doctrine of present day Sabbath-keeping had not yet been developed or originated. At that time, they were simply “Adventists.” They would later come to be called “Seventh Day Adventists.”

William Miller, using Daniel’s 2300 days (Daniel 8:14) and the day-year approach as a basis, prophesied that Christ would return in 1843. God, the Son, the originating author of the book of Daniel, undoubtedly being fully familiar with what He had authored said, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). That didn’t stop the Adventist Miller. By implication He said, “Maybe Christ the author of the book didn’t know what He had written, but I will tell Him and all others what He wrote, because I am a prophet with greater comprehension ability than He!” Mr. Miller, though a false prophet, was a convincing preacher and converted literally thousands of hopeful people to the Adventist position that Christ’s return was imminent and but days away! Many of Miller’s followers gave away all of their possessions, dressed themselves in self-made white robes, climbed trees, hilltops, and the tallest buildings in preparation for their ascension to meet the Lord in the air. The time came and went, and Christ did not return. Mr. Miller then said he had made a mistake in his calculations; recalculated, and said Christ would indeed return the following year (in 1844). The result was the same, with many people being left disappointed, penniless, destitute, and without hope. Mr. Miller, being an honest man and realizing he had prophesied falsely, left the pulpit in humiliation to lead a life of relative obscurity.

Ellen G. White, one of William Miller’s followers, supported by her husband, James White, moved in to reassemble the failed movement, during which time she developed and added the idea and doctrine of present day Sabbath-keeping to the beliefs of the Adventists. The Seventh Day Adventist name was adopted in 1860 and officially recognized in 1863 in Battle Creek, Michigan. Ellen White, while a young lady, was nearly killed when hit in the face with a brick and lay in a semi-conscious stupor for three weeks. She writes of her frailty, being reduced to nearly a skeleton, with health hopelessly impaired and her nervous system prostrat. While in this state of near hysteria and thought to be near death, she listened to and accepted Miller’s false prophecies about the nearness of Christ’s Second Coming. Adding to her hysteria was her perception of hell that caused her imagination to run wild to the point of fear and perspiration, undoubtedly leading to the Adventist’s theory of no eternal hell and total annihilation of the souls of those who are not Seventh Day Adventists. It was while sick, believing she was near death and in a state of hysteria, that she first began talking to angels and having “visions.”  Dr. William Russell, a Seventh Day Adventist and chief physician in their sanitarium at Battle Creek, Michigan, wrote on July 12, 1869, “that Mrs. White’s visions were the result of a diseased organization or condition of the brain or nervous system.”  Other physicians of that same sanitarium and also Adventists of that day, such as Dr. Fairfield, attested to the cause of Mrs. White’s visions. He writes on December 28, 1887, “You are undoubtedly right in ascribing Mrs. E.G. White’s so-called visions to disease. It has been my opportunity to observe her case a good deal, covering quite a period of years, which, with a full knowledge of her history from the beginning, gave me no chance to doubt her attacks to be simply hysterical trances.”  Following one of these alleged “visions,” Mrs. White claimed she had been taken to heaven and escorted into the holy place in the very presence of the Son of God, who opened up the Ark of the Covenant just for her. Inside, she claims was the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of stone, which folded together like a book. Jesus then, according to Ellen, opened the book so that she could see the Ten Commandments and especially the fourth commandment, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,” around which was a “halo of glory.” She then, on the basis of that so-called “vision,” writes, “I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross,”  which Adventists did not believe prior to that time. Thus, we have the reason, and the only reason, why Seventh Day Adventists claim that all are to keep the fourth commandment of Moses today! Mrs. White did not go to the Scriptures to learn that all today are to keep the fourth commandment, but rather she relied on a so-called “vision” to form her belief, after which she and her followers have turned to the wresting of the Scriptures in a failed attempt to support that hallucinatory trip to heaven! This is the total basis for Seventh Day Adventism. All of their theories and doctrines hang upon a sick woman’s alleged dreams and unproven claims that stand in direct opposition to the inspired Word of God.

