Here begins a series of 13 objections relating to the Millerite movement and to Seventh-day Adventist beliefs regarding the Second Coming of Christ.
Objections 56: The Seventh-day Adventist Church grew out of a religious movement of the 1840s known as Millerism, which set a date for the coming of Christ. This renders the SDA Church and its teachings unworthy of serious consideration.
Let it be clear at the outset that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not set a date for the Second Coming. The SDA Church is separate and distinct from the Millerite movement it grew out of.
The Millerite movement was an inter-church movement; William Miller had no intention of founding a new denomination, and encouraged his followers to remain in their existing denominations. Since it was believed that Jesus’ Second Advent was to take place in just a few years, there would have been no purpose to founding a new denomination.
After the “great disappointment” of 1844, three groups of Millerites (of which, at the time, the Seventh-day Adventists were the smallest) formed new denominations. All such groups must be judged by the doctrines they currently hold, not by the doctrines of the Millerite movement, which, in fact, focused on only one doctrine, the soon return of Jesus Christ to this earth.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church was not organized until 1863, and the official church has always submitted to the statement of Christ, “Of that day and hour knows no man, but the Father alone.” (Mat. 24:36) Our church adopted several new and important doctrines not generally held by the Millerites. The new doctrines included the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment, the Sabbath, and the state of the dead, sometimes called “soul sleep.”
The fact that a mistake was made in the history of a religious denomination or movement does not invalidate that movement for all time. If so, no Christian denomination could be deemed to have any authority, because all have made mistakes and/or held wrong doctrines at one time or another.
All Protestants boast that they are spiritual descendants of the sixteenth-century Reformers, without thereby meaning that they are to be held accountable for every view or teaching that may have been promulgated by the Reformers, particularly if such a teaching is clearly not of the essence of the Reformation message.
Do Presbyterians wish to be held accountable for John Calvin’s decision to burn Michael Servetus? A Presbyterian of today would rightly contend that he is not to be held accountable for everything John Calvin did during the Reformation, but only for those doctrines and practices that have been believed and practiced since its church organization and formal authority was established. Even so with Seventh day Adventists in relation to Millerism and time-setting.
Although we emphasize that Seventh day-Adventism stands distinct from the Millerite movement, we do not repudiate the Millerite movement or our roots in it. To the contrary, we embrace our Millerite heritage, and we believe William Miller’s movement was led of God, despite Miller’s central mistake regarding what was to happen in 1844.
The following six points explain why we embrace our Millerite heritage:
Point Number 1
Though time-setting is clearly a theological mistake, it is a mistake no more grave than that committed by eminent theologians on other questions of Christian doctrine and practice. For example, the Scriptures declare that God is merciful, gracious, long-suffering (Ex. 34:6), not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:3-4)
Yet Calvin and the Calvinists shut their eyes to these statements and declare that some are predestined to eternal salvation and some to eternal damnation. After attending the Synod of Dort, which re-affirmed the teaching of double predestination—predestination to salvation and predestination to eternal torment, after a challenge by Arminians, the Anglican bishops declared that it was unwise to discuss the doctrine, because it tended to desperation rather than edification!
No one could level such an indictment against the Millerites. Here is the difference: theologians have lost their tempers discussing predestination, but they have not lost their reputations. By contrast, the Millerites were held up to ridicule, both before the posited date for the Second Coming and later on (in fact, more before than after). And this despite the fact that the Millerites discussed their subject in a way that brought hope, not desperation, to those who accepted their message.
Point Number 2
It is far better for a follower of Christ to to be watchful regarding the Second Coming than it is to be among those whom Christ rebukes for saying, “My Lord delays his coming.” (Mat. 24:48) The efforts at time-setting were a manifestations of a strong desire to watch for the bridegroom’s return and be among the wise virgins, rather than the foolish. (Mat. 25:1-13) Of all the mistakes that a Christ-loving student of the Scriptures could make, time setting might reasonably be described as the most pardonable.
Point Number 3
Time-setting was not the essence of the Advent message preached by Miller and his associates. The movement was centered around very intense study of the Scriptures, and a longing for the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ. The essence of the Millerite message was this very intense Bible study, which eventually led to the re-discovery of important doctrines including, as mentioned above, the heavenly sanctuary where Christ now ministers on our behalf, that the dead are in a dreamless sleep, with no consciousness of the passing of time, awaiting the Second Coming, and that the Fourth Commandment directs believers to keep the seventh day of the week, Saturday, not Sunday.
The Millerite movement was really a great religious awakening, and must be viewed as belonging to the history of the religious revivals, including the First Great Awakening, a wave of religious revival that swept the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s, creating the distinct religious character of the American nation that would soon declare its independence from Great Britain. It is also comparable to the Methodist revival in England brought about by the preaching of John and Charles Wesley, as well as the Second Great Awakening of the early 1800s in the United States.
