Reply to Bacchiocchi’s #90-92 Attack

In his Endtime Issues, #86-89, Samuele Bacchiocchi directly attacked the integrity and accuracy of both our historic prophetic beliefs and the writings of Ellen White.

In response, we published a seven-part tract set (Reply to Bacchiocchi’s August 2002 Attack [WM–1120-1126]), which gave so much information that Bacchiocchi rather quickly changed direction.

In spite of having earlier promised that, in the next issue of his newsletter (#90), he would add still more new concepts to his "expanded" view of our historic 1260-year prophecy, in #90-92, Bacchiocchi suddenly veered away from that plan. Instead, he ultimately announced that he would no longer publish additional variant views on the 1260-year prophecy.

WHY DID BACCHIOCCHI PULL BACK?

One possibility: Some have suggested that my seven-part series, with all the information it provided, so shocked Bacchiocchi himself that he decided to cease his attempt to change our doctrinal beliefs.

A second possibility is that he was counseled by superiors not to make the mistake of agents before his time. Let me explain:

We mentioned earlier [WM–1120, p. 2] that Rome made a mistake when it permitted its leading agent in Britain in the mid-nineteenth century to come out too openly with his attacks against the doctrines of the Church of England.

Instead of continuing his work quietly, influencing one thought leader after another as well as students at Oxford University, John Henry Newman (1801-1890) moved too fast. Like Bacchiocchi, Newman first attended a college of his own denomination (Trinity College at Oxford). Like Bacchiocchi, he then began working as a minister in his church. Like Bacchiocchi, he then journeyed to Rome (1832-1833). Like Bacchiocchi, upon returning to church duties he immediately began working with fellow agents at the university (Oxford), to mold the minds of students and influential leaders in the church. Like Bacchiocchi, he later began publishing his newsletters which gradually unveiled his revised religious positions. Like Bacchiocchi, he used them to win the hearts of many members of his denomination.

It is highly significant, that in order to allay questions as to his loyalty to the church, some of Newman’s newsletters were directed "against popery and dissent." Yet in those papers he offered a revised position as to where the Church of England should be standing: Newman maintained that his denomination was not in opposition to Rome, as commonly thought. Instead, he said it held the position of "Via media"; that is, the Anglican Church held an intermediate position—halfway between Protestantism and Rome. Pretty clever way to bring Englishmen closer to the pope!

This compromising view was published in his Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church (1837) and his Lectures on Justification (1838). In his famous Tract No. 90 (1841), Newman advocated an interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles (the doctrinal foundation of the Church of England) which closely paralleled those decreed by the Council of Trent (which, as you know, is the doctrinal formulation of Rome)!

You will recall that I stated, in the previous study on Bacchiocchi, that carefully placed agents in high places have the help of researchers and writers back at the Vatican to help them prepare their written materials. What Newman was writing had the subtle brilliance of a team of Jesuit ghost writers.

But unfortunately, in Tract No. 90 Newman had gone too far. He had already experienced so much success, that he was emboldened to issue that newsletter. However, it provoked so much controversy, that his position as a leading professor at Oxford was in danger. Newman could still have drawn back, as Bacchiocchi has now done. But, instead, Newman came out openly, left the Church of England, and joined the Catholic Church on October 9, 1845. Almost immediately, he issued his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in defense of his change.

But Newman had gone too far. Even though it eventually won him a cardinal’s hat (1879), he had separated himself from the church he was trying to lead back to Rome.

Another person who made a similar mistake was Desmond Ford when, in October 1979, he openly attacked historic Adventist beliefs in that Sabbath afternoon Adventist Forum lecture at Pacific Union College, where he held a professorship.

(By the way, you would be interested in knowing that Newman was fascinated by the early church "fathers" and founded many of his teachings, not on Scripture but, on those uninspired writings; Bacchiocchi is now doing the same thing when, in #86-89, he pits statements by early "church fathers" against inspired statements in Great Controversy. The truth is that those earliest "fathers" who advocated Sundaykeeping were partly converted Christians who hankered to be like the world. The true Christians kept the Bible Sabbath for centuries, as stated in Great Controversy, pp. 52-53.)

A third possibility is that Bacchiocchi was in danger of no longer being permitted to preach in Adventist churches. It is true that the denomination cannot legally cut off a retired worker’s pension; but, through the conferences, they are able to notify local churches that Bacchiocchi is henceforth barred from Adventist pulpits worldwide.

If that threat was made, and it very well may have been, Bacchiocchi would have to choose between continuing the open attack in his newsletters or being able to continue his profitable speaking appointments to Adventist churches and special gatherings throughout the world.