Neither time, nor space, will allow us an investigation of all of their claims, but we do want to look into some of their major doctrines in the light of Scripture, spending most of our time on the Sabbath question, upon which their organization stands or falls. First of all, however, let’s consider briefly the claim “divinely illuminate” to a greater degree than the inspired writing of the New Testament.  In the preface of one of her allegedly inspired books, The Great Controversy, we find the following: “We believe she (Ellen) has been empowered by a divine illumination to speak of past events which have been brought to her attention with a greater minuteness than is set forth in any existing records, and to read the future with more than human foresight.” Of her own words she says: “It is God, and not an erring mortal, that has spoken.”  The claim is absurd! It is clear that Mr. Miller’s calculations and prophecy as to when Christ would return the second time, and supported totally by the so-called “inspired” Ellen White, and based on the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, was foolishly incorrect. Christ did not come! In a failed attempt to be consistent in his interpretation of Daniel 8:14, Mr. Miller, using the latter part of the verse, “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” also falsely prophesied that Christ, following His Second Coming, would enter into the Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary to offer His blood “only” for sins past, and that following October of 1844, the door of the sanctuary would be closed and, after that date, salvation would no longer be offered or available to mankind!  The door of the sanctuary and of salvation would be finally and permanently closed at that time. That Ellen White, the alleged inspired prophetess of God, believed and taught such is clearly stated in one of her writings entitled, A Word to the Little Flock, pages 11 and 12. The Seventh Day Adventist church subsequently abandoned the inspiration of Ellen White about the sanctuary, later believing that only those who could be saved were those who “knew” about the change which Christ made in the Holy Place in Heaven in October of 1844. But today they have even rejected this re-correction and now hold that the door of the sanctuary was not really closed, that people can still be saved by the blood of Christ by keeping the Sabbath Day, if they recognize that worshipping on the first day of the week is the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:11-18), and also recognize the interpretation of the Scriptures in the light of Ellen G. White’s alleged “illumination.” Not only does their change in position relative to the sanctuary prove that Mrs. White’s inspiration and illumination is nothing but fantasy, but clearly the inspired writers of the Bible express their opposition to her writings, as well as to her lofty position in the Seventh Day Adventist church! Mrs. White claimed that Christ entered the Holy Place in October of 1844, but the inspired Hebrew writer says that at the time he wrote (approximately AD 63), 1800 years before Ellen G. White, that Christ “by His own blood He entered (past tense) once into the Holy Place, having obtained (past tense) eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12). The inspired Hebrew writer says that Christ entered the Holy Place before AD 63, undoubtedly on His return to Heaven at His ascension. Ellen G. White’s inspiration says, “Not so, He didn’t enter it until October of 1844!” I submit, on this basis alone that Ellen G. White was not a prophet of the God of the inspired Hebrew writer, neither are her writings inspired in any sense or to any degree!  She taught a doctrine that was not of the same Gospel that the apostle Paul preached.  He said, “I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel: which is not another, but there be some that would trouble you and pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we (i.e., inspired men), or an angel from heaven (and I would suggest even those who allege they have visited heaven), preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we (inspired men) have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9). The inspired apostle Paul preached a Gospel that said, “Let your women keep silent in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (I Corinthians 14:34-35). To Timothy, Paul writes, “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (I Timothy 2:11-12). The gospel of the Adventists holds to the contrary, that Mrs. Ellen G. White is the final authority in all religious matters, that only her writings can illuminate the Gospel of Christ sufficiently for our understanding! I submit, therefore, that she has stepped over the line and unlawfully usurped the authority that was given to others. The facts: 1) that she supported the Second Coming of Christ in 1844; 2) that today’s Adventist rejects her initial support of closing of the sanctuary door in 1844; 3) that eye witnesses attest to the truth that she often inserted the words of her own uninspired husband into her allegedly inspired manuscripts; and 4) that eye witnesses attest to the employment of accomplished writers, because of her very limited formal education, to correct and improve the wording in the manuscripts that she alleged had come directly from God.  There can be no doubt to the unbiased that Ellen G. White was not inspired and, further, that those who follow her writings are following an uninspired usurper of the authority that lies only in the Gospel that the Apostle Paul preached.

