AboutTom Norris Expertise I can answer most any question about church history and theology, starting from 1818 when William Miller articulated the 1st Angels Message that became the foundation of the Adventist Movement. While this first prophetic message terminated in the spring of 1844, it was followed by what Adventists refer to as the 2nd Angels Message, which dates from the spring of 1844 until the great disappointment of October 22, 1844. By 1847, the 3rd Angels Message had been developed and this Sabbatarian theology represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Moreover, I can explain the historical and theological development of the SDA denomination from its beginning and on through the great Battle Creek schism that forced the SDA's to retreat to Takoma Park. Here the 20th century church recovered from their internal battles that had erupted at the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis over the definition of the law and the Gospel.
Fearing another repeat of this disaster, President Daniels, determined to hide this debate. However, this policy led to more conflict, especially over the role and authority of Ellen White, a unique and accomplished religious writer that had remarkable spiritual gifts. However, by the decade of the 1970`s, the church once again erupted into debate. The hierarchy settled the turmoil in 1980 with the trial of Dr. Desmond Ford at Glacier View. Here Dr. Ford was exiled because he supposedly disagreed with Ellen White over the Fundamentals. But this controversial action resulted in another major schism that is still in progress today.
Experience Tom Norris was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist in Takoma Park, Md. He attended SDA grade and High schools, moving on to study Adventist theology at Columbia Union College. He also spent significant time conducting independent research in the General Conference Archives and the Ellen G. White Estate. Over the years he has also interviewed a number of prominent Adventist scholars, theologians, and Pastors ranging from the late Arthur White to the exiled Dr. Desmond Ford. In addition, he has amassed a large private library, which includes numerous rare books and manuscripts about Adventist theology and history. He is presently the online editor of Adventist Reform, and can be found at Adventist for Tomorrow answering questions online about SDA theology and history as well as promoting Adventist Reform.
Question Hi Tom,
I've recently read Knight's book "Lest We Forget" In his discussion of 1888 he mentions that in addition to the law/grace debate there was disagreement over the identity of the 10 horns of Daniel 7, but he doesn't elaborate. Do you have any insight into this disagreement? I've been an SDA for about 5 yrs. A few months ago my husband and I began studying the 1844/IJ doctrines "prophesied" in Daniel 7-9. Since then it has been one thing after another and now we don't have much left in common with our fellow church members. We certainly aren't looking to start church shopping, but we do feel out of sorts when we go to church (which is less and less). Any advice would be much appreciated. We are so thankful for you and your ministry; may the Lord continue to bless and keep you.
Jennifer
Answer Jennifer, many people feel very uncomfortable with the SDA Denomination. Those that honestly study the issues quickly conclude that there are serious problems with church doctrine, history, and policy. They also correctly sense that the leaders are not being honest for forthright.
That is why MILLIONS of once loyal members have left the church since Glacier View in 1980. So don’t feel bad. You are going through the same process as many before you. It is sad, as well as a great waste of time. But history teaches that religion always goes bad. This is the story of the Jews as well as the apostolic church, and all other denominations that have followed. So what has happened to the SDA’s should come as no surprise.
Nonetheless, there is great truth in the Advent Movement. The SDA’s have been given a noble and much needed mission to prepare the church for the Second Coming and for the Great Time of Trouble that will precede it. In today’s dangerous world, what could be more important?
The SDA’s were supposed to complete the Protestant Reformation by proclaiming the clearest articulation of the Gospel that the modern church has ever heard. They were even supposed to launch a new Sabbatarian Movement, the 4th Angels Message, which would far surpass Miller’s great success. All in the context of a contemporary and credible version of eschatology.
But the SDA’s have failed for all to see. They no longer understand their own mission or message. Nor do the Pioneers, including Ellen White, support what they teach. The 3rd Angels Message has crashed and burned for all to see. Thus double-talk, censorship, and propaganda is all they have to offer. The SDA’s no longer make sense to themselves or anyone else. (Although the refuse to admit such a self-evident fact.)
Rather than admit the obvious, and correct their many errors, they have become corrupt and authoritarian, denying their scholars and members the freedom to question or speak to the issues. When their scholars tried to tell the truth, like Dr. Ford, they are quickly silenced and exiled, as if the SDA’s were a Banana Republic or a Communist State that cannot afford to allow Freedom of Speech and Bible Study. This is all wrong and against the NT. It is outrageous and wicked behavior that should not be tolerated by any follower of Christ.
So it is only a matter of time before you discover that the SDA’s have not been honest about doctrine or church history. And that they have no intention of telling the truth and changing.
If you ask them serious questions or try to get to the bottom of any debated issue, like 1844 or tithe, they will give you double-talk and threats, and then show you the door if you declare them wrong. The SDA Hierarchy does not allow for dissent or doctrinal investigation any more than does the RCC or the Mormons.
The SDA’s have become spiritually blind, even as the Advent Movement has been taken over by an evil system of error and fraud. The present state of the Advent Movement is a disgrace to the Pioneers, as well as to the Apostles and Reformers.
The SDA Denomination is not credible or Protestant, nor is the present situation sustainable.
The SDA’s are not even Adventist because they officially repudiate the very fundamentals that define and empower Historic Adventism. So beware the present heresy, double talk and confusion from the dishonest SDA’s.
