The Gospel Herald—promoting the fundamentals of the 1888 message.

Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables? — Robert J. Wieland

The The Historical Tension Between the Two Views
  1. Miller arrived at his view contextually and historically:
    1. He saw 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 as commentary on Daniel 8:11-13.
    2. Froom's thesis that his view of "the daily" was tied to his mistaken 666 idea is not valid; there is no logical dependance.
    3. J.N. Andrews saw "the daily" as an evil, desolating power; all early pioneers were unanimous in that view.
    4. James White supported the pioneer view: see his Sermons on the Coming and Kingdom of our Lord [1870], pp. 108-125).
    5. All survivors of the pioneer days united in opposing Conradi's view: Haskell, Loughborough, Smith, even Ellen White. The vigor of their opposition probably indicated conviction that it would result in the eventual scuttling of 1844 and the sanctuary doctrine as Cottrell has now done.2
  2. Conradi's "new view" grew out of his opposition to the 1888 message and identification of Luther as herald of "the third angel's message in verity." It displaces Jones' and Waggoner's concept of righteousness by faith.3
    1. Conradi was one of the foremost despisers of the 1888 message at Minneapolis.4
    2. He acknowledged his longstanding opposition to Ellen White.
    3. His later apostasy was an outgrowth of his "new view;" he could not escape its logic.
    4. E.J. Waggoner abandoned his confidence in Ellen White upon his acceptance of Conradi's view: "Early Writings most clearly and decidedly declares for the old view," he said. "O.A. Johnson shows most clearly that the Testimonies uphold the view taught by Smith."5 This was the beginning of Waggoner's serious downfall.
    5. Waggoner taught the "new view" to Prescott, Prescott to Daniells; both sought to win W.C. White, to his mother's dismay.
    6. Opposing Early Writings pp. 74, 75, Daniells declares it "an imperfect statement." This was one source of his difficulty in maintaining a pro-Spirit of Prophecy image at the 1919 Bible Conference.
    7. Daniells and Prescott swing almost the entire leadership and college teachers to the "new view." H.M.S. Richards Sr. was the last evangelist to use Smith's Daniel and Revelation.
  3. The 1945 revision of Smith's book forced a restudy of "the daily."
    1. The revisors are unanimous in accepting the new view, yet they could not force Smith to teach what he did not believe.
    2. Result: the pioneer view reappears, but with added historical support for 508 A.D. as the start of the 1,290 years.
  4. Ellen White and "the daily."
    1. SDA Encyclopedia article 6 cites Daniells as reporting that she either offered no objection to the "new view," thus suggesting she supported it. Being an ardent believer in the "new view" himself, he may have misunderstood her. No evidence supports the opinion that she changed her view.
    2. F.C. Gilbert, Hebrew scholar, reports that she told him on June 8, 1910, that agitation of the new view was a "scheme of the devil." (see his "Report of Interview"). In 1908 she told Prescott that God permitted the view of the pioneers, that it was not "a mistake." Gilbert being an ardent believer in the old view, could have misunderstood also? Possible, but his own view was based on Hebrew linguistics, not Ellen White statements. He was much more positive in his quotes attributed to Ellen G. White than was Daniells. He recorded his interview the day following, whereas Daniells waited some decades. Gilbert's image was not impaired by reputed doubts regarding Ellen White.
    3. Her 1910 counsels 7 do not settle the issue one way or the other:
    1. She deplores controversy, but especially regrets agitation of the "new view."
    2. "Silence is eloquence" is not an endorsement of the "new view;" she never enjoined "silence" while the pioneer view was taught during all those decades.
    3. Don't use "my writings" to "settle" the issue; advises the brethren to get together, study it out of the Bible and come to agreement on Biblical, linguistic grounds (does not mean she was neutral).
    4. Nothing in these 1910 counsels discourages further careful study of this issue in a times of crisis such as the present "sanctuary" opposition.
    5. The general tenor of her life ministry was to support the leading of the Lord in the teachings of the pioneers in our early days.
  5. W.H. Olson argues forcefully that the new view logically requires repudiation of Ellen White for it dissolves the 1844 position: "The whole 1844 structure falls hopelessly apart." 8
  6. There is no support for the "new view" in Ellen White's writings; her only statement 9 supports the pioneer view; she repeatedly deplores the agitation of the "new view;" Her advice: study the Bible as honest Christians, settle it there; she wanted Gilbert to help the brethren understand.
  7. She realizes that one view is true, the other is false, for there is a view that she called "the correct view," "the true meaning of 'the daily'" 10; therefore, it is not meaningless trivia.
  8. Agitation of the "new view" is what created needless, unfortunate controversy that never existed prior to Conradi's view. 11
  9. Tension is inevitable when two views are diametrically opposite.
    1. Pioneers see "the daily" as the work of Satan, the evil of paganism exalted and absorbed into something worse—papalism.
    2. The "new view" sees "the daily" as the work of Christ; His High Priestly ministry successfully removed by Satan. No two views of anything could be further apart.
    3. A superficial reading of Daniel 8:11-13 appears to lean to the "new view," largely due to prejudice created by pro-Antiochus translators; careful regard for Hebrew ha tamid in 11:31 and 12:11, 12 raises apparently insurmountable problems with that view. 12
Linguistic and Contextual Study of "The Daily"
Cunningly Devised Fables Index
Articles Index  |  Ten Truths  |   Health  |  Home

Notes

  1. See Cottrells February 9, 2002 booklet, The "Sanctuary Doctrine"—Asset or Liability?, San Diego Adventist Forum). [return to text]
  2. The Founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination, pp. 60-62 [return to text]
  3. Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 248; 1972 ed. [return to text]
  4. Letter, Nov. 22, 1909. [return to text]
  5. Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, p. 369. [return to text]
  6. Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pp. 164-168. [return to text]
  7. 2,300 Day Prophecy, pp. 44, 51, 52. [return to text]
  8. Early Writings, pp. 74, 75. [return to text]
  9. Early Writings, p. 74; Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 164. [return to text]
  10. Selected Messages Vol. 1, pp. 164-168. [return to text]
  11. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 881. [return to text]