It is also evident that Ellen G. White and her followers are not inspired when it comes to Sabbath keeping, since their doctrine regarding this matter can clearly be shown to stand in opposition to God’s revealed Word! About this doctrine, they teach that the Sabbath Day commandment is binding upon all today and that it has been binding since the days of creation. This unwarranted and unscriptural position is based primarily on the wresting of Genesis 2:2 where Moses states that God rested from His creative work on the seventh day, after which He, in verse three, says, “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work.” This passage does not state, imply, or hint as to “when” God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath. In fact, it does not tell us here “to whom” it was blessed and sanctified. It simply states the fact of the action. As to “when” the action took place and “toward whom” it was directed, we must look elsewhere in God’s Word. In Nehemiah 9:13-14, the matter of “when” and “whom” is forever settled, “You (God) came down upon mount Sinai and spoke with ‘them’ (that is, the children of Israel through Moses) and gave unto ‘them’ (the children of Israel) right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and made known unto ‘them’ (the children of Israel) your holy Sabbath, and commanded ‘them’ (the children of Israel) precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses your servant.” Clearly, the children of Israel did not know about the holy Sabbath prior to the time that it was made known to them. They therefore, could not have “kept” it before that time! No doubt about it! Listen to Moses again (Deuteronomy 5:2-3); “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb (the mountain chain in which Sinai was situated). The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive today.” Clearly, the Sabbath covenant was neither made, nor “kept,” prior to Sinai. My friends, the Adventists are wrong about the matter and blasphemously argue against the precisely stated Word of God! Their next argument is to suggest that these and many other such passages should be ignored because the command of Exodus 20:8 is to “Remember” the Sabbath day to keep it holy, and “how can one ‘remember’ something he never did before?” Such suggestions go far beyond wresting the Scriptures and approach closely the arenas of selected ignorance or intentional deceit, or both. The definition of the word “remember” is not restricted to that assigned to it by the Adventists. In light of the clearly stated biblical fact that the Sabbath had been unknown to the children of Israel previously, the definition must be recognized as recorded in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: “To keep in mind for (future) attention or consideration; to retain in the memory.” God then, in Exodus 20:8, is effectively saying to the children of Israel, ‘Retain in memory (don’t forget) the commandment I am now giving you; keep the Sabbath day holy.’  I might say to my wife, “Remember to pick me up at the airport.” I am not asking her to remember something she has already done, but rather to “remember” or to “keep in mind” that she is to do something in the future. It is so used in Exodus 20:8, evidenced by the fact that it was at that precise time that the Sabbath was first made known to Israel. 

Additionally, Adventists who attempt to make Sabbath keeping binding today want others to “keep” it, but only to the extent that they “keep” it! Although they adamantly demand that it must be “kept” (since Ellen G. White allegedly saw a halo around the fourth commandment), they themselves reject the fullness of this commandment that they hold above all others. It is certain and without doubt that they do not “keep” that commandment, as set forth by God through Moses. In order to “keep” the Sabbath day holy, according to the law that God had given Moses, it was necessary to abstain from any kind of labor, to the point of not cooking or not even starting a fire for cooking (Exodus 35:3; Numbers 15:32-34). None could travel more than a Sabbath day’s journey (Exodus 16:29), at most about a half mile, which most of today’s Adventists violate by simply traveling to their assigned places of worship. None bound by that law were allowed to buy or sell on the Sabbath (Nehemiah 11:31). Further, in “keeping” the Sabbath day holy in response to the fourth commandment, it was necessary not only to sacrifice a lamb as on other Sabbaths, but to double that offering on the seventh day by sacrificing two lambs (Numbers 28:9-10). If two lambs were not sacrificed on the Sabbath; if a person performed even menial labor on the Sabbath; if a person bought or sold on the Sabbath; if a person traveled beyond a half mile on the Sabbath, they were found to be in violation of God’s command to “keep” it holy. The punishment for not “keeping” the Sabbath day holy was death (Exodus 31:15) and that by public stoning (Numbers 15:32-36). Has an Adventist ever violated the Sabbath that he is supposed to “keep”? No doubt about it! How many public stonings have taken place? None at all! Why? Clearly the Adventists then do not “keep” the Sabbath holy, but yet would bind it on us to the extent they have decided that we should “keep” it, not on how God said it was to be “kept.” What knowledge is it; what logic is it that would suggest that we must “keep” the Sabbath day holy without acknowledging those actions and abstentions that make it holy? And what scriptural sense does it make to say that we can ignore those actions and abstentions with impunity and without fear of the punishment that God said is to be exacted upon all violators? The evidence is insurmountable! The Adventists have wrested the Word of God to suit their own purposes and to be in compliance with the teachings of a proven false prophet.