Today, the Adventist Community must be on their guard against their own leaders that have betrayed them and Ellen White. They must even beware of their Pastors, because they are nothing more than paid apologists for a corrupt and unbiblical hierarchy that cares more about money than truth.
Only repentance and Gospel Reform will save the SDA church. But such a reformation must start with the members, because the leaders are acting like the Jews and Papists. Shame on these worthless wolves!
The 10 Horns & the Arrogance of the SDA’s:
The issue of the 10 Horns underscores how arrogant and proud the SDA’s in Battle Creek had become. The success of their little Adventist Empire had convinced them that it was only a matter of time before their views would be vindicated.
They thought they had all the answers. But within a generation of such foolish bravado, their Empire would lay in ruins, and a great schism would chase the leaders to Takoma Park, Maryland. This is what the debate of the 10 Horns really means to us today.
A. T. Jones was fiercely Protestant. He loved history and prophecy so much that he became a self- made expert. Jones went on to write a number of books, including the largest book on history and prophecy, the Two Republics that the SDA’s ever published. He was a great preacher and writer. In fact, during the 1890’s he became more popular than Uriah Smith, who was actually demoted at the Review so that Jones could be the new Editor. (No doubt this was very humiliating to Uriah Smith.)
But this is not how things started out. Before Jones joined the SDA’s, Uriah Smith was the unquestioned expert about doctrine and prophecy. Thus he had written extensively about every aspect of prophecy, and part of this was how Rome became divided into 10 kingdoms, the Huns being the first named. It was routine Protestant interpretation that had become part of the Adventist Apocalyptic.
By the mid 1880’s, Smith was set in his ways. He did not like to be challenged by anyone about anything, much less by a new, unknown SDA on the West Coast. As the younger Jones studied and wrote about Bible history, he realized that Miller and the SDA’s had made a mistake on the interpretation about one of those tribes that conquered Rome. Jones confronted Smith with this error, but the Review Editor did not want to be bothered, much less investigate the matter or admit error.
Why was Smith so against doctrinal investigation and possible correction? Why did he even care about such a minor point? To understand this question is to understand why the 19th century SDA’s self-destructed. The leaders had become so arrogant that they considered their doctrines and views beyond error, and thus there was no point for further investigation or debate.
By 1886, the SDA’s had concluded that their views of the Gospel, the Sabbath and the eschatological showdown about Sunday laws, was rock solid. They thought they had every possible point correctly covered, and ever doctrine sustained by Scripture, history, and logic. Thus the leaders were in no mood to give an inch on any point, and woe be to the critics that would try and prove the SDA’s wrong.
Consequently, Jones claim to have discovered error in SDA eschatology was dismissed as impossible by Smith. Besides, said Smith, if the critics have not raised the issues, (and they had not), then why bother?
With such a dangerous attitude held by the top leaders, it is no wonder that there would be a showdown with those that wanted reform. Thus Ellen White, E. J. Waggoner, and A. T Jones linked up to promote reform during this time period. But the leaders out maneuvered them, exiling Ellen White to Australia and Waggoner to England. Only Jones remained behind to try and carry on some type of reform.
Never Admit Error
Here is the root of the problem. The SDA’s under the leadership of Smith, Butler, and Canright were so arrogant that they refused to admit any error. In fact, Smith told Jones that it is dangerous for the church to admit error. Why? Because people might get the idea that there were more errors to come; then all would be lost. Thus, the SDA leaders could not imagine that they could be wrong on any point, large or small. In those days, when they claimed they had all the truth, they really meant it. It was not a flippant remark or hyperbole.
Little did Uriah Smith know that in less than 20 years, he would be fired from the Review and dead; the Battle Creek Empire divided and destroyed. Such is the sad legacy of the man that refused to admit his mistakes and repent of his gross legalism.
Jones turned out to be correct about his point about the Huns. So too was Waggoner correct about the larger point of the Gospel and the Two Covenants that was the main point of the 1888 debates. But the leaders would never acknowledge their errors, much less repent. This lead to a great schism that almost destroyed the SDA church, and the leaders fled to Takoma Park where they would hide the story of 1888 and once again become legalistic and arrogant.
Thus, Glacier View was a repeat of the errors of 1888. And now the church sits- divided and confused.
Today, the SDA’s refuse to learn the necessary lessons from their past. They continue to misinterpret Ellen White and the Bible as they pretend to have no errors, and refuse to investigate such a possibility.
Such arrogance, pride, and reckless corruption is destroying the Advent Movement and preventing much needed Gospel Reform from taking place. This is the very same error that destroyed the Battle Creek SDA’s.
Unless the modern SDA’s lose this bad attitude and repent, they will continue to be overwhelmed with false doctrine and error. Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. This is the sad story of the SDA’s.
Sources About the 10 Horn Debate:
First off, George Knight is a good church historian, he has written a number of books about the 1888 debates. I would recommend Angry Saints, as well as From Eighteen Eighty-Eight to Apostasy: The Case of A. T. Jones, published in 1987.
If you goggle: The Ten Horns and Uriah Smith, you will find a lot of information online. In fact, Smiths book will come up --Thoughts, critical and practical, on the Books of Daniel and the Revelation. Then you will be able to read his position about the 10 Horns. (Which was really Miller’s earlier position.)
Another more recent book about this Horn debate is: E.J. Waggoner By Woodrow W Whidden; Published by the Review in 2008. It contains a detailed account of this debate, some of which can be read online, starting with page 94.