At any rate, Bacchiocchi’s decision was made: He agreed to stop the attack—while (as we are discovering in #90-92) actually continuing it more subtly, so he could continue to preach in Adventist churches throughout the world.

His half-disguised skepticism will henceforth be able to continue influencing thousands of church members.

Every month he sends out his skeptical newsletters. (He claims that 20,000 are on his mailing list [#91, p. 2].)

Every year, he holds nearly 50 two-day meetings in various parts of the world field. Bacchiocchi’s newsletters #90-92, alone, listed 13 two-day meetings he would hold near the end of 2002: In addition to five major ones in the U.S. (Loma Linda; Thousand Oaks [home of Adventist Media Center]; Phoenix; Battle Ground, Washington; and Lexington, Kentucky), his overseas meetings would include Calgary, Canada; London, England; Rome, Italy; Melbourne, Australia; Kingston, Jamaica; and a "Union Wide Congress" in Korea.

"When I asked Andrews University for an early retirement on July 1, 2000 [Bacchiocchi’s 62nd birthday], my intent was to devote myself more fully to research and writing. What has happened since then is that I have accepted so many speaking engagements, that I have spent far more time travelling than researching. During this past year, for example, I have been [sic.] conducted seminars practically every weekend."—#92, p. 7.

Personally, I do not believe Bacchiocchi has time to write much of what is in those newsletters. They are too detailed, and he spends too much time on the road, traveling to and fro from one meeting series to another. Figure the math for yourself: one two-day meeting per week, plus one day to get there and another day to return home (or travel to the next appointment). I believe he has a ghost writer or two helping him. At times, he cites lengthy bibliographies of sources he refers to. In one paragraph in #90-92, Bacchiocchi mentioned that he had a large stack of books for a research study he was about to do.

Each lecture series includes three meetings. Describing them, Bacchiocchi says:

"The seminar usually consists of three presentations, given on Friday evening, Sabbath morning, and Sabbath afternoon. During the next few weeks, I will be setting up my 2003 calendar of speaking engagements, and I will be glad to reserve a special weekend for a rally in your church."—#91, p. 24.

So, giving three or four lecture series a month, Bacchiocchi finds time to give about 150 lectures a year. And this is done in addition to supposedly researching and writing his lengthy newsletters.

THE ATTACK GOES UNDERGROUND

Henceforth, Bacchiocchi will be more careful. But he has not abandoned his attacks on Ellen White’s writings and our historic beliefs. He has just gone underground and will continue doing the same as he has done for years at Andrews.

Frankly, he is doing the same as our new theology pastors and teachers are doing all over the world: subtly asking questions, leaving lingering doubts hanging in the air, then moving on to the next point in his presentation.

We find abundant evidence of this skepticism in his three latest newsletters, Endtime Issues #90-92—even though they were sent out after his apparent decision to hold back on publishing skepticism.

Bacchiocchi has not backed down at all! Every one of his charges against Ellen White’s accuracy and his new positions on the 1260-year prophecy, which he stated in #86-89, are repeated in #90-92! Indeed, later in this present study, we will learn of two new errors of his (both mentioned in #92), which were not mentioned in #86-89! One is that the 1260-year prophecy ends at the Second Coming of Christ! The other is the standard new theology error about the Investigative Judgment.

SEVERAL KEY POINTS IN #90-92

In newsletter #90, Bacchiocchi said he had received so much negative mail, including hints that some leaders were suggesting he might be a heretic, that he was postponing publication of his lengthy study on the 1260-year prophecy until eight fellow teachers at Andrews could first check it over, and he could receive further reactions. He then told the responses of the eight (most of which were in agreement with his views), and also repeated many of his earlier accusations against the accuracy of Ellen White’s writings and our historic 1260-year prophetic interpretation.

In newsletter #91, Bacchiocchi announced that he would be postponing the presentation of his 1260-year study indefinitely, or until a competent group of church scholars could be appointed by the General Conference to consider them. He then returned to additional extended questioning of our historic 1260-year teaching.

In newsletter #92, Bacchiocchi reiterated his #91 decision, replied to some of the suggestions that he might be a heretic, and then resumed his questioning of our historic 1260-year doctrine—even though, in the previous letter, he said that he would no longer do so!

BACCHIOCCHI’S STATED REASON

FOR BACKING DOWN

"During the past five weeks I spent over 200 hours researching and writing the essay entitled ‘An Amazing Sevenfold Prophecy.’ This study is designed to examine the seven Bible texts (two in Daniel and five in Revelation) mentioning the prophetic period of three and a half times/1260 days/42 months. I began the research at home and I did some of the writing in Singapore and Malaysia . . I was determined to complete the first installment and e-mail it you as soon as I returned from overseas. The first draft of this Bible study . . was completed about three weeks ago."—#90, p. 1.