In order to overcome this evident discrepancy between the Bible and the words of Ellen G. White, the Adventist doctrine holds, without scriptural support and without logic, that God gave two laws in the Old Testament: 1) His law (God’s Law), or the Moral Law, and 2) Moses’ Law, or the Ceremonial Law. According to them, God’s Law is simply the Ten Commandments, while Moses’ Law is everything else in the Old Testament, and, further, that God’s Law (the Ten Commandments) remains effective today and Moses’ Law (everything other than the Ten Commandments) was taken out of the way at the cross of Christ. Therefore, they, without any authority whatsoever, assign all restrictions and punishments relative to the fourth commandment to Moses’ Law, but try to assure us all that, exclusive of those restrictions and punishments appointed by God in the giving of that commandment, we are to only worship upon the seventh day! The entire idea is of man designed to perpetuate a false doctrine. There is nothing in all of God’s word that would lead the unbiased to such a conclusion.  But to the contrary, the unbiased can but conclude that there is no biblical distinction made between an alleged “Law of God” versus an alleged “Law of Moses.” It is but an attempt by the Adventists to retain and bind the fourth commandment upon the unlearned and the unsuspecting of today. The “Law of God” and the “Law of Moses” are clearly one and the same. At the bidding of the people, as recorded in Nehemiah 8:1-3, Ezra brought the “Law of Moses” to be read before them and in verse eight inspiration says, “So they read in the book in the ‘Law of God’ distinctly, and gave them the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”  Nehemiah says by God’s inspired direction that there is no difference between the “Law of God” and the “Law of Moses.” They are one and the same! The feigned inspiration of Ellen G. White teaches that Nehemiah is wrong and that Ellen is right! Whom should we believe? Ellen also disagrees with the inspiration of the book of Ezra, chapter 7, verses 6 and 12, and also the inspiration of Luke, chapter 2, verses 22 and 23. The differences in “Laws” cited by the Adventists are clearly without biblical support, evidencing the fact that Ellen’s inspiration is not of God, but of her own mind.

Throughout God’s Word, we are told that the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments, was taken out of the way at the cross, again disproving Adventist doctrine. Most of what Paul wrote to the various churches was to warn Christians not to go back under the Old Testament; not be brought in bondage again to it (Galatians 5:1-4); not to accept the binding of the old law of circumcision (Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15); and not to allow Judaizing teachers to insist that Christians keep the Holy Days (including the Sabbath) of the Old Testament (Colossians 2:14-17). For example, though the Adventists would have us believe that the Ten Commandments given at Sinai are still binding on all today, consider Galatians 3:17:  Paul is discussing the Law that was given 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham. Only the brazen and prejudiced will read this and the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 12:40-41) and deny that it is a discussion of the Law that was given when the “hosts of Israel went out from the land of Egypt,” i.e., the Ten Commandment Law. In Galatians 3:19, Paul says that “the” Law that was given at that time was added “till” (an adverb of time) the seed, which is Christ (verse 16), should come. It was added only “till” that time. The Law under discussion, the one given when the “host of Israel went out from the land of Egypt,” was a schoolmaster, necessary to bring us unto Christ (verse 24), “But after that faith (the system of faith introduced by Christ) is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster!” It does not say, as the Adventists insist, that we are still under the schoolmaster, but we are just not condemned by it when we break it! The notion is inconceivable and irrational. If the breaking of the Ten Commandment Law, or any Law, brings no penalty at all, it is no law at all! The passage is precise and clear: We are no longer under the Law that was added at the time the children of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt, 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham. This can refer to no other Law than that which was given at Sinai! This is precisely why the very God of Heaven would effectively say by necessary implication on the Mount of Transfiguration, “Don’t hear Moses (the Law) any longer; don’t hear Elijah (the prophets) any longer; you hear my Son” (Matthew 17:1-5, paraphrased, DA), and by further implication, He says, “Don’t hear anyone, except My Son,” including Ellen G. White! 

