Six Reasons Against Seven-Year Theory

James White sets forth six reasons against the seven-year theory. We abridge them as follows:EGWC 264.3

“1. The proof presented has not been sufficient.... As we have not been interested in this time, only as we have feared its bad result, perhaps we are not prepared to judge of the amount of evidence in favor of the seven-years time; but if there is proof in favor of it, we confess that we have not been able to see it....EGWC 264.4

“2. The message of the third angel does not hang on time. Time is not in the least connected with it....EGWC 264.5

“3. We are now emphatically in the waiting time, in the time of the ‘patience of the saints.’ ...EGWC 265.1

“4. Our present position relative to the truths connected with the third message, is based on positive testimony, and is stronger than time can be, or ever has been....EGWC 265.2

“5. If it is the purpose of God that time should be embraced we think the brethren generally would be called up to it.—But as far as we have been able to learn, it has not been received only where those who teach it have traveled, and presented it as a subject of importance....EGWC 265.3

“6. To embrace and proclaim a time that will pass by, would have a withering influence upon the faith of those who should embrace and teach it, and we fear would overthrow the faith of some. What we have witnessed, for more than six years past, of the sad results of setting different times, should teach us a lesson on this point. These are some of the reasons why we do not embrace the seven-years time.”—Ibid.EGWC 265.4

This was written in 1851. Bates presented his view in 1850. Thus the theory had been in circulation for approximately a year. Now listen to James White’s summarization, in the paragraph that follows immediately after his listing of the six reasons against the theory:EGWC 265.5

“It has been our humble view for the past year that the proclamation of the time was no part of our present work. We do not see time in the present message; we see no necessity for it, and we do not see the hand of the Lord in it. And we have felt it to be our duty to let the brethren know that we have no part in the present movement on time.”—Ibid.EGWC 265.6

How could he more clearly state that he not only did not at any time accept the theory, but that he vigorously opposed it?EGWC 265.7