Bacchiocchi had written a 25-to-30-page paper, in which he had planned to present additional new positions on the 1260-year prophecy. But he says he will not present it. (In one place he says the research paper was "25 pages" in length [#90, 1]; in another, he said "30 pages" [#92, p. 10].)

You might wonder what Bacchiocchi was planning to present in the forthcoming 1260-year study, which he will not present after all. He had already stated that this prophecy applied both to the papacy and to Islam (thus nicely turning the spotlight from Rome to, what Bacchiocchi considered to be, a very evil power).

I suggest that Bacchiocchi was planning to present a radical new approach to the seven Bible passages which mention the 1260-year prophecy (Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:2; 11:3; 12:3; 12:6; 13:5) and apply some verses to one governmental power and some to still others (in addition to Islam), in such a way that the papacy would be pushed off even further to the sideline.

"My intent is to ascertain if these seven prophecies allow for a broader application both in time and scope."—#92, p. 10.

Bacchiocchi’s objective has been threefold: (1) to apply the 1260 years to other world powers; (2) to start and stop the time prophecy at dates different than A.D. 538 and 1798 (more on this later); and (3) to spread out the time factor (by spiritualizing it, as he did in a previous newsletter), so that it no longer is 1260 years in length.

"The issue is . . whether all the seven prophecies of the three and half times/1260 days/42 months apply EXCLUSIVELY to the period of papal supremacy between 538 to 1798. Is it possible that some of them might include also other anti-god powers, like Islam, that have persecuted God’s people and promoted false worship? Furthermore, do the dates of 538 and 1798 really support the respective establishment and downfall of papal supremacy, as taught in our Adventist literature?"—#92, p. 13 [full caps his].

Part of Baachiocchi’s radical approach is the theory that the 1260-year prophecy reaches beyond 1798—even to the date of the Second Advent!

"The termination point of these sevenfold prophecies is the judgment and/or the establishment of God’s Kingdom—events that transcend 1798."—#92, p. 13 [initial caps his].

But Bacchiocchi says he decided not to do so.

"But I changed my mind when I opened my mail box, because I found some very offensive messages, accusing me of departing from the Adventist faith. One message informs me that at a campmeeting in the Northwest, "the Friday evening sermon addressed the emerging attack by Samuele Bacchiocchi against the Seventh-day Adventist prophetic interpretation."—#90, p. 1.

Notice that it was the letters which were offensive, not his strange new positions! Bacchiocchi always considers himself the innocent, persecuted one. He can trample all over our historic teachings, and the Spirit of Prophecy as well, and that is all right. But let someone protest at what he is doing, and he views them as the troublemakers. In these three newsletters, Bacchiocchi repeatedly does this.

"My letters were misconstrued by some fellow believers."—#90, p. 1.

"The false accusations have greatly saddened me."—#90, p. 2.

"My wife feels that there is no need to have to suffer again for a research on a prophecy which is foreign to the vast majority of Seventh-day Adventists."—#91, p. 1.

Notice that it is only a "few" that are criticizing him. He says they are the "conservatives."

"Why am I being accused of departing from the Adventist faith by a few conservative fellow believers?"—#90, p. 2.

Later, in #91, Bacchiocchi concludes that the problem is that some believers have "hate." If they had "love," they would tolerate his erroneous theories and be glad to let him spread them everywhere.

"One of the most troubling realities of our time is the hate factor which is pervasive in the political, social, racial, international, and religious realms. The divisive and destructive effects of the hate factor is impossible to calculate, because it manifests itself in countless ways.

"Many people could be categorized by whom they hate most. Republicans and Democrats are known for displaying their hate for each other."—#91, p. 7.

Notice that there is nothing wrong with his views, only with the people opposing them.

"Unfortunately, the hate factor is present even in our Adventist church. The hate mail received from ultraconservative fellow believers after posting the newsletters 87 and 88, have made me forcefully aware that the hate factor is far more real than I had ever imagined. It is amazing how a disagreement over the interpretation of a prophetic time period like the 1260 days, can fuel so much hate."—#91, p. 8.

In fact, the people opposing his views are being used by Satan.

"During this past 10 days I have spent first in London, England, then in my native city of Rome, Italy, I have been reflecting on why is the hate factor so pervasive in the whole fabric of our society. It is evident that Satan is having a field day in seeing the abundant harvest he is reaping from the seeds of hate and discord he has sown since the beginning of time."—#91, p. 8.

Bacchiocchi laments that, if these people would be converted, they would stop opposing his work.