In Great Controversy, Chapter 20, Ellen White emphasizes that the Advent movement was not restricted to William Miller’s neighborhood in New England, but was a worldwide movement. The message went to Germany, through the preaching of Joseph Wolff, who also traveled extensively around Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Gaussen preached the message in France and Switzerland. It was a worldwide message that, in one form or another, reached people in every continent and almost every nation.
Point Number 4
Time setting did not vitiate the basic principles upon which Millerism rested, upon which the Millerites built their message. One of the things we believe William Miller was correct about was his approach to Bible study. Here are Miller’s basic rules of Bible Study:
1. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
2. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject being studied (Matthew 5:18).
3. Scripture must be its own interpreter, since it is a rule of itself. (Psalm 19:7-11; 119:97-105; Matthew 23:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; Ezekiel 34:18, 19; Luke 11:52; Malachi 2:7, 8).
4. To understand doctrine, bring all the Scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in an error (Isaiah 28:7-29; 35:8; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27, 44, 45; James 5:19; 2 Peter 1:19, 20).
We believe the Millerites were also correct in their historical approach to prophetic interpretation. Historicists believe that, when interpreting the Bible prophecies, one must examine the entire sweep of history, from ancient times to modern times, because a prophecy might be pointing to any historical event. This is in contrast to preterism, which holds that the prophecies were fulfilled in ancient times, and futurism, which pushes all prophetic events into a future era.
We believe the Millerites were also correct in their interpretive principle that a prophetic day stands for a literal year. They therefore saw in those prophecies measuring rods to span the centuries. They saw in certain great prophecies the work of the Papacy described. In all this, the Millerites were following in the steps of most eminent theologians of former centuries. It was on the strength of these views of prophecy and related Bible statements regarding the Second Advent that the Millerites based their belief that the Advent of Christ might soon be expected, and that His coming was to be literal and personal.
Fact Number 5
Some of the very theologians who joined in the ridicule of Millerism in the early 1840's were themselves time setters. One minister, in the closing chapter of his book which sought to expose Miller's views, declared:
“If any reliance can be placed on the inference that the historical events to which we have adverted, are subjects of prophecy, then the Millennium will commence at the close of the nineteenth or the early part of the twentieth century.”—W. H. Coffin, The Millennium of the Church, pp. 81, 82.
Wrote another widely quoted theological opponent in the closing chapter of his work on Millerism:
“If therefore, we could ascertain the precise date of the commencement of the 1260 years during which the Papal Antichrist is to continue, there would be no difficulty in fixing the year of his downfall. Which is either to be contemporaneous with the commencement of the Millennium, or else to precede this glorious era by a very few years. [Then follows a discussion of possible dates.] ... My own opinion is in favor of the last, VIZ.: A.D. 2015.”—John Dowling, An Exposition of the Prophecies, pp. 190,191.
These opponents drew from Bible prophecies their conclusions as to time. If they were less certain as to the date of the grand climax, it was due, not to any hesitancy to believe that such a date might be discovered, but simply that they had not been able to fix upon it with finality. In other words, they were not opposed to time-setting in principle, just to Miller’s conclusions.
Yet these men were nowhere the objects of derision. No one accused them of fanaticism. Why? We think there is but one answer to this question: They did not predict that on a certain date the world would come to a fiery end by the supernatural appearing of Christ in judgment, but that the world would enter a millennial era in which all would know the Lord from the least to the greatest. It was not the time but the event that was really at issue. We cannot truly understand the real issue between the 1844 Adventists and their opponents until we understand that the controversy centered on the event to take place. Not time-setting per se, but the event predicted by the Millerites seemed ridiculous to the world.
Point Number 6
As noted above, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never set a time for the Lord to come. In fact, our prophet has warned us repeatedly not to set dates for the Second Coming:
Many who have called themselves Adventists have been time-setters. Time after time has been set for Christ to come, but repeated failures have been the result. The definite time of our Lord's coming is declared to be beyond the ken of mortals. Even the angels, who minister unto those who shall be heirs of salvation, know not the day nor the hour. “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”—Testimonies for the Church 4:307 (1879).
“Beware of anyone who would set a time for the Lord to fulfill His word in regard to His coming, or in regard to any other promise He has made of special significance. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power. . . . We would see the truth developing and expanding in lines of which we have little dreamed, but it will never develop in any line that will lead us to imagine that we may know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power.” --Selected Messages 1:188
Seventh-day Adventists clearly do not believe in setting a definite date or time for the Lord’s return. Some Adventists still try to do it, of course, but the official church, and the church as a whole, cannot be judged by fringe elements who ignore the plainest statements of the church’s prophets.
Conclusion
Yes, the Millerites were mistaken in setting a date for the Second Coming, but this is not a mistake that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has ever been guilty of. No, Adventists do not repudiate our roots in the Millerite movement, because we view it as a great global religious revival that emphasized intense study of the Scriptures, and we still believe and teach many things that William Miller and his followers taught.