Did William Miller Ever Stop Being A Baptist?

[Zog Has-fallen]

Are you trying to act as judge and jury in your accusations against them?

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

 

[Logos1560]

. But what does the Bible say?

You do not show that the Bible supports your evident double standards in advocating different standards for the believers in a church business meeting than you advocate for William Miller.

Have you accused and attacked those believers without granting them as much as they evidently gave William Miller? Evidently it was not a secret meeting since William Miller was invited to it or knew of it.
You have not proven that this church's action was contrary to that church's constitution and by-laws.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

You have not proven that this church's action was contrary to that church's constitution and by-laws.

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

His church voted to disfellowship with him because of his beliefs. Part of the charges against him was that he and his followers declared anyone who disagreed with their views to be apostate, part of Babylon, even after the prophecy failed to come to pass.

He you are, 175 years later, claiming he was wronged by his church, slandering the members of his church as criminals for disfellowshipping with him, calling them evil, and suggesting he remained a Baptist with no proof whatsoever that he saught Baptist fellowship after his failed prophecy.

 

[canadyjd]

No prominent Baptist is on record demanding that Miller's charges be refuted. But what does the Bible say?

1 Timothy 5:20
Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

Ephesians 5:11
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Jude 1:3
Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

The Baptist of his church followed those scriptures, imho, by disfellowshipping with him.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

His church voted to disfellowship with him because of his beliefs.

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.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

He you are, 175 years later, claiming he was wronged by his church, slandering the members of his church as criminals for disfellowshipping with him, calling them evil, and suggesting he remained a Baptist with no proof whatsoever that he saught Baptist fellowship after his failed prophecy.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Let's get something straight.

Do you try to cause a suspicion or a reproach to rest upon the cause of God in a local church?

Are you a follower of Ellen G. White and her false teaching? Ellen G. White does not determine what is godly.

If an actual majority of the members of a Baptist church at a business meeting supported William Miller, then they would not have voted to remove him from their church's membership.

Perhaps you do not get the facts straight.

 

[Logos1560]

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. .

How would William Miller attempting to cause suspicion or a reproach to rest upon the cause of God in a local church practicing church discipline be an "extraordinarily polite report"?

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

Do you try to cause a suspicion or a reproach to rest upon the cause of God in a local church?

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

Are you a follower of Ellen G. White and her false teaching?

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

Ellen G. White does not determine what is godly.

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).

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

How would William Miller attempting to cause suspicion or a reproach to rest upon the cause of God in a local church practicing church discipline be an "extraordinarily polite report"?

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.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

If an actual majority of the members of a Baptist church at a business meeting supported William Miller, then they would not have voted to remove him from their church's membership.

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?

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

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].

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

 

[Logos1560]

That is a very polite report of a very despicable act.

It is not a "very polite report." It makes many unproven allegations without actually proving sound proof for what is claimed. It seems contradictory at times, referring to seventeen (seven ministers and ten laymen) and later trying to suggest that it was only five men, and even improperly try to imply that these five men had been suspended from the church. It does not name and identify the names of those vaguely accused perhaps in order to avoid being guilty of slander.

Your question may be invalid since it assumes things that you do not prove to be true. Your repeating the same invalid question does not make the allegations in the question become true. You do not prove your negative, unkind allegations against the Baptists in this church. Do you condemn them based on the claims of one witness [a biased witness who may have an ax to grind against them]?

 

[Reynolds]

I am a former Seventh-day Adventist and now a Seventh-day Millerite. From everything I know, I don’t believe that William Miller ever renounced his Baptist faith and I’m not aware of William Miller ever being disfellowshipped from a Baptist Church. A very sincere Seventh-day Adventist told me that my faith is very Baptist. If William Miller stayed a Baptist to the end of his life, then are Seventh-day Millerites Baptists of some sort?

I agree. I refuse to be a Mason. Having said that, the local chapter here is just a bunch of rednecks who want an excuse to go somewhere away from their wives. They are clueless about the true beliefs. They just want to hang out and drink beer. (Which in my opinion is equally as bad)

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

It is not a "very polite report." It makes many unproven allegations without actually proving sound proof for what is claimed.

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.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

It seems contradictory at times, referring to seventeen (seven ministers and ten laymen) and later trying to suggest that it was only five men, and even improperly try to imply that these five men had been suspended from the church.

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.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

It does not name and identify the names of those vaguely accused

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.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

You do not prove your negative, unkind allegations against the Baptists in this church. Do you condemn them based on the claims of one witness [a biased witness who may have an ax to grind against them]?

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.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

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.

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].

 

[canadyjd]

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.

So...you are comparing Miller to Jesus Christ. To oppose Miller is to crucify Jesus all over again? That is a clear sign of apostasy, imho.