"How can we overcome the hate factor? There is no magic way to eradicate hate from the human heart and replace it with the love. What is needed is a change of heart that can only be accomplished by the miracle of the Gospel. When we accept the Good News that "while we were yet sinners Christ dies for us" (Rom 5:8), then our hearts are filled with the love of God: "God has poured out His love into our hearts by His Spirit" (Rom 5:5). When the love of God is poured out in our hearts, then the hate factor is replaced by the love factor. We learn to love."—#91, p. 8.

THOSE WEAK-MINDED FEW

Bacchiocchi claims to have a readership of 20,000 (#91, p. 2), of which 2,000 have written letters praising him (#90, p. 3) and that only "about 40 or 50" of them have complained (#90, p. 3). But he claims that, because objections are only heard from this extremely tiny percentage of quibblers (1/400th of his total readership), he will stop presenting his doctrinal novelties. To add to the oddity of this, he essentially likens that 40 or 50 to ignorant rabble who have little education, no interest in using their brains, or listening to his when he opens his mouth.

Regarding his readers, Bacchiocchi says:

"The vast majority of them are educated people with inquiring minds, appreciative of fresh attempts to understand more fully prophecies, there is a significant minority who are greatly distressed by any proposed modification of traditional beliefs. For them to tinker with traditional interpretations is tantamount to heresy. In good conscience I cannot ignore the concerns of these committed fellow believers. To do so would show a lack of pastoral understanding."—#91, p. 2.

Bacchiocchi assures us that he is giving up because of a pitifully small number of critics.

"Many of you readers have told me to ignore such accusations, which after all come from a relatively small number of people. Comparing to the over 2,000 messages of appreciation received for the latest newsletters, the negative messages were relatively few, amounting to no more than forty or fifty of them. The vast majority of the subscribers to this newsletter are people with an inquiring mind who appreciate being challenged with new ideas. I consider it a privilege to minister to these people."—#90, p. 3.

This miserable few "are easily threatened by any new idea" (#90, p. 3). They "accept traditional teachings and interpretations without any questioning" (#90, p. 3). "This mentality fosters intellectual and spiritual stagnation rather than growth" (#90, p. 3). "My ultimate goal is to encourage some fresh thinking on how to make our interpretation of this sevenfold prophecy more credible" (#90, p. 3). But in spite of his best efforts to subvert our faith, "no matter how I present this study, some will find a way to attack and defame me" (#90, p. 3).

OUR IGNORANT LEADERS

As we have discovered above, Bacchiocchi speaks very disparagingly of his few ignorant critics. Apparently, such are near worthless trash, which must be tolerated.

One wonders why then is Bacchiocchi acceding to their demands for him to stop his attacks. The reason is that, elsewhere in #90-92, Bacchiocchi concedes that some of that "few" include prominent church leaders whom he fears to displease.

—Well then, putting all this together, we discover that Bacchiocchi considers those of our leaders who disagree with him to be rather stupid individuals who lack "inquiring minds," are "threatened by new ideas," have "intellectual and spiritual stagnation."

You need to tell the conscientious leaders of the church what Bacchiocchi thinks of them. You need to also tell them that, even after he agreed to stop attacking our historic teachings and the Spirit of Prophecy, in #90-92, he is continuing to do so! He is now going beyond that and slurring our conscientious leaders as well.

QUICK TO NAME THOSE ON HIS SIDE

Some of our leaders oppose Bacchiocchi’s message. Bacchiocchi clearly states that they are among "the few."

"Two additional reasons finally convinced me to shelf this research for the time being. The first reason is the negative criticism of a few concerned fellow believers, some of whom are church leaders."—#92, pp. 1-2.

"In Endtime Issues, No. 88, I made a plea for a balanced understanding of Ellen White by accepting her prophetic gift, while at the same time recognizing her limitations. These proposals have been interpreted by some of our church leaders as a drifting away from the Adventist faith."—#92, p. 9.

Yet there are other leaders whom, Bacchiocchi says, heartily endorse his work. He readily names those who endorse his ideas.

In #92, p. 10, when a "false report" was sent from the NAD to Florida Conference not to permit Bacchiocchi to speak in their churches, Bacchiocchi contacted the NAD which denied having sent such a message.

"Elder Harold W. Baptiste, our NAD secretary, graciously called me back and reassured me that he never heard of such an instruction given by the NAD office. He concluded that someone must have fabricated such a false rumor."—#92, p. 10.

Tell our church leaders that, if in any way they endorse Bacchiocchi’s teachings, he will name them in his newsletter. He is desperate to be able to continue his lecture tours while continuing his newsletters.

CONTINUE