Again, Hebrews 8:1-13, in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34, distinctively and clearly teaches that the Old Law, the first covenant, including the Ten Commandments, was replaced by a second and better law. In reading verse five, there can be no doubt that the writer is discussing “the pattern shown you in the mount,” i.e., “the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt” (verse 9). Obviously reference is to the Ten Commandment law! The writer then states precisely, that it was necessary that a second law (a better covenant) be instituted, because the first covenant was with fault. The New Covenant or Testament that was without fault (James 1:25) would, upon installation, constitute a “change” in laws (Hebrews 7:12) that would ‘not be in accordance with the Old Covenant or Testament under discussion,” i.e., the one given “in the mount” when the children of Israel were led up out of the land of Egypt! There is no doubt that this New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant as noted in verse 13, “In that He sayeth, A New Covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away,” not only as a spiritual law at the cross (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14), but also as Jewish civil law at the destruction of Jerusalem! The Greek for “vanish” here is aphanismos, which is defined as “disappearance” or “abrogation”! The law given “in the mount” disappeared and was abrogated in spiritual effectiveness at the cross of Jesus Christ! 

Paul taught it in the New Testament and Jeremiah taught it in the Old Testament, as did Amos and Zechariah. Hear the inspiration of Amos 8:1-10. In verse two, God says, “The end is come upon my people of Israel: I will not again pass by them any more,” a definite and precise statement! Then in verse five, the question is asked, “When will the New Moon (religious holy day) and the Sabbath be gone?” The answer to this question is given in verse eight of the same chapter: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in a clear day.” So, from this passage, we learn that the Sabbath would be no more in the day that God would cause the sun to go down at noon! When did that happen? It happened on the day our Lord was crucified (Luke 23:44), beginning with the sixth hour. The Jewish day started at six o’clock (six hours) in the morning, therefore, the sun went down precisely at noon, as prophesied in the book of Amos, and at that precise time the Sabbath was gone! This is exactly what the New Testament teaches in Ephesians 2:13-16 and Colossians 2:14, i.e., the Old Testament, including the Sabbath, was taken out of the way at the Cross! 

Zechariah, in chapter 11, verses 10-14, prophesied the same truth. In verse five, God says, “I will break my covenant (Deuteronomy 5:2) which I had made with all the people.” Another definite and precise statement! When would it be broken? Verses 12 and 13: In that day when, “they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver” (Matthew 26:14-15 and Matthew 27:1-6), clearly an occurrence at the death of our Lord. The covenant that God had made with all the people in Horeb was the Ten Commandments! 

Remember finally in this regard Romans 7:1-7. Paul also tells us very clearly in this passage that we are no longer under the Ten Commandments. He states that Christians are "dead to the law" (verse 4) and that they are "delivered (discharged) from the law" (verse 6). In verse seven, he tells us that the law we are "dead to" and "delivered from" is the law that says, "Thou shalt not covet!" The law that says, "Thou shalt not covet" clearly indicates the Ten Commandments! In fact, "Thou shalt not covet” is the tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:17)! Therefore, it follows that one cannot “die” to the law that says, “Thou shalt not covet” without also dying to the law that says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” because both are contained in the same, identical Ten Commandment law!  Further, we must recognize that neither the "Ten Commandment Law," nor any other "Law" was reinstated under the New Testament. The New Testament is a totally "new" law, having replaced totally the "old" law (Hebrews 7:12)! Nonetheless, it is true that the New Testament encompasses and includes the moral principles inherent in "nine" of the "ten" Commandments. However, these principles are applicable to Christians today because they are a part of the New Testament, not because they were a part of the Old Testament! It is very significant that the fourth of the Ten Commandments, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," is strikingly omitted from the New Testament! 

