Did William Miller Ever Stop Being A Baptist?

All I have done was translate William Miller's extraordinarily polite report into an easily understood modern language.

 

All I have done was translate William Miller's extraordinarily polite report into an easily understood modern language. As I've said, I believe it was up to prominent Baptists of the day to answer Wm. Miller's very discouraging account.

 

Let's get something straight. According to the the excerpt Do Baptists approve of William Miller being secretly disfellowshipped by a crafty cabal of carnal churchian criminals? it was a small minority that disfellowshipped William Miller's majority.

Here is the godly principle that that crafty cabal violated, as penned by Ellen G. White:

"Remember that to cause a suspicion or a reproach to rest upon the cause of God is a terrible thing. It is crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to open shame before his enemies. Those who do this are without excuse, and their course will stand against them in the day of reckoning." -- Ellen G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 4, 1884, paragraph 13.

 

Why are you ignoring my often repeated statements? "All I have done was translate William Miller's extraordinarily polite report into an easily understood modern language. As I've said, I believe it was up to prominent Baptists of the day to answer Wm. Miller's very discouraging account."

As far as I know, we only have the New Testament account of how the early Christians were persecuted by the Jews. The faith of the early Christians and the silence of the Jews, especially the refusal of the Jewish leadership to settle differences with Christ's followers in fair and open hearings, is a valid argument in favor of the early Christians. The same principle applies to William Miller and the new light that he brought to the Baptists. If Baptist leaders had no answer to Miller's widely circulated reports, then the failure of prominent Baptists to act responsibly is a fair judgment against them.

 

Is that an admission that William Miller's theological enemies behaved shamefully? For the record, I don't believe that I was the cause.

Again, for the record, I am a Millerite, not an Ellenite.

I do not look to God's instruments. I believe that it's the Holy Spirit of God that tells me what is truth, even if the remark were to come out of Balaam's ass (Numbers 22:28-30).

 

According to the excerpt, William Miller only answered a letter of inquiry from a Baptist clergyman in western New York, who had written to Mr. Miller for the particulars. Later, Miller's account was included in a published work titled MEMOIRS OF WILLIAM MILLER by Sylvester Bliss. I don't believe that makes William Miller or Sylvester Bliss the cause of the unquestionably shameful behavior that Wm. Miller reported.

 

On the 29th of January, 1845, the minority called an ex-parte council, in a private manner, so that it was not known to the church until the council met. This council, which was constituted on the day above mentioned, consisted of seven ministers and ten lay brethren. Enclosed I send you the doings of the council, and every Baptist can judge who has departed from the usages and customs of the Baptist denomination. We are walking in the ordinances and fellowship as formerly in the church, and think it a small thing to be judged of men. p. 288, Para. 6, [MEMOIRS].

"Low Hampton, April 27, 1846." p. 289, Para. 1, [MEMOIRS].

When the majority of the church found that an ex-parte council was in session, they immediately came forward and consented that it should be a mutual one. It will be seen that the minority of the church consisted of only five men, about the same number of persons who had been suspended from the church for neglect of covenant obligations, and a number of females who had taken no part in church matters for many years. p. 289, Para. 2, [MEMOIRS].

That is a very polite report of a very despicable act. Please read it all and answer my question: Do Baptists approve of William Miller being secretly disfellowshipped by a crafty cabal of carnal churchian criminals?

 

This line tells me that the faith and spiritual life of Wm. Miller continued unchanged in his Baptist beliefs.

 

I don't see why Brother Miller should be faulted for thinking that he had more important things to do. He was heading a very important movement.

 

I understood the seven ministers and ten laymen to be be a reference to ringers outside the church that presided over the "ecclesiastical council" and that the complainants, i.e., the minority of the church, "consisted of only five men, about the same number of persons who had been suspended from the church for neglect of covenant obligations, and a number of females who had taken no part in church matters for many years." And I think that's a remarkably polite way to say scallywags.

 

Indisputably, it only screams that an investigation by responsible Baptists is required.

"Remember that to cause a suspicion or a reproach to rest upon the cause of God is a terrible thing. It is crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to open shame before his enemies. Those who do this are without excuse, and their course will stand against them in the day of reckoning." -- Ellen G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 4, 1884, paragraph 13.

 

I have repeatedly stated the principles by which they are condemned.

"As far as I know, we only have the New Testament account of how the early Christians were persecuted by the Jews. The faith of the early Christians and the silence of the Jews, especially the refusal of the Jewish leadership to settle differences with Christ's followers in fair and open hearings, is a valid argument in favor of the early Christians. The same principle applies to William Miller and the new light that he brought to the Baptists. If Baptist leaders had no answer to Miller's widely circulated reports, then the failure of prominent Baptists to act responsibly is a fair judgment against them."

"Remember that to cause a suspicion or a reproach to rest upon the cause of God is a terrible thing. It is crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to open shame before his enemies. Those who do this are without excuse, and their course will stand against them in the day of reckoning." -- Ellen G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 4, 1884, paragraph 13.

 

This one line says it all:

The following is the list of charges submitted to the council by the minority against the majority of the church: p. 289, Para. 3, [MEMOIRS].