Paul encourages people of all time and for all time since the cross to worship on the first day of the week by his example (Acts 20:7) and by commandment (I Corinthians 16:1-2). Some questions need to be asked. Why did these inspired men on a missionary journey (Acts 20:6) wait for seven days to meet and commune on the first day (Acts 20:7) if that was not the appointed day? Why did they not simply abide six days and worship on the Sabbath if that was the appointed today? Why did the apostle Paul direct the Corinthian Christians to lay by in store on the first day of the week if the seventh day was the appointed day of assembling? It is interesting to note that in the original Greek the word “kata” is used here (verse two), which means “every” first day of the week. Can any suggest that the early Christians engaged in all items of worship except “giving” on Saturday, and then reassembled on the first day for the purpose of engaging in that particular act of worship? Surely not! But why the first day? Simply, because that was the day on which our Lord conquered death by His resurrection, and it was on that day that He established His church, only in which may He be worshipped in spirit and truth! 

Not only does the Bible show that we are to meet on the first day, but it is interesting to note that such was the practice on the basis of secular history. In the writings of Justin Martyr (AD 100–167) who was a pupil of Polycarp who, in turn, was a pupil of the apostle John, we can read these words: “On Sunday a meeting is held of all who live in the cities and villages, and a section is read from the memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets, as long as time permits. When the reading is finished the president, in a discourse, gives the admonition and exhortation to imitate these noble things. After this we all rise and offer a common prayer. At the close of the prayer, as we have before described, bread and wine and thanks for them according to his ability . . .” The writing goes on to talk about the distribution of the bread and wine to the homes of the sick and about the contribution. Clearly then, both the Bible and secular history evidences the fact that worship of the New Testament church was on the first day and not the seventh!  The Adventists claim that the Pope of Rome changed the day of worship from the seventh day to the first day is fully denied by the above facts, as well as by all officials of the Roman Catholic Church! Their teaching is that they worship on Sunday because of apostolic tradition as set forth in the Bible! Again, the Adventists have wrested, not only the Scripture, but also even selected documents of the Roman Catholic Church.

Seventh Day Adventists also forbid the eating of certain foods, a doctrine that violates I Timothy 4:1-5! They also falsely deny the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment (Matthew 3:12; 25:46; Revelation 14:11). They teach in error that worship on the first day is the “mark of the beast” (Revelation 13:11-18). To even suggest that John in writing to the seven churches of Asia two thousand years ago was in reality telling them that the “mark of the beast” did not apply to them, but to Christians two centuries from that time is absurd on the face of it! Many other anti-scriptural positions are held and taught by this man-made organization that time and space do not allow us to deal with at this time. 

However, we can but conclude without doubt that Jesus Christ established the church of the Bible (Matthew 16:18), not Ellen G. White! The church of the Bible was established in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4,8), not in Battle Creek, Michigan! The church of the Bible was established in AD 33 (Acts 2:1), not in AD 1863! The church of the Bible is biblically designated "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16), not the "Seventh Day Adventist Church"! To which church then should one belong? Can there be any doubt? There were multitudes of Christians in the church of the Bible (both living and dead) during the many centuries before the sickly Ellen G. White allegedly was taken by Jesus Christ into the Holy Place in Heaven to see a “halo” around the Sabbath day commandment. They had become Christians simply according to the New Testament pattern! It is more than evident that since people were being saved in the church of Christ before Ellen and her “halo” were ever heard of, that people by that same initial pattern are saved today without her, by a God who is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). Salvation then is gained simply by following the New Testament pattern in likeness of the three thousand that were saved on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:37-47)! Those so saved on that day, as those saved today, were and are added to that one same church, that is, the church of Christ, not the Seventh Day Adventist church that would be unheard of for nearly the next twenty centuries!